Piers Morgan "slams" down U.S. Constitution, says "Your little book" while getting baked.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Damn, that young man is as sharp as a tack Bonez.. I don't think Mr. Morgan is using good sense at all. There is no way in hell, he has enough stake in this issue personally to be this biased. The guy is obviously a big mistake for the PTB, cause he's getting his ass kicked all over the place.

SnF

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

FFs................THEY WERE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES!

These friggin people need to STOP parroting that they are ASSUALT rifles they are NOT assault files!

A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use

they are semi automatic rifles........with a different COVER then a wooden stock.........THATS IT!

If people who are pro gun would start correcting this freaking false terminology then MAYBE we could get an honest damn discussion

Now.. I haven't really looked into Sandy Hook. I don't look into any massacres, because I can't do anything about them. But if I'm not mistaken, I've heard he used an AR-15, right?

Doesn't that stand for Assault Rifle 15?

No, the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that patented the design, that's why there are guns like the AR-30 which is in no way an assault rifle, it's bolt action. AR DOES NOT MEAN "ASSAULT RIFLE"

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Congrats Piers , you have successfully derailed the thread !

Is it possible to derail a thread by talking about the thread topic?

Congrats, you just added absolutely nothing to it.

edit on 12-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

For real... are you really trying to suggest that America needs the British to step in and disarm us as an intervention?

all I can say is OMG

No, I haven't even suggested that.

oops I put the wrong quote. This one will make more sense in regards to my post

When someone is destroying their self with drugs others step in, it's not always welcome. It's harder when there's 300 million of them though, probably should just let it happen.

So tell me, what did you think 300 million Americans need intervention for, if it wasn't gun control?

Yeah, gun control, not the British disarming you.

PIERS: ...And I can go blow up a movie theater. Do you think that's right?
SHAPIRO: Well we can talk drug laws another time--

YES SHAPIRO. Show up this ignorant hypocritical biased illogical 'caster' one one-liner at a time!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SpearMint

 

do you mean cannons like we STILL have today ?
those cannons ?

yeah, ok ... all of this coming from a pair of know nothings ... typical.
if Piers is your leader, please re-call him ... sooner better than later.

What the heck are you on about? You're not very good at arguing a point are you? What have cannons got to do with anything?

There's something about the whole "deport the foreigner because he insulted our constitution" bit that just sounds a little ignorant. It has that Right wing, closed mind, mob hatred feel to it... Dey took err guns.... Like something grandpappy would yell at the TV. I'm pro guns, but these arguments give me pause for what team I'm on.

What about Jesus?

How would Jesus feel about having his guns taken away? It seems his method of standing against tyranny would be a peaceful one. Would Jesus say you need assault rifles to challenge an oppressive government? I suspect not. I'm not religious but I do hold such teachings as great wisdom.

I think that the people calling to deport PM are wrong and not seeing the point. Deporting him is not the right course of action. Believe me, I can't stand him, if he was taken off the air, I wouldn't have a problem with him. I think the entire bill of rights is equally important, and would not infringe on the first to protect the second, or vice versa.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Don't change your stance because there are stupid people with the same stance. Instead, be intelligent about it, don't give in to other people's ignorance.

reply to post by guohua


Learn how the spell our President's name correctly. Maybe then folks will take you seriously

reply to post by SpearMint

what are you going on about ?
and, why can't you recall your own posts ??
[oh yeah, you mentioned something about drug intervention]

not surprising. circle-jerks (all of them) work that way.
here ya go, then please explain what are you going on about ...

Cannons aren't something citizens could have and are even more inconvenient.

guess you're a little slow as cannons have been around practically forever (in American history)

do tell, what does your comment have to do with Piers ?
did our "little book" have a picture of one on it or what ?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ohh, 2nd Amendment, what are we supposed to do with you?

Personal protection is only secondary to the real function of this amendment - to allow a well regulated militia access to the same arsenal of weaponry as the federal government, so as to ensure the ability to resist tyranny.

That, by law, includes unmanned drones, fully automatic guns, chemical, biological, nuclear weaponry, and everything else that the military has dreamed up. Since this will probably never happen in the real world, what is to be done? I genuinely don't know.

Personally, I think every state should start their own militias, which would in turn claim the right to start utilizing the same kind of weaponry used by today's military, under the 2nd amendment. All weaponry legalized but controlled through state measures. The more dangerous the weapon, the more stringent the restrictions. As they develop, perhaps in time they could serve as an effective counterweight to the heavy hand of federal employees. It would work. I think.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SpearMint

 

what are you going on about ?

and, why can't recall your own posts ??
[oh yeah, you mentioned something about drug intervention]

not surprising. circle-jerks (all of them) work that way.
here ya go, then please explain what are you going on about ...

Cannons aren't something citizens could have and are even more inconvenient.

guess you're a little slow as cannons have been around practically forever (in American history)

do tell, what does your comment have to do with Piers ?
did our "little book" have a picture of one on it or what ?

Pay attention. Someone else (you, I think) brought up cannons, I was saying how inconvenient they were back then for a citizen to use and are therefore completely irrelevant. As they are today, I don't know why you even brought it up, but then nothing else you say really makes sense so it fits right in I suppose...

Talking to you is brain numbing.

reply to post by SpearMint

If you can't see the difference between guns with a short range and no rifling that shoot pellets and take a minute to reload and modern weapons in a higher population density then I'm wasting my time talking to you. Cannons aren't something citizens could have and are even more inconvenient.

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument? I can do that too. It's a lot of fun sometimes. However, in the case of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is not just for argument but for the sake of liberty. I think it is everyone else on this thread wasting their time trying to talk to you, because this is not about guns with pellets or short range or long range or cannons or bayonets or whether something was fought two hundred years ago, or whether semi automatic rifles are useful in the big city. This is about the fundamental right of citizens to be armed and to have recourse against the tryanny of a government or a monarchy, a Totalitarian regime, a guerilla takeover, a foreign invasion, or a home invader, or a person on the street who wants to rape your 14 year old daughter. Do you understand that?

reply to post by SpearMint

Pay attention. Someone else (you, I think) brought up cannons, I was saying how inconvenient they were back then for a citizen to use and are therefore completely irrelevant

The point about the cannons was not about them being convenient, it was just the way of warfare during the Revolutionary War. Certainly a small handgun is much more convenient on the streets of New York, don't you agree? Personally I have learned some weaponless self defense but even Bruce Lee said that Kung Fu was not always adequate.
Anyway if it were not for the fact that the average colonial man was armed, the militias which won the war would not have formed. A well -regulated militia was not a standing army.
It is a waste of time when someone does not understand the purpose of the Revolutionary War and the Constitution, much less the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is not going to stop because someone like you doesn't understand the point of it.

reply to post by Son of Will


Not only does the 2nd Amendment allow the owning of weaponry, it actually says that a militia is "necessary" to ensure the freedom of the state. While not being a mandate for as much, it is as close as wording can come to urge the citizens of the US to take this step for themselves. I wonder why the concept of a militia is so unfavorable, even fringe, compared to service in a branch of federal armed forces? I suppose there are just too many people who think like PM, and violently ridicule the notion that the glorious US government could "ever" turn tyrannical on its own people.

reply to post by dave_welch

I think that the people calling to deport PM are wrong and not seeing the point. Deporting him is not the right course of action

I'm not certain there are actual grounds for deportation, but would you mind telling us what you think is the point here? Did you mean that people who are angry at Piers for suggesting disarmament of American citizens do not see the point, or is it just the liberal point of view they don't see?
Let's just boil down the point to a minimum shalle we?

Progressives see gun control as a way to stop school shootings, and also a way to stop citizens from being armed enough to resist their Totalitarian agenda.

Conservatives know that gun control is a path to tyranny and that disarming citizens gives the govt more control.

Our Bill of Rights says we have the right to bear arms. It is simple. The reason for it is simple, it is to resist govt tyranny. That was it's purpose of inclusion. The Founding Fathers told us so, and they would know wouldn't they?

All this business of pretending it's about saving children is baloney. It is not. Hillary and Barack want to pursue the UN Small Arms Treaty so the entire world cannot resist the tyranny of the One World Govt.

I have just given you the microcosm and the macrocosm of gun control.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SpearMint

 

what are you going on about ?

and, why can't recall your own posts ??
[oh yeah, you mentioned something about drug intervention]

not surprising. circle-jerks (all of them) work that way.
here ya go, then please explain what are you going on about ...

Cannons aren't something citizens could have and are even more inconvenient.

guess you're a little slow as cannons have been around practically forever (in American history)

do tell, what does your comment have to do with Piers ?
did our "little book" have a picture of one on it or what ?

Pay attention. Someone else (you, I think) brought up cannons, I was saying how inconvenient they were back then for a citizen to use and are therefore completely irrelevant. As they are today, I don't know why you even brought it up, but then nothing else you say really makes sense so it fits right in I suppose...

Talking to you is brain numbing.

edit on 13-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

I never thought I'd see the day I would get a headache caused by someone typing over the computer. Congratulations on your milestone achievement. You are refusing to see reason or even making an attempt to try and understand how Americans feel, also I find it really suspect that you won't tell anyone what country you are from. Could it be that you are afraid of people dishing your own medicine back and insulting your countries laws and regulations? I believe that to be the case, you are all for wiping your arse with our national treasures but are afraid people will respond in kind to aspects of where you are from. Your entitled to your rants and opinions and you have the right to voice them, but I can assure you that you are like a pane of glass and everyone can see right through your words. In fact, don't bother to mention where you are from, I have enough respect for whatever country it is to spare them the embarassment of your ignorance being made public.

reply to post by SpearMint

nope, wasn't me ... your post history says it was ... ThirdEyeofHorus ... but that's ok dear, i see you're stumbling all over yourself anyway

now pay attention closely, it was your comment that was incorrect.
they are still used today and are hardly inconvenient.
suppose you never heard of this cutter, eh ?
usmilitary.about.com...
armament on board the Eagle ... www.uscg.mil...

i wondered why you make such erroneous statements so regularly ... at this point, i'm guessing it has something to do with that 'intervention' you were harping about earlier.

hmmmmm, Floyd had a term for that ... comfortably numb ... yeah, that would fit your dilemma.

Without wishing to intrude on the discussion I thought it might be appropriate to offer a gentle reminder in case it's needed: Ball, player. Player, ball

You are welcome to utterly decimate another's point, completely and without mercy leaving behind nothing but a silent, desolate wasteland of salted earth.

No personal attacks though.

Terms and Conditions of Use

13) Additional Terms And Conditions For Members Summary: The below specific and itemized rules not withstanding, all Users and members are expected to participate with the same common every-day social graces used in civilized mixed company. Our desire is to foster an environment of civil decorum that enables our members to discuss highly provocative and intensely speculative topics without concern over personal attacks or insults.