READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here. WHEN does "Piers Morgan Tonight" air internationally? LISTEN and subscribe to our free podcast.
Coming up this evening at 9, Piers Morgan sits down with legendary musician and songwriter Willie Nelson for a primetime exclusive interview that covers everything from pot to politics.
Two weeks removed from the 2012 general election, Nelson admits that he didn't make it to the polls, but is happy with the choice America made:
"I'm glad he [Barack Obama] got reelected. I think he has a lot of things in his favor the things that he has ran on. The women all believe in the things that he's talking about. The blacks and the Hispanics and the women. And if you've got those three things on your side, you're going to win," says the author of "Roll Me Up and Smoke Me When I Die." "I really felt like Obama was going to win, that he didn't really need one more vote, that he had already had it sewn up."
Five months from his 80th birthday, the man with more than 60 studio albums to his credit says he grew up around guns and has no problem with hunting. In his mind, however, high-powered assault rifles are an entirely different discussion:
"I don't know what I would do with a gun that would shoot 100 times," Nelson tells the "Piers Morgan Tonight" host. "I don't agree with that. I think it should be more regulated. I think a lot of guns - there's no need for civilians to own those. Those are for military."
Watch the clip, and listen to the interview with a man who doesn't identify with one particular political party, in part because, as Groucho Marx said "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me in there."
-–
» Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
![Into the Jungle with Jack Hanna](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121126045719-pmt-hanna-cheetah-00012828"-search-tease.jpg)
| 
Willie, you forgot to mention the gays and the week vote in Colorado!!
Calm down, we know where you are.
Bill: Well, Willie Nelson is a pothead, and he sure has paid way more taxes in his lifetime than you ever will, so stop making a link between smoking pot and paying taxes, the two are unrelated.
The time for Willy, and everyone else, to have made their case for banning assault weapons was before they got marketed legally. As liberal leaning and anti gun violence as I am, I think it is my right to be as well armed as anyone else in the general public. If the government continues to be this enept, for any length of time, it won't be the deer and the antelope we have to worry about. Making laws while cutting funding for first responders, homeland security and the military is an even better marketing tool than the NRA's foolish position of filling every elementary school with armed guards. Why not just give your 5 year old his college fund and drop him at the candy or toy store?
Willie Nelson is one of the greatest country music artists of all time. His past does not define the man he is. I think it is a shame to attribute the main part of the interview to drugs ir alcohol, because there is more to Willie Nelson than that, and we all could have learned from his wisdom. His way of life, my way of life, is a forgotten life, and people are beginning to frown upon hunting, fishing, or harvesting from the land. We have gotten used to someone doing it for us.
-"think for yourself or be thought for"-SOJA
Peace....
He's never lifted a rake or shovel in his life. He sings about a way of life that he doesn't even practice. He's an entertainer, not a frontiersman. He's as detached from that life as he is from the gun culture, and that's obvious by his statements.
I agree with legallizing weed everywhere it would without a doubt it would make the country a USA a big economic boost if I could legally get it like all them other states are Texas would came out way ahead on funds that is a
Market and I personally know that alcohol is way way worseall the folks that I know all the people that smoke are responsible good people
@Ralph:
You should do some research before opening your mouth and proving yourself unknowledgeable. Willie spent summers as a boy picking cotton for money and raising pigs for the FFA. His high schoola nd college jobs included saddle-making, tree-trimming, and other manual labor type jobs. He was even a door-to-door salesman and joined the air force for a stint. He may not be living a life of paycheck-to-paycheck manual labor now, but you shouldn't assume that he never did.
So only junkies can discuss firearm addiction? No, too many American have been maimed and killed because of the junkies, and a few rational firearm owners who made ONE LITTLE MISTAKE. Talk to the parents of a five year old who found a parent's 'toy', and 'played' with it........fatally.
Americans don't seem to realise how violent their country is in comparison to other developed countries. In the EU there were just over 400 deaths from guns in 2008, in the US it was over 19,000. An inadequate mental health care and the ability of anyone to buy automatic weapons is bound to lead to carnage.
Quote: An inadequate mental health care and the ability of anyone to buy automatic weapons is bound to lead to carnage.
Before you start stating facts about a country you don't live in maybe you should actually do some research and make sure you know the "facts" first. Now your first point I agree with we need more mental health care for people and they should not be able to get their hands on a firearm but well HIPAA and other regulations kind of make that hard.
Now your second statement is the one that is just plain out FALSE. First I ask you do you know what the difference between a automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon is? I'm guessing not which is not your fault I just ask that you do some research before spreading around false statements. Not anyone in america can buy a automatic weapon, for one newly made automatic weapons are banned and can not be purchased by civilians. Now yes you can buy older automatic weapons, but it will cost you $10,000+ and will take months and piles of paperwork to get. Also felons are not able to own firearms (Doesn't stop them since they buy on the streets anyways and we have such week punishment for this).
Also about the statistic about gun violience in the UK vs USA. Now you have a point that gun deaths are lower in a country where people can't own guns (Duh?), but you also don't mention that your crime rate for other violent crimes with knifes, burglaries, muggings and others have all skyrocketed. You can ban guns but it won't stop the crime, criminals will always get what they want (Our war on drugs ring a bell?) no matter if there is a law against it or not. So in effect if you ban guns all you are doing is taking them out of law abiding citizens hands which means they can defend their selves if they so choose. It is your right to not like guns if you want I won't argue that and I respect your decision but when you start saying I don't have the right to have my own feelings on the issue and I don't have the right to own a gun because YOU don't like it that is when there is a problem. So please respect my rights and I will respect yours.
Well said my friend...
Shawn riley
"the folks that I know all the people that smoke are responsible good people"
Not sure what a "responsible good" criminal is?
Neither of you seem to know what an assult weapon is. Most assult weapons are made to hold a bannet on them. I haven't heard of anyone being stuck with a bannet. Hunting rifles come in semi automatic and single action just as military weapons do military. So They are the same other then a bannet. Let Willy know so he can get it right the next time . He is such an outstanding American that he didn't have time to vote. To much weed I guess??
It is spelled bayonet from the French word baionnette. Obviously you are totally out of touch with the guns now issued to the modern soldier. If Willy is lacking knowledge then you are a Neanderthal with your post.
An 'assault weapon' cannot be had by most civilians. An assault weapon is fully-automatic and those have already been banned from civilian acquisition. Feinstein's 'assault weapons' ban is simply for guns that look 'scary'. Remember, the 2nd amendment is not to guarantee duck hunting; it's to guarantee the other amendments are enforced and to protect a tyrannical government. A sei-automatic is no more of an assault weapon than is a baseball bat or knife.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control under Joseph Stalin. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Christians, gypsies, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda, under Idi Amin, established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
It seems like people don’t learn from that past.
We need sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices because "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
WE NEED GOVERNMENT CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL!
If you really think your current gun is any match against weapons our military has access to, then you're sadly disillusional. I've never heard of a us citizen owning a daisy cutter bomb. Hell, even a cluster bomb. That part of the 2d Amend. is archaic. And as for the "I've got to protect my family and my home" argument, leave protection in the hands of the experts, i.e., law enforcement officials. Having lived abroad for many years, when I visit the states I always feel uncomfortable knowing the guy next to me in line, the guy in the car behind me, and strange looking guy sitting next to me may have a gun. Other countries have learned "the rights of many out weigh the rights of the few." an old Spock quote.
In the UN they have Gun control and no mass murder
In Belgium they have Gun control and no mass murder
In Australia they have Gun control and no mass murder
In France they have Gun control and no mass murder
In Spain they have Gun control and no mass murder
In Norway they have Gun control and no mass murder
In Sweden they have Gun control and no mass murder
And lots more examples more than you have to give.
Just one question how will an assault weapon stop a Tank? How will you shoot down a F14 with a Gun.
hell yeah brother!
All correct,but you only need to look for one country that has gun control (no civilian ownership) and only the military and criminals have the guns and have the highest per capita death rates and it's our closest neighbor – MEXICO ! So how's that working out ?
@Big DaddyG, while our military is very powerful it doesn't exactly fare as well when fighting an asymmetrical war. examples: Vietnam, Iraq (2003), and Afghanistan. Our large bombs, drones, aircraft and ships isn't having the affect we thought it would. We made head room and finally got out of iraq after buying off the insurgents. We won with money not bombs in Iraq. We have been warring since 2001 in Afghanistan and we are no closer to winning the war since 2003. While i am certainly against the idea of a revolution here in the U.S. I don't think we should under estimate what can be achieved by small arms.
Well put. FACTS! Then you have an OLD, WORE OUT, POTHEAD pontificating about how he does not know what he would do with an ASSAULT RIFLE. Well Willie, either do I, because only the military and a few folks that pay the extortion to the feds can have assault rifles. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons. You again show your clouded mind...
Secondly, under federal law, YOU SIR, can NOT legally buy ANY weapon because the BATFE form you have to fill out askes you if you ever smoked pot. Will you pergure yourself? You say in public you smoke pot?
You have just made a LIER, and a fool of yourself Willie.
Kiss my ass.
hmm i think arming them would have caused more deaths... the people killed were obviously outnumbered
@Big DaddyG
Do you honestly think, if a large group of US citizens were to rise (not just a few handfuls but many from every state) that the military would use those bombs or much of anything else? If you do you are disillusional yourself.
"And as for the "I've got to protect my family and my home" argument, leave protection in the hands of the experts, i.e., law enforcement officials." Law enforcement in many areas have a 5 minute or more response time. Where I live, it would be more like 15-20 minutes. I would prefer to defend myself (as the Supreme Court has already ruled that law-enforcement has no duty to protect me personally). I am sorry if you feel uncomfortable that I have a firearm to defend myself, then either be uncomfortable or just not be in the US.
[Other countries have learned "the rights of many out weigh the rights of the few." an old Spock quote.]
The quote is incorrect...it is the NEEDS of the many outweigh the NEEDS of the few. You have no "RIGHT" to take my rights because of feeling uncomfortable.
@mike – you and many others point out Mexico as an example of the problems of gun control, little seeming to realize that guns proliferate there thanks to the ease of buying guns in their neighbor the USA, which is 1/2 of the drug trade that is fueling the wars there.
Take away the USA and its large flow of guns to Mexico, and the whole thing would likely slow down and eventually grind to a halt. Actually Mexico is just a huge, shining example of why the easy purchase of assault weapons in the USA needs to stop. And, given the strong connections between the USA and Mexico, it's only a matter of time until the drug-gun war comes across the border.
So, answer me this
If we were to just blink and get rid of all guns in the USA, is it even remotely possible that Mexico could get guns from South America?? Hmmm, what countries down there that have a lot of guns?? Guatamala borders Mexico and has a very high gun ownership rate. I wonder if Columbia could get some guns up into mexico?
Cartels are going to get there guns from somewhere, and that basically just reinforces the argument that some places where guns are illegal to civilians , really ARE crapholes!!
You're overlooking that the USA has a 2000 mi porous border with Mexico, and that countries like Colombia and Guatamala are like a wart on the hogs butt of the USA in terms of arms manufacturing. Simply no comparison. And, probably even more importantly, this is a trading situation. We in the USA buy drugs from Mexico, and Mexico buys guns from us. Colombia, on the other hand, is an exporter of drugs, like Mexico, and not guns, like us. Guatamala is too small, in terms of gun manufacture, to worry about.
The Mexican cartels didn't just appear out of nowhere. There's a reason they exist, and we're strong part of it, whether it comes to buying their drugs or selling them guns.
The point is simple. It's fallacious to use Mexico as an example what happens to a country when individual gun ownship is illegal. First, everyone knows laws are not enforced well in Mexico, so the ban isn't even very effective. Second, there are guns everywhere there thanks to the supply they have from here. Again, if anything, Mexico shows what CAN happen to a country when you have a huge supply of guns available.
You say mexico's drug wars are because of Americans sending guns over the borders. I can agree with you on that to a point. First I would just like to point out one thing that is true yes we are supplying the Mexican drug cartels with guns, even our administration is doing (Fast and the Furious anyone? oh I forgot we just forget about that). Anyways who do you think is sending all guns across the border? Is it the law abiding citizens that fill out all the forms and then just give the gun to a drug running to bring to mexico? I doubt it. More then likely it is the criminals that don't give 2 cents about the law that are doing it to make some money. So instead of talking about banning "assault weapons" (by the way there is no such thing), why don't we concentrate on the laws we already do have and actually enforcing them. Do you know a person that has a unlicensed gun and is concealing it only get a slap on the wrist? It's true for first offenses it will be probation or something along those lines. Since you hate guns so much wouldn't you want to punish these people more?
Banning guns will not stop anything (How is the war on drugs going now days anyways?) criminals will be criminals they don't abide by the law. So stop trying to come after other peoples RIGHTS just because you don't agree with it.
It is a slippery slope if you destroy the 2nd amendment you might as well kiss the 1st and all the others goodbye because the 2nd amendment is the one that is protect all your other rights. So once again please respect my rights and I will respect yours.
PS to whoever say the wishes of the many outweigh the few (Or something along those lines). Well then you agree with me on this because over 50% of households in america own a firearm.
Brilliant. That's the crux of the issue and it is increasingly timely as the U.S. government gets more and more powerful and autocratic.
With all the scandals UK media is facing right now, a British news caster is akin to a catholic priest at this time lol Piers Morgan has no credibility here.
That was a moronic comment. Do you even think about what you/re typing before you submit it? Shame on you.
Nelson probably got $100,000 off of his way overdue tax debt to say that on CNN! Heck, CNN probably paid Nelson an additional $100,000 to appear and say that stupid statement on CNN. "CNN, we are a progressive NEWS service that is out to get (the Second Amendment) the NEWS.
Stick to what you know...MUSIC , THANKS FOR ALL THE HELP... next time just stick to singing.
Perfect example of what smoking DOPE will do to you.
At least he doesn't feel the need to be armed with some military weapon....maybe all of the NRA members and gun junkies should smoke a little weed. They might not be so angry and paranoid.
Boo, you obviously approve of having people's Rights taken away from them, so why don't you move to England and take that insufferable Brit snob with you? Then you can live in a police state where people don't even have the Right to a jury trial anymore.
Well Willie, what are you going to do when the blue helmets beat on your door?
Boo, an AR is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that is molded to look like a rifle that is found in the battle field. Period. The one that will be found in the battle field has a little selector switch for short burst or full auto. Also, where in the 2nd amendment is the word need located.
The UK a Police state are you really that stupid...The Police in the UK don't carry guns....
You're the one called Tom "J", so who are you kidding??
I have read a number of posts that seem to equate gun regulation, waiting periods, background checks and the elimination of "military" style weapons and ammo clips holding 30 to 100 rounds with the Second Amendment. Yes, many people have a right to own a firearem (not an assault rifle), but that right comes with an asterisk that points out that only "qualified" (read sane, non-felon and trained) individuals can exercise that right. Why do blind gun proponents automatically feel that their right to bear arms is at risk if there is a ban on military grade weapons. An individual has a right to bears "arms" not machine guns, bazookas, morters, etc. The discussion here should be adult enough that they recognize that problems exist with the proliferation of guns in the wrong hands. Steps to insure that only qualified individuals have access to guns does no more mean "abridgement of second amendment" than the laws governing the right to own and drive an automobile. No qualified individual has ever been denied a drivers license or car ownership because of the process needed to own and drive. Give the second amendment a rest – an overwhelming majority of the NRA membership favors stricter control over gun ownership. None of those folks see the "phantom oppressor" taking away their rights as you apparently do.
Tom J : Not all dope smokers are as shameful as Willie. You don't vote don't complain( this is from local elections all the way to President).
Shameful? Please explain. You obviously dont have a problem with him smoking. He said people should be allowed to own guns. Except when you start talking about automatic rifles. Theres no need for citizens to own them. Shameful?
Not one shoot was fire in New York City , Ok City , question how many went up in smoke when that bomb went off , or those planes crashed in to those buildings ! It's no the guns that is the problem it the owners , any taking of a life with a military weapon or the participation in take a life with those weapons should be a punishment of death , and if a person is found insane , they should be committed until found mentally Compton and then once that happens the should serve the rest of the life inn a prison and throw away the key !!!!!!!!!!
Guns are not for hunting. Guns are to protect the people from oppression.
Do tell us about the last time you were oppressed and needed a gun to fix it. Sounds like an interesting story.
That's why gun owners burst into crowded theaters to fight oppression?
If you live more than a femtosecond, on a cosmic scale, you'll have experienced oppression. Yet, some corruption is less magic, and more of a tragic fail, than others. And who needs to hunt for feed, indeeed? Let's all get on our knees and plant some seed. The enemy can breed as we go; while we get fat and slowly smoke weed. Here there is no true enimity between me, this tree, and our master; that derned steed. Now there is no need which complacency would not heed. Where it believes then too does its freedoms bleed. So smoke if you see, especially if you don't–even one toke. That's how you could know how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck should chuck wood.
Wow... Some great responses I'd like to address as well. Thor, in principle, I agree with you. So does the law (for now). So did our Founding Fathers, who knew, particularly after fighting the most powerful nation and army on the planet at the time, that citizens needed to always be able to protect themselves, in case the s** ever happened again.
Guns, or any other weapons are necessary for self preservation, in the event of being attacked. I personally believe there should be no laws governing guns, or any other weapons that may, or may not, exist in the future.
Now, I also feel compelled to comment in reply to others who have so gratiously done so. 1) helio.- Obviously, you have never been audited by the IRS!, 2) Buzz – Didn't you see the ticket prices? That's oppressive! and 3) Terrance.- What a masterpiece! The only thing I can say is I WANT THE STRAIN OF THE S*0) YOU ARE SMOKING! I definitely want some of that! None made up either. I want to grow it too.
Thor,
Can I assume that you would agree that the people living behind the Iron Curtain were oppressed? They tried armed rebellion in the 40's and 50's – got them nowhere but dead. The Wall came down NOT by guns, but by the power of the people – peacefully protesting the state. Read Ghandi.
@algol:
The wall did not come down because of guns? Of course not! No Soviet citizen had a gun! "Strong" gun control policies were what prevented that. Not that it stopped organized crime in Russia from having firearms. Odd that lawbreakers didn't care about the law.
Also, the wall didn't fall because of "peaceful protest." The wall fell because the Soviets LOST. They didn't have the money or influence to keep their empire under control any more, which allowed the people to finally succeed at rebellious action, despite being disarmed.
Also, I believe Ghandi once said, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look on the act of depriving a whole nation of firearms as the blackest."
@heliocracy:
The claim that one has not yet been oppressed is not a valid argument against the possibility of oppression. I'm sure the colonials of 1726 didn't think that those of 1776 would be waging a war against England or facing the oppression that came with it.
now we can argue all day if allowing people to own guns is the best protection against potential oppression or, even if it is, if that protection outweighs the dangers of firearms in the times when not being used to actively fight oppression, but snarkily claiming that the argument is a stupid one because people here are not currently being oppressed is a weak and essentially meaningless retort to the actual claim being made.
@algol
The fact that *some* armed rebellions failed does not inherently make the concept of armed rebellion a false option. There are many armed rebellions that SUCCEEDED, too. Don't pick and choose anecdotes to support a pre-chosen bias because there are just as many to support the other side's claim as well.
@Buzz:
Your anecdote of individual abusers of the right to bear arms does not actually counter the claim that gun ownership would be a good or valid tool to fight potential government oppression (which is the entire reason WHY the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights–because the people just came off fighting an armed rebellion against government oppression).
A WELL ARMED MILITIA; yes, I am familiar with Heller, and not just the condensed NRA 'summary'.
"Guns are for protecting people against the oppressor". Hey pal, that particular stance is not how the Second Amendment is written – it speaks of a well armed militia – look up militia in the dictionary and you will find no mention of groups of individuals self-appointed who are the last bastion of freedom. If the government wants to oppress you by using military force your little wienie firearms will be swatted away like a gnat. Get real. I'm sure you have a secret room with food and water enough for 6 months so that you can "hold out" against tyranny". The government has been adept at attacking the people without having to resort to the military, why would they bother. Please send me your address so that when the government invades its own country I can come live with you for a few months and feel protected.
The 'argument' that guns would not be effective against government/military tyranny is not true. Look to what's happening in Libya – AK47's and pickup trucks against jets, bombs, tanks and all kinds of government military power...look who's losing. The goal of disarming the populace is the same as it has always been – no real means of resistance against the government.
Uh Tom
The only reason the rebels wo in Libya is because they had the assistance of a American/Eurpopean coalition that used their modern aircraft & military to enforced no fly zones on the very limited airforce that Qaddafi had. The rebels also got tons of rocket launchers & miltary weaponry from outside. Now who from the outside is going to assist the gun nuts who think they may have to rise up some day against the US govt?
Yes, DOPE will do great things for you. Allow you to put out 60 studio albums (which is insane), write beautiful music (which not any ol' Joe can do) and just be an all around decent fellow.
Right on, Tom J.! I couldn't care less why this old coot didn't vote. Why does he think anyone cares WHAT he does? I have not read the article or watched the video and do not intend to. I stay as far away from this POS as possible.
Tom, maybe you should try it and we will see if anything intelligent flows from those lips. Apparently not smoking it hasn't helped you.
Shame on you Willie! There are millions of people world-wide who give their lives every day to have the choices we Americans take for granted.
You mean like the choice to speak one's own mind? Shame on you for calling shame on Willy for exercising his God-given rights.
Which "God" did you have in mind? There have been so many...
If the Government can take away the 2nd Amendment.. then the 1st Amendment doesn't matter much either.. so so much for his or anyone's opinion
Freedom to vote = freedom NOT to vote.
Willie
You should have voted
Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Herb Party, Something
Just having President Obama on your mind, does not count.
Go back on the road !
Americans have rights.... and Yes and he has the right not to vote.....
Ah, Willie....I'm disappointed. At least you could have voted for the green candidate.....
Good for you Willie.
Yes - one of the last of those icons the NRA likes so much liked automatic weapons too. Using one of those, he killed his ex-wife, her daughter, her daughter's boyfriend, and their 16 month old baby.
J.T. Ready, a former Marine, was running for Pinal County sheriff and was a member of the U.S. Border Guard and the Minuteman Project, according to The Arizona Republic, which described the groups as anti-illegal immigration organizations. The paper said he also belonged to the National Socialist Movement, a group with white-supremacist views.
Friends don't let friends buy automatic weapons.
So he wouldn't have been able to kill those people with a non-fully automatic weapon? Right... He could have killed them with a knife. Should we ban knives as well? Bad people kill, not guns. They could do so with anything.
A knife is not nearly as efficient as a gun and semi automatic weapons are even more efficient at killing folks than say a revolver. Banning semi automatic weapons is one step sane voters can take toward trying to slow down crazy mass killers in their pusuit of infamy.
Lousy argument Shane. Cowards who commit mass murder prefer automatic weapons. With a knife they would have to get close to and face their victims. Look back in history of the cowardly reclusive rejects who have commited these heinous acts. Automatic assault weapons made it easy for them.
Nobody ever got mad while drunk and shot someone when there was no gun around. Period.
How far would James Holmes have gotten in that Colorado movie theater with a non-automatic firearm? Do you think just as many people would have died?
There is no logical reason for civilians to have automatic weapons, and if banning them means that less people die in these crazy shootings, then banning them is the logical thing to do.
And yes, I know guns don't kill people, people kill people, but our rights to own automatic firearms are not nearly as important as our lives.
@pritka:
Semi-Automatic: A firearm that fires one bullet per trigger pull, and utilizes some form of automatic charge (recoil operation, gas operation, or double action). A double action revolver (most modern revolvers) is semi-automatic. Additionally, modern revolvers tend to be chambered for magnum rounds, which prove effective at short range against unarmored targets. "Assault rifles" are chambered for rifle rounds, which are, if utilizing military ammunition, designed for long range engagement against armored targets. This actually reduces their lethality due to the non-deforming nature of the bullet.
@thomporter:
Holmes did not have an automatic weapon. He had a civilian model AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223, as well as a 100-round Century magazine. The 100 round magazine actually lowered his effectiveness compared to a standard 20 or 30 round magazine, as the notoriously faulty model of magazine jammed after 17 rounds.
I would also like to hypothesize that the shooting would have been less lethal if he infact possessed a select-fire rifle. First, automatic fire from such a rifle increases the chances of jamming, especially with faulty magazines. Second, if he jammed on the same round as before (17), he would have had less than a second of sustained automatic fire; too little time to sweep anyone with it.
Holmes was actually very silly about his firearm selection if he wanted to cause the most loss of life. Everyone is always scared of the black rifle, but .223 is not a high lethality round comparitively. Multiple shots will usually be needed to kill a human sized target. However, Holmes also had a 12-gauge pump action shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot, as well as 2 Colt M1911 Semi-Automatic Pistols loaded with .45 ACP. Both of these can cause massive cavitation and bloodloss with only one well placed shot, and a 12-gauge 00 buckshot actually puts out 8 or 9 projectiles, each about the equivalent of a .33 pistol round.
In fact, the whole idea was a mess. He stepped in front of the theatre, popped smoke, fired a few rounds in the air, then attacked. He was a wide open target for a good 3-5 seconds; plenty of time to draw a weapon, chamber a round if necessary, acquire a sight picture, and squeeze the trigger. It seems the only "smart" part of his plan was to attack an area where law-abiding citizens were told to disarm. Hmm.
Lisa,
You can't buy automatic weapons in the US, only semi-automatic. An AR-15, which is the most commonly referred to "high powered" assualt rifle is actually relative "low powered", It is a .223 caliber. Most deer rifles are much more powerful, e,g., .270, .308 calibers are very common. If you are to complain about guns, please try to understand the issues. Most people who are against guns, have had absolutely no exposure to them, live in a city and watch Piers Morgan. Have you own opinion, but make it an informed one.
I do believe you need to learn gun laws. You can buy automatic weapons. My uncle, who works as a civ for the navy owns several. You basically have to sign your life away to own them, but you can.
Mike In the state of Utah, for $300 bucks you can buy a permit to own and purchase a FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON!
Just sayin............
Converting a semiauto to full auto is a felony besides being difficult to do.
As for hunting vs military rifles, virtually all rifle designs originate with military weapons. Bolt action, semi-auto, whatever it has a military history somehow and thEy can all fire 100 times. You just have to pull the trigger for every single shot.
I have been a fan of Willie's music for years, but I think his use of weed and his politics are not good choices or examples.
What you fail to mention is that there are AK 47's and every other kind of automatic/assault oriented gun AVAILABLE on street corners and in a neighborhood near you... I don't know where you live, but I live in Cincinnati where there are shootings almost every day! Do you really believe that your gun "regulations" have anything to do with all the guns the criminals have? ANYONE can get ahold of these military grade weapons, and they're being used somewhere in our country right now (one young man shot while shooting at police, another the day before during a home invasion – both now dead in the last few days) It's not the people who follow the rules that we have to worry about!
Go to the atf website and do some reading on what is legal to own.
Guns are not for hunting. Guns are to prevent the police and the army from oppressing you. The only reason the people were not given the specific right to own a machine gun was because they did not have them in 1776. ...but... keep in mind, civilians could own cannon. So tell me again .... why should the government be the only ones to own guns?
Really? You think guns are to protect ourselves from our own government? WE are the government in this Democratic Republic. That means that you are really talking about those of you who do not agree with the government (or the rest of US)... whom you intend to murder with semi automatic weapons if things don't start breaking your way? So what you are really planning for is a civil war which history teaches us destroys ourselves. No thanks, we need to ban those semi automatic weapons, the sooner the better and you need to educate yourself on what being an American really means....you lose some, you win some but we are all in this together.
And you somehow think that some assault rifles are going to protect you from the government if he ever decides to go after you ? What planet do you live on ? Have you checked what kind of weapons the government has to face you ?
Prikta
Actually civil war is the only reason we have the United States of America and we arent ruled by someone else
So basically, with that philosophy, does that mean everyone should or have the right to own a nuke too? Or any other weapons of mass destruction. I mean, let's don't stop at cannons!
They're not going to nuke your house. Too much collateral damage to infrastructure.
Ground troops with M4s? Yup. Ergo, that's the baseline for what we should have.
The whole nuke straw man argument is retarded, has no bearing on the subject and is parroted by all liberals thinking they're clever.
You're not clever. You sound like broken records. Shut up already.
Semiautomatic weapons. Automatic weapons are not sold without a specific license and are tightly controlled
And semi auto assault weapons are very easy to convert to full auto. Either way auto or semi-auto, assault rifles are designed to kill people. You don't assault the dear you're after. You hunt them.
Beg to differ, there glabby. Off-the-shelf semi-automatic weapons rrequire structural and cooling modifications for safe operation during the full automatic cycle. I strongly suggest you not attempt something as stupid as your comment suggests.
@glab:
Truly, most semi-automatic civilian models of popular "assault" weapons aren't used for hunting deer. Take the AR-15 for example, the gun Holmes used. Due to the small size of the bullet (.223), it's really not very effective against something as big as deer. It will do in a pinch, but that's not what it's for.
.223 and the AR-15 shine as a varmint solution. Often used against small pest animals (that may or may not still be good eating), the .223 combines a relatively long range with a high velocity, and is large enough to handle most varmints such as prairie dog, coyote, and squirrel. The AR-15 allows a relatively stable platform for semi-automatic fire (if more than one shot is needed), as well as being small enough to bring to bear on a target as a reflex.
Try shooting one. They're actually pretty fun, and very useful. I tend to prefer something chambered in 7.62x39mm, but to each their own.
Lisa, I just read several accounts of Ready's final rampage. Not one mentioned the weapon used. Had it been an automatic rifle, I'm sure that would have been prominently mentioned.
Please show us at least a couple of verifiable sources for your information. If you can't, a retraction is in order.
Thanks. Have a great day.
then I guess semi automatic weapons are ok... right?
Senile old fk, we need to have the exact same weapons the military is using so that we can defend ourselves when they try to herd us into FEMA camps
Have fun shooting down a drone, helicopter, missile, tank etc with your high powered rifle. Idiot...
Outstanding point, BCZU. Watch some of the shows on the Military Channel and it becomes abundantly clear that no redneck militia armed with AK-47s would stand a chance in Hell of surviving an engagement with US troops.
We can bring them down without rifles... although it IS possible .... other ways.... are much easier!
Rednecks couldn't bring down a drone eh? I guess all those gun-totting rednecks in the Middle East just gave up when they saw the Mission Accomplished banner go up. The second amendment has nothing to do with the right to go hunting. It was a protection against an oppressive Government. While it is terrible there have been loons that have gone into theaters and schools killing innocent people, it's much less of a tragedy we shall face when the public is disarmed. As the 2nd goes, so shall the 1st amendment follow.
Hey BCZU: So you really think that weapons in the hands of the citizenry cannot defeat a government? You have obviously never heard of Viet Nam or Afghanistan or a hundred other places where determined militias and rebels have kicked government @$$. What an uninformed dolt.
qanerd: Vietnam and Afghanistan had terrain for them : either dense foliage or mountaineous terrain.
So yep, I'm sure you'll be able to free Alaska and a few mountains in Colorado from our evil government's hands. Good luck doing the same in California, NY, Washington, Texas, ... where the open terrain will turn rebels into easy targets.
@Steven:
Really? California? Open space?
Sure, there's some in California... but your concept of terrain advantage seems to only apply to mountains or jungles. I live in the frozen north, which applies its own terrain advantage. The swamplands of the southeast are a massive terrain advantage. And California is home to some of the biggest cities in the U.S.; if you don't believe urban terrain can be pressed as an advantage, you're sorely mistaken.
Likewise, you assume we'd be fighting the entire military. At least 50% of the armed forces, from enlisted to officers, belong to an organization such as the Oathkeepers or the Three Percenters. These organizations believe in the military's role to defend the country against all threats, both foreign and domestic. They also recognize that the limiting of civilian ownership of firearms in any way is a potential threat.
Remember, we have the most advanced military in the world, and we have been stopped dead cold by goat farmers using weapons that date back to the 1930s.
I think I'd have a better chance than using a rock or a stick.. what do you think genius?
Exactly, all civilians should be given tactical nukes...
better than being a slave
Proof that WEED FRY's your BRAIN.
Funny, I just had a bunch and still noticed your spelling/grammar mistake....
Oooh aren't you smart??
Thanks J for your eloquent reply to the insanity of people like Halo117!
@qanerd...Don't know how smart he is. But, he IS smarter than you.
* fries
no apostrophe
In my opinion, our country is founded on the basic principle that people should be free to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others. So, while I am not a gun owner, I cringe at the concept that a law-abiding citizen should have to justify their need for owning a rifle.
I whole-heartedly agree with you! My mother once said, "You have every right in the world...but your rights stop at the end of my nose." My firearm selection is just that...MY SELECTION. No one should have the right to stomp on mine simply because they don't like it. I have a clean record, no mental incapacities, and am a productive member of society. Why should anyone be able to tell me what I may or may not purchase. Why should anyone be able to tell me what I may or may not own?
Any reasonable person would acknowledge that there are some weapons not for public consumption, such as nukes,RPGs and bazookas, tanks or flamethrowers, while BB guns and shotguns are likely OK.
The thing is, who draws the line and at what. I assume if my neighbor has an AR 15 with a large clip, I should be able to have one
You're in the wrong country, Willie.
@JMorcan,
WIllie Nelson is free to say whatever he wants to say, and vote or not vote at his own discretion. If you suggest that this is inconsistent with Willie Nelson's civil rights as an American Citizen, then YOU are in the wrong country. What's wrong, JMorcan? Did Willie say "wrong things" about the election's outcome, and the rights of citizens to own automatic weapons? Yeah, he shouldn't be allowed to say those "wrong things" here in the USA. "America – love it or leave it.", Jmorcan
I agree with everything except the not voting...you really should vote Willie.
Isn't Willie a convicted felon? Tax evasion or something? If so, he can't legally vote anyway.
Excellent point. Not only is a convicted felon ineligible to vote, a convicted felon can not legally own a fire arm.
I love guns. I love to shoot them. I don't hurt people with them and I would not want to ever hurt anyone as long as no ones life is threatened. Hell if I knew all someone wanted to do was steal my money or my car I would just let them have it. But now days they not only want your material things but they want your life. I'm torn on this issue. I love AR-15's .223/s and other assault rifles. I love shooting them but I have to be honest I don't really need them. My .380 and .357 pistols will pretty much protect me from anything but a government assault and well if the government wants me they got tanks, and fighter jets and .50 caliber machine guns and, well, you get the picture. So as much as I love my assault weapons I don't need them. My hunting rifle does for big game. Good Day.
Hey Joe, maybe you can help Willy out ... how many rounds is the maximum number that can be fired on a single trigger pull by an assault rifle which is legally sold on the consumer market in the US? I believe the correct answer is either 1 or 3, but nowhere near the 100 rounds Willy implies.
'Only 1' is the correct answer. Anything more requires a tax stamp and paperwork.
Thank you for this comment
Your comments are truly refreshing, Joe. I'm torn on the issue of the assault weapons ban too, and I'm not a gun owner. I believe in upholding the second amendment, but it has to be taken into consideration that when it was written, these weapons didn't exist and the population was much smaller. Most gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens, and yet there are some weapons, like grenade launchers for example, that nobody advocates legalizing. I think what you and I have in common, Joe, is that we're both independent thinkers who realize that some issues are too complicated to simply choose a side and dig our heels in. On just about any subject, most Americans are all too willing to have their so called minds manipulated by those with one political agenda or another. It's much easier than thinking for themselves.
When the 2nd amendment was written. the people had the same firepower the government had. So it would be my understanding that as time progressed that the firearms progressed. Hence if the military has m16A1's that the legal and responsible gun owners should have these available to them in the case we become oppressed again.
There is not a single legal weapon in civilian hands that will fire 100 rounds on a single trigger pull, so what is it that Willy wants more regulated?
The single greatest threat to the future of this country is ignorance. ...don't vote because something sounds cool, go out and figure out the reality and vote accordingly.
Ha, hes talking about high capacity magazines. "A gun that can shoot 100 times" Learn to read and comprehend before talking about ignorance......idiot.
I believe you are the ignorant one. You can legally purchase an automatic weapon right now. Expensive and a ton of regulation on them, but it is possible to own one as a civ.
Oh sure, take the assault rifles away from the general public, so when the day comes that the public has to defend itself FROM UN troops on US soil, they'll be disarmed and unable to fight back.
You do know that "UN troops" do not actually exist, right? As in, the UN has no military, when the UN wants to put troops into an area they ask states to contribute national troops. The only major combat operation fought by UN troops was the Korean war, and the large majority of "UN troops" were American.
Prove it
How many U.N. troops do you think Europe would give the U.N. to invade the USA? Zero, Zip, Nada. You are ill informed.
Somebody saw Red Dawn and didn't realize it was fiction.
And you genuinely believe that will happen?
and can you guarantee that it will not..someone didn't read world history
Willie, like clint, has earned the right to have an awkward opinion. As for voting, it only matters in a close district or state. Id only be mad if he lived in Ohio or Florida. Otherwise, voting is like recycling – it only makes you feel good.
Let me clarify one thing. I support lawful and responsible gun ownership and would never vote for anyone who did not respect my right to own a gun. However I do believe their is a difference between protection and sport shooting and military grade assault rifles. Sorry I just think their is a difference. I love shooting assault rifles but most are not good for any practical purpose but killing people. Most assault rifles are either to powerful for most game hunting or to inaccurate. I use a .223 or 30/30 for dear hunting. Sure you can hunt with any gun but I don't know to many folks who hunt with assault rifles.
Where does the 2A say anything about sporting purposes? A military assault weapon is select fire, a politically defined assault weapon is semi automatic only. There is no difference between a semi auto Remington hunting rifle and a colt AR15, except one looks more dangerous to liberals.
...the second amendment does NOT protect your right to hunt. The second amendment protects your right to BEAR arms. ARMS! Not restricted to just pistols, or rifles, or semi-automatic weapons, or even just machine guns... the wording is very clear: ....the right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed....
The AR-15 is chambered in .223/5.56, the ballistics of an AK 47 are roughly the same as a 30-30. Next?
Shall not be infringed. Period.
The 2a speaks of the security of a free state, not the security against criminals or murdering deer. With the exception of my .22, every gun I own was designed as a tactical weapon.
You Fudd's need to read the 2a and learn the spirit of it, it has nothing to do with killing Bambi. It's to keep a balance of power between the people and .gov and to repel invading forces. US code supports this.
What you fail to understand is that if they take away the semiauto 'assault rifle', the next will be the semiauto pistol. You'll be down to a revolver to protect yourself in public. Then pump shotguns... Who could ever need 5 shells?
You fools keep accepting the intrustion into our rights, we'll be in single shots and muzzle loaders again before you know it. Draw the line in the sand, knock it off, and don't throw my rights under the bus unless you're willing to lose yours, too.
Who cares whether or not Willie Nelson voted for anything?
Imnop,
Who cares about your opinion about this article?
A lot of us fought wars so Willie could set on his butt, smoke dope and blather. He is over. Let the old bag of wind have his say.
@BillK,
A lot of us fought wars so you could set on his butt and blather about Willie Nelson. You are over. Let the bag of wind have his say.
Whaaaa??
...and then there were all those Venezuelans who didn't go to the polls in 2005 resulting in an overwhelming vote for that great Presidente Hugo Chaves.
Exactly right Willy.
If you smoked all the weed Willie does, you shouldn't have a gun.
"Glad he got re elected?' Don't kid yourself, it isn't over till it's over!"
"here's another guy who chose to go a beidge too far na won't last much longer.." Quote: Egypt's Leader Said to Agree to Limit Scope of Judicial Decree
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
President Mohamed Morsi agreed Monday to scale back a sweeping decree he had issued last week that raised his edicts above any judicial review, according to a report by a television network allied with his party Unquote.
Why would I care?
@chill,
Why would you care enough to read the article and post a comment about it?
Just what we need, advice about guns from a guy who is legally barred from owning one!! Habitual drug users can not own firearms. It is a felony for them to be in possession of them.
Yep, some people should not be allowed to own guns: Willie is one of them!!
...and bye the way Willie: I don't think you EVER actually delivered a cow, dug a fence post hole, cured a sick cow, mended a lame horse... you just wear that drugstore bought cowboy hat like some old senile fool in a Thanksgiving day parade to make potheads hold you in some glory position. Who ever heard of a pigtailed cowboy anyway?
Well you know Willie's brain has been fried on drugs for such a long time that he cannot remember the founders put the 2A in the bill of rights so the citizenry could throw off a tyrannical government who would most likely try to use an army to put down the rebellion. Like they did in 1776.
Let's be real. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It's about defending yourself and your community from government run amok. No longer any need you say? That's the bleating of sheep.
You still can't do that with assault rifles. You would need anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles at a bare minimum. Since most people can agree that private individuals should not be able to get those, the "defense against government" argument works poorly for assault rifles for private citizens. If you want to argue for a return to the days of "well regulated militias" and that those militias should have enough weapons to combat a professional military, that's a different story. Tthat's what the Second Amendment is really about.It's "the people's" right to keep and bare arms, not "each person's" right.
You have not been keeping up with the decisions from the Supreme Court. Also the militia is defined as every able bodied male between the age of 17 and 45. Tanks, planes trains and everything else has one weak link they are manned by humans. Very easy to defeat humans they have to leave their protective cover some time. The weapons that come out of the ordinary household is all that is needed. The best weapon the fighting man has is his brain.
DC vs. Heller affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms.
US Code defines any able bodied adult male citizen as militia.
Next topic you'd like to be wrong on, and schooled on? Or are you done spouting fallacies?
your rant means nothing, Simple fact; we based this country with the ability of an average citizen having the right to defend themselves from oppression from the government by the right to bear arms. We can't suddenly change this because of a few soft hearted, weak minded people that live off the government and expect the gov to take care of all their problems, grow up and be self sufficient. If now, you want to change the rules of the game, we aren't up for discussion on it, it was decided when we had a Revolution from Britian if you don't like it go to another socialist country and have a great time but we formed this country on the guise we have the right to bear arms if you aren't comfortable with is so sad too bad. "those that would sacrifice a little freedom for a little safety deserve neighter and will get neighter" Benjamin Franklin. Ever wander why Switz have never been attacked and been able to stay neutral all this time its because every famly is required to own, maintain, and know how to use an automatic weapon, and oddly they have one of the lowest crime rates. Its really the guns right??? its society.
I thought hilbillies only voted for republicans?
hillbillie does not equal pothead.
How many violent gun based movies did this alcoholic pill popper make ? Plenty. He doesn't have an assault rifle or needs to vote because he has a felony conviction. Go back to sleep Willie.
Didn't vote? Your duty as a citizen of this country is to vote! Period! Don't care about your reason, it's irrelevant.
Willy is irrelevant
Like fifty years of drug abuse had not screwed up his tiny mind! Just another pathetic stoner!
Piers Morgan and Mr. Piggy Tails deserve each other. If you don't like our Bill of Rights, why don't you move to England?
Willie Nelson is a sad example of a man who has lost his mind and his sense of morality. I own a gun and if someone comes to do me or my family harm, it will be used.
Wow lol. You're saying WIllie lost his morality but you're talking about riddling people with bullets? All you need to protect yourself from intruders is a longarm rifle, you don't need all these crazy semi-auto's. Get real.
Wow lol. You're talking about him riddling people with bullets and you don't understand the nature of firearms at all? All you need is the correct tool for the situation, which is variable based upon the threat, number of attackers, engagement range, terrain, number and nature of bystanders, and many other things, not just a "longarm rifle." Get real.
P.S.: All rifles are longarms. Longarm in a modern usage defines any firearm that requires 2 hands to properly use. Many longarms are semi-automatic. Learn the definitions of words before you just throw them around.
I know why you didn't vote. You are a fool. My great grandpa, my grandfather, my dad and I volunteered for the army to protect people's right to vote. This is like crawling across a minefield to give a spoiled kid his birthday present. Then the little clown says he doesn't want it. You know what, Willie? You are that spoiled kid.
Willie was probably to high to find his polling place.
Willie didn't vote because he got really high and forgot it was election day.
Now he is just making excuses.
Ithink he said no excuse i just didn't, dude are republicans deaf? Furthermore, the candidate he wanted to win, won.
I want on my gravestone..."they did not DESERVE my vote"
Man listen to the Willie haters when he speaks the truth. The right wing haters should smoke some of Willie's stuff to calm them down.
It is a myth that only the GOP supports the 2nd amendment. Congressman John Dingle-D use to be head of the NRA
For those of you putting down WIllie: There isn't anyone more American than WIllie Nelson!
Keep telling yourself that. I would stack up any uniformed service member against him any day. What has Willie done to secure the blessings of liberty?
So, you would stack up the uniformed service members who urinated on corpses? You would stack up the ones who have been convicted of murder? You would stack the ones who forwarded pictures of unlawful torture? Do you remember Abu Ghraib?
Really? I'd rather spend the evening with Willie. Even tho' I don't care for country music. I like Willie. There are also many US service members who I think are fine people, but 'ANY'? I think you are forgetting history, very recent history.
Seriously, Willie (a tax evading pot head) is what you consider a good American?
thank you Brad!
See John Wayne
I am a law abiding citizen Willie, I will keep my AR-10 thank you. I used to like you until I heard this crap fall out of your mouth. Keep smokin' your dope!
INot a Nelson fan – while he's in my age group, I don't like country western music. Just because he made millions selling music doesn't impress me; neither does the fact that went bankrupt as he owed 16 million back taxes to the IRS. So why should I care what he thinks or says?
The Obama campaign was not completely sure of victory. They could have used your vote, Mr. Nelson. They certainly got mine.
Boy didn't vote, he doesn't get an opinion.
He didn't vote because convicted felons lose their right to vote, and to bear arms.
And, technically, assult weapons fire a cartridge LESS powerful than a hunting rifle.
He is NOT a convicted felon, you idiot. Where do you get this drivel? He has been arrested for pot possession and never have the been more than a slap on the wrist. The prosecutor recently asked that his punishment be that she sing a song in court in lieu of a fine. What the hell are you talking about.
Say whatever you Willie haters about him, he's a very down to earth person according to a friend of mine in Chicago when he ate in a restaurant he managed.
That's cool, my second cousin's aunt said Bob Hope was really nice when he bought some gas at her service station.
He didn't vote because he ate his ballot.
Kudos to Willie.. he's got brass ones to tell it like it is...
I have no problem with Willy not voting. I wish more O supporters had made the same choice.
Not voting makes no sense at all. Tell what like what is? The fact is that he did not vote, but complains. Makes no sense and he still have no voice. Moving on. Patrish...good point. He is a tax dodger, and I don't like his mentality or music, either. However, I do like some country music.
"The women all believe in the things that he's talking about. The blacks and the Hispanics and the women. And if you've got those three things on your side, you're going to win," - these "three things" you are not Mr. Nelson.
It sounds like they believe the president ... and you don't. This would be ok with me, but I would have expected you to have the courage of your opinions. I've respected you much more before this interview.
Who care if Willie didn't vote. Millions of others didn't vote either. What makes him special?
Quit printing this garbage. If you're going to make an all-out assault on our rights, you're going to have no defense to the 1st Amendment which allows you to blither this tripe.
Stay out of our gun cabinets, and you won't have to worry about us going after YOUR rights.
Lets see, the guy who doesnt follow the laws on using illegal drugs thinks we need more laws on guns. Does anyone else smell something funny here? Maybe if people followed the laws on illegal drugs we would have fewer law enforcement people KIA.
ok, we got the official opinion from a pot head. How about tomorrow we get someone from the methadone clinic and see how they would have voted. day after, never mind, I'm going back to pulling hair off my back.
Willie Nelson. Great country singer. Zero credibility about politics. Why is this considered news worthy by CNN?
Willy Nelson is why I voted against legal weed. Look what it does to your brain.
Legal OTC drugs kill more people than illegal drugs. Nobody has ever OD'd on pot.. And let's not even talk about what alcohol could do to someone. But I bet you're OK w/all that.
Willie, if you don't vote then you have no right to complain.
He's not complaining the guy he wanted to win, won????
What do expect from a Tax Dodging, Dope Smoking, Know it All.
Has a great talent but that doesn't make him or any of the other talking head entertainers experts.
I I think Willie is PO'd at Texas busting him for pot a while back.........
PO'd? The prosecutor asked the judge to sentence him to singing one song in the courtroom as his "punishment". I don't think Texas is against Willie Nelson. They have a Willie Nelson Day, which is the 4th of July.
And now that he's blacklisted in country music for saying things that go against what most country music is about... lol.
You are a fool. The CMA just did an honorary lifetime achievement award for Wilie Nelson. Where do you get the stupid idea that he is blacklisted by the country music genre? Idiot.
If you do not know the difference between a machine gun, an assault rifle and a semi-automatic sporting rifle; or understand the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15, which look identical; or do not know the 2nd Amendment was as much intended to protect citizens from their own government as from criminals or any other threat; or think any easily carried firearm packs 100 rounds of ammunition, then you should keep your opinions regarding firearms to yourself, as your ignorance regarding firearms is profound, which prevents you from making any kind of intelligent statement or decision regarding firearm ownership and firearm laws in this country. You'd do as well performing brain surgery.
IF YOU GIVE RESPECT WHERE ITS NEEDED IT WILL BE GIVEN BACK
Wait, if you don't agree with any of the candidates... why would you vote? That doesn't make sense. I did not vote because I didn't agree with either of the two. I'm not going to vote for someone just to say I voted, that takes away from the purpose of a democracy.
Others were running. Wasn't just them two.
Guns, pot and country musak. What a hoot 'n hollarin' good time on Piers!
You are all completely and utterly misinformed. Willie Nelson has voted almost every election and "didn't get to the voting booth this time". He has voted both Democrat and Republican. He has been a life long smoker of pot but doesn't drink any longer. He is not a convicted felon and can therefore vote like you or me. He has written some of the most long-lasting standards in the industry (most recorded by the likes of Patsy Cline and Frank Sinatra). He gives to charities and does a major fundraiser every year, for years and years, to raise the awareness of the plight of the American farmer. He donates to animal cruelty causes. He is not a cowboy, doesn't claim to be. He believes very much in a "live and let live" philosophy but he, like me, don't see where anything in the 2nd amendment would include the thought that some day, everyday citizens would need to have semi-automatic weapons or clips containing hundreds of rounds. If you can't do some research on people, please don't comment.
Imagine if everyone exercised his philosophy that he felt (so and so) was going to win and didn't need one more vote.
I nominate Willy Nelson for jerk of the year.
Not voting is unAmerican. Someone who has made money from Americans.
How is not voting unAmerican? Seems the right to choose not to vote is included in the right to vote. Not voting can be a valid expression of will, as well.
Look what drugs did to this man.As long he get his drugs it is ok with him.
Right on Willie, voting is a privilege and all you really need is a bolt-action rifle to do some hunting.
It is fortunate that enough other Americans chose to vote that one vote wasn't missed. And, frankly we don't make it easy for people always on the road or otherwise traveling to vote in elections. He should move to Washington state, which has easy vote by mail (or drop off at a designated ballot collect box) that doesn't even require advance registration for an absentee ballot because everybody votes by mail. The voters I worry about losing are those that have to move between the last day to register to vote and the election day and could be excluded from an election only because of not knowing the final address they will have by election day so they don't have a registered correct address.
I'm pretty sure almost every gun made can fire 100 times. I mean shooting a bullet was what they were made to do. If they can't do that, and repeatably, then it is useless.
Willie Nelson is a hero for the disparaged, the poor, and the working class.
I'm 51 years old, work my butt off and smoke weed. So what.
If more Americans emulated Nelson, we'd all be a lot better off.
I want all the weapons technology can provide. Never know who you might be fighting someday. It wasn't home invasions and liquor store robberies they were thinking about when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.
Best people to push forward the gun debate. Do we really think the founding fathers actually thought people, without gun training or who had never shop a gun, should have access and possess semi-automatic riles and assault weapons. Really? Go Piers! Cerainly no one in Washington will touch it so they can protect their salaries. Speaking of - how can WE control how much Congress makes. I am paying for their salary. Shouldn't I be the one giving them raises?
There are 300m guns in the USA. Probably more than 1/2 are semi auto types. You think we can ban and confiscate semi automatic weapons?
Would love to burn one w/Willie someday. Love his music too.
I'm confused.
How does the view of Willie Nelson garner more attention than the person next to me in the bar after 3 beers?
Sure...great music.....great drugs....great beer......but.....
Well run for president Willie.
We as a society are becoming MORONS.
Shouldn't the majority of votes (GOP or Democrat) determine how we get "BIG" things done on the next 4 years?...Not whether Willie (or Waylon) can smoke dope? (like this will change the country or the world???)
Patrick
No he's not a politician, he's just a music legend having an interesting conversation with Piers. It's a talk show, not just a news show so I don't know why everyone is so uptight about it. Some of these comments are just intolerant. Live and let live.
Good thing this stupid senile old man isn't the voice of a nation.
I won't be happy until I can own rocket propelled grenades and I'm faced with a ban on new automatics.
Such a sad state for America.
I feel like I need to post again there are so many people arguing over the internet....
Good thing this stupid senile old man isn't the voice of a nation.
I won't be happy until I can own rocket propelled grenades and I'm faced with a ban on new automatics
implemented illegally by filthy Democrats in 1986.
The Hughes amendment to FOPA never passed.
Such a sad state for America.
Those belong to the military.... funny. We as a country of power don't realize that almost all of our Special Forces grew up with guns. What do you think would happen if we take them away? I don't know, but I bet they will be missing certain parts of being "special".
Anyone that thinks that taking guns away from the civilian population, and leaving them in the hands of the government (military, police) is one step closer to being ruled, a pawn, or a subject to dictatorship.
Unfortunately Nelson is getting old and soft. I think his brain is smoked up and his liver is shot. He'll probably live to 100 or more.
I like Willie. He has been active for a long time and he has seen the world like 99% of us havent. We dont have to agree with our elders all of the time but i think we should at least listen to them. I dont want to judge Mr Nelson. None of us should really.
nicely put
For all of the people on here ripping Mr Nelson for being a pothead with no brain, come on the guy is 80 years old. Show some respect you losers.
I am only interested in the book Willie is selling, not what Morgan is.... Period
FYI – Willie Nelson is a veteran (USAF) I believe he has earned the right to vote, or not, as he sees fit and to exercise any other unalienable right as he sees fit. I do not agree with his opinion as to firearms, but he does have the right to state his opinion as do I. There are many items of personal property that are not necessarily "needed" (more than one guitar maybe) but neither you, nor I, nor Willie have any business telling another what he should or should not possess.
[W3]
Woody, with all due respect when the public well being is at stake , we do have the right to control what people can have in their possession. ie , nuclear weapons, chemical capable of mass killing, and any number of others, l know these are extreme but you see my point. There has to be a line drawn , Nelson feels it is automatic weapons. I don't know where we draw that line , but it has to be drawn.
Historically speaking, at the time the Const.itution was written, the line was "arms." And, at that time, that term had a pretty clear meaning–an extension of the arm, essentially. Guns, swords, knives, etc. Things like canons, mines, and other things that went "boom" were dubbed "ordinances." So in the modern context, things like nuclear bombs, fighter planes, etc would not fall under "arms" anyway. Granted, the arms themselves have become more powerful than what Colonials could have conceived, but that's why no one is realistically having an argument for personal nukes (or even hand grenades) and we are haggling over personal automatic weapons.
Color commentary from a pot-smoking libtard to a Redcoat collectivist snob... Epic Fail!
The media just loves it when some senile fool parrots one of their favorite positions. No Willy, those guns aren't just for hunting. They are to insure our freedom from a tyrannical government. Kinda like the one that is just around the corner. Kinda like the one that cleaned you out with taxes.
Attacking Mr. Nelson personally, because of his opinion only shows your inability to form cognitive thought. If you disagree say why, otherwise shut the hell up!
So was Willie Nelson stoned when he gave this interview too?
http://boingboing.net/2010/04/16/willie-nelson-is-hig.html
Trust me. Better citizens keep your guns. i live in former soviet Union, and mafia overtaking everything. Even politicians can't do anything. if we would have a guns, we could use them to chase them and bring to justice. Now, people are helpless.
Thank you for your perspective. We in the USA are very bad at using history as an example of what not to do here, and also suffer from the hubris of 'It will never happen here'. Look at our venture into socialized healthcare, after the system in Europe is falling apart.
Trust me, we're keeping our guns. They can make as many laws as they want, there's 268 million of them - AT LEAST. More than half are semiautomatics. GOOD LUCK ROUNDING THEM UP, WILLIE!
Nobody is saying take all the guns! The debate is over military, semi-automatic weapons. Most Americans believe in the right to protect yourself. the gun fanatics are causing this controversy and conspiracy over nothing.
Dude, when you are dropping your show and going back to UK? You have no business over here. Your ratings are dismal and I can see why. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/usa/9361012/Piers-Morgan-brings-worst-ratings-to-CNN-prime-time-slot-in-21-years.html
if a woman can kill her unborn baby i can smoke weed and if the feds could arrest god they would throw him in jail for growing a plant
most weed is grown in the usa and every dollar there is taxes are paid any time that dollar is spent here in the usa get over people
you anti weed people are mostly drunks, crackheads, and just losers i smoke and make 90000 a year and i pay taxes i have smoked since 1973
i dont know when i will die so let me live my life free ,free of dumb laws
smoke on people they cant throw us all in jail screw the dea
GOD BLESS WILLIE NELSON
this is for the dea go find something better to spend our money on like every 19 mins someone dies from govt appoved drugs not weed you morons listen up DEA
I always notice the side effects they acknowledge when pushing pharmaceutical on TV. Pot can't possibly be worse, and would be as good a source of revenue as booze.
for all you dumb fools out there alcohol is the gateway drug and always has been
just look how our govt parties on our money the secret service , the gsa i could on and on just think about the ones we dont know about but weed is big problem with the govt they need to clean their own house before they come too mine
but people you buy as many guns as you can you just might need them one day too fight your govt
Are you anti-American? Our country thrives on success not fear. Stop working your self into a frenzy and enjoy what we have as Americans. Your government isn't after you unless you are a convicted criminal.
BUY YOUR GUNS
THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WITH YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS donot forget about your civil rights take a stand donot back down
lets drug test all govt workers congress fed judges any elected person lets drug test and see how many smoke weed
thats right they make the laws but dont have to live by them just us sheep
"there's no need for civilians to own those ... those are for military""
Spoken like a true leftist aka progressive socialist.
Willie? I've loved him and I have disliked him....I find it hard to listen to his liberal opinions on gun control or any other issue. He is a great songwriter and an entertainer, but his opinion on issues such as these is completely null and void. In other words his opinion is no better than mine. (which, btw are opposite his....) He has a platform, a good stage presence. Keep writing songs. and SHUT UP AND SING....
Wouldn't that make your opinions null and void there, too?
You will take my guns from my cold dead hands.
Sure maybe Americans do not need AK-47's, but they should have the right to own them if they choose.
All you anti gun nuts need to just shut up and deal with it.
"I think a lot of guns – there's no need for civilians to own those. Those are for military."
I think the historical argument from the Const.itution (remember, that Amendment was written on the back of a revolution against a government viewed as abusing its power unduly) is that while there is no general need for civilians to own guns that powerful, the one legitimate remaining need for civilians to own such hardware would be to defend themselves FROM the military. And while a lot of people don't want to believe that is a realistic possibility, I'm sure the Colonials didn't want to think they'd ever need to take up arms against England, either. I'm not promoting rebellion or anything va.guely like that, just playing Devil's Advocate on why some people think such weapons should be available to civilians. And one of those reasons is so that the military cannot totally out-gun the populace.
Poor guy has been baking his brain in stupidity for a good long time. Screw the limey gun graber and the senile diaper waring fool. Not even going to debate their stupidity. Bottom line you can ever have my guns and if you try to take them be prepaired to die in the process.
I may have missed it, but when did it become the Bill of "Needs"?
"he grew up around guns and has no problem with hunting. In his mind, however, high-powered assault rifles are an entirely different discussion"
I would rather be shot by an assault rifle or even a light machine gun any day than a hunting rifle. This guy has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to calibers and ballistics. Hunting guns are made to KILL, modern military weapons are made to WOUND.
Winning Willie. How can he even be worth a say in the matter. Prob.doesn't even know how to shoot...Smoke some more Willie.
go back to your pot and leave the gun problem to those who aren't senile. How is that "Short Man Complex " working for you?
Nothing like getting a lecture on legal control of an item from someone who has been illegally using drugs for decades. No credibility. He really is a scruffy useful idiot.
Getting a lecture on peace from a tree-hugging, hippy is exactly what our Nation needs. Don't forget a big part of the American culture is born of the hippy movement. It is as American as Apple-Pie.
Perhaps I should proofread before I submit.
I own a couple guns, a couple guitars and I am a Disabled American Veteran! Freedom of Speech-Go Willie! Smoke 'em if ya got 'em! Give ya 10 expect 5 get 2! Light 'em up put 'em out!!!
And, that's another example of why we listen to Willie for music but not for anything requiring thinking abilities.
The guns used in the CT shooting were not military. In fact the police often have more power hand guns than the type used in the CT shootings.
Where are all these civilians with personal firearms when you need them? A crowded theatre, an elementary school, not one of these people were carrying a gun to take down these psychos, and even if there were dozens of civilians carrying their guns and they opened fire on the gunman, it would be a blood bath (how would you know who the shooter is when everyone's got a gun?).
All you with the weak argument of "where were the concealed carry people to stop these things?" With the exception of one, all mass shootings in the last 25 years have been in a gun free zone.
The answer to your question, which is weak at best, is they were probably there, only since they were law abiding citizens, they didn't bring their gun.
There you have it. Someone like Holmes could have EASILY been neutralized by a remotely trained CCW holder. However, they followed the law and were unarmed.
Guess I should stop listening to the law and carry everywhere illegally just in case, to appease you morons that don't understand that a failure in law doesn't mean a failure on the part of those of us that would gladly have it otherwise.
Hey Willie:
Sing, smoke your dope, play the guitar, pay your taxes on time, otherwise, zip it.
Willly, your living in a dream world! A pistol, a rifle used in WWI was an assualt rifle or pistol and they were ALL single shot. Assualt weapon is ANYTHING used to kill an individual. Whats going to happen next, are we going to loose our steak knifes, our forks, etc?? More people are killed in DUI or DRUG related accidents then killed, regretably, in incidents such as in CT. Lets not rule with our emotions but with our common sense. I feel great saddness about what happend but lets not get out of hand. Any country with dissarmed citizens is a DICTATORSHI[!
Celebrities like Willie Nelson can babble about gun control for the masses all they want, but that won't change the fact that their own bodyguards are packing, and packing heavy. Nobody really values their opinions anyway. Shut up and sing.
That's not Willie...........sorry nice try.....anybody notice how nervous He is in answering the questions? I'll bet they got something over Him or there is a taser attached to His balls under the table. Wouldn't put it past the Establishment Media to try something like this. After all they will try anything...I mean anything to rid us our rights to protect ourselves from the Tyranny.
For those claiming Willie never lived the way of life he speaks of, you have no clue what you speak of. That man hunted on my Grandfather's property. Today's celebs may sit in Hollywood & Nashville all year, but when people like Willie were young, they continued their lives just like everyone else did. Yes the man smokes pot, does that have a lick of anything to do with this topic though? No.
This is the first sensible interview I've seen. Hopefully there's a few more I haven't seen yet.
Thank goodness this old guy doesn't speak for the nation.
willie drug addict pot head does not know the difference between FULLY AUTOMATIC(military version) and semi automatic fire arms 1He is a political crony for Obama!
Set the dope down Wilie, and come to your senses....You have been stoned way to long. It is a different world out here now!
An Assault Weapon - the US M-16 - is a firearm that is capable of "FULLY AUTOMATIC OPERATION."
The AR-15, Bushmaster, and the M-16 look-alikes are not capable of fully automatic fire - they will only fire semi-automatic; that is, one pull of the trigger and only one bullet is fire.
Weapons capable of fully automatic firing were outlawed to the general public by the Gun Control Act of 1934.
Automatic weapons are not available for sale to the general public at a typical gun store. Automatic weapons classified as "collector items" like the Thompson Sub-machine Gun, are available for sale to general public after a thorough background check and a federal fee of $200, plus the cost of the gun which most likely will exceed $25,000; yes, $25,000.00 dollars. IIt is the high capacity magazines that need to be band.
But you know, more people die from automobile accidents than guns - do we ban those cars that are capable of exceeding the 75 mile speed limit?
Great points....The second amendment...why was it written? Anything to do with the fact that America had to fight a war to free its self from oppression, it would not be because they wanted to be able to fight the "Power/Gov" ???? so would you not need the same weapons as the "Man" to keep him Honest? Just a pondering point not suggesting anything but to me it makes an even stronger point of allowing semiautomatic weapons, not with out a little regulation, a waiting period and background check but that is as far as I feel we need to go.
American Citizens,
Being a non citizen I have no right to tell you folk what to do. Obviously Gun control is a real point of contention. A suggestion, get the pollies to put some sensible (military grade restrictions) control conditions together and then put it to a citizens plebicite. If it passes or fails all sides accept it and get on with life. Loved seeing Piers get taken to peices by Platt the other day.
Regards
RussR
Mr Morgan here is an news release about your England (highest violent crime rate in Europe) and other "Gun Ban" EU nations........http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html Don't you think you should know your facts before entering and Attacking a host???
Why do any of you even listen to the moronic blather of Piers Morgan? Deport the idiot.
I note that some members of the NRA would like to have PM deported. Well, if it interests them I have started a campaign to have NRA members banned from travel to Europe on the grounds that they are dangerous and often unstable individuals who would endanger the public in Europe. Visa requirements for US citizens should be reinstated immediately by European nations to enable us to protect our people fro these idiots
Do you have any evidence of how dangerous these people are? Or is it just the way you lie and pervert the truth to push your anti-freedom agenda? Seeing how these people pass FBI background checks they have a cleaner record than you! Maybe the Dr needs to up your fear of black metal things meds?
When the second amendment came into being, muskets were the state of the art assault weapons. When bolt action rifles first appeared, they were military weapons. Semi-automatic weapons were first developed for the military and were assault weapons. Modern hunting rifles that are semi automatic are now referred to as assault weapons. It was the founders of our country that wanted to assure that weapons were available for Americans if the need arrived. The shootings of children are not acceptable. But neither are the solutions presented to date.
Instead of never ending debate and inaction, why not ask the people ? ...hold a referendum and ask whether any person should be allowed to possess a firearm
Because it isn't a privilege, but a right. Shall we hold a referendum to see how many people think you should be able to speak?
It beggars belief that that the majority of citizens in a "so called developed" civil society do not understand that freedoms go together with the duty to care for the rights of others, including the right to life and the right to free speech. We are living one hundred and fifty years after a time when carrying a gun in the street was considered necessary as a personal protection in the USA. Can we justify this now and allow 20,000 people a year to be killed and murdered and to consider this as a feature of a civilised society. It's time for Americans to wake up and join the twenty first century. The US gun lobby sound more like fascists than democrats and are a million miles away from Christianity or any other religious ethic.
If this view doesn't make sense, I cannot understand why America got so upset by 9/11 when only 2,500 innocent people were murdered. I would never in the present climate, even consider visiting such a country and put my life or freedom at risk. I am not a religious person but I say – God help America and protect us from your ignorance and folly.
Please get your facts straight. Surely you know that almost half of the "death by firearms" statistics released every year are suicides. I think the American public would give up their firearms as soon as celebrities and politicians gave up their armed personal security guards. What arrogance of them (and you frankly) to think these people deserve more protection than the average citizen and their family does.
Gun laws are not the issue.
The failure to enforce the guns laws is the issue.
Guns are sold without background checks to minors.
http://www.ThisBookSavesLives.com
WHAT ALL PARENTS NEED TO KNOW
Somewhere in America, a New Massacre Will Strike
Send Your Teacher a Lifeline
THE SILENT CRISIS DESTROYING AMERICA'S BRIGHTEST MINDS
This brilliant book has a new dedication to Principal Dawn Hochsprung who was murdered in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and I quote: "Educators need to reach out early to troubled children." This book will bear witness to her message and empower educators.
Interview: (212)772-0326
5 Stars: Book of the Month, Alma Public Library, Wisconsin
Piers take yourself and Willie to Britain now. No need to wait for them to not repeal the Second Amendment! You are not American so voluntarily deport yourself now. No need for you to unnecessarily have to participate in the freedoms we enjoy and you do not have back home.
I am a fan Piers .... But if one more night I tune in and see another program of repeat interviews I am probably gona loose ya .... Its too much .... get some new stuff too do . Its BORING daily to watch these same interviews ! come on !
Willie is a great artist, and deserves his own opinion as a US citizen, but is obviously brain-damaged from too much weed. Piers Morgan should be deported for subversion back to the surveillance state that is known as England!
I watched a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called Schindler's List
Piers, bravo to you taking this issue of guns in America .It is a shame that there are people who disrespect you and quite frankly seem to be a bit unblanced. I stand behind you and applaud you for your talking out with clear facts in a very respectful way.
Is he still around ? Well willie if guns are for the Military what is Marijuana for old farts ?
Seems like it is impossible to speak rationally to a gun lover. Ever notice that all the ones who speak in public turn out to be really weird or psychotic? If I was in a movie theatre and you told me someone was coming in with a knife to try to kill every single person in there I wouldn't be scared. If you told me he had and automatic weapon I would crap myself. Go ahead, point out the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, single action whatever. Who cares! You guys need your guns to feel like a man. Admit it. You dream about being that guy in the theatre, or the school who heroically pulls out his handgun and saves the day and gets the chick. Maybe everyone in the theatre should be armed you say. All teachers should be packing! Maybe you never thought that the average American mom doesn't want to carry heat in her purse so she can take her kid to the movies. Maybe everyone would like to be able to go to school without being shot simply to protect a law that is waaaaaaaay out of date! Teachers might like it if no one had assault rifles instead of being forced to keep an assault rifle beside the blackboard. Go ahead, point out a tiny flaw in my statement and you will be victorious in your limited views. Wait and see when you attend your five year olds funeral who was massacred on a bus, or in McDonald's, or at the zoo, by some equally ignorant fool who bought an assault rifle at gun show and got bored of target practice as well as life, so he took your kid with him. See if you're as comfortable with Arming everyone. Maybe, just maybe, in today's day and age, disarming might, maybe, possibly, have some merit. Or wait until next month when some half man, bushMASTER, rips apart 30 people at Disneyland. Sadly that isn't an exaggeration.
Willie Nelson is not anyone to be trusted on anything.He lost his manhood years ago to dope and is so brain addled i would not trust him if he said the sky was blue.DON'T GIVE UP MY RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU DON;T WANT YOURS,MILITARY PATTERN GUNS WERE EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE PROTECTING WILLIE.DUHHHH SMOKE ANOTHER DOOBIE YOU DUMMY.
May God Bless you Piers for all that you are doing. It is time for people to respect the power of guns. It is time for them to realize that "With great power comes great resonsiblity" and guns are wonderful tools but are now more than ever being used for the purpose of evil. When the law was written for the right to bear arms – guns had to be manually loaded and could not penetrate a cement building. So we need to consider the time it took one to load and shoot a person back in the 1700's vs. loading and using an assault rifle today, which can kill hundreds of people in the same time frame. The law worked well in its day but now private citizens have the privilage of using assault weapons,the laws need to change with the technology. Citizens should keep their privilage of the right to bear arms (but certain arms) and look on it as guidelines to follow instead of a disciplinary action. This makes you the bigger person protecting your fellow man from others with not so good intentions.
Why has no one tried to ban fertilizer and racing fuel? Timothy Mcvaigh killed 168 people inwitch 19 were children and injured over 800 others. He destroyed a fedral building and damaged more than 300 buildings and he NEVER FIRED A SHOT? Come on people, guns don't kill poeple, but people kill people!
right on brother
There is no need for the public to have weapons capable of extreme death.
Do you assert that you should have the right to have a machine gun?
And if so, why?
Your implicit argument makes no sense, unless you want to be a killer of other humans, and I do not
want that type of behavior in my society.
Kill yourself, not others.
Willie is "your brain on drugs" ... a degenerative cognizance condition know as liberalism which is nearly 100% irreversible.
Hi Mr. Morgan,
I agree that no one has answer your question <> Another good way to grab the audience might be to ask <>
Piers, you do know you are so hypocritical and ill-informed about the issues in our country. Yes, our country is no England, and it will never be. you need to get your terminology straight and understand the meanings. Very few Americans own an actual assault rifle/machine gun but none owns an assault weapon. if u want, please discuss on your show the meaning of such in a fair discussion with someone who is knowledgeable.... i know you won't.
Americans don't seem to realise how violent their country is in comparison to other developed countries. In the EU there were just over 400 deaths from guns in 2008, in the US it was over 19,000. An inadequate mental health care and the ability of anyone to buy automatic weapons is bound to lead to carnage.
There is no logical reason for civilians to have automatic weapons, and if banning them means that less people die in these crazy shootings, then banning them is the logical thing to do. LEAVE THE POWEFUL ARMS TO THE PROFESSSIONALS. IF YOU NEVER SERVE IN THE ARMY YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE.
THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE BLAMED, BECAUSE WHEN THE 2sc.AMENDMENT WAS CREATED automatic weapons DID NOT EXIST and non restriction was created to follow with the advances of technology in leaving the powerful weapons to be used only by the professionals in the war combat & trainning fields.
Thank you Pierce Morgan for having balls (3) and stand up for what you believe, truth, conviction, and right. I feel so luck to watch you on CNN. I loved Larry King but you are the "BEST" YOU MAKE CNN PROUD AROUND THE WORLD.
I agree with Willie Nelson on the arms debate: "A lot of guns ... there's no need for civilians to own those ... those are for military"with Willi Nelson. As you grow older I love you more Willi, and
I love you too Piers Morgan . Gabby
“We the people” ask that you hear our voice. As responsible, taxpaying, law abiding citizens like you, we the people of the US are asking that our collective voice be heard. We understand your responsibility is complex and you are under enormous pressure from the public. Understanding the root cause of violence in America and “gun Control” is a key element. The root cause of the problem is derived from violent movies, violent video games and the media sensationalizing violence. Video game violence is a major factor if not the principal root cause of the criminal murderous behavior we are subjected to in the last several decades. Parents allow their children to play many violent video games for thousands of hours, thus desensitizing their emotions, retarding their social growth and glorifying gun violence. By the time a person is 21 they probably have seen 21,000 murders on TV.
An emotional reaction to a tragedy does not warrant implementing additional illogical firearms laws in addition to what we already have in place. More importantly, emotional reactions by law makers do not prevent crime but logical laws and an improvement in the justice system improves the safety of the people.
We, the good and responsible citizens, should not have to pay the price because of the actions of terrorist and evil individuals. The guns do not kill people. The bad and evil people kill people.
As firearm enthusiasts and many war veterans of the United States of America, we are concerned that our rights as legal and responsible firearm owners are being infringed upon. Additional laws and regulations will only have an effect on the good people complying with the law, not the criminals.
I came here to voice my opinion on the matter then I realized that everyone has already made up their mind on the issue. Also ANY comment I submit will almost assuredly be distorted, misinterpreted, or "disproved" by a completely nonsensical argument. Someone will likely bring up England and then someone else will likely bring up Switzerland. More than a few people will bring up solid "facts and figures" from a poll conducted behind a walmart in North Dakota by a girl scout troop 20 years ago. All of this will be pointless because few people arguing on either side of the issue are logical enough to be persuaded by reason or sound arguments. So instead of wasting my time voicing my opinion or responding to others in order to show them how insanely wrong their opinion is and how obviously correct mine is; I decided to waste more of my time writing this paragraph. I guess I fit right in.
Looking Thru The Smoke Screen!Why is there a law banning guns in and near our
schools? As I reported a few weeks back, it was to try and make stronger the
punishment for the war on drugs. This law did not work! All this law did was
leave our children defenseless. It made them sitting targets for any psychopath
that wants to go out in a blaze of glory. This law certainly did not stop the
war on drugs!
Now our president is using some of the childrens' letters to reach the bleeding
hearts in order to get even more gun control. Have you stopped to think that he
and his children are protected by guns, many guns, everywhere they go. Yet our
children are unprotected and he does not even want us as adults to have guns for
our own protection and the protection of our children? The NRA was even slammed
for telling the truth.
We, the people, need to look beyond the smoke screen and realize that more gun
control is not the answer. History is a good teacher. We would do well to think
about the past and learn from its teachings. Back when there were guns in our
school, our children were not being shot at their desks. Maybe we should look at
our judicial system. Criminals do not serve the time handed down to them for
their crime. One can commit murder and yet get out for "their good behavior".
What ever happened to tough judges that were not bleeding hearts or
"politically" inclined?
Timothy McVeigh killed over 168 people, nineteen of whick were children, and he
injured over 800 more. He also destroyed several buildings and did property
damage to over 300 other structures – all without firing a shot. Why are the
bleeding hearts not trying to ban fertilizer or racing fuel? More smoke screens
from the government as they are the ones who trained him.
Speaking of more smoke screens, what about mandatory insurance – Obamacare? Did
the major insurance companies pay for his campaign? Really makes you wonder! I
think folks are really going to be surprised with this new law! Especially when
the big insurance companies just get bigger and the small business owner goes
out of business. We are forced to have insurance but that does not mean that we
will be serviced by the insurance company. As an individual, we will have to
have an attorney to even try to get service. I have recently witnessed this
first hand so I know this to be fact! So who does that new law support –
certainly not you and me, the taxpayers. Corruption only breeds more corruption.
What has happened to our society – we allowed God to be taken out of our
schools, we allowed guns to be banned from them, what next? I heard today that
50% of Americans are for more gun control. Can this be true? How many of these
could pass a history test or is this just knowledge that they left behind when
the left school. Do they really want to give up their right to bear arms? If
they cannot remember their history maybe they should consider their future! What
are they willing to give up next?
Quite frankly, I do not plan to give up my guns and quite frankly if guns are
going to be used to protect the president, his children and his political
friends, then I feel I have that same right.
God given inalienable rights
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Those children in Newton were denied all three. 2nd Amendment you lose.
ok - in honor of the Second Amendment–everyone line up - your personal 8-foot MUSKET, with instructions on how to make the lead balls to go in it and your damp leather bag of gun powder and no special site for aiming is ready fory ou - should take you 1-3 minutes to load it each time so you can attempt to get venison or turkey for the dinner table.
Might want to have your fishing pole handy for an unfrozen creek.
Willie got this one wrong. Semi-auto rifles, and even full auto (you have to pass additional checks for the class III stamp) have direct bearing on the 2nd Amendment right as they are the weapons related to militia use. George Mason, co-authoer of the 2A stated that the militia was defined as all citizens capable of bearing arms for defense.
Yea, That really means alot coming from this fine example of a Human Being ! LoL
Where is the outrage and ban for the number 1 killer in the US? Between 29 and 31,000 a year over the last 20 have died as a result of a gun in the US.(murder, accident, suicide, law enforcement and self defense) Over 440,000 a year die from cigarettes and almost 50,000 die from second hand smoke, adults and children in the US. That does not include the millions that are hospitalized or become ill from smoking or second hand smoke.
"I don't agree with that. I think it should be more regulated. I think a lot of guns – there's no need for civilians to own those. Those are for military."
~ Willie Nelson
Williie speaks the big picture truth, there is no reason to have a gun that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes.
Let's pray that this common sense becomes our USA operating procedure.
The current USA standards allow for mass execution and need to be revised.
What a bunch of morons.
Americans posting on this site have no idea of what rational discussion is and assume that their opinion is fact without any rational verification.
This lack of rational thinking is why the USA is in a bad economic situation despite strong resource advantages.
Our people are mostly idiots, and are arrogant to boot. Pitiful, cowardly and destined to be surpassed by other nations.
@Jon – you don't get anywhere insulting people in mass like this. And, it's completely illogical to group a country of 300 million together and say we're all morons based on what a few people you disagree with say on a chat board somewhere.
There are good reasons to protect the essence of the 2nd amendment, which concerns a right to bear arms and defend oneself. If you go back to the founding fathers, that means a pistol or a rifle. That's what the 2nd amendment was describing – that freedom that was set in that context.
It did not however foresee the rise of automated weapons, shoulder-held rockets, etc, and should not be extended that far. If you take the radical NRA argument out to its logical extreme, they would probably protect the right of individual citizens to own nuclear weapons, which is of course absurd. Obviously there's a limit. And, I think the limit is the ability to own a handgun or a rifle, but no more than that.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not a moron for having it. I think it's a moderate, sane position. I don't agree with those on either extreme away from my opinion, but I don't think they are morons for having those opinions. Calling people names is also going too far.
Piers...YOU are not going anywhere...you are phenominal, brilliant and kind. You ARE and always will be a Part of THESE United States, My friend.
Hey Willie. Shut up and sing or be quiet and roll a fatty. Nobody except the chubby brit cares what your opinion is on the second amendment.
Here we go ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages! The great Willie Nelson sitting upon his throne telling you what you cannot have, addressing the millions of americans who safely and legally handle their firearms, shame on you for being such law abiding citizens! Shame on all of us who don't blast our Aks and ARs at innocent people! Just because he is famous does not mean he can tell us what we can or cannot have, what a communist Willie Nelson is.
willie nelson is nothing but a wore out pot head that has never been able to sing and all he would know how to do with a gun is smoke pot through the barrel so go interviewa real singer named hank williams junior and then tell morganhe ain't never gonn get our guns down south
This is what happens when a mentally deranged person goes on a killing spree in countries with sensible gun laws.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/01/bc-vancouver-stabbing.html
Notice the difference in the death count?
Looks like Willie Nelson can't make up his mind. Not 2 months ago he was interviewed with Jesse Ventura and he sang a different song about "sporting" rifles and Obama... he didn't have much good to say about him.
Willie, you're a turncoat, son. Shame on you.
Two points – Dumb and dumber. Piers is so stupid, he uses the same Saul Alinski tatics over and over.
Rule # 5 Ridicule your appointment and Rule # 3 “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
My American son in law, an ex-marine living in Chester England, owns guns and makes a valid point. The reason that many guns are accessable to be used in mass killings is that they are left lying around to be used . He tells me that he pays a fee which is used to facilitate inspectors to visit his home to inspect the security iof his guns. He is happy with this inspection and sees it as a major difference in gun control between his home in Pa and his home in chester England
That's great, Morgan gets a celebrity to come on and echo his anti-gun rubbish...notice he didn't have Charlie Daniels, Chuck Norris, or Jesse Ventura sitting there with Nelson to contradict him.
Willie is looking a little peeked these days...does he have Parkinson's or something?
So Willie Nelson, an avowed user of illegal drugs, a person who has been found guitly of tax evasion, a man who has no respect for the laws of this country when it comes to him, is suddenly going to lecture everyone else on the importance of being law abiding citizens? What makes Willie Nelson an expert on anything other than getting high and writing crappy country songs?
I have a great idea. Piers Morgan, Willie, almost all of Hollywood and the media, get the hell out of the country if you don't like it here.
Expecially you PIers. You are not even an American citizen. This is none of your business. You tea drinking sods tried to take away the guns from honest citizens at another time, and you know what it got you. Get out of the country. We don't need or want you here.
WILLIE AND PIERS TWO MORE OF aMERIKA'S FINEST WHO HAVE OVER DONE THEIR DRUG ADDICTIONS.
Send piers back to his turd world.
Before leaving on your hunting trip, prepare yourself well. Never go to an unplanned location or take off on a spontaneous hunting trip. Let others know where you are planning to hunt and when you will be returning. If necessary, leave detailed directions to your hunting grounds with friends or family that will be staying home in case an emergency arises and they need to direct medical personnel to your location. Try to return home as close to your planned time as possible. If you are late checking in, your contact person can then know to set out using your directions to see if you need assistance. ^..:*
http://healthwellnessbook.comMy personal blog site
KEEP SINGING WILLIE... STAY OUT OF THE GUN DEBATE
That's just the bong water talkin'
maybe he could use that gun with a hundred rounds to wake up his coma induced pot smoking ass!he`s obviously so stoned,he doesn`t remember we have a second amendment and that guns like that aren`t military!
Gun control or guns will continue to control us.
Adults and children die in their homes, on the streets, in stores, workplaces, schools, playgrounds, and on and on from gun use.
Being armed yourself does no good.
Neither do background checks.
America is out of control when it comes to violence.
Guns only add to the problem.
We need gun control now.
The NRA and other gun groups never had an answer to the problem of gun violence and the causes.
All they ever do is hide behind the Second Amendment for their right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment is outdated and has nothing to do with the America of today.
The Second Amendment must be amended.
It is time to stop people from owning guns.
The only right in this matter is the right to be free from gun violence.
I am,
George Vreeland Hill
"high-powered assault rifles are an entirely different discussion" is a stupid statement. The ar-15 223 REM is much less powerful than most deer rifles. "Assault Rifles" are full auto or select fire, AR-15 is not, one trigger pull one bullet.
So, maybe he has been around guns, but he certainly did not learn much. I suspect that he is more singer than anyone who had ever done anything meaningful.
So uckermanf, go on and slither back in your festering hole of self-loathing and worship of a seriously-flawed celebrity.
WOW!!! Speaking of verbally defecating!!! And you've got the nerve to call someone else vermin? I suggest you get back under your bridge before the clouds break and the sun hits you...
@uckermanf,
It's news because it causes people like you to make comments about other commenters like you did. You took the time and effort to read the article and comments and post a response. In other words, it causes the VERMIN to expose themselves–to slither out from under the rocks where they reside and start verbally defecating all over the place because they don't have enough common sense to shut up.
I hope that makes you realize that you did exactly the same thing he did, but I'm sure it doesn't, as you are too stupid to understand anything that doesn't originate in the echo chamber of your vacuous head.
You just commented didn't you.
Actually, the vermin here is you.
#potkettleblack
You're all a bunch of whiny tools.
Yep, we should all emulate him. 60 studio albums? That's a hard working man, my friend. And they say pot makes you lazy! HA!
I could not agree more! Willie Nelson, the Vote Dodger, has the temerity to share opinions when he does not engage in the most basic of civic duties, the obligation to vote. Voting is not a privilege, it is an obligation! Refusing to do so is the most unpatriotic act you can engage in. Why are we spotlighting this weasel? He has no right to discuss civic affairs from the side lines. And yes, one vote does count. Get this moron off the news page! Nobody wants to hear his hot air! It has no credibility and showcases a weasel who benefits from the system, opinionates freely, but does not have the balls to be a man!
It isn't news, but you clicked on it for the same reason I and everybody else clicked on it. Because we were curious, and we wanted to be entertained with a nice little easily digestible tidbit of infotainment.
A Tx. Man not voting because he knew without doubt Tx. would go for the lil GOPer is no reason to get your lil panties in a wad. Maybe smoking weed is illegal. but it doesn't kill. Willie is a truly American icon regardless of the haters, and lil GOPers are in denial because they just got their ass waxed. the POTUS was re-elected for a number of good resaons. He has started no wars, ended one, and is ending another one. The Prez is wrong headed to stay in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. Considering what Shrub did to the country and the Middle East we are in good shape. I would like to see some Wall St. thieves in jail though.
Add to that the fact that he's talking to a Redcoat (oops I mean a lefty collectivist snob Brit), and we fought a war 230+ years ago to insure that every able American had the Right – and from that the means – to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of deposing tyranny. The exact sort of tyranny that gives rise to Tea Party protests, End the Fed protests, and much more. There are tens of millions of Americans that – if you even TRY to disarm America, will use their privately held Arms for the very purpose that gave rise to the 2nd Amendment – because it ain't about duck hunting!!
Voting is a privilege, indeed, but not an obligation. Those who do not vote do not lose their First Amendment rights. Not voting is often as important as voting. In some countries they actually keep track of those people who don't vote. Both major parties would like everyone to vote, obviously. Do you have to vote for every candidate, every proposal, every judge, every item on the ballot? Can you think of all the pluses of everyone voting? Now think of the minuses of everyone voting.
You forgot to call him a dirty hippie. Are you suffering from the vapors? Do you need some smelling salts?
I agree that everyone has a obligation to vote....at least in theory. In practice it is truly different. Willie lives in Texas which was going Romney regardless. Willie could have cast 100 votes, or 1000, or 10,000 and it wouldn't have made any difference. So it is understandable why many Willies don't vote.
Once the National Popular Vote passes in a few more states then everyone's vote will count...including Willie's.
I didn't vote either and have every right to complain about who's in office and the job they do. The politicians have stolen the power of the people and sold it to the highest bidder. We the people don't matter as much as a big money donor. You don't have to look any farther than the fact that cigarettes are legal to see that.
Minerva, it's plenty obvious he's not happy the president won. What's disappointing is the fact that he does not have the guts to say it. I find something patronizing in his "blacks and the Hispanics and the women" voted for Obama, and he has no clue about the white men's votes. This is another example that the number of albums is just one aspect of who he is. I did not like the Willie I saw in this interview.
What you fail to acknowledge is that Nelson lives in Texas. His wife, in interviews just before the election stated clearly that they BOTH supported Obama. Because of the Electoral College system, their votes mattered not one iota.
I agree. Not voting is the largest insult you can give to the Stars and Stripes and those who defend her for our right to do so. Shame on you, Willie Nelson.
I voted, but I think it is true that in a larger sense it often doesn't matter in Presidential elections. I live in Alaska, and have never had the chance to vote before they had already announced the winner due to the time zone differences. I still vote not because of the Presidential ballot, but the local issues that are on the same piece of paper. I think they should not be allowed to announce any results until the last polling place is closed. It is not a fair system.
"not voting is often as important as voting"? that's got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen, Jason.
I couldn't disagree more.
I consider it my duty to God and country, to NOT vote.
I don't buy the "lesser of two evils" argument. Bad is bad, and if I show support for the lesser of the bad, it's still bad.
More importantly, our voting system is extremely corrupt. The reason trhat ballots are secret is so that people can cheat. Open up the ballots and I'll reconsider my non-voting stance.
Bottom line – I am not about to show support for a sham (voting) system by participating. Instead, I let my government know that I am not fooled by the illusions presented at the ballot box.
Rock
It was a foregone conclusion that Romney was going to win Texas, so Willie Nelson's vote for Obama wouldn't have mattered much. But what about the rest of the ballot? Weren't there any other races that mattered? Senator from Texas? State Supreme Court? Local races? What a pitiful example you set, claiming that your vote wouldn't have mattered,
One vote does not count, that is where you are wrong. I live in a state the ALWAYS votes for just one party. If I vote for the other party, my vote really doesn't matter as the one party always win. If I vote with the party then they win by my one vote. So does my vote really matter? Nope it doesn't.
Voting is not an obligation, it's a right. I didn't vote this year either because I didn't like either one of my choices. Does that make me unpatriotic? No, it makes me someone that didn't feel like choosing which one I disliked the least. I don't like lies, and both of them lie. I don't vote for local elections because our career requires we move locations too much and I don't know enough about the community or the candidates to feel confident on a choice in those short periods of time that we live there. Therefore the only elections I ever vote on are the presidential ones. This year I didn't like my choices, so I didn't bother. And for the record, I felt the same way last time too.
And Willie is 79 years old. For all you know he didn't feel well that day.
May not have made him lazy but sure the hell made him stupid
Sure – someone to emulate, law-breaking, tax-evading, non-voting . . . sure, something to emulate . . .
And rich, I thought you worshipped the rich?
If your so smart, why aren't you on the show
If there were only thieves that only stole on Wall-Street, rather than from it, life would be a lot more simple. A society of thieves cannot exist.
You don't speak for every veteran. Myself and many of my veteran friends chose not to vote this year. There was no good choice. So we didn't waste our time. When someone finally steps into the running that tells the truth and offers true solutions that people actually want, then a much stronger showing from the military voters will be seen. This past couple elections though, many of us just sank down and accepted that little or nothing is going to change. And we've been right. The outcome wouldn't have been much different had Obama lost, and we knew that.
yes, completely agree....the system is outdated.....basically, 50% of voters are happy with election result and the other half dissatisfied....but, most importantly, everyone is subsequently unhappy with the way the country is run....because they run the country through their own personal agenda, criminally forgetting their promises (a breach of confidence which is an unlawful act !) they made to really make things better....I think it is time to use the technology we have to be directly and continuously involved in deciding what is best for us, the town, the state, the country....
It's too bad that deployed military people cannot (or I imagine it would be very hard to) vote in the primaries, the Republican party had a great presidential candidate in Ron Paul, but the establishment pols (in both parties) made sure he did not get the Republican nod, he is a true patriot and would have given us a real choice instead of "Tweedle-dee vs Tweedle-dum" ...