READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
On Thursday evening, "Piers Morgan Tonight" continued to use its wide-reaching platform to address an issue the host feels is paramount for the health and future of the country: guns violence.
As part of the program's "Guns in America" franchise, Piers Morgan welcomed Ben Shapiro, an individual who had been outwardly critical of the show's recent direction.
The Breitbart editor-at-large has described the host as having a "full-scale gun control agenda," implied that Morgan is a Liberal, and began his visit by producing a copy of the U.S. Constitution from his jacket pocket.
"You have deliberately tried to frame this as a left-wing attack on the American Constitution and the Second Amendment," said Morgan, objecting to his guests perspective. "You come in, you brandish your little book..."
"My little book? That's the Constitution of the United States, our founding document," Shapiro exclaimed.
"I know what's in your Constitution," insisted the host.
"Do you really?" asked the conservative political commentator who turns 29 on Tuesday.
"I've been debating this for a very long time," Morgan stated.
Pushing forward on the issue he's most passionate about, the host asked Shapiro to explain why he feels a civilian would need an assault weapon:
"They need them for the prospective possibility of resistance to tyranny," he explained.
"Where do you expect the tyranny to come from?" wondered Morgan.
"It could come from the United States," came Shapiro's answer.
"Do you understand how absurd you sound?" asked the host.
"Here's where you go into the absurd and the bullying," claimed Shapiro, repeating an assertion he'd made recently in his on-line writings, all the while mocking Morgan's accent.
"I'm not the one that came in here and accused you of standing on the graves of dead children," reminded Morgan.
Watch the clip, and listen to the rest of the debate, as Shapiro further makes his point that of late Morgan has "gone off the rails," and attempts to convince the host, and the viewers, that assault weapons have a place on the streets and in civilian hands.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
Is he a jerk because you do not share his point of view?
Jason, that would be "...prospective possibility ..." That means something that might happen in the future. Your "quotation" doesn't make sense as written. Piers Morgan doesn't make sense either. This viewer would like to see him removed from the airwaves in favor of someone concerned with illumination and education rather than intimidation and manipulation.
I would like to see him removed from the airwaves and returned to England. It will never happen because of CNN's and the media;s interest in hot topic commentators, agitation and fear mongering and manipulation of the public leads to power and increased revenue. Expect to see more of this incendiary style of programming – makes money for the corporations.
Wow is right. Piers thank you for keeping it more civilized than some of your previous interviews. Though I do not believe you intended to be insulting, 'your little book' and throwing it on the table. Really? Definitely not appropriate. You may have as well have thrown down a US flag and called it 'your little cloth'.
I have tried to put this all in one post, but keep getting block so will reply under my own comment.
Mr. Shapiro was correct on many points. I believe the founding fathers were concerned about the government, hence the reason for inclusion of the 2nd amendment (we had just won our freedom). I am not really concerned about tyrannical government taking control today, but history is rife with occurrences of that. I keep my rifles for the enjoyment of shooting them.
Piers, you took great exception to Mr. Shapiro's 'standing on the grave' comment, don't blame you. However, the way you feel/felt is exactly how many gun owners (myself included) felt when individuals in the media and gun control advocates were portraying gun owners as unfeeling, or uncaring about the children whenever we disagreed with the idea of gun control. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Worth The Read – > w w w . b o b m u n d e n . c o m / m o r e – i n f o / f o u n d i n g – f a t h e r – n o t e s /
also w w w . g o o d r e a d s . c o m Book " I n The Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob = 56 other books by the man
Just prior to your show, I watched Vice President Biden paint a mental image of dead children "riddled with bullets", repeating it again, driving home a picture in peoples mind. I understand he is was trying to emphasize the severity of what happened, however thought that type of graphic description was insensitive to any of the family and friends of those children (and the adults murdered).
Uh... it's called psyops!
CNN, are you censoring? Still cannot finish post. Hmm?
I had the same problem last night, my comments weren`t getting posted. No tinfoil hat, but it made me wonder too!
There seem to be key words that trigger the censorship. Had to 'wordsmith' it while maintaining the intended meaning.
One paragraph missing. CNN would not let me provide a comparison on how fast magazines can be changed out.
Finally. We cannot stop illegal drugs from coming into this country. How on earth would we stop illegals guns or banned magazines from entering? Finishing on that note, it is only criminals dealing in the drug trade. Who do you thinking would be dealing in the 'banned weapons' trade? Some of the exact same people we do not want to have guns now...the criminals.
Throwing around the little book just shows how arrogant Piers is and how little respect he has for America. Why does CNN continue to subject us to this kind of insult?
OMG, Shapiro is the most annoying person. He pushes to get his way by talking fast and bullying people. Hmm, I wonder how he would look at the automatic rifle situation if it was one of his children that was killed. Also, the continued argument of being able to have these weapons in order to fight against the "tyranny" of our government is ridiculous and paranoid. As citizens of the U.S. isn't it our job to support the concerns of these matters and take into account the damage that has been done to so many citizens just like us, who are children, parents, grandparents, friends and resolve the issues?
First off, AR-15s are not automatic. They're semi-automatic. Furthermore, I wouldn't expect you to know this but there is such thing as a 10 round revolver. A semi-automatic functions very similarly to a revolver. In the case of a revolver, one trigger pull fires one round and the cylinder rotates another bullet into position. An AR-15 fires one round per trigger pull and its spring loaded magazine moves the next bullet into position. So if we're actually being honest here, a AR-15 with a 10 round magazine and a 10 round revolver will fire at the same rate. In light of this, logically it couldn't be about the gun and nor could it be about the ammo since many hunter bullets are far more powerful than the AR-15's .223. The real issue is magazine capacity. Nobody needs a 100 round drum magazine that is not even standard issue for the military.
I would be to differ with you that as citizens it is absolutely our concern to consider matters of tyranny. History has show over and over again in the 20th century that governments murder their own people to the toon of hundreds of millions of innocents. . In fact, currently the international community is worried that Syria is going to gas it's own people.
Gas them with gas sent over from Iraq in the months prior to the invasion in 2003.
Tyranny has happened in our own country as well. Remember Kent State, Waco TX, and Ruby Ridge?
Why should anyone have to listen to Piers Morgans opinion, he suppose to interview people, not stand on his soap box. Stop watching this crap, maybe watch a real interviewer like Charlie Rose. I totally agree with the statement that he is trying to get better rating's standing on the graves of children. Shame on him.
Shapiro is correct – Piers is a bully. Piers refuses to listen to any points from another perspective. He continually interupts and belittles guests who have a different view point so they cannot make their point. The only point Piers wants to have aired is his own. Unfortunately Piers is not capable of self reflection and his show is all about him; it's not an "interview."
Here's to Piers!
Shapiro was excellent, and was operating at a level somewhat above PM. In fact, I don't think Piers Morgan could even follow what Shapiro was saying. That's why he fell back on his tired script, "Do you know what gun did this or that." Irrelevant. Shapiro was smiling, I believe, because he could see PM's eyes glassing over as he (PM) was clearly out of his depth. The point that Shapiro was making, that danger could appear in the form of the US Government, is significant. Look at recent world history: the countries that Shapiro listed had governments that usurped the rights of the people. Consider our civil war: two governments within our borders that made war against each other. What is irrational is to say, "it couldn't happen here." The Founding Fathers knew that – hence the Second Amendment.
your a red coat peninsula sucker and have a union jack soooo up your as% you can't whistle DIXY !
IF you look at the wording in the second amendment it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA". A key word is "REGULATED". The founding fathers had the foresight to realize that regulation was necessary.
In 1776 the military was very small so we needed local militias. We now have the most powerful military in the history of the world, not to mention the National Guard and local police departments. We also have checks and balances that are a safeguard from internal tyranny.
Tyranny HAS happened here. They were called Kent State, Waco TX, and Ruby Ridge.
Mr Sharpiro made sensible, logical statements while Piers employed his usual tactic of ad-hominem attacks and fallacious emotional arguments. He also seems to be repeating the same rhetorical questions over and over again and the reciting the same statistic despite the fact it was thoroughly debunked many times by John Lott.
It's great to at least see him bring on intellectuals who can discredit his inane and redundant arguments rather than that baboon that was frothing at the mouth the other night, which was likely not meant to be a debate in the first place, but to further Piers' agenda.
Piers you need to target the ammo! Take away the bullets, they are not protected by the second ammendment.
After all that is what killed!
Actually they are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms, means loaded weapons. That's already been tried and upheld.
The Brits don't want him. "According to one report Mr Morgan refused the demand to apologise, was sacked and immediately escorted from the building," In a statement the Mirror said it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and that it would be "inappropriate" for Morgan to continue.
This guys is a jerk! Wow!
lets see, here are some facts
1. 151 Victims of Mass Shootings in 2012 (11,493 people died from gun homicides)
2. In America on average, nearly 12,000 people die every year in DUI-related accidents.
3. Smoking kills on average, 1200 Americans every day (on average of 400k a year)
4. The highest speed limit in the USA is 75 mph (Texas just passed 85 mph on one stretch of freeway and is considering lowering it back to 75) press release says that in 2010, 10,530 people lost their lives in speeding-related non dui car accidents in the U.S.
well it looks like more people are killed from drunk driving and smoking cigs then guns so how come alcohol and cigs are not banned or made illegal?
so with the highest speed limit being 75 in usa why do they make cars able to go faster than that? how come cars or not banned on having the ability to go faster then the nations speed limit? why are they produced and products made that allow them to go in some cases 3 times the speed limit? how come this is allowed?
well i will tell you why – MONEY – the usa makes boatloads of money off of alcohol, cigs with taxes and traffic tickets – if this stuff kills the same amount or more people in the usa than guns why are they allowed? but yet they want to do away with guns, this above should be dealt away with also cause it kills just as many and more people. some will say well it doesnt kill in masses like guns, lol. does it matter on that in the end it kills just as many or more
pretty interesting read there – here is one part very interesting
The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
notice #3 – now this is the us government attorneys saying this
Our government provided training and weapons to al qaeda and other terrorists (will give them the benefit of the doubt in maybe they didnt know were terrorist at that time) – also a fact they gave 1000's (over 2000 that is known) of guns to drug cartels and when it came to light they claimed it was a failed botch to catch them – but yet this is same government that wants to take away weapons from its citizens while they arm the terrorist and cartels
Consequences of Gun Control:
PERPETRATOR or GOVERNMENT DOING the KILLING: Uganda 1955-1970
Victims: Christians, Political Rivals NUMBER Murdered (estimate): 300,000 INNOCENTS
Date of GUN CONTROL Law: 1955-1970
PERPETRATOR or GOVERNMENT DOING the KILLING: SOVIET UNION: 1929-1953
Victims: Anti-Communists; Anti-Stalinist’s:
NUMBER Murdered (estimate): 20,000,000 MILLION INNOCENTS
Date of GUN CONTROL Law: 1929
PERPETRATOR or GOVERNMENT DOING the KILLING: NAZI GERMANY & Occupied Europe 1933-1945
Victims: Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis: NUMBER Murdered (estimate): 13,000,000 MILLION INNOCENTS
Date of GUN CONTROL Law:1928-1938
we should remember history and learn from it
Rick. Excellent points, thank you. Many gun control advocates seem to have a short memory and an inability to place accountability where it belongs...with the individuals committing crimes.
thank you - also here is a very short quickly looked up list of where concealed guns saved lives - notice the one where the school principal saved the day
how about these were citizens stopped killers
armed citizens actually saved the cop http://cdllife.com/2012/trucker-life/video-armed-citizen-stops-shooting-spree/
On Dec. 17, 1991, Thomas Glenn Terry, who was at the Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Ala., and carrying his .45 caliber handgun, confronted a trio of would-be robbers and possible assassins. In a firefight, he killed one and wounded a second. The armed robbers, one of whom was wanted for murder, had 20 customers and employees in a walk-in freezer.
On Oct. 1, 1997, in Pearl, Miss., Joel Myrick, the assistant principal of Pearl High School, ran to his car to retrieve his .45-caliber handgun and proceeded to confront Luke Woodham, who had killed his mother, then drove to the school to shoot others. When Myrick confronted Woodham, the carnage was stopped.
On April 24, 1998, at the Parker Middle School dance, held at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., restaurant owner James Strand confronted shooter Andrew Jerome Wurst, who had shot to death a teacher and wounded three other individuals. The confrontation prompted Wurst to stop his killings.
On Dec. 9, 2007, Jeanne Assam, an armed security guard, fired her weapon at Matthew Murray, who had murdered four people at the New Life Christian Church and the nearby Youth with a Mission in Colorado Springs. Murray, who by then had killed two and wounded four others, shot himself after being wounded by Assam, who shot him with her personal weapon.
On May 25, 2008, Ernesto Villagomez entered a bar and proceeded to gun down four people, killing two at the crowded Players Bar and Grill in Winnemucca, Nev. An armed patron at the bar drew his licensed handgun and fired at Villagomez, killing him and preventing further bloodshed.
On Dec. 11, 2012, Nick Melli, who was at the Clackamas Mall near Portland, Ore., drew his licensed pistol and aimed at Jacob Tyler Roberts, who had fired at least 20 rounds, killing two and injuring others. Upon seeing Melli aiming at him, Roberts stopped his killing spree and killed himself.
Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
You need to stop watching Doomsday Preppers.
Hey, don't be talking bad about one of my favorite shows. LOL
Rick, cars are used to get people from point A to point B. Guns are used to kill people. I feel sorry for you.
Semi auto rifles are a means of defense in the right hands, but saying a car is for getting people around is just naive lthats like saying planes just fly us around. Have you forgotten the 3000 plus killed by a means of transportation.
Rick you forgot one important historical fact when siting the tragedies of the past
USA 2012 over 11,000 gun related deaths. Tisk, tisk America
Shapiro is a disgrace. He didn't want to be lumped in with the raving lunatic that is Alex Jones, yet he couldn't resist resorting to the same childish techniques of obscuring and avoiding the crux of the issue and also mocking Mr. Morgan's British accent in the same way Jones did. Frankly, the way that these extremely defensive pro-gun representatives are arguing their case – by avoiding direct answers, bulldozing, insulting, patronizing and even threatening Mr. Morgan just goes to show how ugly this facet of American society really is. As Mr. Morgan said all too poignantly, Shapiro made his case crystal clear.
I'm sure an educated man such as yourself should have been able to discern the credible points on both sides. Try not to let your emotions and closed mind get in the way.
Tyranny from "elected government"????? ok assuming even if that can happen you can have all kinds of rifles as many as you want, government has nuclear weapons once again "nuclear". If they turn tyrannical, they cab blast every gun owner's ass into pieces in seconds. Try firing AR 15 on an incoming ballistic missile.
Nuclear weapons against one's own country. Sorry but you got me laughing on that one. Well hopefully we're smart enough to stop that before it happens. There are safeguards in place to prevent such things, unless of course everyone went crazy at the same time. Then these debates are a mute point.
As well, Mr. Shapiro does not speak for all gun owners, however his reasoning for maintaining guns follows what the founding fathers intended. Lest you forgot, we had just won our freedom from an unjust monarchy. They wanted to make sure people had the means to fight if another monarchy established itself.
Take a look a Egypt. What did the new President there do? Did the people stand for it?
Shapiro answered Pier's question at least 3 times on why civilians need AR-15's. Piers is incompetent and was outmatched which is why he had to keep asking the same question over and over.
Since when do law abiding citizens need a reason to have anything? Whether it's an AR 15 or a car that will go 200 mph. Both have the potential to cause damage. Who is the one that gets to tell me what I can or cannot have. Is it Piers Morgan? I don't think so. As far as I am concerned, in a free society we should be able to have what ever we want, as long as we don't hurt others with it. So if I am on a motorbike that will do 200 mph and I hit someone and kill them, do we ban all motorcycles? When will people like Piers Morgan start asking the real hard questions, like WHY are we killing each other. What about all the video games that are watched that are nothing more than killing exercises. As usual, people like Piers don't like to talk about real solutions, just the ones that are useless.
Finally altered the text enough for CNN to allow one post.
Wow is right. First, Piers thank you for keeping it more civilized than some of your previous interviews. Though I do not believe you intended to be insulting, 'your little book' and throwing it on the table. Really? Definitely not appropriate. You may have as well have thrown down a US flag and called it 'your little cloth'.
Second, Mr. Shapiro was correct on many points. I believe the founding fathers were concerned about the government, hence the reason for inclusion of the 2nd amendment (we had just won our freedom). I am not really concerned about tyrannical government taking control today, but history is rife with occurrences of that. I keep my rifles for the enjoyment of shooting them.
Third, you took great exception to Mr. Shapiro's 'standing on the grave' comment, don't blame you. However, the way you feel/felt is exactly how many gun owners (myself included) felt when individuals in the media and gun control advocates were portraying gun owners as unfeeling, or uncaring about the children whenever we disagreed with the idea of gun control. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Just prior to your show, I watched Vice President Biden paint a mental image of dead children "riddled with bullets", repeating it again, driving home a picture in peoples mind. I understand he is was trying to emphasize the severity of what happened, however thought that type of graphic description was insensitive to any of the family and friends of those children (and the adults murdered).
Banning high capacity magazines. Would it do any good? Has anyone looked at how fast magazines can be changed out. Very quickly for a practiced individual.
Finally. We cannot stop illegal drugs from coming into this country. How on earth would we stop illegals guns or banned magazines from entering? Finishing on that note, it is only criminals dealing in the drug trade. Who do you think would be dealing in the 'banned weapons' trade? Some of the exact same people we do not want to have guns now...the criminals.
Be concerned. History does indeed repeat itself unless we learn from our group past experience. History seldom lies and you can trust ignorance and corrupt government to enslave it's citizens. Look at the past world history and you will realize what uncheck government powers do to destroy it's citizens. Great and vast power is absolute if unchecked and monitored.
The argument to keep assault weapon to fight against the "tyranny" of our government is totally unbelievable and ridiculous. If government really wants to take control than it has many more powerful weapons than high capacity magazines and semiautomatic guns. No sensible person should believe this paranoid argument.
not true - most of the army or police will not carry out orders they know are against citizens - the government themselves (the what is it 356 of them) cant do anything without military being behind them
I agree, plus with regards to Militia:
IF you look at the wording in the second amendment it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The term "Regulated" meant well-drilled or well trained in that era.
Few internal checks and balances or safe guards remain in this government. What do you thing the extended powers of the CIA, FBI, HLS, et al amount to? Freedom and liberty of the American citizen Or, an Orwellian future – my bet is on George Orwell and 1984. I doubt the populace of this country will awaken from it's slumber until long after it is to late to do so.
What is regulated in the 2nd amendment is the militia, not the arms of the people. The the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But if we ever have to consolidate to fight for our freedom against our own govt, then we will need to conform to our unit's regulations so we succeed at our mission.
Cops will do the bidding of the government. They do it all the time especially during Katrina. You live in a bubble. Step out of the suburbs and see what life is really like in the real world.
My point exactly. By Ben's reasoning we should all be able to own hand grenades, rocket launchers and nukes. As long as we don't have a criminal record or mental health issues
Our govt has already tyrannized us: Kent State, Waco TX, and Ruby Ridge. They won't need to mass kill us. Just frighten us into submission with just going after the "crazies."
an actual study of mass shootings.
one point for PM, more people were killed with blunt objects last year than rifles, assault style rifles being a subset.
I found this interview fascinating and have remained neutral thoughout this weeks gun guest interviews. However, after the Larry Pratt and Ben Shapiro interviews, I must say that tonight IMHO the pro-gun advocates have won the debate. Piers knows this which is why he has progressively become unhinged in his comments and personal attacks. I also found it quite telling, that when Mr. Shapiro called him out to answer "why he didn't want to ban handguns" which account for 80% of crime, PIERS REFUSED TO ANSWER. Seems to me theres a different agenda in play when Piers/CNN go after a specific weapon that actually accounts for a very small percentage of overall crime. I have reconsidered my position as such and am now seriously considering buying my first handgun based on the apparent rush to judgement which seems illogical by the BO administration. After tonight I believe Piers/CNN should reevaluate their stance as I believe they are losing the arguments to independants such as myself and to others in the court of public opinion.
I wonder if Piers has seen this:
As the british would say ”bravo mr.shapiro bravo!”
Why is a 15 year old boy so worried about our country going tyrannical? Shouldn't he be doing his homework?
Really? That's the best you can come up with? Wow.
It's obvious that you have the history knowledge of a 15 year old. Not to mention maturity level.
Our FOUNDERS were worried about our own govt going tyrannical. And they have proved they sometimes do so: Kent State, Waco TX, and Ruby Ridge.
When someone doesn't have a logical argument that whip out the personal attack card. I'm sorry but this card has been overdrawn on this issue way too much by people that don't have one logical nor rational argument that will stick.
These people have NO argument and the 2nd amendment was put in place how many years ago??? Tyranny....really? It won't happen again in our lifetime...if it did, nuclear weapon will wipe us all out. Then will your little 'right to bare arms' amendment get you and your little guns???? People really need to wake up and quit saying...2nd amendment. We are so beyond that time period and putting guns in lunatic hands like Alex Jones just confirms the ignorance of these type of people thinking that guns solve problems. Look at the victims faces and then put your own family's faces on their bodies...guns will not solve the problem. Nor do civilians need military weapons. They are good for one thing and one thing only....war. Now unless you as a war machine carrying civilian are planning to take out a few hundred people, YOU DON NOT NEED A MILITARY WEAPON. How many people have to keep saying this? Thank God for Piers and the stance he is taking. Problem is, these people still don't hear him because they are so worried that their toys will be taken away. They shouldn't have been allowed to purchase them in the first place. If that had been the case, the innocent victims who have lost their lives and were killed by these weapons would still be here. THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!!!! It's not about 'right' or 'left'....it's just plain COMMON SENSE.
A semi automatic weapon is not a military weapon. The military has fully automatic weapons. And tyranny HAS ALREADY happened in our lifetime: Kent State, Waco TX, and Ruby Ridge.
AR 15s are "sub-standard rifles" for military use because they are semi-autos. The military uses fully automatic rifles which are appropriately called assault weapons.
Some people believe every piece of misinformation that comes out of Morgan's mouth LOL.
All it takes is a google or youtube search "Difference between semi-automatic and automatic guns" Search now and reply back if you see how deceptive Morgan is when he mentions "millitary style assault rifle"...you'll find nothing could be further from the truth!
I like your first statement. I believe the M-16 is a sub-standard rifle for military use.
Why is it that everyone that talks about keeping guns seems so hostile? They all seem to be angry and can't even listen to the other side? That is what scares me. You go PM....we need you. Thanks
We keep talking and the shooter keep shooting.
Guns like Asbestos come with product Hazard Liability. Not a govt fight. We will settle it via product liability battle like Asbestos Cases.
Affected families should bring law suites on the estate of the shooter and their families and the tool of choice manufacturer. That should get some immediate traction. It is the guns and it is simple.
lol – sure the same day beer and alcohol makers are held liable for drunks – or the car makers for making vehicles accessible to drunks
So following your logic. If you hit me with your car, I should not only hold you accountable, but your whole family and the car manufacturer. It wasn't just your fault but everybodies.
How about this. When a murdered gets 90 years in prison, if he dies before the term is up, we should throw his kids in jail to finish his sentence. What an idiotic notion!
How about we hold individuals individually responsible and accountable.
It was great to see someone shut down piers morgan he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. The fact that piers said its "absurd" to believe our government will go tyrannical further illustrates America's ignorance NDAA anybody? Tyranny can't be too far though I don't think it'll be in my life time
You're absolutely correct. It's astounding how many Americans are oblivious to what is really going on. What makes it astounding is that it's all happening in broad daylight!!! Yet 95% of Americans are more concerned about who wins American Idol and whether their team wins on Sunday, Monday, or Thursday.
Shapiro was fast talking, but I guess you have to be to get anything in with Peirs these days. Had some good points, but I still think there is way to much focus on the AR-15 over what there is about it that makes it a problem. It is a poor excuse for a weapon in my book. Don't like it, but don't think you can ban a weapon without a good reason. The only reason I have heard is that it shoots to many bullets. That is just the magazine that allows that.
Morgan has said the next step is to ban all guns like England, he is against the 2nd amendment. Assault style weapons are a small percent of crime in this country. A ban is the cheapest action the government can take.But we will send money to protect foreign governments, or our own officials.
CNN censoring posts. SHOCKING! Why does anyone care what Piers Morgan has to say about anything? He's not a U.S. citizen. He's an imbecile. Anyone that can even bear to listen to him speak is an imbecile. His own country doesn't want him back. Baaaaaaahhhhhh sheeple.
Bravo Mr. Shapiro! In an obviously hostile environment, you were able to explain coherantly why many of us believe strongly in our Second Amendment and are saddened when a murderer uses ANY tool to kill innocent people. Your agruements were full of logic and reasoning unlike the hosts! By the way, I never did hear an answer to Mr. Shapiro's question about whether Morgan supports a ban on handguns which are statistically used 16 times more often to kill each year than all types of rifles! I wonder why that is...a bit of an agenda there Piers Morgan!
What part of the 2nd amendment restricts or defines what guns we're allowed to use? The law works in a restrictive way. You're allowed to do whatever you wish, as long as the law doesn't say you can't. That means, if the 2nd amendment doesn't define what weapons you're allowed or not allowed, you can only stand to reason it's "whatever you want."
The idea that we need "assault" weapons to protect us from a possible future government "tyranny" is so ridiculous.
With that logic we should all need tanks, bazookas, machine guns,etc......
just in case.
In a word, this guy was advocating sedition.
That is ridiculous! I never heard him say anything about taking up arms against the government. He said the 2nd Amend. was there to protect against a tyrannical government should that ever happen...as his has many times throughout history!
Piers you asked why people need to own an AR 15. Why do we need to own a car that can do 120 mph when the speed limits are 75mph? Why do you want to own a 2500 sqft home when you only need a 500sqft home? Why do you want to eat a certain food versus another food?
That is an absurd question to try to pin some one down on!!
for the people who don't thing there goverment can turn on them and kill them these people didn't
Your reference includes Richard Nixon and LBJ as perpetrators of mass genocide during the Vietnam War, counting about 100,000 people as victims. Was that Vietnamese or American casualties? And are you saying we need guns in case we need to stop some President from waging war in some place like, say, Iraq or Afganistan? Really? (And, btw, was Osama Bin Laden really a perpetrator of mass genocide for master-minding the destruction of the WTC or just a war criminal we needed to take out? Your assault rifle in Scranton really came in helpful during Zero Dark Thirty.)
Piers got told tonight! Good job Shapiro!
I didn't like piers "narcissist" Morgan on America's Got Talent, and can't stand him here! He's a narcissistic fool! All he know how to do is bully his guests! Ship him back to England where they can out him jail for his crimes!
The kid's right ! BAN ALL GUNS!
How dare you come to my country and have any thing to say on this. Shut up Mr. Morgan, go home let us deal with our problems not you.
Tonight was the night you saw Morgan as he really is. Not to smart and clearly a bully.
Morgan asked why do you need these guns?
Morgan said you got to start some where automatic guns are out law, the next level is semiautomatic guns. And the next step is what Morgan? How many of these people were told this?
Ben Shapiro said that Morgan stands on the graves of the kids. but our fear of our own government is due to the many graves we see here that didn’t fear there’s!
The fact is, this gentleman was correct, and you should have listened as opposed to just arguing.
He stated that any sign of an irresponsible gun ownership – criminal background, mental illness – even if within the family, suggesting these guns be locked up, is exactly the position to take. It will rule out everything except illegally accessed guns.
But the fact remains clear: just 2-3/3-4,000,000 mentally ill people have committed such a violent crime. IT IS A RARITY. To place that on the rest of the population as a sample is incorrect. These are outliers in data.
But you say, we need to prevent this. The answer is exactly to identify the possible problems, and eliminate those. While you can never completely control it, it will limit it.
As the case for tyrannical government, it is my opinion that we are there already, it's just waiting to surface. That said, yes, people do have the need to carry military-style weapons, to defend themselves against a government that doesn't function for them. The fact is, unarmed civilians protesting has proven to achieve nothing today, whereas in the past it achieved a lot. This is a problem today. And unfortunately, unless they arm themselves protests all across the western world will only be silenced. These are protests for societal advance – DO YOU CONSIDER THAT INVALID?
There are many things to consider here – don't just take a simple stance. Fully consider all arguments. Find the problem areas. The fact is, you can't totally prevent these things – so then what do you do? Criminals are by far more dangerous in america than the terminally ill. What is your answer to that?
Not only are we "already there" but we HAVE BEEN THERE. Remember Kent State, Waco TX, and Ruby Ridge? Yes, our own govt has been gunning us down for years.
I'm so sick of this Brit. Always talking down to Americans. Why do we tolerate this jerks condescending remarks. He's constantly comparing; England in the good and the USA as dysfunctional. Would the English tolerate an American criticizing the Brits every night on national TV.?
Okay who was that litlle Eddie Munster lookin nut? annoying.. another little Alex Jones... Piers do you ever get sick of people accusing you of being against the 2nd Amendment? i never heard you say you were aganist the 2nd Amendment, the only thing i ever heard you say was you were against assult weapons and i agree i dont think anyone should own own....and certainly not this Ben Shapiro...so far i havent heard one NRA person give the real reason for the 2nd Amendment i bet they don't even know what its about and theyre spewing crazy nonsense they are the ones standing on the graves of the Sandy Hook Children with all their anger and hatred and if they think the Government is out to get them, well their playing right into the hands of the Government the fools that they are...
The "Eddie Munster looking nut" GAVE the NRA reason for the 2nd amendment. To prevent tyranny from our own govt. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or even crime. England was taking our guns. THIS govt was not going to be able to do that because we the people would have parity with the govt. Except, our govt IS taking our guns and running us down and shooting us. Kent State, Waco TX, Ruby Ridge.
So while we wait for the day 100 years from now when the Government which is elected by the people turns on its own people, we keep sacrificing the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year (10,000 lives lost to guns on average every year, 100,000 lives in 10 years, 200,000 lives in 20 years?) Wow! that's a HUGE price to pay. It is sad that as a country, we accept such a ridiculous existence. I rather live today without the fear of someone carrying an assault weapon and taking out an entire classroom out in a matter of minutes. A right to own an assault weapon is not more important than the lives of our precious little kids in schools, innocent shoppers in a mall, casual movie goers in a theatre, attendees at a temple, first responders or lives of our police officers. We have the right to live.
"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."
Piers, I tuned in for 5 minutes tonight to find you being the same arrogant ass you have been for weeks. You are incredibly unprofessional and CNN is irresponsible for continuing to allow you on air. It's nothing but ratings to you & them. Here in America we all have different opinions but we RESPECT each other. We do not INSULT those whose opinions differ from our own. We LISTEN more than we speak. We do not speak when others are speaking. Go back to kindergarten Piers, and please do so in your beloved country, in which you do not choose to live! You, and so-called journalists like you, are a big part of the problem in America today. You choose to inflame others instead of find common ground and work together. Your arrogance is disgusting!
Just watched your episode on gun control where you asked if if he really thinks our government would turn on us and if American's really need "Assault Weapons". I really wish he would have pointed out that Syria's people have raised up against their government and are in fact winning. They have assault weapons and high capacity magazines so to say American's shouldn't be able to own these just in case is crazy in my mind.
Don't get me wrong I'm in full support of background checks that are not public and if a member of your household is classified as "at risk" then the person should lock up their firearms. It's just that simple. If they don't they need to be sent to the courts and dealt with accordingly to the law.
Wow, that kid destroyed Piers in the debate!!!!
Piers was outmatched as usual. Don't let his faux emotion fool you. PM doesn't care about these kids and he probably doesn't care much at all about violence issues. If he did, he would have had specials on the Chicago problem a long time ago. This is all ratings for him. He pretends to care because then fools with think he's worth listening to. Trust me, he's not a good person.
I wonder how long he'll revel in the blood of gradeschoolers for a ratings spike. We all get it, neither PM or his guests are probably going to convince their opposition. The villians here after the tragedy are those like PM who are trying to up their otherwise poor ratings by dancing in the blood of children.
Pierce missed an opportunity in this interview. Ben's reasoning for the need for AR15's was due to the threat of tyranny, I am curious if Ben thinks grenades and rocket launchers should also be legal for responsible citizens. Maybe I should be able to have my own nuke...that AR15 is going to be worthless if there was really some sort of government tyranny with it's military. That argument is rediculous...and rediculously paranoid.
Well Greg, I don't think everyone in the government, military, and police are going to go crazy all at once, still, maybe you need to review a little world history. I am not concerned about government tyranny but wonder if others thought the same thing before being exterminated.
With my guns I can provide food, protect, and have fun. My AR is mostly for fun, but can accomplish it all.
All these comments about nukes are delusional. A resistance armed with AR-15's could make a stand. Look at what the Viet Cong did to the US even though they were "out-gunned." The VC had AK's and small munitions while the US had extensive artillery and strong air support.
Everyone that thinks a tyrannical gov would use nukes to take over is delusional and has absolutely no clue about tactical warfare.
I mentioned those points as well. If Ben could slow his wish to win an argument long enough to admit there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, I think smoke would start coming out his ears. All he really disagrees with is where. Of course he might be nuts.
Way to hold your own, Shapiro! Piers Morgan is such a bully!!!!!
Piers Morgan is responsible for Newtown Massacre! Piers was glorifying guns on December 13, the NIGHT BEFORE the Newtown shootings, on CNN. Piers said “Given what happened in Aurora. Do you feel comfortable that TOMORROW another unstable 21-22 year old kid, who maybe watching this very show, may be inspired to go out and do exactly the same thing.” Watch Piers Morgan vs Allan Gottlieb on youtube with 11:05 left.
So, Piers is responsible for Newtown. And I suppose you think our government is going to go "tyrranical" too? What next? Dinosaurs are going to re-awaken? This is ridiculous.
The media is partly responsible for Newtown.
Yes! He even admits it during the interview! Watch it!
Ronald Reagan once said that we are never more than a generation away from losing our freedom. Look at Germany during the 1910s. It was a social welfare state, had a great deal of culture, and was one of the few literate nations in the word. I bet there were many naive Germans who, like you, never believed their government could become a tyranny in just 20 years.
I bet Peirs Morgan gets a Christmas card from the gun manufactures this next year. He has done a lot for increasing gun sales. Especially of the very weapon he seems to hate so much.
Why doesn't Pierce ask these people how they think they can stand up to the might of the US army with piddly AR 15 s ?
If they indeed want to stand up to "government tyranny" they should amass tanks and rocket propelled bombs !!! They need to have everything the army has otherwise it is pointless! So – will they support everyone owning military weapons???
A resistance armed with AR-15's could make a stand. Look at what the Viet Cong did to the US even though they were "out-gunned." The VC had AK's and small munitions while the US had extensive artillery and strong air support.
That is so far from the truth look at Vietnam , the Russian afghan war, our war in Afghanistan, and the British never thought we could over come their might . You people who want to band guns are so blind to history. And then you might say, just like pm, we don't want to band hand guns. Well if you do your fact checks the hand gun are the ones that are doing the majority of The killing and most of those are by criminals that should not have a weapon.
Guys - Martians are coming are we going to save against Martians? We must buy Inter Planetary missile and launchers..
I am surprised to see so many "paranoid" souls in normal bodies....I am actually concerned by these folks than any government or martians invading us!
Dear Mr. Morgan: Thank you for hosting debates on gun control. As I have been watching these debates, I have come to believe that we don 't have to look at the threat of outside terrorism, we have our own "American made terrorists". terrorists. These are the people who insist that it is acceptable that assault weapons are sold to the general public using the travesty of self defense in case of governmental changes leading to tyranny.... It is insane. People who mention a return of the 1776 government situation scare me. They appear to be paranoid, obtuse and threatening.
For God's sake, laws must be implemented to secure EVERYBODY'S RIGHT TO ENJOY ONE'S FREEDOM AND SAFETY. Thank you for all you are doing.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana
Nazi Germany was only 70 years ago....
We're now hearing about another terrible school shooting tragedy in California today, apparently the assailant used a shotgun. You really have to wonder how much our 24 hour news media is to blame for promoting copycat shootings, as there always seems to be a rash of them following the intense media coverage of a major tragedy. PM is all over this one, I can see he will be calling for a ban on shotguns next. As editor of Britain's Daily Mirror tabloid, Morgan's paper led a relentless national media campaign to confiscate and ban the private ownership of handguns in Britain. Semiautomatic sporting rifles are just the thin end of the wedge, and the gun control lobby have just found the right person to do the job.
Ya know,First of all guns are for hunting if you need more then a shotgun or a 6 shot revolver, you probaly in a bad place leave or call for help! for all these wouldnt have happen like that if there were no assualt rifles and oversized clips, so the thing is how do you get rid of the ones that are out here you going to go door to door taking them?No So why change the laws, the people that want them have them......But the Gov. can take all of the assault rifles off shelves at stores and just quit selling the stuff you dont want ppl to have, and make it a felony if you are caught with one.
Stay in school Shawn!
haha atleast i have more to say unlike you. by the way i did comment on the topic,unlike you
I don't know what you been hunting, but you are under gunned for the animals I hunt.
@Jackie: And it is such a fair fight between you and the animals you kill. Let's apply NRA/Right Wing, literal interpretation of the Second Amendment to the defenseless animals you hunt. Arm your prey with guns and only then will you have a fair fight!
Well, I believe a Cap Buffalo is very well armed. Are the cows you been eating at Burger King well defended?
reasons for AR's are...
2nd amendment right
enabling the people to organize a militia system
deterring tyrannical government
facilitating a natural right of self-defense
participating in law enforcement
Wow, Shapiro had Piers against the ropes!! Piers was arrogant and rude, he wouldn't allow Shapiro to answer any of his questions and spoke over him constantly. I am heartened to see a push back against the liberal bullies that are ruining America .Ben Shapiro is my new HERO
The kid did a great job, but here is the answer to why American's should be allowed to have Semi-Automatics. 1st of all you keep referring to modification, but that doesn't make it a Semi-Automatic and in turn can't be included in the debate. I am not positive, but I do think that it is illegal to modify the semi-automatic so someone who is doing that is already breaking the law what will stop them from breaking it again? Also Piers said this statement "You have to start somewhere" which means one thing Semi-Automatic ban is the start of the Gun Ban, not the end of the solution. What he is saying that lets start there and then when we have shooting with a hand gun we will ban it next. If you don't like the laws in America then don't live here.
The one good thing I can say about Piers is that unlike his fellow television personalities on CNN, FOX or MSNBC he does not try to pretend to be a newsman, reporter or a journalist. I try to watch both left and right views on all topics. I read sources on both sides of most issues. But when Piers comes on, I have to change channels. He is the worst, most offensive bully on National television.
This is a complicated argument in this nation. It takes analysis of all angles – not just one narrow angle of 'well, we have these crimes and we cannot allow it'. The fact is, if you eliminate AR-15s, you've only eliminated 50/30,000 deaths in America. What do you propose for the rest? All guns are illegal? Think this through rather than just making assumptions..
Did Piers forget how the US got its independence? British citizens living in America thought that their government was tyrannical so they declared independence. The British got mad and invaded America to win back the land. These new US citizens were armed and fought for their right to stay here. After the red coats spilled enough blood they left America alone. Armed ordinary citizens is what got us independence. Being armed is what America is and I find it funny that the host of British decent doesn't understand.
A pleasure to see an articulate individual refusing to be bullied by "King Morgan'. They must have invited you to be a guest in error. Congrats! You have my vote.
Very interesting interview! I enjoyed it, but must say Shapiro did made complete sense to my personal view. Regardless of "breaking Shapiro's tactic" Shapiro did stand his ground. Although Piers doesn't believe anyone should own any guns he doesn't sincerely seems he cannot respect others who disagree with him. The way one speaks with someone else says much as about that person and how open they are to others viewpoints. Unfortunately it doesn't seem Piers is extremely open to other points of view but insists that they are wrong. There is no common ground. That is where the problem is. I tried to listen with an open mind, and I do believe I did. I indeed do respect Piers views, but we must not forget we live in a human world that cannot ever be perfect. The possibly of government becoming corrupt is always possible. Taking away guns from responsible citizens is truthfully a difficult issue, but I do not know exactly where the line is to be drawn. More intense background checks are a logical step, but you cannot prevent ALL of these school shootings without taking ALL guns off of the streets which would be a nearly impossible task. I'm still forming my opinion about this issue, and I will forever will be. I do wish Piers was more acceptable of others viewpoints.
When Pierce asked Ben Shapiro " was the mother of the shooter a good guy or a or bad guy/" Ben answered "She was irresponsible". I was hoping that Pierce had asks ben Shapiro, " How can the Government monitor responsible from irresponsible people? You can check criminal back ground but there is no way you can monitor irresponsible people. Also when Shappiro said that AR-15 is to protect civilians against the government, the answer is: Imagin people shoot Govenment employees, policemen, soldiers and Government shoot civilians, what would be the outcome? Everyone will die. If 6 million people dies by Hitler, imagin how many will die if there is a war between Government and civilians. 60 million will die. This scenarion never happened in the history of mankind and I hope it will never happen . It happened in germany because Hitler was a dictator. It will never happen in USA because we do not have dictatorship in our country. This is a democracy and not a dictatorship. Shappiro is an idiot even bringing it up.
Our Military will NEVER fire on it's own people !!!!!!!!!!!! MORON
They already did! They murdered US citizens Al Awlaki and his son with a drone and without due process.
Our national guard killed kids at Kent State and Waco, TX. Not sure which division of our own govt shot a family at Ruby Ridge. So yes, we have a tyrannical govt to keep in check.
ATF at Ruby Ridge. ATF was also at Waco. Alex Jones is more radical than the guys at Ruby Ridge and in the end, the guy that shot the ATF officer was found not guilty in a court of law. But these cases are really isolate and you have ten times the chance of being struck by lightning. Wait a minute, you have about the same odds of being involved in a school, theater or mall shooting.
Where do I sign?
My solution to reduce or help prevent these violent acts from occurring seems simple to me...place GPS chips/devices in "Assault Weapons" sold in the future. No "Responsible" gun owner would ever consider bringing this type of weapon on "School Grounds." No "Responsible" gun owner would consider removing the GPS chip/device from their weapon. Removal of the GPS chip/device should be a criminal offense. Owners of "Assault Weapons" used in crimes are subject to prosecution. GPS chips/devices in phones, cars, and pets can be easily tracked/traced. WHY NOT IN "ASSAULT WEAPONS?"
not bad, but it would not stop the school shooting crazies in time to save lives I think. They generally don t seam to care about what happens to them after.
Yes, just like ADT or any security system sends and alarm to a monitoring station or when someone attemps to shoplift...an alarm signals to School Administration/Police...etc!
Funny...not your post, but I used to work for vivint alarm. I assume your talking about some proximity to the school. nice to talk without the anger and arguing.
Exactly! Simple solution for a potential problem.
Personally, I like this idea, and would like to see it extended to handguns. But I suspect it would raise a lot of privacy concerns.
The only problem with this idea is that no responsible gun owner would bring their gun to school. It's the maniacs and the criminals that don't care to do that. They also don't care about it being a "criminal offense". Look at Adam Lanza and his cowardly exit strategy.
Atta Kid! Benjamin! I do not have the words for thanking you, or congradulating you on this interview....
its men not being fathers and its the movies that get them to thinking this is what a man is. Not guns movies and bad fathers or no fathers at all
Listening to Shapiro gives us all a clear vision of how sick these gun owners can be. Actually, I feel anyone that owns an AR15 should be given a psychiatric evaluation. Unfortunately for gun owners, The Government will win this argument and there is simply nothing anyone can do to stop it. I have friends that own these assault weapons and like Pierce, I have asked the same question of why does the average citizen need such a gun. Just like the fools Peirce asked, my friends also have never given me a good solid answer. The answers they gave were expected to be stupid because they are all Republicans. They all fell for that 911 story, The Great weapons of mass destruction story and had the nerve to vote for RomLiar. By the way, has anyone seen Mittsy since he got clocked?
Two observations from 65-year old female who owns her grandfather's single barrel shotgun with hand-made stock (which I consider adequate for my protection).
The second amendment gave us the right to keep and bear a musket.
Yes, it is possible for a government to turn on its citizens if it is taken over by the lunatic fringe. But the first guns it will confiscate are those owned by card-carrying members of the NRA.
Piers you are a classy guy but you need to be more aggressive with this idiots. Us has the best army in the world where others great army's from around the world fear and respect, and this idiots think that if it came down to it they going to win with their ar-15? What a joke!
I think the common sense interpretation is obviously that by 'militia' they are talking about an organised army in case of foreign threat. I think the founding fathers would roll over in their graves to see that it has been interpreted to mean that almost anyone can own a gun capable of killing dozens of people in schools and cinemas. I'm pretty sure this isn't what they meant.
And if this 'right to bear arms' is to be taken literally, where do the limitations to the capabilities of these 'arms' stop? Why not give people the right to own tanks, and grenades?
As always, Piers gets his pro-gun guests to prove his own point. I mean really Shapiro, if the only reason you can come up with is that there's a chance this democratic government may turn on its own people... well, it's really not a sensible reason at all is it? Another person who does not seem mentally fit to own a gun... Why does it always seem that the people who are most in favor of gun ownership are the people who should least be allowed anywhere near a gun?
Simply incredible!!! don't be fool, this is all about ratings...loved to watch PM be confronted by a very eloquent person Way to go Ben Shapiro!! Piers was angry, and it was Not good to see that. What a joke he is.
Wow, Piers Morgan finally gets an intelligent, pro-gun, debater waging a valid argument, and he just dismissed him as just another conservative nut! I'm a big fan of Piers but after watching how he reacted to a formidable opponent like Shappiro, It really makes me wonder if Piers crusade for gun control is in hopes of bettering society, or just bettering Piers Morgan. These two actually AGREED on the issue of background checks, Shappiro knew this, Piers refused to acknowledge it. You know Piers for someone who harps about the polarization of gun control politics, you seemed to demonstrate just that tonight.
Well the rest of the world at xmas time young children ,teenagers are unwrapping their iphones ,ipads. toys,video games but in the usa they unwrap machine guns. Its is a gun culture you cannot deny that and its just sad.Just imangine another 100 years of generations of machine guns. It makes me wonder why America is what it is.I think it a worry when you see young male and female Children/teenagers posing with their Xmas present. A couple of facts from `Business Insider` There are 15.000 more gun stores than grocery stores.There are as many gun dealers as gas stations.There are twice as many gun stores in America than McDonalds Restaurants. American gun companies made 5.5 million guns in 2010 and 95% sold to Americans.These 5 millions guns weren`t enough to satisfy American demand for guns so another 3.3 million were imported.I think it is time for those who don`t agree with Gun control to take a look at the figures and take their heads out of the sand and start to use common sense .In 1776 they didn`t write the 2nd amendment for semi automatics ,100 bullet clips.I would also like to say all pro gun people who start comparing gun control to road death or suicide or knives etc etc or whatever else,Its just changing the subject and its irrelevant .Because really the truth hurts
We are free...you are not
Shapiro was definitely articulate but also a bit pedantic. I think their discussion was actually the most productive of all the debates on Piers Morgan Tonight.
Unfortunately, the probability of tyranny requiring the use of the AR-15 for protection is remote compared to the probability another one will be used in a mass shooting. We've had at least 4 incidents in the last 8 months. Haven't seen tanks from the government rolling down my street, though.
Given this self-evident reality, Piers is right to argue that no civilian needs an AR-15, M4 Carbine, or similar weapons capable of causing massive casualties in a short period of time, with relatively little skill needed.
Piers is remarkably offensive as an interviewer. Coop has similar biases but he tries to listen to people with whom he does not agree. Unlike Anderson, Piers is incapable of hearing his opponents. That said, the topic warrants attention, Piers is just the wrong person to moderate the discussion. His personal bias is so extreme and he is so angry that a moderate discussion of pertinent issues is not possible. Come on CNN, this topic is too important to allow Piers to further inflame both sides of this issue. That said, I do have one question. Private ownership of guns is illegal in Mexico and yet gun deaths exceed 10,000/year. Why is this never discussed?
For the people on this page that obviously need reminding that keep bring up the facts that the second amendment is only for muskets and has nothing to do with people owning guns first look up the definition of the word arms and you should be able to understand what people are saying about owning modern guns and muskets. If not you did not pay attention in school go back and learn something this time.
So, should private ownership of SAMs (surface-to-air missles) be allowed in every American household because they fit the definition of "arms"?
GO HOME PM
Is there no one at CNN that understands the definition of a semiautomatic weapon? Even Newt just demonstrated his ignorance. A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON IS ONE THAT AUTOMATICALLY CHAMBERS ANOTHER ROUND AFTER EACH SHOT AND FIRES EACH TIME THE TRIGGER IS PULLED!! Newt, the police all carry semiautomatic handguns! Can someone at CNN explain this to Piers so that he can stop using the term as some sort of buzzword??
Do you think they don't know the difference? Of course they do.
Is just part of the plan. It is the same as when they call the AR15 a machine gun.
Buzzwords are what this is all about. No intelligent talk about guns. We need to get all them “Military style assault weapons” or they just call them “assault weapons”. Even heard “machine gun” a few times. All buzzwords and lies. The reason we outlawed fully automatic weapons was because of Clyde Barrow. His weapon of choice was the BAR. Now that is a weapon.
I hate to admit it, but this guy does make a good point about tyranny. Most other arguments fail, though. I also have to disagree with those who feel that a populace armed with civilian-style weapons stand no chance against a tyrannical regime. Sure they would be outgunned on a weapon-to-weapon basis. Drones alone would make it very dangerous for any civilian resistance. But 300 million plus simple .22 revolvers in the hands of the new Field Marshall's driver, gas station attendant, podiatrist, drive-through hamburger flipper, Tara card reader, gardner, concubine, Rolfer, gastroenterologist, preacher, money manager and house keeper would all but guarantee that a despot could not make it through day 1 of his new regime.
Now the argument for military-style assault weapons is much less convincing than to just arm everybody with a lever-action Winchester and a .22 Ruger semi-automatic. Much safer for the public and still a definite deterrent to tyranny. If I'm going to cut the hair of a tyrannical monster and I can't make do with a .22 or .38 special, then I shouldn't be armed at all.
I will take that one step further. That guy with is AR-15 and high capacity magazine better go easy on that trigger. Once he runs out of ammo, he will not be able to run down to the local Wal-Mart and get more. Any time there is ever called a cease fire, I can assure you that they want them snipers pulled back first. That would be any deer rifle with a scope. Wasting ammo isn't something you are going to want to do and using short range weapons are also something you are not going to want to do.
The people that are in love with guns are the biggest losers. They are afraid that if you take their guns away and there was a confrontation they might have to fight and use their hands wich they can't do because they are either to fat or to dorky so they would rather just shoot you.
What planet did you just step off of. Women are a very large group of gun owners in America. It doesn't matter how big you are or if you bring your buddy to do harm, these American women can deal with the situation. Maybe there are just tired of being victimized? Over in Britain, I guess it is how you say. You just do the best you can against the person or persons beating you to death with a baseball bat? Removing guns doesn’t remove crime. It only makes crime easier for criminals and with less fear of the victim.
I consider myself a liberal and try to keep an open mind. With that said, I feel Mr Shapiro had very convincing arguments. He really flustered Piers with unexpected common sense answers that apparently reduced him to repeat the same questions he asked Mr Jones and other pro gun guests. I have been trying to educate myself about guns before making emotionally charged statements about things I know nothing about. It's easy to stereo type and insult others based on their beliefs and opinions so I try to see what the other person is looking at before passing judgement. It doesn't seem like Piers has done his homework on guns, aren't most pistols and assault rifles semi automatic opposed to the military's fully automatic weapons? I've also heard that people are capable of shooting 3 -10 round magazines in about the same amount of time as shooting 1 – 30 round magazine, is that possible? I was also told that Mexico has a full gun ban but there was something like 50,000 plus gun murders last year? Someone also told me England has a gun ban and was Europe's highest violent crime rate country per 100,000 people in 2009? I guess I have to do some searching to confirm or dismiss some of this data... One pro gun person said to me imagine, me with my husband and kids at the front of the church and a man with a gun starts executing all the people at the back working his way to the front. What would you do? What could you do? What would you want to do to save your husband and kids? Makes a non gun owner think it would be nice to have someone in the middle of church with a gun to shoot this crazy before he gets to my family...
Thumbs up. Well said.
If there are people so fearful of of government tyranny, Why aren't people buying grenades, body armor, gas masks, and bunkers? This question was written because if government tyranny is really the excuse for my fellow citizens to have semiautomatic weapons. All I can say is good luck to anyone who thinks them and their semiautomatic gun could stand up to trained military soldiers with modern technology.
P.S. Anyone who thinks they and a small militia could stand up to government tyranny, I would just to let you know life is not a movie.
Will, people are buying body armor, and building bunkers and storing food. Also there are many more combat veterans than active duty military personnel.
Doomsday preppers. I bet Alex Jones is one.
If one were to follow the argument that possession of assault weapons should be permissible for defense against the federal government, by that logic ownership of tanks, mortars and fighter aircraft should be equally available to the public. The Civil War has already laid to rest the possibility of success of internal uprising against the Federal government. A club of gun owners will not fair much better than a confederation of states.
It is the Revolutionary War that brought about Declaration Of Independence and the 2nd Amendment. Look how that turned out!
In America all those things you mentioned are available.
Piers Morgan, I applaud you and your effort to continue these very important conversations. I agree with you and I am so glad you are holding each and every one of the interviews. i am a supporter of your show and am of the same mind-set as you in regards to gun control. Keep up your very appreciated work. Warm Regards
That should be "prospective" – and AR-15s are not assault weapons; wish PM would stop calling them that. They are absolutely a deterrence to government going tyrannical.
I don't thing an AR-15 is even that. Take that big magazine out of them and they are junk. The one I say at Wal-mart the other day was a 22 version of the same platform. That might not be so bad to go out and shoot for fun, but no one needs a 30 round magazine in any high powered rifle. 5 max.
We already have a federal law prohibiting assault riffles. The term assault riffle refers to a weapon that is capable of fully automatic firing, which a legal AR-15 is not. The term "assault weapon" is very ambiguous and tends to be political. Literally the term means "attack instrument". Technically we can use a knife, hands, or even words as an instrument for attack. Theoretically we would;d have to modify the first and second amendments to ban "assault weapons".
I guess that is why the hair on the back of my neck stands up when I hear the words “assault rifle” or “military style assault rifle”. It is political and demonizing a weapon based on nothing other than the number of rounds that it can shoot before a reload. That has nothing to do with the weapon, it has everything to do with an accessory to the weapon. It is no different from attaching a silencer to the weapon. There are specific regulation on owning a silencer and there may need to be the same type thing for a high capacity magazine. It is all the un-educated crap that is upsetting and misdirecting the conversation to specific guns that are the same as many other weapons. What we have here is failure to communicate.
Hello mr. morgan, i would like to give another perspective on the gun issue,
Mercedes Benz , McClaren
Nice car eh, let me ask you all ,,,,,if i own an ar15 among other high capacity guns and you want to know why i own one ,,,,,why do i own them you ask .....why do we need a car that looks like this and goes 200 miles and hour ...and by the way more people die in car crashes by far than my guns, so tell me why do you need these killing machines....get the point ....so when you tell me why this car is okay then i will tell you why my weapons are okay ...now stop the madness , it is a mental health issue , I don't hint, I own my weapons because it is my hobby ..some people lke to have fancy boats, some collect coins, some fast cars , some like to drink expensive whiskey, i like to shoot and target practice and like the guy with the fancy car i like to have a special kind of weapon ...just for fun ..have you ever been target practicing to see how good you can get ...that is what i like to do ....
Mr. Morgan you keep stating that armed guards in schools would make any situation worse. There are thousands of schools (elementary, middle, jr high, high school and college)in the United States that already have armed guards (police) in them, either officers working extra jobs or their own dedicated police department and those schools do not have shootings all the time. I have been in the military, I have hunted and owned guns for 40 years, I have been a police officer for 23 years and I believe in individual gun ownership, I do believe in reasonable limited gun control that will work and be enforced, but banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines will not stop crime or shootings and I have seen it first hand. My children and my wife have firearms but they are responsible and are safer because of it. I carry a weapon everyday on or off duty and there have been many times that someone has told me that they feel safer because they knew I had a firearm. Requiring individual to individual sales go through a background check and allowing mental history information to be included on background checks are good ideas, and enforcing current laws would help cut down on crime. Some of your statements are opinion which is fine but when you state them as fact and they are not true then that is wrong, and there is false informatiion coming from the other side too. I get tired of the radicals blaming the guns instead of the idividual. The same day as Newtown a man in China stabbed 22 elementary school children and 1 adult but that is not news for the anti gun crowd. Just report the news with the facts and not opinion.
Finally, it was said. Shapiro gave the most famous cases of the fascism in Spain, Italy and Germany.
Why do we need to own a semi-automatic rifle….for the perspective possibility of resistance to tyranny? OK, let’s think this through. So let’s say we’re in the future and every US citizen has a semi-automatic gun with multiple high capacity magazines and an unlimited supply of ammunition. Now, let’s say our government has gone rouge and needs to be stopped. How are we going to do with our AR15’s against tanks, F16, satellites, drones, aircraft carriers, etc? Not too well. Back in 1776 when we had muskets and the government had muskets, it made sense. It doesn’t today. No one is going to stop the US military with guns. If you believe so, then you are certifiably crazy, and we need to take your guns away because you are delusional.
Yes, just like in Vietnam. We had tanks. airplanes, and missiles, and managed to beat the Viet Cong with their simple, little AK-47s. Oh, wait. We lost that one, didn't we?
Regarding Vietnam: We didn’t really lose Vietnam. We just figured it wasn’t worth fighting and we quit. Looks like a good choice as we are slowly winning the Vietnam War goals as Vietnam is slowly turning to capitalism. And as for our primary goal, stopping the domino affect (if Vietnam falls to communism, so will the rest of Southeast Asia)? We succeed on that point already.
Regarding Gun Control: Here’s the key question: Is it worth having semi-automatic weapons and out there and living with mass shootings in the hypothetical event that our government turns against us to a point that military action is required? Do you believe that this is so possible that the deaths we’re dealing with today are worth losing to stop a hypothetical conflict in the future?
Dude, we got our butts kicked. Take a look at that wall in Washington. At what point do you think we decided it wasn’t worth it? Guns are not causing the problem in these isolated cases.
Sooner or later you have to put troops on the ground to finish the job. That is when the casualties go through the roof and even the aggressor starts to loose heart. Vietnam is a prime example of trying to push a native population out. We couldn’t do it and we have a wall in Washington to prove what the cost is. Do I think our government could ever get to that level? No way in hell. Our own military would refuse to do it. If not all, enough to equal the odds. We would have the military fighting the military.
I agree with you. No way in hell will this ever happen. So why let the public buy semi-automatics? We’ve drawn the line at automatics (you can’t buy a tank or F15 either). Let’s push the line down to smaller magazine clips so fewer people will die.
I don't object to a semi-automatic because my wife can empty a revolver so fast it makes the head spin. The issue as you have stated is the number of rounds it takes to accomplish a defensive action. Single action, double action, or semi-automatic action weapons don’t really make a difference. The number of rounds between reload is a big deal. If it wasn’t a bid deal and if changing them it is so easy and quick, why is so many people defending the 30 round magazine. I can tell you from many years of shooting that under pressure, changing a magazine can be a very difficult process. High capacity magazines are history. That is going to become law and everyone is going to surrender them or lose their second amendment rights when charged with a felony for having one.
One more thing. Teachers don't need firearms training. They need training to reconize the kids when they are in trouble.
Don't ban types of gun or magazine size. Reclassify "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines from other firearms and attachments. Try additional requirements for purchase instead. We could add a tax stamp and more stringent background check requirements. Maybe similar (but not as strong) to what is required for full automatic weapons.
very reasonable approach. Most school shootings use weapons that are too easy to get. They don't seem to be the type of people that would go to the trouble or pass certain restrictions or criteria. People that feel they have to have the weapons under the restricted classification I would think would be willing to go to the time and trouble. Criminals will always get what they want more or less. You can not eliminate all shootings, and all weapons, but that is not a reason for not trying common sense measures to at least mitigate the potential and severity.
Piers and Ben were able to agree on some points. That is a good starting point for progress. Ben's main argument was based on how handguns kill more people; he believed that if it was the left's goal to end senseless killing they should go after handguns instead of or in addition to assault rifles. That is an extreme point of view. A similar extreme argument could be posed to Ben: if Americans need to protect themselves from tyrannical government, then why not allow them to possess tanks and military jets? The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens from government, in hopes of negating military firepower. In-those times the major weapons were muskets, bayonets, and inaccurate artillery. Today the military possesses much greater firepower relative to assault weapons. So if Ben really wants to be protected from tyrannical governments, he should be promoting the lifting of bans on all weapons. This is obviously a bad idea. So does that mean that Ben is not genuinely concerned about the potential of tyrannical government? I don't know. Progress can not be made in achieving a balance between competing interests when people jump to one extreme viewpoint or other, so instead the status quo remains, which is what Ben wants. "The only necessity for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Where does Piers find these crazy, disgusting people ? Ben Shapiro looks and sounds like he would not pass a serious mental health test in order to get a gun permit. Why is he worth having on TV to talk about important issues ? Scary to think there are people who pay any attention to what he has to say. Gross and sick ! I imagine that Piers Morgan puts up with the unpleasantness of having to sit down with such characters just so that the world has a chance to see and hear them ... Thank you, Piers!
He probably finds these people in the same place he finds people to support his opinion that a baby can only be killed inside the mother. He is like every other talk show host in America, Right or Left, he wants to get ratings, and supprt his opinion. He has spewed out many incorrect facts and would not admit that hand guns account for over 75% of all deaths by gun in America.
PIERS MORGAN: you are not a US citizen and have no right to be critical of US law. You have every right to criticise UK law, but gun control in the US is none of your business. If this is such an important issue to you, you should go home to your gun controlled country, or become a US citizen and then voice your criticisms. Visitors from other countries are guests and do not have the same rights as US citizens. Don't come here and then criticise us. Mind your own business and keep out of ours.
I am waiting for a american anchor to debate this like Piers . Who`s running the country the gun lobby or the white house ?
Reblogged this on valores, principios, defectos y vicios humanos: el autoconocimiento no es el nirvana!.
Seems to me the NRA has forgotten there are humans involved in their marketing schemes. I don't see any of their views in the second Amendment. Do we really need gun shows? Does anyone on here buy guns at them? Glad we are taking them on. 4 million members. I think of militia when I see that this many people think they need guns to fight our government...wow - praying for peace and compassionate laws for the world. America has a big role in what happens in other countries. Can we please be a good example?
I watched Thursday's show. There was a section will Mr. Morgan made a statement about Ronald Regan supporting a ban on " Assualt Weapons". This is true Ronald Regan supported the ban on FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN, ASSAULT WEAPONS. Not these semi auto rifles you and everyone else mistake for assault rifles. Please research your facts before you spray them out on the air waves.
Everyone who thinks that tyranny in government wont happen I would like to remind you of June, 4 1989. Thousands of Chinese students gathered peacefully to protest their government. They wanted freedom, the right to choose how they lived their lives. The Chinese government answered with military armed with fully automatic "assault" rifles and tanks.
Now I'm sure your going to say but we aren't communist like China. Sure we aren't.. now. But the democrats what to run our country on the same basis as the communists. Government takes care of you, just make sure you don't think or want anything that government doesn't want you to have or want you to think.
Oh but Ian, that will never happen here... But it already has. The government bans lots of things that are bad for you, no one argues because, hey yea it is bad for you no big deal. But wait till they think that they know better than you about how to live your day to day life. Oh but Ian, that will never happen here, but it already has NYC has decided that sodas and sugary drinks make people fat, so they say ok you can't buy them in larger than 16 oz portions. Oh but Ian, that's just helping people. It's taking away freedom of choice, just because people make bad choices is a reason to take away freedom of choice? What is next?
Oh well we are so committed to cleaning up the environment that we now mandate that you can only drive this kind of car because it does the lest amount of damage.
Oh well because we don't want people discriminated based on their outward appearance, everyone has to wear these kinds of clothes.
Once you start letting the government start making choices for you, you give up freedom.
Most people don't understand what freedom is anymore. Freedom is the hardest road one can travel, there are no guides, telling you where to go or what to do, you have to think for yourself and make your own way. But it's also the most rewarding because you did it on your own.
If we aren't careful our children and our children's children will never know the joy of doing something on their own, their lives will be dictated to them, because that is the easiest way to live.
Think long and hard before you allow the government to make any choices for you, because while each one is just a small drop in the bucket, sooner or later that bucket will be full and you will have no more choices to make.
Yes, I need "assault weapons" to hold the government to its purpose and hold criminals at bay. Millions of these guns are responsibly privately held in the U.S.A.. Gun control is less about guns and more about control. Laws do not control people. They never have and never will.
Shapiro sounds like a true American. Its a shame how people don't look back in history and see how Democide is the number one killer.
I wish Mr. Morgan and some of his guest could help create a measurable definition of an assualt weapon. Is it just the way it looks, the magazine capacity, the measured speed at which it reloads, the length? Banning items that are not easliy defined just leads to fear and motivates people to go buy more. This also helps define controls for other weapons such as handguns that have a 16 round capacity and semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.
Wow I posted a non vulgar comment and it was deleted!! What a joke the main stream wants to deleate the comments that speak the truth!!!l the people!? Unaccepted
The first amendment is not valid on Pier's webpage.
Tranny and Oppression?
In Canada and the British regimes we have the free press and the freedom of expression to protect us from Tranny.
I was told that the 2nd Amendment was not about keeping guns for hunting yesterday, how does a well armed population prevent or deter Tranny or Oppression?
Shapiro was absolutely correct. The second amendment is about the right to form a militia and does not mention hunting or self protection. Many people believe that this was required to protect our first amendment rights. We can certainly have a debate to the validity of the argument. Let's start with a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights and not mislead people with that gun rights are for hunting or target practice. Is it even appropriate to have an right to form a well regulated militia today?
I am an ex-pat from the UK and have enjoyed living here for about 37 years. When CNN replaced Larry King with Piers Morgan, I thought, "interesting choice". I have gradually changed my mind about him. I was getting tired of his obsession with guests' "hot" wives. It made me uncomfortable.
Now I'm tired of every show he does being full of his vitriol about guns in America. He should be working for the British Tourist Board, and I want you to know he does not speak for me. I agree there should be open discussion on how to avert further occurrences of shooting rampages, but you have to allow others to express their opinions too, or we'll never reach a solution. His constant interruptions when he hears something that doesn't meet with his approval are really rude and annoying. You don't see professional journalists or anchors in the BBC acting like that. It's as though CNN is allowing him to rant to keep a hot debate going and keep his ratings up. It's "trash TV" just like his "trash newspapers" in the UK. Lowest common denominator journalism.
I want to hear the opinions of others who hold gun ownership dear to them. I want a meeting of the minds. Couldn't CNN showcase someone who can foster that in a public, (as opposed to governmental) setting?
For home safety purposes, I have been trained by an NRA instructor, a military/law enforcement employee, and the thoroughness of the instruction was beyond reproach. First and foremost, safe handling, storage and transport was dealt with before any further instruction took place.
If only everyone could stop thinking in terms of "them and us" from BOTH sides, I think we'd have more meaningful dialogue.
I thought Ben Shapiro did an admirable job of stating his case and those of others he understands, and had the patience of a saint in dealing with the extremely rude behavior of his host. The interview said far more about Piers Morgan than his guest, but that seems to be the way he likes it.
As a guest in this country, which I consider myself, not having been born here, I felt I should give back. During Desert Storm in the '90's I volunteered for the Military Airlift Command. Piers Morgan has been here for what? A few years? I think he needs to throttle back a bit, and allow people to whom America belongs sort this out. Absolutely, he can hold his opinion, but does it have to be given to the American public at ramming speed? I don't think he realizes (or maybe, God forbid, he does), that his radical stance is counterproductive, and incites a stronger backlash from those he opposes, than perhaps there otherwise would be.
This program is the single most biased show on television. He reports one sided information that looks good on its own but does NOT portray the whole picture adequately at all.
Think about this...Piers says – "I cant buy this..its illegal for me to buy"... He has the illegal drugs on his desk!
Then Piers says – "banning AR's makes them less accessible to criminals"
...Isn't it insane? LOL
Kind of like when David Gregory had an illegal 30 round clip in DC and was arguing to stretch the DC law banning these clips across the nation to prevent people from getting 30 round clips.
Even worse he mocked the NRA for suggesting that armed guards are placed at schools but he chose a school with a staff of armed guards for his children. Apparently his children are more valuable than the children of common people.
To the SHOW PRODUCERS: Youtube -> "sliding stock AR-15" and watch a scary but legal fully automatic weapon. Where does the NRA draw the line? The NRA defends anything with a trigger.
...except automatic weapons, missile launchers, bazooka, and guns in the hands of criminals and mentally ill people.
I am not a member of the NRA but I do have listening skills. Part of the problem with this debate is many on the the "left" do not understand the 2nd amendment or guns, or even the fact that assault riffles have been in the USA banned since 1934.
This Video is a LEGAL Semi-Automatic AR-15 that has been LEGALLY modified with a "sliding stock" and is commonly referred to as a "bump gun." The point is that there are massive holes in the gun regulations that need to be plugged. I was shown this at a gun show and could have walked out that day with it (unchecked) since it would have been a private purchase. Is this what you want on the street?
This was the best interview that I have ever seen on the Piers show. CNN should invite Ben Shapiro back for another interview or a debate with someone that can represent the other side as well as Shapiro did. Clearly Shapiro had unanswered question was prepared for an honest debate. He summed it up well with "I think we can have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don't think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at Sandy Hook." Tony Robbins basically agreed with this statement later in the show.
Mr. Morgan just pretends he cares about children. If he in fact did care about children he would rail against abortion which is the biggest killer of children in the world. In the USA 4000 kids die each week from the violence of abortion. The mothers womb is most dangerous place in the world for children. Abortion doctors in tandem with mothers kill exponentially more kids then guns do. Why do all the pretend lovers of children not recognize and rail against abortion violence.
Shapiro fails in one large respect.
Each time the moronic Morgan even begins to use the word, "need," he needs to be slapped down hard as NEED has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
NEED, Piers, you great, imbecilic ass, is defined by the consumer, not you, not the government, not law enforcement, absolutely NO ONE but the individual consumer.
Further, I recommend that Piers educate himself, somewhat, and read the supreme Court decision in Miller. The Court found that Miller's sawed-off shotgun was not a typical infantry arm and was, therefore, not among those protected by the Second Amendment. This decision plainly and clearly found that the weapons borne by SOLDIERS are those that are protected by the Second Amendment.
Piers Morgan is correct in one respect.
He doesn't stand upon the graves of dead children – he DANCES upon them and spits on their headstones. He cheers their deaths for the political hay he can make of them.
I am not a gun owner and I am still undecided on this issue. I don't watch Morgan often but the Jones interview the other caught my attention. It seemed that Piers found the craziest person he could to represent the opposition's view.
So I give Piers credit for inviting the very well spoken Shapiro on his show for a more plausible debate. However Piers does a huge disservice to the gun activist when he misrepresents the facts.
David, You have a very interesting and unique perspective with valid points. However you should understand that "Assault Riffles" have been banned since 1934 with the enactment of the National Firearms Act. Unfortunately I doubt we will ever reach the Utopian society that you describe unless we found a way to eradicate evil people.
The whole argument regarding gun control/having the right to carry an assault riffle or concealed weapon is useless. Why has nobody asked the question to 'either side' of this argument: don't you believe in peace? don't you want peace? Do we not agree on that peace is possible without feeling as if our wants and desires (the freedom we speak of) are being in some way shape or form limited, threatened or harmed? The argument is about our moral responsibility to one another to be good to ourselves and to one another: to live compassionate and productive lives. We all have a choice to make whether we wish to continue to live in fear of ourselves and perpetuate the seething violence that grows and festers from that or whether we can finally recognize we can live at a much higher vibration, beyond fear. I have fired guns before and I do not like the power it gives me: the power to take a life. There is no coming back from that. The only gun I will buy is the gun that instead of spraying bullets sprays peace.
When the bad guy shows up you can shoot your gun of peace and rest in peace. Violence isn't the product of guns. Guns are there to stop violance.
Yes, the meek shall inherit the earth - in 6' x 3' plots.
LOL.... I never read the word meek to mean helpless or weakness. That wsa still funny.
Rude, arrogant, pompous and, yes, bullyish all quite appropriately describe Pierce Morgan's behavior during his gun-control debates with various guests who express views on the topic different from his. He talks over his guests, with the exception of that loud-mouthed Alex Jones. With Ben Shapiro, it was clearly an intellectual mismatch. The kid had the upper hand in that department. Morgan has become a complete turnoff with his tirades on gun control. He is an embarrassment to CNN. His behavior has been childish at best.
Thank you. Well said.
I'm having problems posting things again! Last two attempts to post my comments have failed. What is going on CNN?
Shapiro asked the most obvious and direct question of the interview, which Morgan refused to answer. If handguns are the weapons used in the majority of all shootings, why isn't he demanding the ban of these too?
Why does the media have individuals speak on a issue when they are known to be hostile? What happened to civil discussion from both sides. Is the media trying to sensationalize this subject. Don't believe Morgan is bias on this subject.
Ben missed the more relevant reason people should be allowed to own "assault weapons" i.e. the AR-15.
IIf people should be allowed to own guns for self defense, then an AR-15 is much more effective than a handgun to defend against threats in many situations, especially at home.
Furthermore, the reason 30 round magazines should be allowed is because often those threats can involve multiple individuals, in which case more bullets may need to be fired in a situation where reloading could mean you lose the fight.
I would like someone to confront some of these second amendment advocates with some crucial points from Justice Scalia's opinion in Washington, DC v Heller. The holding in case included the following:
"[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
So, even the most recent second amendment decision which is highly favorable to those opposed to gun control acknowledges that limits can be imposed on who can own guns, where guns can be carried, how they can be carried, and how they can be sold. Moreover, it recognizes that the government can prohibit the ownership of dangerous and unusual weapons. Assault weapons like the ones used in the recent mass shootings only purpose is to kill a large number of people in a very small amount of time. In my view that makes them both dangerous and unusual.
Well, Les, your view is patently wrong. They are not unusual – they are common. There are at least 4 million of them in private hands. Go to any gun range where they're legal and you'll see them any day of the week. They're also not particulary dangerous – that is, they're not more dangerous than other guns. "Semiautomatic" means auto-loading, which is what the vast majority of guns in this country are today – you fire a bullet, and another is ready to go the next time you pull the trigger. These "assault rifles" might look like the military's rifles, but no military in the world would stoop to using a single-fire rifle except in the hands of a sniper (who often use bolt-action, not semi-automatic). They don't do any more damage than a pistol, they don't fire faster than a pistol, and they don't hold more ammunition than a pistol. On no count then, are they more dangerous than a pistol.
Thank you, Sean! I am always pleased to see an individual that is actually educated on the firearms in question. It seems that there are too many people out there arguing for the ban on certain firearms, but in turn, know nothing about them. You're absolutely right. An "assault" rifle is nothing more than a magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip. These guns, such as the AR-15, aren't the only semi-automatic weapons available to the public. You can buy magazine fed, semi automatic hunting rifles. You can buy semi automatic shotguns (usually used for duck and goose hunting). Most importantly, almost every model of pistol available for purchase is semi automatic. I just don't understand how these individuals can advocate the banning of one particular weapon group just because it is classified as "assault"; when the reality is that this weapon group is purely no different than many others.
They do it because they can. They know better, but most people don't. They can use the ignorance of the population to get their bans passed a little at a time. Note that Morgan said about banning pistols when Shapiro asked "We'll get to that."
Sean, They are more dangerous than other firearms because of their design through their muzzle velocity and the ammunition used has only one real purpose – to disrupt human tissue in a particular egregious manner. They are killing machines, plain and simple. They are more dangerous than a pistol for those reasons.
Assuming you are correct and there are 4 million AR-15's that are legally owned – with the US population of over 311 million people – works out to a figure of 1%. No definition of the word common includes "not 99%"
No more dangerous than the hollow-points in my 9mm pistol.
Les, you can't be that stupid. Every single firearm, pistol or not, is designed to disrupt human tissue in a particularly egregious manner – specifically, to cause enough bleeding as quickly as possibe that the person shot is no longer a threat. "Stopping power" is all about the wound cavity and tearing ability of the round. Pistols are killing machines just as much as are "assault rifles". The muzzle velocity of any rifle is certainly greater than that of most pistols, but the calber is lower and the effect of both is that the rifle round is much more likely to pass clean through a person with less damage than is done by a "personal defense" (hollow-point) round from a pistol, which mushrooms and breaks apart on impact, creating a much larger wound than would already be expected by the 20-100% larger caliber of pistol rounds (rifles typically use .22 to .30 caliber, while pistols typically use .38 to .45...there are .22 pistols and .50 rifles and pistols, but these aren't as common as the others) before the mushrooming effect.
4 million is common. There are 6 million active iPhones in the US...I don't think anyone would suggest that iPhones are uncommon just because they're owned by only 2% of the population...that would just be stupid.
About 40% of households in the US have guns. There are about 100 million households. That means about 40 million households have guns. Of those, about 60% have rifles of some kinds. That means about 24 million households have rifles. If there are only 4 million so-called assault rifles in the US, that's enough for fully 1/6 of all rifle owners. That's common, not rare. That said, there are probably a lot more than just 4 million – but the only trustworthy estimate I was able to find said "at least 4 million"...and that was just one model: the AR15 (and only non-imports), not including DPMS, AR10, M14, SKS/AK, Mini-14, or any of the other numerous semi-automatic rifles on the market.
This was the first segment I have enjoyed with PM during his unbalanced attack on the RIGHTS of American citizens to own and bear arms. In past segments he brings on the guest that makes the gun owner seem crazy and paranoid. Finally he brought on an educated and intellectual debater that challenged his position. Alex owned the conversation and each time PM tried to divert and deflect the conversation Alex was prepared and left PM looking silly and foolish.
Let's remind everyone, despite what Morgan says about respecting the 2nd Amendment, when he was editor of Britain's Daily Mirror tabloid, his paper led a relentless national media campaign, that was full of the type of misinformation, spin and manipulated facts that we are now seeing on his show here, to confiscate and ban the private ownership of handguns in Britain. Except for the military and police, there is no place for handguns in Britain, were some of the headlines his paper ran. Morgan himself let it slip last night that if he had his way there would be no guns at all. A complete ban is the gun lobby"s ultimate goal, the banning of military style sporting rifles is just the beginning.
Wyoming lawmakers are proposing a bill to nullify any new federal gun laws. May more states follow their lead!
Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a new bill that, if passed, would nullify any federal restrictions on guns, threatening to jail federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, ammunition magazines or ammunition......
Whaaaaa....Piers Morgan got owned....whaaaaaa...
This is the guy CNN chose to replace Larry King?
Larry King would never have been as extreme as this goon.
Right or wrong, do we American have to listen to this person who is neither a citizen nor a law maker's opinion on American's politics, social issues and culture? Mr. Morgan , you are so stupid to understand it does not matter what you think.. I ask you what is your real motive to stay and work here and am still waiting for your answer. To every American out there, if you really care about your country, write to your representatives expressing your opinion and not waste your time to listen to this clown.
Piers is an idiot and he needs to drop his heated opposition to the 2nd amendment. He is not an American citizen and he does not know the history of this nation and why the 2nd amendment is so important to our liberty. Shapiro was spot on in all of his arguments and Piers did nothing but hit the same tired talking points. I will not turn over my guns to the government. They are there to protect us from tyranny or to arm ourselves if we are called into duty for our nation when resources are scarce. End of story. Come and take it.
Finally a politician making some sense. Gingrich urges Biden and the President to go to Chicago to see why that city, despite having the strictest gun laws in the country, is the gun murder capital of the US. Lets have a fact based conversation about gun violence and then from there develop public policy rather than the other way around
Gingrich on Anderson Cooper 360:
Gun control and the demand that all guns be registered will lead to confiscation. This has happened in every country that has been dragged down this path by the gun grabbers. Make no mistake that this can happen in America. It happened in my country. The government made millions of citizens criminal overnight with the enacting of gun control legislation and I am seeing the exact same arguments and the exact same vile rhetoric aimed at firearms owners in the US that were used against us to justify the confiscation of private property.
you did not have the second amendment
Listen to what they are saying. They are not saying you cannot own a firearm....just not "that make or model". This is how it starts and is a standard tactic used in every country that has eventually confiscated property. Even your VP said and I quote "if it saves one life".
if what you are saying is inevitable, then why are we fighting to adhere to the second amendment? It would not do us any good to have the arms anyway in your scenario. Should we start shooting now before its too late?
And look what's happened in Britain! I presume this is the country you are talking about. While gun murders are low in Britain, because of the virtual gun ban, the violent crime and overall murder rate, the actual statistic that needs to be considered and the one Morgan doesn't want to discuss, is one of the highest in the Western World. Most of Britain's Western European neighbors are some of the largest gun owning nation on the planet. Switzerland, Germany and France are ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively in terms of private firearms ownership, and yet the overall homicide rate in these countries is nearly 40% lower. If we are to have a balanced debate about gun control, maybe we should start considering why some of these large gun owning countries have some of the lowest murder rates in the world. We might just find some answers there to solve our own problems.
It seems to me this is a question about where do you draw the line that is socially acceptable for the world that we live in today. Weapons come with a range of capabilities about the damage they can cause, everything from sticks and stones, to hand guns, assault rifles, RPG, drones, and nuclear missiles. If the argument for the second amendment is to have a militia that can defend against a tyrannical government, then surly they would need drones, and nuclear missiles. I hope no one reading this thinks that should be the case. So the question goes back to where do you draw the line for which weapons the American people should be allowed to have and which they should not. Most people today want the second amendment for the ability to have personal self defense and a hand gun or a shot gun would seem quite adequate to achieve this.
Thanks, Piers. Keep raising your voice against the literal, unreasoned interpretation in support of the Second Amendment; however, STOP interrupting. Let them talk and the reasonable, rational, and thoughtful people of America will prevail.
piers morgan is nothing but a blathering fool. He is so self absorbed that even Larry King has called him on it. It amazes me that CNN with it's viewership in a free fall can not see the forest for the trees. CNN with a new CEO has an opportunity to become a real news organization again. The question is, will they? Why not become a true news gathering organization? One with journalists who have actually read the journalist code of ethics and abides by them? One that pursues facts and not partisanship? Of course, this post will fall on deaf ears, because most of these people are so steeped in partisanship and misinformation that they can not tell the difference any more.
Think outside of the box. Be different. Look for the truth. Demand the same standard from BOTH parties and all sides. Do you really believe that people can not see it?
The whole focus of PM is the AR-15 for the most part. That is the weapon he likes to bring up. The reason it is popular is because the military uses the M-16. Both guns look the same. Truth be known, the M-14 is a much better killing machine, and far more reliable. I am waiting to see what Obama really does. This is where we see how smart a President he really is. He has to look through all this and think about what will really help society and this isn't a simple ban gun issue. If he takes it that way like Mr. Morgan, there will be a crime rate increase like we haven't seen in years. With that crime rate increase will come the issue of where to put them.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Why was this line put in the 2nd Amendment? Give us any reason other than the obvious. Any reason?
It doesn't matter if it was 1789 or 2013 it means the same thing.
I support Shapiro's points on the ownership of firearms for the protection against a tyrannical government; and I applaud his professionalism in the face of a Mr. Morgan who seems to care less about any other opinion but his. But if I could have had Shapiro say one thing to Mr. Morgan, it would be a response to his question of "Why does the American public 'need' to own and AR-15 assault rifle"? It was great that Shapiro answered this with the basis of the second amendment right. But the only answer he would have had to give was, "Well, why do you need to own anything that is not required by basic human function? Why do you need to own anything you want without necessity? The American public, as long as they legally pass a background check and register a weapon, have the right to own said weapon under the second amendment". The fact is, civilian "needs" to own any sort of firearm outside of serving on the police force or security position. But just because Mr. Morgan has the high opinion that people don't need them, it doesn't mean that people don't have a right to own them.
Explain to my why you "need" to remain living here in the United States. I think it's because you keep a job here, own a home here, and purely because you want to. More importantly, because you've passed all the requirements, you have a right to live here. But you don't "need" to, you have a "right" to. I don't think you "need" to be in the United States at all. As well, I don't think you "need" to speak on topics such as firearms you know hardly anything about. But I'll defend your right to speak about whatever you want; and if you really are a United States citizen, I'll defend your right to live here legally. Please don't speak on what the American public "needs" and doesn't "need".
I'm sorry, I found a typo. I meant to say, "The fact is, civilians don't 'need' to own any sort of firearm outside of serving on the police force or security position".
Let’s say we ban all guns. Do you feel safer? The truth is that now the criminals are the ones that have all the guns. Worse than that is the fact that the criminals now know that you don't have a gun. Think about that for a minute. Bad guys want your money or whatever you have. Now they know that most people are not armed so there is no deterrent to just walking up and taking what they want.
how do they know you are not a bad guy with a gun. or any guy not following the law.
I think what we would see is higher crime against women.
Jackie, I don't advocate the banning of guns. In fact, I own four firearms myself. I agree with what you're saying. What I was trying to say was that as law abiding American citizens, under the second amendment, we have the right to own a firearm without the need to provide an explanation on why we "need" one. If I want one, I have the right to go through the process to acquire one. If I am granted the access to own a firearm through the proper background check, then I have the right to own that firearm through legal purchase. My concern lies in the statement that Mr. Morgan wants to know why we would "need" an AR-15. Quite simply, we don't "need" one. But hey, if I want one, I have the right to own one.
Tim: Who are you referring to describing "they"?
could you copy paste what I said? I can t find it anymore.
OK, I meant they the bad guys that now supposedly know everybody around them is unarmed.
Tim: You said, "how do they know you are not a bad guy with a gun. or any guy not following the law".
I think you were referring to Jackie's comment on criminals now being able to come up and take what they want from you. Do you mean, how do the criminals know that you are not a bad guy with a gun or any guy not following the law when they come to take what the want from you?
yeah, and keep in mind I own guns for hunting and defense, so I'm not advocating banning all guns. I advocate banning nothing but I do believe in having hurtles to owning legally. What exactly that is I'm not sure. Oh by nothing I mean something far short of nukes. I come from the place where I'm not scared of the government. I do not believe its a slippery slope to banning all guns. Far too much money is made privately and by the government through guns sales and hunting licenses. I think we agree more than disagree here. If I thought firing an automatic weapon was fun or whatever, I would do whatever it took to own one because I would not want anybody to be able to have one easily.
I completely agree with you here, Tim.
Peirs go home!
We sent your kind packing once before, King George is no more.
This is not your battle!
I am stunned that so many people thought Shapiro presented himself well. I know he is a highly intelligent and well-educated young man who has been very successful in the conservative movement in this country. Unfortunately, his support of background checks - an excellent point - got lost in his nasty verbage about standing on the graves of the Sandy Hook children. Throwing in comments about his ancestors' ashes didn't sit well with me, as a descendant of Holocaust survivors. Finally, his belief that civilians need military-style weapons TODAY in case there is a tyrannical government 50-100 years in the FUTURE...well, that's plainly stupid. I am surprised that someone with his education and intelligence would believe that.
HJM- Had it ever occured to you that if Germany hadn't enacted such gun control restrictions that perhaps your own ancesters may not have been victims of the holocaust? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason our country hasn't been the victim of a tyrannical government is because we have the protections in our Second Amendment?
Piers just did what he always does: interrupts, fluffs his tail feathers, lowers the average IQ in the room every time he opens his mouth. Does anyone remember the days when CNN was actually a news station? Piers is bringing the level down to MTV standards.
Ben Shapiro did a fine job with a rude person in Piers Morgan. Piers , like so many others does't want an open discussion he wants agreement with his point of view and he is intolerant of those with another view. It is frustrating to Gun owners to see this bias, agression and slant, however the Most annoying elemet to this dialogue is not just the tone but the Myths, distortions and factually and technically incorrect statement of the argument by the gunb ban proponents. here are the basic incorrect points made by gun ban advocates like Piers:
1. Assault style semi automatic weapons are more dangerous than other civilian rifles (hunting, shot guns, etc.) The truth is , they are no more deadly or dangerous that any other semi-automatic action firearm; be that a rifle, shot gun, handgun,etc. Semi automatic guns fire only one round for each pull (and release/reset) of the trigger.
2. Gun baners try to confuse the cosmetic look of an assault type semi auto with a fulll automatic military assault weapon. They are not tha same . They have different actions and function in different ways. The Full auto assault riflecan fire all of the rounds in the magazine with one Pull and continuing hold of the trigger. The semi Auto fires only one round for each pull of the trigger.
3. The gun banning advocates, deomonize the term "assault rife" to get the public to think that it has a threat, danger and power different from any other rifle. It does not. A flash suppressor, heat guard (forend), pistol grip, etc do not make it more lethal , they have no effect on the function of the action firing the bullet. They are cosmetic features.
4.The real goal of the assault weapons ban is to ultimately ban all guns. (As Ben Shapiro tried to get Piers to admit).To ban guns in an incremental fashion it is necessary to convince the public that some how there are Good and bad guns and this type of gun (the assault weapon is different and more dangerous and not useful and "is BAD". By convincing you it is different and more deadly (when in truth it is not!) they hope to convince you that it needs to be banned. This serves the ulterior motive of incremental gun banning. After this we will go after other fire arms with similar distinguishing (and equally false arguments) such as semi auto hand guns. They will srgue in that case that "they are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals and are used in 99% of all gun crimes as opposed to revolvers (which are good guns!) Later Bidg caliber revolvers will be the target(magnum! etc.) as bad guns as opposed to single shot gun, and so on....
5. High Capacity magazines are being deamonized as is the assault rifle. In truth , in a semi auto, the action determiners the rate of fire and the semi auto fires only one round for each pull and release of the trigger reguardless aof the capacity of the magizine. A lage /high capacity magazine does not make the gun fire faster. One 30 round magazine can be inserted in a semi auto and fired in almost the same time it would take a shooter to load, change and fire three 10 round magazines. One can change a magazine in about 1/2 of a second. This technical point of fact is being ignored as it is another part of the gun banners steps to incremintally ball all gund, magazines andmmo.
I think that many of the gunn ban advocates know these statements they make are incorrect technically and factually but I think they function on the theory that the end will jsutify the means and that sometimes you have to lie, distort and paint your oponent as dangerous, crazy, etc. to achieve your higher, nobel, desired Goal.
That is why Ben Shapiro is correct in that Piers is a Bully . Pierse is also factually and technically wrong on his positions and sensing that , the bullying and berating is a good technique to prevent having to address the other side rationally and from a technicalyl correct and objective position..
Thank you for the points you have presented here. I don't think Mr. Morgan should be taken into account as anyone who is knowledgeable on firearms. Thus, while he has the right to say whatever he wants, he shouldn't be taken seriously why he provides so-called "facts". I don't believe Mr. Morgan knows how any firearm functions, let alone a firearm's potential for being lethal over any other firearm. If he's going to say anything more about gun control, he should just come right out and be honest about wanting to ban all guns; not just assault weapons. At least then we could see him for what he really wants. He's trying to provide solutions to a problem involving topics he knows nothing about.
Thanks Angryian, appreciate you comments ..sorry about the spelling..
We have an uphill balttle ,, in getting the Media educated as to the fallicy of gun ban attempts. We need to continue to try to get the media and public to understand the simple technical truths about how firearms work. But peolpe like Piers prevent that from happening.
The last assault weapon ban in the usa passed by only 2 votes .. It as based on the same misstatements about firearms being used now. It didn't work ..but we went through 10 years with the ban until the federally mandated studies of the effects of the ban were published.. and the final statistics proved that it didn't stop gun crime so it was ended. reinstating the gun ban is like bringing back prohebition .. it won't work the second time either and will bring more problems with it.
I wish you wouldn't talk your guest down when he disagrees with you on this gun issue. It's unbecomming. And Mr. Shapiro did have some good points. Hitler was duly elected because he said he could solve the economic crisis. Stalin worked his way up through the party the way they all did back then. Who was to know they would turn out like they did?
And in Germany, even as things started to look grim there were people who didn't leave the country because they thought it would calm down, couldn't believe it could get worse.
So bad things do still happen, even in our civilized world. And I was even starting to get worried about the US after seeing some of the antics that went on under GW Bush – spying on the populace, black balling Hollywood actors and directors . . .
Yes, we should do something about the guns, and all the ideas I've heard so far are good. But give your guests a chance to at least say what you invited them in to say.
Watching Shapiro dismantle Piers Morgans' obvious bias, bully tactics and antics was an absolute pleasure. Good work Shapiro !
I completely agree.
As a long time cnn viewer, Piers Morgan is an embarrassing replacement to the calm Larry King who allowed his guests to enunciate their points.
Even though I'm anti-guns, I want to hear logical arguments from the other side. Ben Shapiro was a breath of fresh air, while calling out Morgan on his idiotic interviewing methods.
It's easy – if you don't like Piers or his views, don't watch his show. If nobody watches his show CNN will replace it with something else and maybe he'll go back to England. AT least he won't have his show anymore!
I can't watch this jerk!
Tom, I couldn’t agree with you more.
IF YOU DON’T LIKE PIERS MORGAN, THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO IS TO STOP WATCHING HIS SHOW. Giving him any attention, even a negative one, is a mistake. He may be loving it since it tells him that you are watching his show. He is exploiting the tragedy to boost his show’s ratings. He’ll lose his place in the airwaves if most of us just ignored him. I guess that's what I should do.
Rather than look to history of muskets and such, let's look at the modern opportunity to prevent the US government from becoming tyrannical by using AR-15's and citizen militias The US, under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, has Apache helicopters, F-16 fighters, and tactical nuclear weapons. Can any sane person think that any armed citizenry could oppose such a government onslaught, if it decided to go tyrannical? Shapiro's justification for the 2nd amendment only applies in fantasy land
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan managed very effectively with just AK47s and simple IEDs continue to cause havoc and devastation amongst US and allied forces.
And if the US government wanted to, they could wipe Iraq and Afghanistan off the map in a matter of hours. It is only the ethical will of the American people (and the rest of the world) that keep the US from doing so, not a few thousand people with AK-47's
I'm neutral on this issue, mainly cause I don't have a gun or plan on getting one, but people saying the possibility of tyrannical government is a paranoid delusion is a delusion. Recently our gov has killed over 4 million in Vietnam, invaded a country on the basis of nonexistent WMD's, invaded a country that now is the biggest exporter of heroin, filled the sky with drones, activated indefinite detention, targeted whistle blowers, and so on and so on. Who exactly is suffering from delusion?
sorry about the typos
How about this idea, to own guns, you have to have a current insurance policy per gun. Just like cars. I sure the insurance industry would like to open up to that market. Why does every car have to have insuance?
Real statistics can be found here: http://redflagnews.com/headlines/must-watch-video-ohio-fox-affiliate-destroys-piers-morgans-gun-homicide-statistics
So why is the 2nd amemdment to only amendment in the Bill of Rights being consider a state right and all the other 9 individual rights?
What points I can compromise on is background checks for all, and enforce some existing laws at a federal level, such as straw-purchases (which is a state law, hardly enforced) and lying on the ATF 4473 form. How about FBI following up on 4473 applications that have been denied? But I am skeptical that this could be enforced effectively. This might actually put a slight dent in the national gun death toll but more so than banning so-called assault weapons or magazines.
People like throwing numbers around but actually look at them. All rifles don't even make up less than 4% of all gun deaths and AR-15s only are 1 out of hundreds of rifles in private ownership.
How about make it a crime not have the weapons secured, either on your person (to allow CCW) or in a safe or safe box? This would mean no more glass cabinet displays, actual metal safe box with some sort of lock. I used to be against that because some people don't carry and have a gun like in the night stand (which isn't responsible). But metal boxes with bio-meteric lock are more common place and have a low cost. These will give you immediate access without having to fumble with a key or combo in a dark and hasty situation while keeping the firearm secured from others (like children). Less than a second you can have access to the firearm. Maybe if the guns were in a safe, Adam whats-his-face would have been prevented in killing his mom with her own firearm and 25 other kids and teachers? If guns in general are secured better at home in a safe maybe a lot less being stolen and used illegally. How about proposing reasonable ideas like this instead of being a gun-grabber. I lock mine up not because it is law, or because the government force me to. I do it because it is the responsible thing to do. Just saying.
"So why is the 2nd amemdment to only amendment in the Bill of Rights being consider a state right and all the other 9 individual rights?" Good point worth repeating.
Larry King criticized Piers Morgan's show in an interview with HuffPost Live.
"It's not the quality that counts anymore," he continued. "It's how loud did you yell, how vituperative can you be."
I completely agree with Larry. Enough with yellow journalism.
Agreed! Yellow journalism is so common now a days. The corporate media machine is not a place to get real news. More opinions and views of morons that influence people that can't think for themselves.
I have noticed that Fox news is more down my way of thinking. The all make it seem like they are just reporting the news, but the fact is they are spinning things the way the agency believe.
This "literal" sort of interpretation of the Second Amendment leaves out an important dimension. The militias in question were state-level bodies organized to provide rapid response to external threats and internal uprisings. 18th century Americans supported militias specifically out of opposition to standing federal armies, which were seen as instruments of oppression. It took the War of 1812 to change people's minds. We've had a standing army ever since, and with every passing year, the Second Amendment becomes more politically and technologically obsolete. We don't have anything like well-regulated militias today, and as many have pointed out, a citizenry armed with handguns and even AR-15s isn't going to stand much chance against today's military.
Ironically, there's a massive overlap between those who go on about the Second Amendment protecting them against the feds and those who support our military to the point of fetishization. The cognitive dissonance is paranormal.
following your logic, should we have to have insurance if we ride bicycles, push a shopping cart, play catch w/ a hardball,...driving a car is a privilege, not a right, and so the licensing requirement, and insurance requirement (in lieu of posting a bond w/ the state)
On another note, I have to say, I don't watch TV that often, and watched Piers Morgan for the 1st time, and I have to say I was not impressed.Many of the posters here shape their opinions about who "won" this debate by their own personal feelings about gun control. In the end, I thought P. Morgan looked silly & B. Shapiro was way out of his league.I may not have agreed w/ Mr. Shapiro's opinions, but he presents his arguments well, he's sharp, and has impressive diction.
"According to him, the second amendment protects the right to automatic weapons. Would a fully functional tank be OK? "
This is the type of comment we get when someone lacks basic reading skills. The 2nd Amendment says we have the right to "bear" arms. "Bear" means "to carry." Can you carry a tank?
the tank is carrying the arms. they didn't carry their horses around either.
"the tank is carrying the arms. they didn't carry their horses around either."
A tank is not a person. Read the 2nd Amendment more closely. Horses are not arms.
To Groenhagen 2, the second amendment, which has been quoted ad nausea, also reads "well regulated", meaning "well led", and inferring a command structure. Show me where your rabble of gun-totin fanatics read otherwise.
You need to learn the difference between "infer" and "imply." They don't mean the same thing. Ignorant people often use "infer" instead of "imply" because they believe it makes them sound more intelligent. "Regulated" in the context of the Second Amendment means "properly disciplined."
Piers, Do not slow down, You are the torch bearer for the guncontrol issue. Looks like Shapiro is nut case to say that possibility of oppression by the United states government. That means people who listen to people like Shapiro and Alex are soo stupid. How in the world a democratic government will ever do this. If it ever happens what Shpiro says in US even people with guns will not servive. People don't understand how fragile the world is and how problems in one part of the country will effect other parts of the world.
Think positive with humanity not selfishly. I think the differences are growing wider and wider in every aspect in America. I think this is the problem with Democracy. No one agrees with anybody. wepon for a wepon is not the solution all the time. I think people need do some soul searching. I wish founding fathers knew what a automatic/semiautomatic gun does to people. Every person has some commensence to think how devastating this wepon can do. I think People can change and still continue to live without GUNS.
How can oppression happen in the US and people who think it can are stupid? Are you completely oblivious to the fact that this does happen in democracy throughout the world already? Did you know the Nazi's where elected, revoked citizen's firearms, banned elections and the rest you can read up on. This is not the only example of democratic governments sliding to repressive authoritative ones. Shapiro did not say it would happen but that the risk is there and rightfully so as history has shown time and time again. You call this line of thinking despite history on its side that proves the contrary to this possibility stupid, but one only needs to point to your inability to spell to see who the stupid one really is.
Don't think my posts are going through again!
I don't think I have been saying anything too controversial! The one liners seem to work though!
What's interesting is when gun advocates compare guns to automobiles, they claim that cars kill people yet we still drive cars. In order to drive a car one must first get a license, learn how to drive a car, learn the laws and regulations of driving car. Then once they have completed that they must register that car with the the state, it's called the DMV. Even if you were to enforce stronger background checks in order to own a gun, that is still not enough. I think people need to be educated on how to use a gun, how to safely Stowe that weapon properly away from children and others. Maybe implement training courses before you allow anyone person to just walk into a Walmart or even scarier a private gun show and assume they understand how to use that weaponry. Would you allow your 16 year child just get into car and drive? No. Even further do you our military just hands out weapons to our military without proper training, of course not. And if you are a law abiding citizen, you should not have an issue registering that weapon with the state. You will still have the ability to protect your family from the evil that is out there as well as the so called tyranny of government that some people fear so much.
I find such "debates" extremely tiresome, each side talking over the other and trying to consume as much time as possible. There is no commitment to find truth from either side.
The main point here is that as Shapiro said, the 2nd Amendment protects militia weapons such as AR-15's so that tyranny of our own government can be countered if necessary. Piers' position on this point can only make sense IF one believes that the US government can NEVER, EVER become tyrannical. How realistic is this belief? It seems a stretch to me, given NDAA, Obama kill lists, the Patriot Act, and other such recent measures. Is that tyranny, or not? When will people finally say, "That is tyranny"? What, finally, does it take?
The people running government are the same species as the people running Nazi Germany were. How can anyone guarantee they will never take that path? I have never seen such a guarantee.
However unpleasant to consider it, tyranny may come, and people certainly have a right to resist it. To resist it you need the tools for resistance. This is not a difficult concept. One thing follows the other in a logical fashion.
Good points all. The concern that maybe some day you'd have to fear your own government is not such a far stretch when you bring it down to a very local level. Anyone who has dealt with small town politics can vouch for the fact that you'd better be on the winning side if you want to survive.
Besides, society itself can turn on a dime. I don't want to be the last one with no chair when the music stops if there was another natural disaster, supply lines or the grid went down for a prolonged period, or any other catastrophe happened.
I'm not a "prepper" in the true sense of the word, but what's the harm in knowing if your family was in harm's way, and help was not forthcoming, you could do what you had to to preserve life against threats.
My other point is why does everyone in the anti-gun brigade make the assumption that gun owners do not take instruction? I can promise you, that if the chips were down, they were gunless, and a neighbor was prepared to defend himself and his family, (or hers), the gunless would suddenly do a 180.
Civilians don't need people hunting machines. An assault rifle is overkill, pardon the expression, just the same as grenades.
The problem with America and guns is the likes of Alex Jones, Larry Pratt, Ben Shapiro and other jerks like them. As someone else said "a reasonable society makes reasonable decisions", and clearly these people don't think that way. Maybe they all need a mental background check! I admire and appreciate Piers Morgan for doing what he can in trying to make a change with the gun situation in the US – its beyond comprehension and I am so glad I don't live there. Please ask one of these right wing nuts how they would feel if they got a call saying that one of their children had just been killed in a theatre, school, or shopping mall mass shooting! No-one seems to be putting this question to them!
More name-calling from someone who obviously cannot offer an intelligent comment.
I would be mad at the mad man who shot them, not the clothes he was wearing......I mean the object he used to commit the act. I would be upset at his mother who was supposed to be a responsible gun owner and didn't have all her guns properly secured. Everyone is going crazy about the Ar15, but he had just access with those two pistols, at that close range the outcome would be pretty much the same.
I would be more concerned with the radical Left, progressives and the socialists that have access to guns. They have committed more horrific acts and killed more people in history than anybody else.
Shapiro did not say "....possibility of oppression" byt the US...he offered this explination as a reason why some felt there should not be a ban on assault weapons. How would a "democratic gov do this?" you ask. I think history answers this (sorry to bring the Hitler argument, but he was democratically elected, and instuted gun control, so he could easily round up citizens/enemies...) Just a suggestion,I think we need to refrain from characterizing people as idiots, stupid, nut case,...just because they don't share the same opionion.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is nothing in the above text which describes, suggests or infers that the purpose of the amendment is to protect people from their own government. There is nothing in the above text which says it's ok to shoot someone you don't agree with. There is nothing in the text which suggest an unrestricted, unregulated access to any and all weapons is protected.
What is in there? Hmm well the words "well regulated militia"... yes regulation and militia appear in the 2nd amendment. A militias purpose is not to defend citizens against their own government, it's to assist the government and standing army in defending the "security of a free State".
One side of the above interview continues to make false assertions and will accept no information to the contrary. Mr Shapiro. Gun nuts like this gentlemen are so angry that the 2nd amendment doesn't say what they want it to say that they'll threaten to kill you, get you deported, have you prosecuted for treason if you bring up the actual, literal text.
Not very mature and not the actions of a responsible citizen.
"Well-egulated" does not mean what you think it does in this case. It means "well-trained." You also confused "infer" with "imply." You infer from and imply to. Contemporaneous comments from the Founders make it clear that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to safeguard the people from a tyrannical government. That is not even debatable.
Well regulated means "well regulated". Well trained means well trained. I means what it says not what "you think it means".
Comments from anyone aren't relevant. What's relevant is the text, it's there and it says not a word about a tyrannical government which is purely your own invention.
The words aren't up for debate, the text is before you.
finally a sane voice. If well regulated means trained, then what does trained mean?
To Locker, well said. but you'll never convince groenhagen or others like him otherwise. To Groenhagen 2, the second amendment, which has been quoted ad nausea, also reads "well regulated", meaning "well led", and inferring a command structure. Show me where your rabble of gun-totin fanatics read otherwise.
Ben is right. We must be allowed to protect ourselves from a tyranical government. The 2nd Amendment can't be clearer. It isn't to protect our hunding rights. It is to protect our very freedom
Where is the outcry for stricter traffic laws, and shows after shows after shows talking about it?? Over 30,000 people die in automobile accidents every year...
According to Wikipedia, Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 suicide deaths, and 12,632 (40.5%) homicide deaths.
Okay, a suicide is still a horrible event (and it’s a whole different issue we should address) but at least it’s not taking other people’s lives. So, if you deduct suicide deaths, the number of gun victims is about 1/3 of that of car accidents. However, we are not outraged by it, not nearly as much as about guns.
Naturally, most people are emotionally stirred and distraught by the horrific image of massacre. And the media sensationalizes it and hypes it up. But when a smaller number of people die here and there sporadically, even all over the country, and even every single day, we don’t care that much.
Seeing the death of 20 young children is nothing anyone can bear including myself, but how many children die in car accidents every year? Why aren’t we screaming about it?
Human nature is a funny thing.
When a car kills someone, it's an accident, it's not performing it's primary function which is transportation.
When a gun kills someone it's performing it's primary function, killing, perfectly.
Does this demonstrate why other folks might find your comparison to be inaccurate?
The car/gun analogy is valid if you think about it. Both are tools that can only do what their owners make them do. There have been cases in which people have used cars to deliberately kill others. Would you take cars away from law-abiding citizens because some used their cars improperly? If not, why would you take guns from law-abiding citizens just because others have used them improperly?
A homicide is a homicide either way. If your child was not gun downed, but killed in an accident by an irresponsible driver, is it somehow more acceptable to you?? I thought the point was to lessen the number of people being killed by others’ actions.
Why on earth do we only fixate on guns? Cars are just as deadly, if not more. Why shouldn’t we have a discussion for stricter traffic laws just as vigorously, I wonder???
What is it that people do not understand about the 2nd Amendment? It was not meant for hunting or gun collectors, it was to repel Ternary from our own Government. You don't like the 2nd Amendment???? Then move to England
It doesn't say that, at all. It's like, one sentence:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So you don't see the difference between a tyranny and a free state?
A militia keeps your state free from oppression by other states. How could it possibly keep it free from itself?
Hi Locker, agree with you, but you'll never convince groenhagen. That redneck is a legend in his own mind.
More name-calling from an anonymous coward.
your post is insightfull...is tyranny in the US a stretch? look at the War on Drugs in the US? Many of its draconian policies are waged against its own citizens, civil rights have been trampled on, the legal culture of "plea bargain" desguised as "due process", etc.
What I would like to know is how would a ban impact the thousands of sportsmen who use the AR15 in legitimate shooting championships across the country. Apart from self defense the AR15 does have legitimate other uses.
Again. The AR-15 is not the problem.
I know, I have lots of friends who travel across the country to shoot in regional and national highpower, and 3-gun championships. What becomes of their sport if this rifle is banned?
We need to have better restrictions on high capacity magazines and send teachers to school to learn how to recognize these kids that are in trouble. We need to stop the bullying in the schools that has let so a lot of this stuff.
I'm not sure I agree with a ban on high capacity magazines though for a number of obvious reasons.
And I understand where you are coming from. I am mixed feelings about it. Maybe not a ban, just the same type of registeration we do for silencers?
We also need to look at the possible link between some of the antidepressants many of these people were on at the time. This might be hearsay but there has been quite a bit of chatter about this also.
I agree with you on that.
To protect yourself from the US government with an AR-15...? do you know how many bullets that would take? That would be expensive.
Do you think teachers would get a raise if they had "can shoot a gun" on their resumes? I wonder if my daughters kindergarden teacher has thought about taking a gun safety course?... I know I'd feel safer if she had a gun in the glass room – bet there would be less "reminders and time outs."
While everyone complains about arming teachers or putting armed guards in schools, I know one school district close to me in NYS that has just taken on a full time guard. More of this is going on than we realize.
Our local school district has a permanent police detail, and has had for a long time. In trained hands, I don't understand why armed school security is so bad. What about the FFDO pilots? You probably fly without realizing that besides Air Marshals, you have armed pilots on many flights (although funding has been cut for that program). About 70% of flight deck crew in the US are ex-military. They go through rigorous physical and psychological background training to become a FFDO, but they are there. Armed school security is usually from the local PD. Trained professionals who have gone through similar background checks and training. Problem?
I totally agree with you. I don't have a problem with armed school marshals.
You'd really feel safer if there was a gun in your daughters classroom? Then someone doesn't even have to sneak one into the school, they can just walk in like a parent, take the gun and kill everyone. or the thousands of other things that could go wrong when a gun is already there... accidents, theft, crazy teacher kills women he's stalking, etc.
Why would you deliberately put a tool of death that close to your own child? You really think a school shooting is more likely than any of the above? Honestly??
You might want to talk to President Obama or Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, about the presence of armed security at the schools they send their kids too then. It doesn't seem to bother them.
Israeli teachers carry all the time. They do it because islamic extremists have gone into their elementary schools and massacred school kids several times before.
After 911 we didn’t demand that they abolish airplanes!
Airline pilots carry guns.
We created an entire government agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to protect airplanes.
Why can’t we protect our children at schools?
Honestly, @Locker. Let's stop fear-mongering here. You are over thinking things without thing about the obvious. If there was a gun "in a classroom" it would be either conceal carried or secured somewhere where no one can get to it – except for the authorized person.
I don’t think I could get behind the idea of putting guns in the schools. The odds of having something like this happen in our school are extremely low. The guns in the school increase the odds of something bad happening. I don’t have any data to prove that, but it stands to reason.
Here's an idea. Lets put guns in wall mounted boxes next to the fire alarms in the schools. Make sure they're mounted low enough for small children. As with the fire alarms, all one needs to do is break the glass. Removal of the weapon from the box will set off alarms and automatically notify the police, fire department and ambulance services to clean up the carnage after the smoke clears. As an alternative, we could send our children to prisons and conduct classes there. After all, I've never heard of anyone breaking INTO a prison to start a massacre.
That interview I just watched was CNN's attempt to replicate Bill O'Reilly's tactic: ask a question, and then interrupt the interviewee every 3 seconds so he/she cannot answer. That interview I just watched was exactly what I consider bullying. Ask a question, and then shut up and let your visitor answer. Fail, CNN.
Peirs Morgan asks why would an American citizen need to own an 'assault weapon'. Shapiro makes a good point, that the 2nd Amendment was largely meant to act as a 'clear and pleasant danger' to tyrannical governments. Of course it was also understood that in a dangerous world, possessing the arms needed to protect oneself from violent attacks from any source was also a positive good. Trying to make a hunting argument apply to the 2nd Amendment would have provoked incredulity, scorn, and provoke questions about your sanity. So that is why, Mr. Morgan, that I 'need' to possess an "assault rifle". I 'need' my 'assault weapon' to put food on the plate. I 'need' my 'assault weapon' to defend myself, my family, and my neighbors if a tornado, or an earthquake, or a hurricane, or a wild fire disrupts basic services. I 'need' my 'assault weapon' to make those state actors who might be tempted towards corruption to remember that they to are mortal. There you go thats three. Now I'm going to see if Morgan has a comments section for his show=)
Adam Lanza had his brother's license from New Jersey, and the guns belonged to his mother, legal.
And there is no stopping the Italian Mafia when they want to have guns to start with.
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." You can also refer to Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29 where he writes on the meaning of "well regulated militia"
Piers Morgan is a pompous ass. I can see why Brits don't want him back. Ever since he was fired from the Daily Mirror for faked photos of Brit soldiers supposedly abusing Iraqi prisoners he has been on the run in exile. I think we are stuck with him.
For those who don't know PM's fellow Brit Stephen Fry redefined the word "countryside" specially for Morgan. And after you watch Morgan's show , you will understand why that word is appropriate.
Ohhhhh! How funny! I didn't get it at first. Leave it to Stephen Fry. Give me him or Eddie Izzard over PM. You have to have intelligence for wit.
Sorry – still (snorting) laughing. I hope everyone else who gets it isn't aghast, but it is really funny, even if it's a bit close to the knuckle for an American audience.
+1 I'm sure Jeremy Clarkson would have something to say about this also! Nearly hit the report abuse button.
@CR – Jeremy Clarkson – perfect. We're not contributing to the debate with this but a little light levity makes the wheels on the bus go round. Very funny, guys!
All I ask is that Mr. Morgan keeps talking about this. It is time now to do something. His voice is important in this discussion. Millions watch him. Also, how can one such as Shapiro live in such fear of our government? It must be tough getting up each morning.
People are such zombies these days, but man Ben Shapiro was right on the issue and I'm glad he destroyed Pierce in the debate.
Without the 2nd Amendment... we may one day lose the first. I agree with the Founding Fathers... gov't should fear The People, not the other way around.
How do you propose that we determine whether a gun buyer is a responsible or irresponsible parent? I mean, in the Sandy Hook case you mention that Adam's mom was irresponsible. My question is how can you check _that_ as part of any background check? Assume that a person doesn't have kids at the time of buying the guns, has a clean background, so obtains assault weapons, then has kids, one of which later turns out to be mentally unstable, but yet not diagnosed. How can you expect the mom/dad in this case to be responsible enough? As the kids grow up, being responsible enough gets harder and harder. Weapons can be kept away from a toddlers and young children, even hidden from them and made inaccessible, but how can you hide things from a teenage son?
Only solution seems to be to ban assault rifles. Adam would have had a very very tough time getting them were they not already at home.
Another thing, you pointed out that Adam had handguns, so wouldn't he have used them. Of course he would have, but the casualties in all likelihood would have been far lesser. He could have been somehow over-powered if he were just using hand guns.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with guns. He had 2 handguns with him, a Glock 10mm and a Sig Saur 9mm. Both of which are semi-automatic, just like the rifle. Both just as deadly when used in close quarters, like a classroom. It is in fact easier to take a rifle away from someone than a pistol because you don't have to get as close to grab the gun. The best chance to have a better outcome would have been to have a trained "good guy with a gun". But this was a gun free zone, so the only person with a gun was the murderer.
You are one to talk. The idea that a pistol is a deadly as a 223 round is just plain wrong. Terminal energy on that 223 with hollow points are not survivable. I suspect the theater shooting was with full metal jacketed bullets because they passed through walls and stuck people in the other theater. I also say that because we had way too many survivors. The pistol rounds like the 9mm and the 10mm are 1100 to 1200 fps. The 223 while a smaller bullet is 3000+ fps. They hollow point explodes on impact with anything. They are more hunting style rounds while the full metal jacket is more military. You tried to say that a high powered rifle round is less deadly when in fact it is easier to aim because of its sighting radius and as I already mentioned, it has a lot more impact.
How many people are killed by assault weapons annually, 50? 100? I know one death is still too many, but are we really gonna ‘feel good’ about it if we only reduce the gun homicides by 100 out of 10,000? How many tragedies can we prevent just by banning assault weapons when bad people are going to obtain them illegally anyway? Or how many tragedies do we prevent when criminals have to think twice about robbing a house whose residents may possibly armed with deadly weapons? BTW, if you live near the border and fear that Mexican gangs could come and rob you, don't you want one?
Here's a site that I thought it might be helpful.
Clearly you have never fired weapons. Handguns are easy weapons to use and are very deadly in close quarters. They are more easily concealed. Handguns fire as rapidly as assault weapons. The advantage of an assault weapon over a handgun arises when the distance to the target increases. An assault weapon is more accurate at 50 yards than a handgun. The vitriolic rantings by Piers which CNN permits by granting him his own personal bully pulipt does nothing to help solve this terrible problem. Piers has become part of the problem. Come on CNN, I watch your commentators daily. You can do better.
Whereas true journalists would remain neutral and try to explore if the opposing view may have a valid point, Mr. Morgan has already decided pro-gun people are stupid or crazy or evil, or all of those. (Mr. Shapiro is right on that!) He, among other extreme radical liberal talking-heads on MSNBC, which I stopped watching years ago, is far from a true journalist.
My political stance is neither Left nor Right. I’m a Centrist who strongly detests these spurious so-called journalists using so-called discussions only to pursue their own agenda. I so wish these people would stop denigrating, vilifying, demonizing those with a different point view, so we can start a real fruitful conversation to solve the problems we have in this country.
Two points regarding the 2nd amendment. First (and this point has already been made, I believe) the amendment says "well regulated militia". All 3 of those words are very important. First, while there is a right to bear arms, the government should regulate that very "well".
The second, more important point that everyone seems to get wrong, including Shapiro, is the original intent of the 2nd amendment. It was NOT to arm the people to keep the potential of a tyrannical government in check.. On the contrary, the purpose to be able to call up a militia to quell a rebellion against the government. It's kind of ironic that today people misinterpret it to be the exact opposite of it's original purpose.
Ironic, maybe you should read the 1st amendment along with the 3rd amendment. I think it will create a better understanding for you. They are in an order for a reason. The 3rd might suprise you what it states. While you are there go ahead and read the 4th one also becuase that appears to be next on the chopping block.
I assume your point regarding the 1st, 3rd and 4th was protection of the people from the gov., and since the 2nd is in there, it's purpose is the same? That's a reasonable point.
From what I have read, however, is that purpose was to be able to call up a militia against external or internal forces as needed. If you take the text at face value and do not try to find a deeper meaning (than perhaps was intended), this makes sense. They could have said something like "An armed population, being necessary to prevent government oppression,..." (or something more eloquent) and been plain. Instead, they wrote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". Seems to me they were aiming to either supplement the standing army, or to keep it (as opposed to the civilian government) in check.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
What is wrong with universal background checks.
i don`t understand NRA logic it seem very irresponsible.
Who is running the country the gun lobby or the white house?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with universal background checks for everyone.
Don't know if you caught this one yesterday. But this tune from one of your fellow Australian's sums up my feelings on gun control very nicely.
really? the NRA consists of citizens of the US. The white house does not run the country, they work for the US people.
The Senate and House are very much aware that gun bans mobilize a voting block that will send them home.
Right, suppose you have a target with an AR-15 running around in a crowded city of innocent civilians. Do you launch missiles, and tanks against him? No you don't, and if you did you would hurt a lot of innocent civilians that would take up their arms against the ones that ordered the missile strike. Are you people really this naive?
Why don't you people start asking the government to start using nukes against it's own people.
No, I would use the 308 or 30.06 and so would the police. AR-15 doesn't shoot accurate enough for the sanerio you just mentioned.
I have a suggestion for you if you're not happy in the USA.
GO BACK HOME WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!.
Have no idea what CNN was thinking about when they hired you!!
Shapiro is the MAN. Pierce Morgan lost his argument. Not to mention using that poor kid in the wheel chair to further his agenda.
Armed guards protect money, sports events and etc; Why do people insist against protecting our precious kids? If we had conceal carriers there at Sandy Hook there would not be this much CARNAGE.
Let's stop the madness – "GUN FREE ZONE" signs only signal to criminal that "everyone inside has been disarmed for your convenience" – Put armed policemen or qualified guards in school now. Protect our children from senseless gun control policies.
"A tyranical government." Give me a break – what's more frightening is wondering how they would define a "tyranical government?" How many of them believe "a tryranical government" is one that values diversity and embrances (rather than fear or resist) the changing demographics of our Nation. They insist on having gun owenrship without restrictions to prevent "tyrany," but who protects us from the tyrany of social disorder would impose by deciding for the rest of us that it's time for another 1776?
"ignoring history" argument is not making any points here. This was already debated and determined that the #1 killer of life is the government. 293 MILLION people DEAD by democide. Look it up.
what? really? Dude, you need to lay off snorting the bath salts........
I'm betting the federal and some state governments are going to have a hard time seizing these rifles and large capacity magazines from the preppers. Here's a group that strongly feels they have a legitimate need. Can't see too much compliance from them.
Gun owners Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords are anti-guns. Gabrielle Giffords was shot with a hand gun!
Excellent, excellent point, "gunowner"! Thank you.
Why can't we start with a graduated gun license. When a person receives their first drivers license they don't get handed the keys to a Formula One race car. For firearms capable of such mass destruction should you not have to pass a test to show that you're capable of handling such a weapon and securing it safely. I also believe that with the privilege of owning such a weapon should come the added transperancy and responsibility of proving it is secure and safe at any time thru random inspections with healthy penalties for violators. Just sayin, bad guys might be less likely to own a weapon that gives the police the ability to drop In and see how your storing your weapons.
Registration is the first step to confiscation in a potential tyrannical government. Yes, that's right, it's about potential tyranny. Some may call it absurd or ridiculous however, our founding fathers have specifically wrote the 2nd amendment for that reason.
Yeah!! Pretty soon they'll want us to have license and insurance to drive cars. Hell no, I say!!
You need a license to sell liquor too. What is the difference between having a liquor license, a drive license, insurance AND owning a firearm? You can only use one to resist potential tyranny. That is why the 2nd amendment is second after the first. Without it you can forget the first, 3rd, 4th and the rest of the amendments..maybe not today or tomorrow but with due time. Just look at Europe, enslaving the people falling deeper in the hole day by day. Sad, but true.
If we are going to site the 2nd amendment, then we can't forget about the "well-regulated" clause. Regulation was intended.
"Potential tyranny" is ridiculous, unless you think majority rule is no longer valid. As to "well regulated", doesn't that also infer "properly led"? Maybe the gun-totin' rabble would shoot it out and the last one standing would be the "Fuehrer" (ahem) leader.
Should we also start showing our "papers" to like the jews did in nazi Germany?
Piers got completely owned in this debate – this is the most flattering portion of the interview (and they only look back and forth). Piers got completely slammed on his own show so make sure you go watch the first interview folks.
Piers... you come from Europe... "you really believe your own government will turn on you". Do you know your own continent's history Piers?
Owned is an understatement my friend. Destroyed is more like it. Read more about it -> breitbart.com
Piers is misleading you
Excellent video, thank you for opening up my eyes. Wow!! Can't believe I was a sleep for so long!
kantill for a little light relief can you post this youtube link? Thanks!
With all due respect to your position, I'd love to come on your show and debate with you the arguments. In keeping an honest man honest, we should not leave bags of money around those we trust and just as importantly, we should not set ourselves up for the possibility of being governed by an out of control President or government.
It is unfortunate Mr Shapiro was defensive in his demeanor and dialogue and combative, and couldn't discuss or pursuade you to look more clearly at some of his valid arguments but I could should you invite me.
Look only to HJ 15 for the setup of why we need a checks and balanced approach to gun control or anything else government does. We do not live in Utopia.
Thank you for reviewing my opinion.
what? Not sure where you came from Piers but it's obvious you need to go back to where you came from.
If you do not embrace the American values/ culture that's fine. Just Leave the U.S. We will take up a collection to help you go back to the U.K. where it is so much safer with NO GUNS........
Piers, don't stop now, this is a very important service to the country. The gun proponents use every opportunity to turn the argument around and I hope it won't work this time. Some of them are simply lunatics like Alex Jones, others are well trained debaters that practice turning arguments around to muddle the picture and leave everyone confused.
There is a big difference between mass shootings and other types of homicide. Mass shootings are random and are a form of terrorism, this is why they are so scary. Even though they are less frequent, they cause a disproportionate amount of uncertainty compared to homicides that occur after domestic disputes etc. It's just comparing apples and oranges. It is a much larger chance one can die in a car crash than in plane hijacking, but most of us are more afraid of plane hijacking. It's a very simple arguent. You go Piers!
Who is more likely to be there when you are attacked? you or the police. Bad things happen but you need to be able to stand up for yourself. The government can't always be there for you.
Piers, here's quote from Thomas Jefferson: "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."
This is a First Principle of our nation. Times change, but principles don't.
It isn't Shapiro who is the nutcase here....
This is not a Thomas Jefferson quote. This is debunked here:
Piers~you are my hero. I think many in our country have lost their minds! We MUST do something different where guns and violence are concerned. Please continue to use your visibility to speak out for our behalf. This difficult debate is necessary. The vast majority of Americans say enough is enough! I am so not anti-gun. But we have gone too far and innocent lives continue to be lost. Come on Americans, we must work TOG"ETHER, not against each other on this issue!!!!
Totally agree. Something must b done, and we shouldn't leave it up to people who would put more guns on the streets. I recommend those who share this view to join Mark Kelly and Gabi Giffords Americans for responsible solutions. Sane and responsible Americans need a counterweight to the gun lobby!
So why should we ban a AR-15 that shoots a .223 round from a aluminum stock but say nothing about the Ruger mini-14 that shoots a .223 round from a wood stock? Just because it looks more like a military weapon? It makes no sense to me.
Here is my next question, why do most mass shootings take place in gun free zones? Could it be that the criminal can have free reign do do what he wants without the fear of being taken out before the time he choses... Nah, I sure it's just a coincidence.
Why are there few school shootings in states like Utah where teachers are allowed to carry firearms?
Why isn't the murder rate dropping in the UK? They banned these weapons years ago.
Why are so many brits killed with hammers each year? I'd rather be shot.
Why did the murder rates not drop during the time of the Clinton assault weapons ban?
Why were German tourists targeted and killed in Florida while leaving the airport? Because the criminals knew they were unarmed and that many of the local folks had weapons.
Why would I want to carry a 10 round clip in my gun if I knew that the criminal likely has a thirty round clip in his gun? ( the gun that is already illegal for a criminal to have or use)
Why does PM act like he has PMS all the time?
This will explain poor poor Mr. Morgan's rhetorical request for an answer to why having high capacity magazines are necessary...regardless of the type of weapon it's in.
Actually it is not up to the goverment or talkshow hosts which rights are allowed and to what extent. Morgan was trying to make the case for tyrany.
Saville a good friend Piers? Where are you on him?
Take your righteous behind across the pond and get out of our faces!!
Did anyone notice when the topic is gun-control, his show receives 3-digit, sometimes 4-digit number of comments? (compared to less than 50 comments on other topics.) No wonder he wants to sensationalize the gun issue so he can make us keep watching and capitalize on it. I think Morgan is ‘purposely’ being antagonistic to the pro-gun perspective (so he may look like a heroic crusader to Lefties so they will cheer and watch his show), and ‘deliberately’ aggravating pro-gun people (so they will want to retort, thus makes them watch his show as well). He is more interested in gaining attention to himself than making our streets safer. He is not interested in a deep, meaningful debate. His aim is to put up a vitriolic fight to pique the viewers’ bellicose side just like a WWE wrestling match would do. Morgan was a Tabloid editor, remember?
Or he cares about the safety of people walking the streets innocently in America
Why doesn't anyone ask Piers to have Obama on his program to discuss 'Fast and Furious'?
Obama approved and allowed Semi Automatic weapons to be sold/given to Mexican drug lords. Americans and Mexicans have been slaughtered as a result. Why are we not demanding these traitors pay for their crime?
As many have pointed out, Morgan doesn’t even make the efforts to get the facts straight, so he gives us the misleadingly incomplete data about the violent crime rate in his home country. His show is a waste of our time. If we stop watching it, it’ll eventually be canceled. I am utterly puzzled by CNN’s decision of placing someone like Morgan after legendary Larry King. I’d much rather want another hour of Anderson Cooper 360 (in my opinion, he is a fine journalist with a true journalistic mind), I’d even watch whole extra hour of Cooper’s RidicuList instead of Morgan’s show.
So, my conclusion is, I should simply change the channel and watch something else that’s worthwhile. I shouldn’t be contributing to Morgan’s show’s ratings anymore.
Here's a concept that I don't think many people have considered, and something that might help Piers understand the "gun culture" in America.
Ignoring the fact that our country was born by rebellion, the US has a very unique history. As our borders expanded across this massive continent, many pioneers established remote communities in frontier states with very little infrastructure, and self-dependence was essential to survival.
Unable to rely on Federal (or even state) government for protection, many Americans lived and died relying on themselves, their families, and their communities for everything from food to fire control to personal security.
After "Manifest Destiny" was realized, and as the 20th century ushered in a massive migration from isolated agrarian communities to interconnected, industrialized cities, our need for self-reliance diminished. With FDR's New Deal, every American gained unprecedented support from the Federal government, and the dynamic began to change.
These days, it's almost impossible to imagine living in a town with a volunteer fire department, or a location remote enough that any outmatched sheriff would actually need to rely on his posse comitatus powers to defend his county from a dangerous gang of marauders.
For people like myself – born in a large city long after the establishment of the Interstate Highway System, Medicare, and even the Federal Emergency Management Agency – our sprawling infrastructure and support system has relegated self-reliance to a form of weekend entertainment.
But the pioneering spirit that inspired dreams of the simple self-sufficiency of the frontier – even in restless 19th century urbanites like Henry Thoreau – remains a part of American culture even today.
This cultural element is unique to large, young nations. Canada, Mexico, and Australia are countries with a deep and (relatively) recent frontier history.
The British Isles, on the other hand, while home to many avid explorers and colonists, has nevertheless been "tamed" for the better part of a millennium.
Britain's seen war, it's seen internal strife and its own share of lawlessness, but any frontiers are long forgotten.
While the government of the United States has been a reliable safety net for its citizens for the last hundred years, the monarchy of England has been responsible for its citizens' well-being for hundreds of years. Dependence on the crown for safety is deeply established in British culture.
Of course with the modern federal government, the average US citizen is as dependent on government as the average British citizen. But that cultural desire to be at least capable of self-sufficiency – even in matters of personal defense – is something that still exists in many Americans. And guns are an important part of that.
It's a cultural element, and like most aspects of foreign culture, it can be difficult to understand for someone who wasn't raised in the culture. Which is why I don't blame Piers – born a subject and citizen of the United Kingdom – for finding this particular concept "absurd".
Piers asked why "military-style assault weapons" were so important, and while I agree with Shapiro that an a armed populace acts as a deterrent to overly zealous dictators, I think that more importantly, there's the need for personal defense.
An AK-47 or an AR-15 is certainly overkill in any typical home-intrusion. A shotgun or even a powerful handgun is enough to hold an attacker at bay until the police can arrive (or to neutralize the attacker, in the unfortunate event that the gun is not a deterrent.)
And certainly, Shapiro's worst-case scenario is unlikely (although not unprecedented). But that doesn't mean that there aren't completely plausible scenarios in which a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine is absolutely the appropriate defensive weapon.
Consider, for example, a natural disaster that not only destroys the communication, water, and power grid, but also renders many roads impassible. Consider that because of this disaster, water and food can no longer be delivered to local stores – and that current stocks have either been depleted or looted by people trapped in the area.
Most people do not keep more than a few days' food and water at their homes, and when thirst and hunger set in, people become desperate. A disaster of this scale would not only overwhelm local law enforcement, but federal first response teams as well.
Looting staples is one thing, but there's also a criminal element in any city that will take advantage of such widespread chaos. Perhaps there are rumors that a gang of criminals has been ransacking a nearby neighborhood, wantonly burglarizing stores and houses – even killing and raping the defenseless.
Now consider that this group – overcome by whatever base, tribal instinct drives this type of atrocity – is armed. Shotguns, pistols, even a few "military-style assault weapons".
At this point, your pistol or shotgun isn't as intimidating as it would have been against one home invader.
Hopefully, you've got neighbors that are good people. Hopefully you can share resources and take turns with a makeshift neighborhood watch. Maybe a group of you keep an eye out while your families eat and rest inside a house that you can defend – just in case.
And while pistols are better than nothing, and shotguns will do in a pinch, hopefully at least one of you has a "military-style assault weapon". Because if the rumors are true, and that armed gang comes to see what your homes and families have to offer them, you're absolutely going to want that much firepower.
Of course, this was all just paranoid speculation – a gun nut's post-apocalyptic hero fantasy, where he gets to play soldier against the bad guys with his big scary AR-15.
Except it was a very real situation. From late August to early September 2005, scores of neighborhoods in South Louisiana experienced this nightmare firsthand, and dozens of these neighborhoods formed small defensive groups, some armed with "military-style assault weapons", to protect against marauding gangs and looters.
Because the actual military, with their actual military weapons, couldn't be there to protect them.
Most of the population of the US lives in areas vulnerable to natural disasters just as devastating as Katrina. A massive earthquake in California could disrupt food supplies and law enforcement for days or weeks, depending on the city.
The Atlantic and Gulf states are increasingly vulnerable to the next massive hurricane, and the Western US is kindling for wildfires.
People laugh at the "Doomsday Preppers", and quite frankly, I find most of their theories and phobias ridiculous. But natural disasters aren't a crazy conspiracy theory or an irrational fear grounded in pseudoscience.
Natural disasters happen, and when they're big, things get bad.
Piers can wait for the Queen to send out troops, and pray that a gang of armed robbers don't find his house first.
As for me... I've got my "military-style assault weapon" and a few boxes of dry ammunition. If worst comes to worst, I'm ready to take care of myself and my neighbors until the cavalry arrives.
Excellent, coherent, well presented post. Thank you very much!
I am not a gun owner. Sorry guys Piers is wrong. Shapiro is standing on those kids graves. When you look at the FBI statistics handguns have killed more American children than any assault weapon. And does anyone realize that a pump action shotgun using "buck shot" can send out the same amount of projectiles and do the same amount of damage as any semi automatic weapon? This is a political agenda it won't solve the issue. After the ban there will be more shootings and deaths because everyone is dodging he real issues
These arguments are always interesting to follow. The liberal argument is based on nothing but emotion. The data actually supports the opposite of what they present as truth. Now mind you, these very same people are always the ones claiming they that they are the only ones capable of using reason and logic. That they are basing their argument on real data. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The real data says that as availability of personal weapons increased (exponentially) the number of weapons related deaths fell by half. It is time to recognize that try as we might, there is no way to sanitize society of criminal intent or bad actors. These events are tragedies of the worst kind, but where is thier outrage about the murder rate in the big cites? Chicago and D.C., two cites with the most restrictive gun laws in the country are also the most unsafe. It would seem that these people do not care about these murders or the inner city gang violence.
They are now making the claim that "even one death" is too many. O.K. let's assume for a minute that we did in fact outlaw all weapons and managed removed all of them. An illegal gun trade would immediately form and guns would cross the borders much the same as illegal drugs do now. And then criminals would be the only people with guns. What will they say about those deaths?
And what of the claims about the availability of law enforcement? This is in no way meant to criticize, but if you are faced with a home intrusion, robbery or some other type of confrontation with an armed individual or multiple attackers, you are on your own for those few minutes. The police can not possibly respond in time to prevent an attack. So unarmed, means unprotected.
These arguments also never seem to take into account that the overwhelming percentage people who own guns are law abiding and do not go out killing people. Nor do they mention all of the other deaths due to automobiles. Due to drunk driving. Due to drugs. We could compile a rather length list. And yet there are no calls to eliminate any of those sources. Why not?
You must ask yourself, what price are you willing to pay for your liberty? It is not possible to sanitize society of all the ills of mankind. There is also an attempt to blame the violent content of movies and video games. The vast majority of people are able to discern the difference between reality and the entertainment value of those media forms. But to argue that some are not influenced by them is nonsense. So are we to to eliminate them? Again, what price are you willing to pay for your liberty? What about the news media? Anyone who spends any time gathering news can see that a high percentage of it is violence. Shall we stop reporting on violence because it may negatively influence someone or promote further violence?
What I don't understand is, why people who don't have any knowledge about weapons can form an opinion about which guns are bad. Piers likes to throw around the phrase "military style" assault weapons. Well what does that really mean.... Lets see... The assault weapon I used during my seven years with the military may have looked like the civilian counterpart, but it was drastically different. There is a fire select switch on the "military style" weapon that allows for a three round burst. This allows me to empty a 30 round magazine in just a few seconds. The civilian version does not have this function because it is illegal! So... "Military style" assault weapons are already banned! The civilian version functions the same as any semi automatic hunting rifle with a wooden stock and high powered scope with the difference being, most hunting rifles have significantly larger rounds and are more powerful! So what are you actually calling for a ban on?? A weapon that looks scary because of what you have seen in the politically driven media and in movies that are removed from reality? So why not ban hunting rifles, shotguns, an anything else that will fire one round when the trigger is pulled once.... This is where it starts people. If they start selectively banning weapons because of how they look, the next step is ban more and more and justify it with the first ban. The first thing the Communists did was to make sure the people were not allowed to carry weapons. That is where we are headed. I strongly agree with more thorough background checks and mental health screenings, but to ban weapons from law abiding citizens is just obsured and unjust. All that will achieve is greater speration of power between the criminals and the citizens. Criminals will always be able to get their hands on illegal weapons or modify legal ones, and anyone who believes these politicians that say otherwise, are just ignorant. It's fact. You have two options when someone who intends to do you bodily harm breaks into your house with his ILLEGAL weapon; first, reach for your permitted weapon of choice and live to tell the story, or second, reach for the telephone to call the police so that they can come and take pictures of your dead body.
BUT they JUST want to ban the semi-autos – that's what's so ridiculous about this gun control non-sense! Practically most modern and popular guns are semi-automatic.
It's a slippery slope. In Britain they are trying to pass a bill to ban knives. I saw the violent crime statistics and I have say it's gruesome. Numbers are in the 10s per week getting knifed to death. Sad in deed.
Check out the "war on knives" they have there:
1st @ Dan Hoelck....you make a very good point and I agree with you whole heartedly........to the rest of you ...in case you have forgotten there was a ban on high capasity mags with no statistical change......also some of you keep using the words automatic weapons.....which are illeagl now.....an AR-15 looks like it's military counterpart but is only Semi-automatic.
If you intend to discuss a subject you could at least bother to get up to speed on the subject before you make youself look ignorant.
Chris, to be fair, the ban on high capacity magazines was the manufacture and sale of new. There was no statistical change because you could still purchase one that was manufactured prior to the ban.
Jackie...so what are you saying that you want the Gov. to come to my home and take my property!?!?!?
Chris, I am not saying that. I am just saying that the past assault weapons ban is a bad example. It didn’t change anything. Trying to make laws to keep something from happening after the fact is in error. We are doing the “what if”. What if the guy only had a 10 round magazine, the outcome would have been different. What is the guy didn’t have a gun, the outcome would be different. The truth is that the guy would have shown up with something else to accomplish his evil intent.
Jackie...I agree that's true.....evil is evil and you can't always stop it without taking away almost if not all freedoms to do it.
so what's the answer???.......I wish I knew....as I'm sure you do too. I used to own a liquor store and while I was out playing darts one night and my part-timer was there we were robbed.....now the gun he had i seriously doubt he bought leagally....considering he was a parolled felon...for armed robbery........so I fail to see the point in passing more bans...untill we can do a better job with the laws we have on the books now
We are on the same page. This whole debate is a political one that is using the emotions generated by a terrible tragedy. It has the potential to get well-meaning people to push for laws that will make our communities less safe. I wish the world was where “lion and the lamb shall lay down together”, but that isn’t now. The majority of people enjoy the benefits of living in areas of low crime without really knowing what has made that area the way it is. Talking about the benefits of guns in America removes their illusion of some of the things that created their safety and still provides for it. Peirs Morgan and people like him are really a very simple minded people.
I think it is through fear that the people that want these laws are trying to get them through before people will think about what they are doing.......get everyone afraid and the stop thinking rationally
It’s a complicated issue and it is easy to fall into the trap of over simplifying the issue. The NRA seemed to think they had this under control so they didn’t really approach the issue as well as they should. Doesn’t help when these TV shows put people on that is not a good representation of the gun owners in America and that go totally off topic in their defense of gun ownership. Everyone wants to feel safe and even if I didn’t own a weapon, or if I choose not to carry my weapon everywhere I go, I feel safer in a world that leaves the criminal trying to guess if I am armed or not. In fact, I did end up in a confrontation once where a person twice my size approached and was saying he was going to beat me. I reached around and took the position you would to draw and shoot and just said “OK, but I have to warn you that it will be the last thing you every try to do”. He stopped dead in his tracks and almost ran in the opposite direction. I most have been convincing with my bluff. While that may be a stupid thing to do, the point is he didn’t know if I could back that up or not. People fear firearms and that is a good fear when it comes to criminals.
Jackie...I really like the way you think....can i ask an off topic question????
What do you think about our economy.....short term and long term sustainablity???
We are in big trouble short term and long. Taxes already went up on everyone and it is going up even more. The government is going to borrow even more and at some point it is all going to crash down around our head (that includes you and me). What happens in the next few months is going to make everyone forget about this gun debate. I’m actually an optimist by nature, but can’t ignore the writing on the wall? I hope what I have just said is full of crap, but I don't think so.
I've been saying the same thing since 2008 after the housing crash, and Bailouts.....but all my friends say I'm touched in the head.......I've told them that we are liable to become a 3rd world country in the near future....they just laugh at me.......Silly fools
Chris, Max out all your credit until you can’t pay your debt. Now go to the bank and ask them to raise your debt ceiling because you are not going to be able to pay them if they don’t. They will have you escorted out of the building by a guy with a gun. How can we trust a government that is doing just that? More taxes and at the same time they raise the debt? If we were talking about any company in the world, we would all laugh and say that they are going to go out of business. I think that is what is going to happen if we continue down this path.
When I hear someone say AR-15 is a military-style assault rifle sure does look people stupid.
It's like comparing the V6 Camaro to a V8 Camaro and saying there is no difference in acceleration.
You got that right. In fact, I feel that the AR-15 and the M-16 are both weak weapons that are better suited for shooting small game. Designed off the 222 Remington Mag varmints round, the case is just a fraction shorter, but that is it. The 223 service rifle shoots a little heavier bullet, but only at 2800fps max. The 223 has more twist in the barrel than the 222. The bullet diameter is the same for the 222, 223, and even the 22-250. The 22-250 is by far a superior cartage to both the 222, 223 magnum or 223 service rifle. There is a 223 Winchester super short magnum that is really a necked down 404 Jeffery class case. The Winchester super short magnum matches the 22-250 as far as bullet weights and performance.
To Warren...its a shame more people do not see what you are talking about...this would be less of a debate then.
To anotherreader....very good points.....you said "The liberal argument is based on nothing but emotion".....which I think is true as well.....the emotion is Fear....and all of this is fearmongering....nothing more than that.........fearmongering is what got the Patriot act passed....which in my opinion laid the ground work for government takeover......if they can disarm us ......then a police state is next in my opinion
Wow - it is beyond my understanding as to what happens to such young people (Shapiro for example) who live with such paranoia in their lives... government tyranny?? Oh lord.... Really??? If it wasn't so pathetic – it would be funny...
America may be doing pretty good in keeping democracy for now, but can you guarantee me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, even 500 years from now, we will not ever see the arise of someone like Assad, Tojo or Hitler in our country???
What's sad is you are to lazy to pick up a history book and see how many people have died when their peaceful governments turn tyrannical. And it's sad you can't remember the genocide committed by the United States against the native Americans or the oppression by the United States towards blacks. You are a very ignorant person t bow
Why am I being censored ... or only this one makes it through?
Change the wording of your post. Web server doesn’t seem to like some special characters in the message. I noticed that in a few of my posts.
Thanks, I'll give that a try.
Organized Crime vs. Tyranny? British Subjugation Through Assault Weapons
The British regimes are using radar technology to inflict deadly cancer, homicides linked to damaging cells, bone marrow, inflammation, scaring of the lungs, .. , lung cancer, leukemia, bone cancer, throat, brain, prostate, and testicular cancer, etc, from neighboring homes (participants), public places (participants), and at the Court House linked to Police false allegations, charter of rights violations, and resulting civil lawsuit to recover the financial loss and damages.
The weaponization of space that involves assaulting missiles is used to assaults citizens instead, .. , organized crime or tyranny?
Is it the haves and the haves not or organized crime and tyranny, expensive technology and radar assaults used to target citizens in their own homes to inflict serious illness, cancer, and subjugation (2nd Amendment) seeks to eliminate a basic weapon of society to prevent subjugation (2nd Amendment), cheap guns.
Haves and The Have Nots, Kings and Queens, Subjugation and Control Strategy? disarm the population, cheap guns and assault weapons to prevent dictatorships, kings and queens, subjugation, and tyranny while using expensive cancer causing radar assault weapons.
How many people are killed with assault weapons each year? Does anyone have accurate data on this?
The US has already taken the first gigantic step toward tyranny in the last decade. Repeal of Habeas Corpus, secret prisons, consipracy theories that cave men defeated the US military in our own backyard, torture, the WMD lie, an R&D budget for the military larger than the GNP of many countries producing technology that will render you and your automatic assault rifle useless and silly, We don't live in world of muskets – however comforting to think that might be true.
You're both naive and ill-informed. First. there were no WMD lies. If there were, they would have originated with the Clinton admin. Second, look how difficult we had it in Vietnam and Iraq, even with our superior technology. And that was in foreign countries where those in the government did not have to worry about collateral damage killing members of their own family. Also, it would be Americans who would have to produce and operate that superior technology. What would the government do if they refused to do so?
Ban Shapiro ought to replace Piers on CNN. Shapiro totally rocked in this interview.
This is from someone's blog site that I find intriguing...
Many arguments for gun control attempt to cite a tension between the rights of individuals to acquire weapons for self-defense and the safety of society. “Sensible” gun control requires that some limitations on the individual right to bear arms be enacted to protect society at large. These limitations often take the form of bans on particularly potent weapons, such as the now-defunct U.S. assault weapons ban. While such laws may seem intuitive, I argue that the good of a free society requires not restrictions on military-style firearms, but the widespread and decentralized ownership of such arms.
Syria’s bloody rebellion saw the deaths of more civilians on June 6th. Over fifty-five civilians were killed in the town of Al-Qubeir. The perpetrators of this massacre were members of the Shabiha militia. Shabiha, roughly translated as “thugs,” are regime-friendly civilians armed by the government and used by the Assad regime as a sort of deniable means of suppressing rebels. President Assad would technically be telling the truth when he claims that criminals and terrorists conveniently killed and intimidated his foes.
What does this have to do with gun ownership? Centralization. The Shabiha militia, as previously noted, was armed by the government of Syria. Also, according to gunpolicy.org, there are only 735,000 civilian-owned firearms in Syria, or 3.9 firearms per 100 persons. For comparison, there are 270 million civilian-owned firearms in America, with approximately 88 firearms for every 100 citizens. This low rate of civilian firearm ownership in Syria allows the Assad regime to selectively arm friendly segments of society, thereby creating a radical imbalance of power. Suddenly, these favored groups have weapons, and the common people do not. They can intimidate or murder a subversive majority without fear of reprisal and without assuming any significant personal risk of death.
Wow Teddy.....very intersting.....and scary if the government ever legislates a full BAN on firearms......Like MichaelSaid above
"The US has already taken the first gigantic step toward tyranny in the last decade. Repeal of Habeas Corpus, secret prisons, consipracy theories that cave men defeated the US military in our own backyard, torture, the WMD lie, an R&D budget for the military larger than the GNP of many countries producing technology that will render you and your automatic assault rifle useless and silly, We don't live in world of muskets – however comforting to think that might be true."
Tunisian citizens overthrew their government and kicked off the "Arab Spring" movement less than 2 years ago. An interesting statistic about Tunisia is that Tunisia enjoyed one of the lowest rates of private gun ownership in the world – and very little gun-related violence. The argument that private gun ownership allows citizens to overthrow their government is just not true. It is particularly false in the case of our United States of America: To overthrow our own government we would need to turn vast sections of our armed forces against our government. Individuals with assault weapons just produces anarchy, violence and death.
I would love to see all of these media elites do a reality tv show and live in the real America! That would be worth watching if it was real enough. Maybe put them in the south Bronx or Compton and see how they do?
According to democrats' new bill they want to pass – 10 rounds or more qualifies for the "high capacity" label.
How many "high capacity" magazines are out there? Let's do a quick calculation 280 million guns X 10 = 2.8 BILLION magazines. All these magazines would have to be grandfathered in.
So whoever wants to get their hands on these mags just has to look a little harder to find what they're looking for. They'll get it if they really need it – Legally or not.
If any of us were wondering whether Shapiro was a fool, Piers allowed him to speak his mind and now all doubt has been erased.
Our very public gun debate is revealing to the entire world what a bunch of crazed wackos we Americans really are.
Some people resort to calling names and personal attacks when they can’t offer a counter- argument with logical rationale. It’s called “Piers Tactic". It's exceedingly deplorable.
Well said, sir. Oh the sheeple, too busy watching CNN, MSNBC and FOX to double check the facts. TV are the facts to them, no need to second guess huh?
Btw, I saw clip on you tube of Al Sharpton ranting how our current president should have his own face at Mt Rushmore. LOL
@anotherreader: Like Pratt and Jones you are speaking absolute rubbish when you say "The real data says that as availability of personal weapons increased (exponentially) the number of weapons related deaths fell by half".
One simple request: Please refer us to the real data directly so we read this for ourselves.
It's should be unnecessary to have to even refute the arguments that the gun advocates repeatedly make in favour of keeping the status quo; refusing to compromise one iota with respect to restricting access to assault weapons. Because the argument is always littered with misinformation and in your case an out and out lie.
As Mr. Morgan has stated repeatedly, the gun advocates have yet to make one coherent argument in favour of keeping assault weapons in the hands of civilians. I would actually modify that statement. they have yet to make one coherent argument based on facts instead of untruths.
Do you own research. The Government's official sites list this data in nauseating detail. One only has to go look. I stand by my remarks. If you are too lazy to check the Government's sites, others have done the work for you and complied nice charts and graphs. Of course, you would not believe them just as you do not believe me. So that is why I suggest you go straight to the source.
If the government were to go postal on us, an AK-47 is not going to stop it. Let's ALL get nuclear weapons! Right? Where does it stop?
But the point is, the government needs to suppress dissenters without causing much public outcry, they can’t nuke us without calling huge International attention. Besides, don't you think mass killing of tax payers and contaminate the land significantly go against their own interest?
When the original bill of rights was framed, the revolution had not yet succeeded. The framers were trying to see beyond the success of the revolution but still envisioned an ongoing fight with King Charles for years to come. They certainly did not imagine that American citizens would need to defend against their own governments tyranny. The electoral process itself is the defense against tyrannical government.
People who imagine our U.S. government becoming a tyrannical force which must be overthrown, should lose their right to own a firearm of any kind. Timothy McVeigh imagined himself fighting a tyrannical government. The entire argument in favor of private gun ownership is specious and silly. Guns endanger more than they protect and they have no redeeming social value. Too many have died violently and senselessly.
Mr. Ben Shapiro is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. His position is proven to be historically true, unlike the "hysterical untruths" being spouted by the Lame Stream Media.
@YourGrannie: "Mr. Ben Shapiro is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. His position is proven to be historically true, unlike the "hysterical untruths" being spouted by the Lame Stream Media."
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. Shapiro was in fact the only hysterical untruth spouter during that interview, as was Alex Jones before him. Mr. Shapiro's only argument in favour of keeping assault weapons in the hands of civilians was to defend against tyranny by the American government against its own citizens. Not only is this hysterical, salacious nonsense; but the fact that he held up the Holocaust as an example of this possibility is shamelessly exploitive of the millions who dies. Shapiro is a disgrace to the Jewish people and to Americans everywhere.
If he is representative of the caliber of intellect Harvard is turning out these days, Harvard is in big trouble.
I agree 100% Peter. President Obama went to Harvard, George Bush went to Yale, and the list of lower intelligence people who the Ivy League pumps out goes on. I use to admire the Ivy league schools until I hear people such as Obama and Bush speak and I wonder how such supposedly great schools could hand diploma's to such clueless people.
Peter, I agree with your take on Jones and Shapiro, and I'll add Pratt to the list. What's needed is a counterweight to the gun lobby. The campaign "Americans for responsible solutions", formed by Mark Kelly and Gaby Giffords, is the beginning of the process to a more sane America. Make your voice heard.
Control Gun Control is a amazing topic, My heart goes to all the all the families who have lost family members!
The Main Topic Should be America's Moral Decline, neuro medications, etc – Not More Gun Laws, Not More Gun Regulations, implement the ones we have, we/you will never deal with the Core Problem! You can put all the Laws, Regulations on humanity from the outside, but it will never change until we/you look on the inside what really makes a person evil!
Changes is always hard. Elected governments have gone tyrannical a number of times read the history books . And missiles sure haven't stopped the Taliban. You are going on pure emotions and you are obviously ignorant on these subjects
Well I have a opinion as well......... I don't believe we should have to give up our guns to feel safe. I think if we actually care for one another and be good neighbors, friends ,moms,dads and ect... an focused our attention back to the family & community we would have less things to worry about like tyranny lol. I think as a society we have become more focused on ourselves and our own Independence. That we have forgotten what it is like to be a whole. The children of today are shown and taught a different set of morals . An some of things children are subjected to is ridiculous. Children shouldn't have to grow up so fast. They shouldn't be scared to go school, or to a public place were they should be safe. Let alone we shouldn't be afraid to send our children to school or to a public place where it should be safe. I am not saying it could be absolute perfect world. But ask yourself:
WHY IS IT LIKE THIS?
WHERE DID IT GO WRONG?
WHAT CAN WE DO TO ACTUALLY STOP THE MADNESS?
WHAT CAN WE DO AS A WHOLE AS A NATION ( NOT LEFT OR RIGHT RED OR BLUE LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE) BUT,WHAT CAN WE DO?
I think we should get to know our family again, our neighbors, and our community. Get more involved with life and less with television, internet, ipods, video games, cell phone and establish real relationships with real people and start rebuilding america at the base of the country. Which is the PEOPLE.
I lelieve you have lots of common sense in the article and it just needs more people with the same ideas to go "back to the basics" BUT without the bad things back then. Best of luck!
Piers needs to get his nose out of our country's business and mind his own.
I am not a gun owner as I have really never have been around them. I have a number of friends that own more than one type of gun and respect their right to own and use those guns in the manner they were intended to be used. Does anyone agree with me when I say that Shapiro is the exact type of person I worry about owning any gun. I watched the entire interview and thought WHAT is this guy thinking. I'm still shaking my head with all the people that agree with Shapiro. I hate to admit that Gingrich is correct in saying that we need to figure out why the gun laws in Chicago do not work and try to build on that.
@ Ike- I am happy that Mr. Shapiro actually discussed our founding father's original intent of the Second Amendment because it is not about hunting or sport shooting! Why is it so out of the realm of possibility for people to realize that just because our government hasn't become tyrannical, that it could never happen??? All we have to do is look at world history to see that this is always a possibillty. I strongly feel that one of the reasons that it hasn't happened in our country is because of our great nation's Second Amendment.
I am also disturbed by your characterization of Mr. Shapiro as, "the exact type of person I worry about owning any gun"! Mr. Shapiro was smart, logical and used reasoning during the interview. Who in your mind would be "the right type of person to own a gun"???!!!! In our own history, it was people with your mindset that didn't think blacks or Native Americans were the "right type of people to own guns"! WOW, just WOW!
Totally agree with you, bro. "Power Corrupts" and "History repeats itself". Isn't that what America’s Founding Fathers foresaw...?
This Shapiro kid is living proof that boneheads aren't all Southern!
Here’s another person resorting to name calling and insults, displaying his inability to offer a logical argument. It is much to be lamented. And he is discriminatory against Southerners!
Well, I'm with Mr. Shapiro. Anyone who suggests we are free from tyranny forever, is unbelievably naive and needs to study history more.
I read the Morgan/Shapiro exchange and was impressed and dismayed by the exchange of ideas. One thing I did not like were the bullying tactics and the rude language of calling a person "Stupid!" That word is one of the worst words against another human being and is a part of bullying! A person using that word may be afraid they will be tagged with it themselves and therefore use it in their own defence.
As some of you pointed out, true, we mere civilians are no match to the government military force even with assault weapons. But the point is, tyrannical governments would want to silence dissenters without drawing public attention. If they want to arrest an well-armed person, they'll have to bring a SWAT team, then the entire neighborhood will realize something is going on. They will need a reasonable explanation for the commotion. And remember, we still outnumber them. For the government to suppress a large number of people “quietly” is not so easy, not when people put up a good fight.
If you cared about your kids, then your intentions are misguided and misdirected. Prescription drugs kill more per year than guns. They also killl more than all illegal drug related deaths combined. Car accidents kill more people per year than guns.
CIGARETTE smoking kills approximately 443,000 people per year...more than all drugs guns and cars combined. I guess it ok as long as there's a warning label (sarcasm). Put a warning label on guns and according to everyone's ignorance.... this would be acceptable?
Politicians decisions and policies have killed MILLIONS more innocent children than guns of all societies throughout history combined ever will. It just goes to show that it's not about the compassion and well being for our little angels...It's nothing more than personal agendas of societies brainwashed puppets. You are scared of reality and looking for someone to protect you because you can't do it yourself, so you want to take that right away from everyone else who IS capable.
Simple fact is guns are the least of anyone's problems, and NOBODY has the right to tell a human what they can and can't do...especially when it's the law abiding citizen they're targeting. Most crimes are commited with ILLEGAL guns..most of which are handguns. When you use percentage it sounds better for their argument but when you use actual #'s it makes your argument invalid and obsolete. Alcohol related deaths are almost tripple gun violence.
Why don't you people who wish to control everybody else's life learn the facts and do a little research instead of blindly following someone else's suggestions? Can't even control teh aspects of your own lives but want eveybody else to suffer cause of your blind ignorance. Get your head out of your TV and into a book or do some research.
Target the real problem....Politicians greed and relationships to all the corporations they lay in bed with.
Point is Americans are allowed to own Guns and it's their right...PERIOD !!!! Also...for those of you using tyranny never happening to validate your arguments,(need to wake up).....Fact is yes the government has nukes and bigger weapons, but if it ever came down to it they wouldn't just bomb society with nukes. They would use chemical or biological means to make it look like an acidental outbreak. How about "FLU epidemic"? very easily spread in highly populated areas. Food, water supply.
Just goes to show how idiotic your logic and reasoning truly is and how you lack imagination. They can't just waltz in and declare a war against the American people guns blazing or else society would actually have a warning and their guns would have an actual chance along with the rest of the world watching. Instead they use laws to slowly implement changes that restrict our rights, disarm you and control every aspect of your being, no different than the Nazis did. I guess the Holocaust NEVER happened either ? History has and always will repeat itself cause humans are selfish, greedy and power hungry.
Regardless, if the issue is about the well being of society....gun related deaths aren't even in the top 15. Here's a quick chart for 90% or more of you who will blindly follow anything you're told and never do your own research.
CDC Page .6 ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf )
The 15 leading causes of death in 2011 (Table B) were as follows:
1 Diseases of heart
2 Malignant neoplasms
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4 Cerebrovascular diseases
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6 Alzheimer’s disease
7 Diabetes mellitus
8 Influenza and pneumonia
9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
10 Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14 Parkinson’s disease
15 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids
Mr. Morgan should screen his guests a little better. He was clearly out matched in this debate. Shapiro was well spoken and polite. Morgan gets flustered when facts don't work in his favor. This was the third debate on guns in the last week or so where he got trounced. Calling Larry Pratt names was real classy. Morgan is such a twit, I don't understand how CNN keeps this guys around.
Piers, you think the possibility of tyranny is absurd, do you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of Hitler and Tojo? WW2 was only 70 years ago.
What bothers me is most, is in their zeal to defend their right to own any type of firearm, some of the extremists (extremists) here almost sound as if they believe the number of gun related deaths in this country are acceptable – kind of an acceptable level of collateral damage that comes with their right to own firearms. I'm also puzzzled about how they seem to primarily define their freedom in terms of gun ownership. I just seems out of balance to me.
No one here has said, or even implied, that the number of gun-related deaths is acceptable. Those deaths, as well as automobile-related deaths, are unacceptable. However, you do not see anyone talking about taking away cars from all law-abiding citizens because some used their cars irresponsibly, e.g., drunk driving, texting while driving, etc. And you raised another red herring concerning "how they seem to primarily define their freedom in terms of gun ownership." Gun ownership in one part of all freedom. Those who believe in the Bill of Rights believe in all its elements concerning freedom. We, unlike the left in this country, do not see it as a cafeteria in which only certain items can be picked depending on whether we like them or not.
Okay, then why aren’t many people screaming about stricter traffic laws as loudly as stricter gun-control? Over 30,000 people are killed in car accidents every year. Is that an acceptable collateral damage for our convenience and the economy?
Trying to justify a bad by talking about another bad, just shows that you know its bad and something could be done about it. It just shows your selfishness. What suffering are we talking about anyway? We can all rationalize our way to feel good about our views. Who is going to decide what thing the government does that is sufficiently tyrannical to justify shooting? The fact is that the NRA and gun manufacturers are making a lot of money from people buying guns they don't need, but keep them believing they do. Its easier to be skeptical or paranoid, then responsible and level headed. Not hard to be angry and want to blame somebody else for things. That way we don't actually have to try to help with the problems, and at the same time feel self righteous.
All gun owners are concerned about gun violence. “We need this weapons for the perspective possibility of resistance to tyranny”- Shapiro I don’t agree that a ban on an AR-15 will do anything to stop these shootings. But the statement Mr. Shapiro made about the need for this weapon. That is really not the weapon that would protect our freedom. If all they say did happen, no one could afford to be spraying bullets through a bunch of mid-range weapons. You would run out of 223 ammo very fast. In fact, go down to your local gun store and try to purchase some 223 ammo now. Hard to get. On the flip side, the ammo that won two world wars is on the shelf. It is the 308 and 30.06. Nothing against the 223 rodent killer (varmint gun), but if I was really going to fight “tyranny”, I would want a man’s gun that can reach out and touch someone. Bolt action works just fine. So, attacking the specific gun or fighting for the specific gun needs to be about your right to own the weapon and not that it is the only thing that can stand up against the government.
@tim: Selfish? I’m only saying we need to talk about stricter traffic laws, if we are really concerned about saving lives, why fixate only on guns when cars kill 3 times many? Aren’t we confusing the priority?
Sorry for the all over the place statements. I think that it is hard to compare statistics from one area to another. For instance millions of cars are used everyday, while guns are used(hunting, target etc.) Not as often anyway. Its an old argument. OK cars and driving is pretty dangerous indeed. Generally we NEED to drive cars almost on a daily basis and generally we can not do without them on a daily basis.For the most part the danger in driving I believe is choices people make while driving. It would be hard to regulate most of it. Gun regulation is very similar. Most gun owners have not and will not hurt anybody. I do not have the answers exactly, but I know that nobody has purposely tried to hit and kill me in a car. It is the crazies that I'm concerned with with guns. I don't think they are very well organized. I think that restricting availability to certain weapons would help. Not ban them but make them a more thought out organized effort to get. I think we need to try because I don't believe it hurts anybody to do so. OK enough
Oh, Irene, I apparently was not meaning you were selfish. It was meant for the people that want to divert attention to something that doesn't impact them. Sorry
Talking about " ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE"?
SO in your "zeal" to defend your right to freedom, it's totally acceptable to have all the innocent men, women and children unexpectadely murdered in their own countries by an invading army as collateral damage, allegedly in the name of your freedom.
Kind of makes you an EXTREMIST HYPOCIRTE don't ya think? You want Freedom? Just as long as the blood isn't on your hands, makes it acceptable?
I see how those thousands of innocent people posed a threat to your freedom. The real scenario is more like .....................they were murdered because they were in the way of political agendas regarding natural resources.
@tim: thank you for your apology, I guess I jumped the gun too? (pun intended ;-) All I wanted to point out was, “why most people are not nearly as concerned about traffic laws as about gun laws?” If their intention is to make our society safer, there are a number of things we can do, that are perhaps more effective than banning certain type of guns. To me, a homicide is a homicide either it’s intentional or not. It doesn’t make me feel any better if my child was not gun downed, but killed by a reckless driver. Indeed, for cars are essential for most of us, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make traffic laws much stricter. How about punishing speeders, tailgaters and phone users just as harsh as DUI drivers, making all of them susceptible to instant license suspension or $1000 per ticket, for example. But I don’t see heated national discussions as to how we can make our roads safer. Of course gun violence is horrible and it should be much less, but sometimes I feel that people get too emotionally hyped over guns and make them out to be “the worst” problem in our society while forgetting there are bigger problems that kill a lot more. I don’t have a fear of being shot when I go out, because I think the chances are very rare, but I’m always afraid when I’m driving on a highway. All it takes is one irresponsible driver, and he doesn’t even have to be mentally unstable.
All you left wing extremists think seni-auto rifles are no match to keep the US in check should they decide to go tyrannical. Have any of you noticed that Afghanistan, one of the poorest, least capable countries on earth fought both world superpowers (Soviet Union and the United States) to a virtual draw with barely more weaponry than AK47s?
Did it ever occur to you that if our military was ever defeated by another country, the fact that your neighbors have over 300,000,000 weapons would make it impossible for any concurring country to "hold" the US. We essentially have a standing army of 100 to 150 million strong, (depending on how many of you liberal wusses stand with us to keep it)
"We need this weapons for the perspective possibility of resistance to tyranny"- Shapiro
"1776 will commence again if you take away our guns"- Alex Jones
Upon reading most of the comments, I’ve noticed a lot of facts and statistics had been bounced around this blog. I never read any credible fact why our government will become a tyranny. Shapiro and Jones' arguments are based on the assumption that our country will become a tyranny in the future. Here's what learned men say about ASSUMPTIONS:
"Assumptions allow the best in life to pass you by"-Sales
"Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness"-McLuhan
"Don't build roadblocks out of assumptions"-Myers
"Your assumptions are the windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while or light wont come in"-Alba
"Assumption is the mother of screw-up"- anonymous
"If you assume, it will make an ASS of U and ME"- anonymous
Assumptions are irrelevant if they are not backed up with facts. But sometimes one cannot help to assume. Multi million companies use Assumption-Based Planning to deal with uncertainty. They put an assumption into a rigorous test to prove if it is right or wrong. If proven wrong, they abandon it.
The right wing argues America will become a tyranny in the future (50-100 yrs from now) because it happened in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, Iraq, Syria, etc.
The government of these countries do not remotely resemble our government today. Their gov't was ruled by a king wherein whatever the king says, the subjects bow. The rest may call their government democratic but there was no true democracy because their ruler was a dictator and he has the power over the legislative, judiciary branches and the military. Thus, checks and balances fail and the result are tyranny.
The Checks and balances in the US gov't today are so rigorous that even a simple budget cannot be passed in the congress. The democrats and republicans check each other so much that even finding a solution to avert the fiscal cliff cannot be agreed on until 2 days past the deadline. The Obama care that was passed in the congress and signed by the president would not have been implemented as a law if the Sumpreme Court (another checker and balancer) did not rule in favor of it. The irony was, Judge Roberts who is a respected and devout republican gave the tie-breaking vote in favor to a democratic president.
If anybody believe that our gov't will become a tyranny, please present some credible FACTS.
Laws are continually changing. We used to have an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Meaning, we could always enforce a ban and later lift it. To be afraid of America turning into tyranny 50-100 yrs from now is counter productive in finding a solution to a problem that needs to be addressed NOW.
If you say “the government may become tyrannical” is an assumption, isn’t “the government won’t become tyrannical” is an assumption as well? And you are telling us to just blindly trust your “assumption” when history tells us something contrary....
Somehow nothing can convince me that tyranny, which happened all over the world repeatedly throughout history, won't EVER happen here. Maybe not in my life time, but how about a few hundred years from now?
“To be afraid of America turning into tyranny 50-100 yrs from now is counter productive in finding a solution...” Okay then, let’s not to be afraid of glacier melting 50-100 yrs from now either...
That is a good comparison. It seems that the main stream is not buying into that global warming thing anymore. That was a big Al Gore thing and we all know his true colors now.
Al Gore was right there after Sandy and saying “See, this is global warming that caused this”. Same here, “See, this is guns that caused this”.
Yes. America not becoming a tyranny is an assumption tested to be TRUE. I'm not telling you to blindly trust my assumption. I've stated facts how rigorous our checks and balances are in our government which would prevent future tyranny.
@ Gene & Jackie,
Just so you know, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent voter. I'm not well informed on the subject of global warming and I don't believe in it.
Rommel David, I for one like your posts because they are thought provoking. I really like the comment about the checks and balances in our government. “The Checks and balances in the US gov't today are so rigorous that even a simple budget cannot be passed in the congress.” That is so true. I found a quote on the web site of Larry Pratt that would suggest he agrees with you on that point.
Ruger is coming out with a new pistol in honor of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. It will be named the “Congressman”.
It doesn't work and you can't fire it. - Larry Pratt
Perhaps the majority of the people in Germany pre-WW2 thought like you did, that their laws were rigorous enough, but turned out, they couldn’t see it coming...
A dictatorship requires one party and one person in charge of a nation. That's what happened in Germany. That is not going to happen to us.
So, you are saying we have an exceptional political system that is completely tyranny-proof? If so, isn’t it because our brilliant founding fathers designed it that way and the Second Amendment is a part of it too?
You're very ignorant of history. Ronald Reagan once said that we are never more than a generation from losing our freedoms. Look at Germany during the 1910s. It was a democracy, a welfare state, was probably the most literate nation in the world, and was a cultural mecca. I am sure that there were people like you then who said, "Why, Germany could never become tyrannical." Most Jews probably believed that as well. However, a generation later they had Hitler and the Holocaust. No one is saying that the U.S. WILL become a tyranny. The purpose of the Second Amendment, as well as other checks and balances, is to prevent it from becoming one.
You are only thinking about 50-100 years from now? I am worried about the generation of our great-great-great-grandchildren, no matter how slight the possibility of tyranny it may seem to us now. You said “Laws are continually changing”... My point exactly!!! That means self-serving or shallow-thinking politicians could change our laws in the future, gradually, a little by little, to the point where “checks and balances fail”. Nothing man-made is free from mistakes. Some people even think Supreme Court failed when Obamacare was upheld.
- Yes. America not becoming a tyranny is an assumption tested to be TRUE.
Tested for how long? Only a little over 200 years, right? And it was only tested under high gun-ownership by the citizenry. It hasn’t been tested after the common people were completely disarmed, has it not?
You have quoted a great Republican presiident (whom i admire) and yet you are ignorant about his stance on banning semi auto/'assault weapons'. Here is the letter he wrote together with Pesidents Ford and Carter to the 1994 US congress urging them to vote in favor of the assault weapons ban.
“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.
“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.
You calling me ignorant is much like Rosie O'Donnell calling Taylor Swift fat, ugly, and untalented. I'm well aware of Reagan's letter. I agree with the Reagan quote I shared here. However, it does not follow that I have to agree with everything Reagan said. I don't agree with everything that anyone says. I would also note that Reagan was 83 and diagnosed with Alzheimer's during the same year of that letter. I do not believe Reagan would have signed such a letter a decade earlier.
How The Second Amendment saved a local town from tyranny in 1946 – A true story about how the people fought against government corruption and won.
And now we are going to debate whether or not the 3 presidents are mentally incapacitated when they signed that letter, are we? Oh please..........
Let me just make this clear, you're the one who first called me ignorant. Oh warning cliche coming....If you cant't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen! The irony is, you sound like Piers Morgan who loves to use the words ignorant and stupid.
"And now we are going to debate whether or not the 3 presidents are mentally incapacitated when they signed that letter, are we? Oh please.........."
I have proposed no such debate. However, anyone familiar with Alzheimer's victims knows that they often say and do things that are not consistent with what they said and did when they were healthy. I think it's disgusting of the socialists to cite Reagan when his stage was offered at a time when he was suffering from Alxheimer's.
Yes, I did say you are ignorant first, mainly because you have demonstrated that that is clearly the case. Morgan called people "deranged" and "stupid" with nothing to based that on. Comparing my comments to Morgan's is comparing apples to oranges.
No! It's been tested by 200 years of having a strong democratic form of government wherein power is distributed to the executive, legislative, judiciary branches and the state and local governments.
There you go with the ignorance again. The Second Amendment is part of the checks and balances system that you are referring to.
OK, I have a really dumb question. So, if the government goes tyrannical I guess we all need an AR-15’s? Well, I did some checking and buyers beware. Some of these AR-15’s are 223 only and if you load one of the military 223 nato rounds in it, you might just kill yourself when it blows up. So, when people shoot up all those 223 rounds and I am guessing they will do that real quickly with high capacity magazines, what then? Can’t capture any M16 ammo and use that. Maybe have to capture a M16? Geeeez, down the rabbit hole again. Wait a minute….. Rabbit holes….. We can hide.
I’m sorry I make fun of a serious topic, but fighting my own military? I really think the government would find the military standing on the Whitehouse lawn if they directed them to attack American citizens. Our own government doesn’t fear the military so why should I? My whole family served and my kids are all in the military. My kids know right from wrong.
That is so funny and true! I believe that there should be more independent candidates and voters in order to balance the government so as things could finally get done.
I got a good laugh out of it. Maybe universal background checks for politicians might be good. Huckabee suggested that last night and I couldn’t quit laughing.
You proposed of no such debate but here we are....
The letter was signed on May 3, 1994. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in August 1994.
Are we going to drag his doctors and question them of his well being at that time?
It is disgusting for the conservative nuts to question, second guess, interject malice on Ronald Reagan's intent when he wrote and signed that letter based on the assumption that he is MAD when they don't even have facts.
Remember, "THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF ANY FELLOW REPUBLICAN"!-Ronald Reagan
"The letter was signed on May 3, 1994. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in August 1994."
You're a bit of a moron. Do you seriously believe that Reagan was healthy in May 3, but developed Alzheimer's at some point during the three months prior to his Alzheimer's was discovered?
No one has suggested malice on Reagan's part, so stop offering red herrings.
Reagan's presidency ended in 1989. 1989 to 1994 is just 5 years. So, if you believe that he's been suffering from Alzheimer's quite awhile, then, all of the good things that he has done for the country was done while he was MAD.
You are irrational. You are a conservative nut and a F- ing retard!
More name-calling while hiding behind a tree instead of presenting facts. That's the liberal way. I suggest you read up on Alzheimer's. Five years makes a huge difference.
BTW, F-ing retard means : Functioning retard, since you can still formulate below par arguments.
Hi Rommel David. Your post make good sense but you'll not convince groenhagen, no matter how hard you try. That person is a legend in his own mind. What America needs is a counterweight to the gun lobby, and the campaign started by Mark Kelly and Gaby Giffords, "Americans for responsible solutions", will be that counterweight.
Here's what you wrote and I quote: "I do not believe Reagan would have signed such a letter a decade earlier". Meaning, you are questioning his well being from 1994 and ten years back (1984-1994). Reagan's presidential term was 1981-1989. Sounds like you're eating your words are ya?
You know what? I've lost interest talking to you because you are a nut. Just find a squirrel to talk to. Do you follow what I mean? Squirrel -–>Nut, squirrel is to nut, For crying out loud, squirrels love nuts!
You really can't be this stupid, can you? I was not questioning Reagan's mental health as early as 1984 because there is absolutely no evidence that he suffered from Alzheimer's during that time. As evidenced by Reagan's debates with Mondale in 1984, he was very sharp at that time. That is why I said I do not believe he would have signed that 1994 letter along with Ford and Carter if he had been asked to do so in 1984.
Well groenhagen, caught with your pants down again, eh? Isn't it amazing how you turn your own words around to justify the idiotic statements you've made throughout this blog? You're not even in command of the English language (check American College Dictionary for the definition of "infer"). Your comments have become very boring, as they have nothing in common with reality. So click your heels, Dorothy, and maybe you'll wake up in the Land of OZ.
Oh, and do me a favor and don't respond. I'm tired of your tripe.
I do not have to check a dictionary to know the difference between "infer" and "imply." You infer from and imply to. It's basic English that you and your liberal friend here apparently failed to learn. You're typical of many anonymous cowards on the Internet who resort to personal attacks when their limited intelligence and reasoning skills fail to be adequate to the task of debating facts.
That is absolutely true. 223's are now in short supply. What's next, M16? somebody even seriously suggested that the line should be drawn at the artillery level.
It is also true that we are a good democratic people. We hate and fight tyrants, we do not make or breed them.
Even if Groenhagen sounds like a war monger, he's still a good man. LOL
To be honest, I am happy with my shotguns and high powered rifles that are bolt action. We already have gun control; we are just talking about controlling more capability of weapons. I know they are also talking about specific weapons, but once you control the magazines it doesn’t matter what it looks like. In either case, I only own one high capacity magazine and that is in a Springfield XDM 9mm. If I needed all the rounds it holds to protect myself I would trade it in for something I could shoot better and hit the target. I have hunted my whole life and I have never shot anything twice and I have never shot anything that ran away. I don’t feel like I need to carry a gun everywhere I go and I would do my best to avoid, evade or talk my way through a situation before I would shoot anyone. Once you decide to resort to the weapon, something bad is going to happen.
Gilbert – Thank goodness we liberal wusses have you conservative heroes to protect us.
Now, you better get back to your Half-Life 2 game. We can't afford for you to get rusty.
Anyone who suggests the Piers got owned obviously did not watch the clip.
Ignorance at its best.
That's for sure. Unfortunately ignorance is also rampant.
Shapiro clearly had the upper hand in this debate. Clalling others "ignorant" when you clearly are a low-information voter is quite humorous.
Anyone who's against the 2nd Amendment think Pierce Morgan won LOL. If only one looks from a non bias point of view, Shapiro destroyed this dude by using facts of real life. No BS talking points about low gun murders in Britain, sure that's true – but there are thousands of murders commuted with various objects such as knives. Believe it or not the problem got so bad, there are talks about banning knives in UK. Look it up.
What is with the idea that an assault weapons ban would dry up the market? The man doesn’t take anything off the street other than new manufacturing. The Springfield Model 1873 “Trapdoor” used by General George Custer is still on the used market, and most of them still shoot just fine.
After looking at Senator Feinstein’s website and all the studies that she shows, I found the following study more current from her studies that suggests the news media is a big part of the problem.
Based on the statistics from the same site that Senator Feinstein uses to support the argument that her assault weapons ban actually did some good, other reports suggest that blocking the media would do better. So, to really do some good, Senator Feinstein would have to quit attacking the Second Amendment and start attacking the First Amendment.
Ben Shapiro, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are an Harvard student or graduate and create spurious logic in order to present Piers Morgan as saying something he did not state. Here, though, I'll state it (and I am a United States Citizen born and raised): The 2nd Amendment applies to the MILITIA – which is the military. The SCOTUS may state otherwise, but they might get it right at some point. One can only hope. Now, that being said, Ben, you were trying to be a "Stephen Colbert" and failed, miserably. Your attempt at satire when comparing Piers' stance that private gun owners should not have assault rifles to not having an handgun is utterly ridiculous and you should ask Harvard for a tuition reimbursement if that is the best logic they could teach you. You stated that Piers Morgan "stands on the graves" of children. Do you stand on the graves of those at Auschwitz? Please, Ben (you are no MR. anything to me because that requires a measure of respect and you have earned none), wipe that childish smirk off of your face, apologize to Piers Morgan for acting like a tempestuous brat, and hopefully your Jewish mother gives you a nice dressing down for how you acted and spoke. I am a Jewish mother and would be mightily ashamed of the fact that you wore that kippah and in any manner represented those who know that assault weapons can kill more in a much less time than an handgun. Grow up.
A vast majority of people killed with hand guns, not "assault rifles." Or, rifles of any kind. If you were truly concerned about dead kids, you'd should be trying to ban those. If guess you are only concerned by the killing you see on TV.
I have personally stopped a assault with the use of my firearm and I completely believe that we should NEVER give up the right to defend our family, ourselves or our neighbors when the government may or may not be there to save our hind ends.
In our community it takes between 8 to 18 minutes on average for the police to arrive, would you still be alive?
The left are using the Sandy Hook shooting in order to push an Assault Weapons ban, with the ultimate goal of banning all guns. We need to start thinking rationally instead of emotionally in this country. Banning any type of gun will not prevent criminals from gaining access to these weapons, so need to find a real solution, not more political rhetoric.
For those on here commenting on Shapiro's views regarding government tyranny, apparently you all are not aware of the thousands of Americans interned in detainment camps based soley on race. Under the direction of liberal uber-icon Franklin D Roosevelt. Yeah, I'm sure even Piers Morgan is ignorant of that fact. There is ALWAYS the possibility of tyranny with government because man is a flawed and sinful creature always seeking ways in which to imprison others. Self-determination and voluntary association is always under attack.
Well then Jason, why do gun advocates like Jones and Shapiro stop at semi-automatic firearms. Why aren't they lobbying for civilian access to fully automatic weapons; or hand grenades; or missile batteries (you could get your bridge club to split the cost of an Iron Dome for the neighborhood). How 'bout a tactical nuke for every Rotary club?
How The Second Amendment saved a local town from tyranny in 1946 – A true story about how the people fought against government corruption and won.
That is so true and funny!
Ben Shapiro is brilliant, my "grandparents didn't fear their government in Europe and that's why they became ashes", do we really need to go on and on why every civilian that is not insane or a criminal, deserves the right to own an assault weapon? History is replete with example after example of government's turning on their citizenry, AFTER THEY GO HOUSE TO HOUSE TO COLLECT THE GUNS!
Piers Morgan doesn't care about dead kids.
I am strongly in favor of gun control, but Ben Shapiro really got the best of this debate. Piers Morgan at his best is thoughtful and incisive. This was not his best. He was indeed bullying and belittling to a thoughtful and articulate man, cutting him off, badgering him, and (shame on you Piers) calling attention to his youth in an effort to undermine his credibility. Ben Shapiro may be a gun fanatic for all I know, but he didn't come off as one on this show. He came off as a reasonable person who was extremely cautious about the threat of government tyranny. He's not one of the gun crazies who yammers on about his god-given rights - he's exactly the sort of thoughtful person that Piers should be able to have a constructive conversation with. I don't agree with Mr. Shapiro, but I would have gotten more out of a constructive discussion of his viewpoint than this silly shouting match.
To all the posters who insist Mr. Morgan has no right to comment on American issues because he's not from here, I got news for you: You're not from here either – unless you're Native American, which you're not – because no self-respecting Native American would advocate arming the population with assault weapons. So shaddup already.
Did you actually read what you posted?
Anybody who was BORN in America is from here. Our ancestors may have come over from other lands, but American born citizens are from AMERICA regardless if they are Naive American or not.
Well said Dave and I am Native American but just born here like you.
MY Dad is bigger than YOUR Dad Dave. Nya, nya, nya.
"asked the conservative political commentator who turns 29 on Tuesday." REALLY? There was a need to note Shapiro"s age? I wonder who's side the author of this article comes down on? Great objective journalism CNN!
I love that CNN posts the little clip where Piers at least manages to articulate his position without tripping all over himself. If this were a boxing match, Ben would have knocked out Piers in the first round, and the second, and the third.
I can at least say this–thank goodness Piers had the intellectual integrity to invite someone who can actually defend the Second Amendment. It just seemed to backfire because Ben annihilated Piers on live television.
Oh yeah Ben annihilated Piers on live television. Yay Ben! Boo Piers! Ben won the fight!
Fortunately he's going to lose the war:
“We can’t tolerate this anymore,” President Barack Obama told residents in Newtown, Connecticut, in the wake of the December 14th shootings that killed 20 school children and seven adults, including the gunman. “These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change,” he added.
The tragedy shook America and Mr. Obama promised to use the presidency – “whatever power this office holds,” as he put it – to prevent similar massacres.
@anotherreader – I rest my case.
I'm not the one making silly, spurious claims that the so-called "data" you quote supports your position. It would be an waste of time to try to fact check these kinds of claims because credible data simply does not exist to support what you say. But nonetheless, I've indulged your request.
I have been on the US, UK, and Australian government sites and have not found one reference made with respect to your claim "that as availability of personal weapons increased (exponentially) the number of weapons related deaths fell by half".
So enlighten me, point me to just ONE credible source from which you gleaned this "data". And since you've already found it (by way of quoting it), you shouldn't have to waste 1/10 of the time I wasted looking for data that is a complete fabrication.
I promise you this – if you can find that data on any of the sites I've listed, I'll be the first to retract my position and offer a sincere apology to you and anyone who is quoting "data" to bolster their pro gun views. But please don't bother quoting statistics form the NRA or other similarly biased (and bribed) gun advocacy organizations.
I won't however retract my position, that assault weapons and high capacity magazines are only in the hands of civilians because of the gun industry's financial resources. The gun industry is like the tobacco industry who maintain to this day that there is no proof that smoking causes cancer.
The gun industry propagates this garbage because they know, unfortunately, that an unbelievably large segment of our society will regurgitate it without thinking or PROPERLY informing themselves.
Peter, what's up and how are you? I'm glad u brought up the Tobacco industry but 1st I would like to ask you and others a question. 1st let me start by saying I smoked from age 12 till 29 and quit till this day, so my view isn't biased but based on personal experience.
Is this TRULY about the safety of our children and society as a whole?
If it is about the safety and well being of others as people claim, how come nobody is demanding legislature on bigger causes of death? On CDC website it say that 443,000 deaths a year are related to smoking and for every 1 death 20 people will suffer severe illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and many others.
39,000 (non smokers) a year will die from second hand smoke...so technically they are murdered also.
Prescription drug related deaths are more than illegal drug deaths combined.
Alcohol, auto accidents and many other causes of deaths at minimul (triple) gun related deaths.
Cigarettes alone cause more deaths than many of those combined. Honestly gun related deaths isn't even in the top 15 causes of death, so basically there's at least 15 other issues(minimum) which should more importantly be addressed.
Why is it you think they aren't?
Hi Dave – I agree with you completely.
CNN should be ashamed to call this news. BEN SHAPIRO NEVER SAID ASSAULT WEAPONS HAVE A PLACE ON THE STREET, and he specified that they only belong in the homes of civilians who have passed mental and criminal background checks. Instead of quoting the reasons Shapiro gave for telling Piers that he stands on the graves of the children at sandy hook, you slipped it in to imply that he merely threw it out there to be crass and insulting.
Jason Kurtz should be flipping burgers and Piers Morgan needs a one way ticket to England.
If you think it's really called an assault rifle you have already lost the battle or "Military style rifles?" What kind of military is armed with semi auto rifles? Because I have a .308 bolt action remington rifle for hunting and it's the choice of the marine snipers, is that militry?? Do some research on the .223 round and find out why it's the most effective tool for self defense. No one is asking for fully automatic weapons!
I have been around guns for the last forty years and I was thinking about this tonight... why have none of my firearms (including the assault weapons) ever shot up a gun free zone? Maybe the guns aren't the problem. Just maybe these crazy incidents could be caused be crazy people that have been coddled on neglected by a society that no longer thinks it okay to properly deal with people with mental illnesses. We have a individual in our community that has been arrested multiple times and set free because he is not competent to stand trial but not crazy enough to be locked up. Does that make any sense to anyone but PM?
What happened to the good old days when we all had a firearm above each door to the house and people treated their firearms and each other with respect?
Why do you think that when most homes had a gun and we taught gun safety in schools, that there was very little gun violence but now that far fewer homes have guns, we have dropped gun safety in schools and we are now training our children on video games and on TV to shoot each other, gun crimes have risen? Could there be a connection?
Even if they are taken away from the innocent, there will always be guns around . The criminals will bring them from wherever they need to, to keep the advantage over the weak.
Teach your children gun safety and the consequences of the lack of gun safety while they are young and you will forever make this world safer. Who knows, it may be your child that finds one laying in their school ground? Criminals leave them in the strangest of places.
I would rather carry a gun every day of my life and never need it, than to need it once and not have it.
Criminals do not like you to be armed, it makes their job safer. (ask many politicians)
Remember, the most deadly attack on a United States school was with dynamite, not a assault rifle.
Let's think like a terrorists for just one moment. (no not like Obama, he's a politician) If you can't get a gun, you can just make a bomb that can level a large building at your local lawn and garden shop like Tim M. did in Oklahoma. Evil is out there, we must stand guard against it, but not by making the rest of us defenseless.
If a semi auto version of a rifle is such a danger in the hands of a citizen, then how can we trust a citizen army with the same rifle in a full auto version?
Nobody needs busybodies policing his needs.
Ben is a winner and Piers is a zero.
Can I just say what a comfort to find a person that truly knows what they're discussing on the web. You definitely understand how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More and more people ought to look at this and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you are not more popular because you most certainly have the gift.
Are you anti-gunners rallying to restrict what firepower the police have as well? You say these AR-15's and "high capacity" (more like standard capacity) magazines are only good for killing innocent people as quickly as possible, yet seem to have no problem with the police using them. Their job is to enforce the law, not kill as many people as possible. If you don't restrict the police the same way you restrict civilians, you aren't anti gun violence; you're pro centralization and monopolization of violence. If I only "need" 10 rounds to defend myself from an attacker, the police with all their superior training most certainly can defend themselves with 10 rounds. Also, unlike the police, I don't have guaranteed backup if I run into trouble, nor do I have legal immunity if I make a poor judgement call and shoot/shoot at the wrong person.
Emphysema also slowly destroys the elastic fibers that hold open the small airways leading to the air sacs. This allows these airways to collapse when you breathe out, so the air in your lungs can't escape. Treatment may slow the progression of emphysema, but it can't reverse the damage. ".."^
@Ginger – Did you even watch the whole interview or just the tiny snippet CNN chose to post? There was definitely a jerk in that interview, but it certainly wasn't Shapiro. Each time PM got flustered and had no intelligent response to Shapiro's point he changed the subject or jumped back to one of his ridiculous generalizations. PM was way out of his league in this "debate."
Shapiro is a jerk, because he is honest? We need weapons in case of government tyranny. and Piers is cutting Shapiro off at every possible second...but you know... Shapiro's the jerk.
Shapiro is an example of who you don't want to have a gun!
Why won't Piers talk about the hundred of children in chicago???? they didn't die from assault weapons, they died from guns. Assault weapons ban won't help the children of Chicago. Why does Piers focus only on Assault weapons? If I have to be like Piers then let me ask this.....
How many White kids died from assault weapons?
How many Black & Hispanic kids died from hand guns?
Now...... Which guns should we ban???? Souls have no color, but it looks like Piers isn't looking at it that way.
Just watched Shapiro SHRED Piers Morgan. Brilliant work by a brilliant mind. Handed Piers his hat and showed him the door.
So, let me understand this.... The fear of tyranny is so great that the second amendment must be interpreted this way????? Pretty sure the government has y'all out-gunned anyway and if its twerps like Shapiro rising up your SOL anyway
apparently the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, however, does it also state anywhere the right to own ammuntion ? If you can't ban or restrict the sale of guns, why not put severe restrictions or bans on the sale and purchase of ammuntion ? I dont think the amendment precludes any gov't agency from doing that.
You know I am so tired of this. I am an American, and it is my right to own a ar-15. Most of these shootings are from mental cases. There is no mental health care in America any more. PM and his people are the same people that are taking the guy from tuson shooting, and feeding him pills till he is competent to stand trail. This means to me that he didnt know what he was doing at the time of the shooting. But we have to make him well so we can charge him and then kill him. PM needs to go home.
Piers! How can you advocate abolishing AR's to prevent mass murders...Yet you have illegal drugs on your desk? Do you realize how ridiculously ignorant, hypocritical, and insane that is? LOL!...unbelievable
According to him, the second amendment protects the right to automatic weapons. Would a fully functional tank be OK? Shoulder fired rocket launcher?An F7 fighter jet?A nuclear weapon?That is what PM meant by absurd. If this guy would not draw the line on any of these weapons, then he is in more trouble then just being absurd. If he would draw a line somewhere then the only difference is where the line is. Any line according to him violates the second amendment. My opinion is people like this just like to argue and think they are smarter than everyone around them. He neither cares about the children nor the second amendment. He is mostly concerned about his ego and how he is doing in the argument.
The founding fathers said in a free society the people should not be afraid of the government, THE GOVERNMENT should be afraid of the people. That's what the second amendment was intended to ENSURE. Look what the government has done to OUR country. I'm not saying Democrat or Republican together they have driven OUR country into bankruptcy while they made themselves multimillionaires. How well would you like to be armed when the they run us off the next cliff.
Finally a 'guest' that King Morgan could not bully! Wonders never cease.
Go back to England where violence continues to increase even with all of the gun bans Piers, we don't need your anti gun agenda in our country. He did answer your question several times about why assault rifles would be needed against tyranny. How many people die when countries are taken over by tyrannical forces and kill citizens and start wars....
Hmm, I think England was one of those tyrannical governments and why we have the 2nd amendment. Go home Peirs we don't want or need you. Stop standing on those graves to try and further you career and left agenda.
Mr. Morgan you say no one can explain why a person needs an assault weapon in there home. The answer is very simple, law enforcement nor the military can protect us during riots and civil unrest. Torrorist could easily cause riots and unrest, Many things could put citizens at risk. My handgun or shotgun could not protect my family or friends during a major civil event. Law enforcement cannot protect against these events. Only a well armed community can protect one another during these emergencies. Remember the LA riots, and simular events. Social events give no one the right to burn down my home or assault my family. They will think twice when confronted with a well armed community!
I see the point of view from both sides. Piers does not want to see anymore mass shootings. Ben points out that banning only assault weapons will only reduce mass shootings.
Ben was trying to bring forth the point that hand guns would still be available. Hand guns may not always be the weapon of choice for mass shootings but they have been the weapon of choice for a "mass of shootings" . Taking guns away will spark a proliferation of stabbings and clubbings.
The real issue here is "the world has a problem".
Ask rather "why is society lashing out against itself so violently?
Piers is seeking truth, Ben is seeking truth, I am seeking truth. Aren't we all.
Let us encourage rational discussion. Does truth come from God or does it find itself through evolution?
Maybe it is in the person sitting across from us.
Peace on earth.
I have heard multiple people call this interview "anti-semitic"
The yarmulke-wearing individual volunteered to be on this...
some people think he looks great, others think he's insane...
please don't call this "anti-semitic"
and more importantly please don't see all "semites" the same
i am not jewish
i also have a right foot and a left foot
not all people with a right foot and a left foot are the exact same