READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
With the nation's attention still squarely focused on the gun debate, and on a day which began with the president signing off on more than 20 executive gun control actions, Wednesday evening saw Piers Morgan welcome a pair of women anxious to share their passionate perspectives on firearm legislation.
Returning to the CNN airwaves, Dana Loesch joined "Piers Morgan Tonight" for a live interview during which the Conservative radio host addressed one of Morgan's recurring questions, the reason why an American civilian would need the ability to obtain an assault weapon:
"As a woman who ... uses guns for self-defense and likes to know that I have that security, they're a lot easier to fire than other rifles, simply because of the recoil," explained the 35-year-old political commentator. "An AR-15, is, honestly, it's just like any other rifle. I don't understand why some individuals can become so scared of this, because they think it's a scary looking weapon."
As Morgan noted that it's this very weapon that has been used in several of the recent mass-shootings, Loesch suggested that the blame is being misplaced:
"How are law-abiding citizens like me responsible for that," she wondered. "I followed the law. And I'll admit it: I own an AR-15. I follow the law. I went through my background check. I've taken the classes. I'm a responsible owner. Why should I be punished?"
Referencing the tragic mass-shooting in Newtown, Conn., the host noted the killer's mother, whom possessed the weapons used to murder 26 people, was also following the law:
"Adam Lanza's mother was a legal gun owner!"
Joining the program in studio, Scottie Hughes joined the conversation, and jumped in with a disclaimer she considered to be of noteworthy importance:
"But Adam Lanza's mother did not shoot people up, Piers. You have to realize that," said the "Tea Party News Network" News Director.
Having already asked Hughes about her position on Obama's recently announced package of initiatives, of which she proudly said she disagreed with unconditionally, Morgan sought Loesch's answer on the same issue:
"Scottie said earlier she doesn't agree with a single thing that President Obama said today. What's your view?"
"I think that he was moved by what happened at Newtown, which I think anybody would have been," she began.
"Was there anything you agreed with in the president's proposals?" he pressed.
After a thinking pause, Loesch said flatly: "No."
And with that, the host was fully exasperated:
"Okay. No. That's it. You know something? The pair of you would like to have the right to have a tank, and you don't agree with a single one, of President Obama's proposals for gun control," he said, while crumpling up his script. "And you know something? It makes ... me ... sick!"
Tossing the ball of paper on his desk, Morgan ended the interview, turned to the camera, and read the next story.
Watch the clip, and listen to the entire exchange, to understand exactly why the "Piers Morgan Tonight" host became so frustrated.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
I am a gun owner and do not agree that people need automatics and clips that hold more than 10 shells HOWEVER
I think Piers Morgan is out of line when he questions the second amendment as he is doing
I need a large clip. I live less than 40 miles from the Mexican border. In 2005 the MS 13 cut a man's fingers off in our driveway! They bring drugs up our road, we have to turn the lights off and hide. Lots of the weapons that the cartels have were sold to them by the US government in the scandal that killed Agent Terry. The border patrol has an enormous area to defend, I am happy when I am wakened by copters, because I know there are agents out there. I believe that the people who have done the killing have been on psychotropic drugs? If the people at the Sandy Hook School had a scene the day before the shooting. If they had not believed that they were so SAFE, those kids would be in school and the shooter would have been put on a psych hold. I will be buying up as much ammo for my DEFENSE weapon, thanks, because the cartels have the same round sizes, and they kill their own people by the tens of thousands. People on the border of Mexico need big clips, when my husband was murdered in 1995, it took the cops 45 minutes to arrive!!
Its amazing that everyone takes it personal like their criminlas on the idea of a total , nationlly based, back ground checking system ( which is going to happen, Guaranteed ). Do you really oppose that, WHY? are you criminals. Are you wanting to protect criminals. What ever conclusiion you use to not want to just rectifies your delussional and questionable!
Same live further from the border than you yet have smugglers shooting each other right down the road about a mile away, also same with the police response if something happens we are left to defend on our own. If our government would do more to enforce the laws in place currently then we would not have to worry as much, secure our borders so criminals cant flow through with their drugs and guns so easily. That will never happen though as far as their concerned our borders are as safe as they ever have been, of course we all know this to be false. We cant rely on our government to protect us so we must do it ourselves.
@Kim Ellen Campbell. I have one word for you......MOVE! Look, I'm sorry you live by the border but's that your choice ....and it doesn't sound like a wise one. Your story sounds like you're glutton for punishment. In all honestly the whole meaning of these debates are about what is best for the MASS of American people. There will be casualties.We can't base all of our laws around one state. I recommend you move from that area. Personally, I would have moved if my husband was killed. You think?
Hi Kim, I am sorry for your loss, but unfortunately, freshyoungminds has a point and I’ll explain why.
In February of 1969, while I was on a (CA) combat assault, we were on return when we noticed 2 VC firing at us from the river bank.
We broke formation to engage and called in for clearance to return fire. The commanding officer told us to NOT RETURN FIRE.
We sent a second request and indicated that we had a clear-open shot and that there were no friendlies within 100 yards. Again we were told not to fire. (One note: Our door gunner was one of the best – We would often tease him about hitting a fly on a water buffalo’s ear and T would always answer “Which eye, left or right?”)
My point is this…When ever politics become involve, you’re in trouble and you live in a highly-charged politically covered area. And, simply stated, “You don’t stand a chance in hell to receive any form of adequate protection. YOU’RE LIVING IN A WAR ZONE – PERIOD!!!
Look, if the border patrols agents can’t protect themselves, what chance does Ms. Local Citizen have – regardless of how many weapons you can collect…And I’m sorry to say this, but even a 1,000 rounds won’t help you or your family as they’ll eventually get you and anyone around you. (Get out of Dodge and fast..)
Okay then, you need to buy her a house and find her a job in the area wherever you recommend her to move. Oh, and cover the entire moving expenses, too. Would you say the same to the people who live where Katrina hit for another disastrous hurricane may hit again?? And if that happens again and they suffer, it's their fault for not moving to somewhere else???
Kim, I am so sorry that there are such insensitive people who cannot understand others' situations and say such a heartless thing. And I am very truly sorry for your loss and will pray that you will live your life strong. God bless you.
Right after world war two there was a battle in a America to fight against tyranny. It was a small battle. But It was a battle none the less. Only way it was won was with a armed public. http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html you want to watch this video. The more you disarm the public the more trust you have to have in the US federal government that they wont further abuse power more and more. Question is who really trusts the government. I mean really ask anyone in the US the general question do you trust the federal government. I don't know anyone would say yes.
My goodness!! What a thing to say to a widow, freshyoungminds, do you not have a heart…
Ms. Campbell, I sympathize with you from the bottom of my heart. You do HAVE A RIGHT to defend yourself and your family.
And, smdavison, your comment is not in response to Ms. Campbell, is it? You simply mistook the place to post, I presume?
You know very well there is NO ONE with sane mind who wants to protect criminals. This type of combative sarcasm does not help solving the problem at all.
Kim... You have every right to stand your ground.Please don't listen to those telling you to move. Retreat is a cowardly option. If everyone moved away when confronted by a bully, we wouldn't have a country.
I think you are a rare case of someone who needs it.
So????? Are you saying we should scarify her and all the people living near the border???
sorry, typo, I meant "sacrifice"...
Well I agree one hundred percent! I am not sure what people need or dont need, but it seems he just dont get it at all and is just jumping on a side. Then it seems like he thinks he might have messed up and dont know how to fix it.
Dr. Mr. Piers Morgan
You're not conducting "free speech". You are engaging in "information warfare" through the medium of CNN. You are an assistant in a concerted effort to create the planned violence this country, while pretending to be a pacifist. You have your unique intelligence relationship with the executive office and think that makes you immune to the judgement of the American people. You're not going to come over here and start a war in support of a clandestine and subversive effort against the American people thinking you're going to walk away with your name being honored in memory here. Your polls are biased, your objectors are the majority. Go home and start a war over there, our families don't want your nonsense hurting us here.
– Another Army Veteran Who Isn't Part Of Your Operation
Well said!! My wife and I would like to thank you for you service to our country.
Kevin, John Doe may have his reasons. Now I'll repeat myself...
Over the past several weeks I’ve seen hundreds of comments with “what if’s”, plus statistics from every corner of the USA (& UK).
First of all, it’s a simple fact that guns don’t kill people do.
Secondly, more guns WILL NOT fix the problem! So why increase the opportunity with more guns?
I’m hoping all of you didn’t forget the real key to all of this debate…the word is “TRAINED” and you have to agree that weapons used to kill large numbers of people DO NOT belong in the hands of John Q Public.
Before I start, I am for gun rights, but knowing what some weapons can do to the human body, I just cannot justify or see how adding more weapons can be an answer to gun violence – Especially in the hands of an untrained gun owner. Let’s first get a count on what we already have on the streets and control that first. I think everyone agrees that it’s not just a gun issue; it’s much deeper than that.
And as for Armed guards… Well! Déjà vu – That's what China was like in 1996 when I was there – Armed Military in every mall and on the streets with their trusty German Sheppard.
I’m not one for statistics as I taught statistics and have only one thing to say… A quote popularized in the United States by Mark Twain was "There are three kinds of liars: liars, damned liars, and statistics." – A note to consider when you here statistical evidence being presented. (I would add a fourth – Politicians – I’ll let you pick the order placement.)
Now, as for Semi and Automatic Weapons…
People are forgetting what this type of weapon is designed to accomplish: (Warning-Hold your stomach.)
Look at the 4th photo in on the top. That’s what an AR-15 is design to do. Is that the weapon you want around our schools?
Think folks? Some of the Sandy Hook children were hit 11 times. Can you imagine what those little bodies looked like after 11 hits?
I’m a Viet Nam Veteran, so let me elaborate.
Automatic Weapons are for this!
This is from my diary of events just outside My Lai in Quang Ngai province, South Viet Nam.
“August 22, 1968. Five mortar rounds came in and 3 Hueys were hit. Gunships and ground troops killed over 300 confirms in about an hour of fighting. McGlew said he just closed his eyes and started firing. It was like being at a carnival and you had a shot gun while everyone else had BB guns. All guns ships are down for repairs.”
“August 23, 1968. Still fighting in Quang Ngai. Aircraft came in carrying 6 dead GI’s – Blood and guts are all over the inside and left side of the aircraft and it smells like hell. Aircraft are now flying with tape over bullet holes.”
“August 24, 1968. Third day of fighting. One Regiment of NVA wiped out plus Viet Cong now destroyed. 03:00, approximately 100 mortar rounds came in. Holes allover 7 aircraft, but still flying with tape over bullet holes.
By end of 3rd day, 11th Brigade head count was approximately 1500 enemy kills – 1200 ground and 300 from gunships.” (I think the 11th fudged figures as we had 4 ships in the air and each had a Crew chief and door gunner with M-60s, plus 2 Mini-guns and a 40 Mike-Mike mounted on the nose.)
A second event…
“I was there during TET and when we were getting overrun by Charlie, I was glad to see Snoopy put down a round in every square inch of the tree line outside our perimeter. Two gun runs and the battle was over.
After Snoopy left, our gunships came down from the hill and finished the job.”
Believe me, these weapons are not for the faint at heart – They don’t just kill, they can destroy beyond recognition.
And that’s the intended use of automatic weapons.
I'm not sure why someone hasn't asked the folks we sent to foreign shores to defend all our rights as Americans what they think – The ones that used these weapons on a regular basis. I think you would be very surprised at their answer.
I hear many reasons trying to justify the need to own automatic weapons, but consider this… did more automatic weapons help Osama Ben Laden?
But this is a given… Less automatic and semi automatics will reduce the head count – but will not eliminate the problem.
I believe someone stated that most gun-related deaths come from hand guns and they were correct.
But consider this fact… I don’t understand why everyone keeps thinking that people that do all these horrendous acts are going to take out a full page ad letting everyone know they’re coming. Remember That!!!
I'd like to see Alex Jones argument for owning 50 weapons if someone disarms his security system; sneaks into his bedroom one night and wakes him up with a little old 22 at his head or even a knife at his throat. What good would his 50 guns do then? Again, people that do these things normally DO NOT announce they’re coming in.
Besides that, when I was in Viet Nam, I knew guys that could take out Mr. Jones and not even go in the house and,... you’d never know they were there.
Actually, some of the guys I knew in Viet Nam, we would drop off at night and pick them up in the morning and they never fired a shot, but would take down several VC per night.
But I have noticed a silver lining in the area where I live...more visibility of patrol vehicles around the elementary school just up the street. Great!
I’m firmly against more guns like the AR-15 in the public sector but I am very pleased to see our law enforcement folks taking things into their own hands with more visual patrols around school yards.
I would end by saying this about Piers Morgan…at least give him the credit for speaking his mind as you surely know our politicians won’t – Too much money to lose (or being re-elected?).
And while it is true that most murders are with handguns period, I ask, is it better to just ignore the ills of our society?
Someone has to be brave enough to challenge our political SOP of “do nothing”.
We need “reasonable” solutions, not idle talk.
I ask you this question. “What do you need an automatic weapon for in America?” I certainly know what the government asked me to do with an automatic weapon!” You can’t be a hunter if you think an automatic weapon is needed.
Final note: Personal Liberties as an individual, do not exist, but are proportionally based on acceptable societal behavior. We ARE Americans – and that IS a unit of many. We are THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
Well said. I viewed the interview of the gun suporters last night and thought Piers Morgan was way out of line not even letting them voice their opinion. He tried to talk over them every time they tried to respond to his questions. He was like a little kid having a tantrum . Piers has his own agenda so why have guests that have a different opinion then his if he won't let them express themselfs.It's called freedom of speach Mr. Morgan. You want it but you won't let US citizens express their fredom of the 1st ammendment.
hey John Doe "Army my azzz man" skreu you and all of your gun loving nut case NRA members .. you should be thrown in jail on sedition charges.
hey John Doe "Army my azz man" skreu you and all of your gun loving nut case NRA .. you should be thrown in jail on sedition charges. ..
John Deo, thank you for your service! Just like you identified yourself as an Army Vet. Why are you hesitant in having a background check for buying gun? Majority of legal gun owners in US are whites who look at themselves as "victims". The illegal gun owners in US are black and are mostly gang-bangers. What is the percent of robberies in which the robber used guns?
Well mtb, I’m a Viet Nam Vet and I believe someone needs to explain some facts to you.
We Americans are the luckiest humans on earth, but that luxury came with a hefty price tag.
You can dislike guns, you can dislike the Army, Navy and Marines, as some veteran gave their life for you to have that right and keep it.
Remember, when you go to bed at night, you don’t have to worry if someone is going to pull you out of bed and drag you down the street or come in and kill your family just because they said something the government didn’t like. No my friend, you’re lucky that you can sleep in piece; wake up in the morning; have a nice breakfast and go anywhere in the country you wish. Why?
Because somewhere in the world there’s an Army, Navy or Marine keeping the bad guys out – And “that” they do for you.
We don’t go for money, glory and the metals are just that, metal. No, we go because when it’s time for us to come home, there will be another soldier that shakes my hand and tells me to go home and rest, it’s my turn to watch over you brother.
Jack Nicholson said it best in the movie a Few Good Men: “…we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. … I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. …you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: …And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.”
So next time you decide to criticize a veteran, remember how you got your freedoms. It is true you know, Freedom ISN’T free.
way to tell it John Doe & yes thank you for your service!
Anyone else notice that in between this idiot's interruptions, he refers to a TANK as an "arms"... a TANK is not an "arms"... it is a vehicle... that CARRIES an "arm"...no where near comparable to an assault rifle, or pistol... or as you say a "military assault rifle"... Seems to me you are scared or intimidated by that which you don't understand... funny since you claim to know so much about weaponry and arms ... because you have a brother who is a Colonel...Living under the weight of big brother's shadows are we? – A PROUD CANADIAN GUN OWNER / OPERATOR and PROUD supporter and spouse of a Canadian Forces Soldier
Just heard that there was not an AR-15 used in Sandy Hook... 4 handguns were found in the school... The AR-15 was left in the car. The shooter was declined purchasing a firearm, but he got one from a different source.
Piers: the next data you need to have or need to find out can be useful: What is the statistics, or how many cases in a year a 'good' guy with a gun successfully defend himself? 'compare that with how many cases a good guy get harmed by a gun either owned by a good guy or a bad guy.
The reality is that If a good guy own a fire arm and locked properly, there is no way he can defend himself when a bad guy have a gun initiates the attack. Need to break down that NRA's solution to bad guy having a gun is a good guy to have a gun.
the truth of the mater is, the gun is an attacking weapon, The gun is so effective in offense, making it be defenseless when the bad guy has a guy initiate the offense in peace time in a civil society.
Eliminate all guns so we're all on an equal playing field. NO MORE GUNS!!!!!
Then it is survival of the fittest and the largest numbers. That isn’t a level playing field. Women will not be on a level playing field. The whole reason behind gun ownership is a level playing field. It doesn’t matter how big, or if the bad guy is a black belt, the gun in the hands of a little old lady can deal with them.
where the heck do you live that you are so afraid of your safety ? heck I am afraid cuz crazy nuts like you are armed !
I have one word for you......MOVE! to Canada or wherever!
Piers can ask gun owner who thinks a gun is defense weapon such a question: Is he carrying a gun all the time? Does he have the gun loaded all the time? even more so, if he have the gun in his hand loaded all the time. The answer is no. How can he defend him self if he all of sudden be gun pointed by a bad guy. You can quietly wait for his answer.
Piers, don't need to argue on definition of assault weapon, any gun owned by a bad guy put on good gun owner's head instantly invalids the saying ' the solution of bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. This saying while being true in war time is definitely not valid in the current society.
Here are the statistics on 'the solution for bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.
Please do some research on "Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs)". There have been about 13 non-NRA studies on DGUs that estimate between 800,000 and 2,500,000 (depending on what study you read) instances occur each year where someone has stopped a criminal act, either from commencing or completing, with the threat of or actual use of a gun.
Larry, my stock FM Browning 9mm HP's standard mag holds 12 rounds. What now? Chop some of the butt off? This is ridiculous.
Larry, we need more than 10 rounds for the exact reason the Second Amendment was written. Should we ever be faced with tyranny or an attack from a foreign enemy, we need to be able to defend ourselves with weapons as close to those our attackers are using. People don't get this is ALL about the Second Amendment and the intent of our forefathers. It's not about anything else.
You realize you are putting a "potential" or "imaginary" threat, before the real threat we have so tragically seen played out several times just within the past few months!
@Texas Pilot. Time to evolve past the forefathers vision. Don't u think we can be better than what they ever imagined?There was still still slavery, women still had limited rights, America was at about a 15th of the melting pot it is now, weapons are 20 times more capable of massive damage, I could go on and on. I'm sorry but the world is not moving in your direction of preserving old traditions. The framers of this country would sh** on themselves if they could see the interracial couples of today, what modern day rifles can do, inner city violence, young white male shoot up an elementary suburbanite violence, etc. Sorry sir but you're a dying breed.
People don't "need" a lot of things we buy, that doesn't mean they should all be illegal. People don't need cigarettes, alcohol or to text while driving. All of those also kill people and destroy families. Heck even Facebook use has caused deaths due to stalkers and bullying through it. Are we going to ban everything?
@cdavidchurch. "Are we going to ban everything?" NOPE, just guns. Unlike everything else you just named off guns are in a category all to themselves. They give you a false strength and confidence. A person who would probably just commit suicide by hanging now can fantasize about a more glorious ending that includes taking the life or lives of those who led him or her into that depressive state. A gun is a hide-able, mobile, easy accessible killing machine. It has no other purpose than to kill be it for good reason or bad. It often ends up in the hands of criminals, children, and any and everybody else who didn't initially purchase the gun. I could go on for days but I won't. So aside from the tyranny nonsense I'm almost willing to cave in on letting the head of household be issued one NO MORE THAN TWO guns. That gun will be registered and logged into a database and your responsibility to keep track of like your credit cards, car, etc. But beyond guns being HEAVILY regulated then to me we have already proven we are too stupid to have such toys. Not you individually but collectively.
If the 2nd amendment can't stand up to questioning, then something is wrong.
You only state that likely because you live in a quiet and already pacifist area. You would not be so set with 10 rounds if you lived in a city where crime thrived.
i live in northern minnesota and my closest nehibor is 1/4 mile away. and to walk outside at night to keep a pack of coyoties off my dogs takes more than a clip that holdes 10 rounds woulod you stand out in the dark un armed where the DNR says there are 3 cougars in the area . ret sgt bodhaine us arm
Cougars? Cougars as a rule don’t attack people and if you just shot a bunch, they are in the next county with the coyotes which are even more freaked out by gun fire. So you should have plenty of time to put another magazine in your weapon. In Oklahoma, the cougar is protected.
Sergeant, I have to agree with Jackie on this one. If you have an AR-15 or similar, 10 rounds properly placed should get you about 12 to 14 animals that small – through one and into the next one. Although, my guess is that once 2 or 3 go down, they’ll all disappear in the dark. Always go for the alpha of the pack and that normally stops them all.
I'm right there with you. But, I believe the 2nd amendment needs amending. Our laws will have to change along with technology.
I respect Piers Morgan for his stance and his vocal opposition to this powerful lobby. I worry for him in some ways, but respect his courage in speaking out.
We, as a civilized society accept that the many will have to abide by laws that are 'restrictive' because of the few who can not restrict themselves. Speed limits and drunk driving laws are examples. No one questions them. Though most would instinctively limit their speed on roads or refrain from drinking and driving, some will not and so we impose limitations on all. Why are gun owners any different? No one is saying citizens should not have the right to own a guns. These restrictions do not go that far and never will. There are those in our society who will not act responsibly with guns. We all need to accept restrictions for those few who will not or can not restrict themselves.
Piers continues to pose the question "Why would anyone (American) NEED an AR-15?" – as if there were no coherent answer. Such an answer was already revealed by Ben Shapiro the other night (as he was busy wiping the floor with Mr. Morgan) – [to paraphrase] – "The reason an American NEEDS an AR-15 is as a CHECK AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. That's the reason NOW and that was the reason at the time of its enactment."
It's not a perfect check, but, without it we are as vulnerable to attack as our poor children who stay all day in their GUN FREE ZONES at school.
To Blaine – you are a paranoid and delusional NRA supporter, that's all – and you are in the MINORITY on this one Blaine !!
Ottawa Ontario Canada
Americans need an AR-15 because its low recoil doesn’t develop a flinch so that an inexperienced shooter can hold very accurate shot groups. The high velocity rounds with a hollow point deliver all the kinetic energy of the round which is four times more than most pistol rounds. Yep, we need something that a kid can pick up and shoot with deadly accuracy and with very little training. Yep, we need something that has a one shot kill rate and accuracy that far exceeds that of a pistol. Yep, we need all of that in every home of America so we can sleep good at night knowing that tyranny can never happen. Yep, Adams mother slept really well and never woke up.
Larry I just have to call BS on your comment, if you were a true "gun owner" you would know that nobody except anti-gun folk call the MAGAZINE a clip, sorry to burst your bubble my freind.
Here is your England gun facts. This Piers individual likes to talk about England / Britain who has 0.89% of world population vs USA that has 4.46%. Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we’ve heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We’ve also heard the reason the United States has a “gun crime problem” is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.
New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.
The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
You people keep going on and on about the 2nd Amendment. Piers keeps asking ONE SIMPLE QUESTION that you refuse to answer. So I'll ask it again. What does a person need with a military assault weapon? Just THAT weapon in particular? Evidently his guests and you continue to evade the answer to that question and blabber on because you are in some kind of fantasy world about "hoarding BIG-BOYweapons". I just saw yet another "kook" on CNN who posted a video comment to VP Biden about the expiration on assault weapons, stating that it does not deter crime. Well, imprisonment of criminals probably doesn't to some degree as well, but we do it as a punishment, rather than letting them run amok and continue to terrorize society. Again, I'll ask YOU and do not hide behind the 2nd amendment, why do you need that weapon? Actually, that is like people who HIDE behind scriptures in the Bible, rather than use their OWN critical thinking to explain a point in an adult conversation.
Here’s my reasoning of why civilians should be allowed to have high-capacity assault weapons.
It's simple, to “fight against tyranny”. ...You may say civilians are no longer any match for the military force even with assault weapons, so what’s the point of having them, eh? …Wrong! Tyrannical leaders do not want public outcry, much less International attention, if the International community notices what they’re doing, they have very little chance in succeeding. Even after the government got the control over the media, if tenacious insurgencies occur here and there, it would suffice to sound the alarm to the world that our liberty is being threatened, so is the liberty of the entire world.
By the way, tyrants know that too (they are crazy but not stupid), so they won’t do a thing until they can relatively disarm the populace and make them controllable. Thus, as long as we are well-armed, we are safe. This is why, still today, the Second Amendment is a strong deterrence against tyranny.
Is this answer clear enough for you?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Piers, I appreciate allyou do to bring us the news and opinions. However, I do not think it is productive to interview the two women that you did tonight. You know there opinions will not change, so why argue with them it is stressful watching them. I do not agree with them. And am I am angry by their unreasonable opinions. I turned it off
Janie, I agree. I am torn about airing all these gun nut excuses & therefore indoctrinating others, vs the need to educate or present the anti gun side. A horrible dilema, but, do hope some good legislation will come of this. A very sad state of affairs, but trust the majority will force government to do the right thing.
Piers, take care of your mental & physical self!...good fight!
piers go back to england we dont need u here in Americas business its our right to own what ever guns we like ,you make me sick.england crime and killings are alot worse then america ....so run home under your queen skirt lol......
Dont you love these whackos going on you tube and posting their videos that " If you want to take away our assult weapons, Your going to have to pry it from my dead , cold hands!, OK!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeff – tell me that you are not for real – PLEASE !!! Really Jeff – you really believe that crime and gun problems are worse in England than in the USA ????? What are you smokin' Jeff ????
I listened to the interview with Peers Morgan at 2am this morning in the UK. I was horrified at how rude and disrespectful Peers was to the women he was interviewing. I couldn't hear any of her answers and he just bulldozed his way through the entire thing. As a Brit I cannot see why CNN is employing such a rude and arrogant person to interview the American people. Shame on you Mr Morgan you are a disgrace.
"england crime and killings are alot worse then america"
What are you babbling about? Making up silly information won't help your case.
" ....so run home under your queen skirt lol......"
And elementary school insults won't help it, either.
These women laughed it up to our nations expense on safty. We'll define the 2nd amendment for everyone and wipe that smile off their face as such. The 2nd amendment will define assult weapons ( semi-automatic weapons ) illegal in the United States. Thei are only 4.2 million NRA members , and they are very weak. The american people will set things right in the congress and Senate. Get laughing girls, thats so cute when all these children and adults have been slaughtered.
I agree. Those were some sick people. I hate to even call them women, because they are a disgrace to women. I like to think of women as people who like to protect children but they just laughed about our children's safety. There was one comment made yesterday, that Adam Lanza's mother didn't shoot anyone, but according to the NRA shouldn't she have been "the good guy" with the gun, able to shoot the "bad guy with the guns", because she had the guns to defend herself? Their argument doesn't hold up. The mother is at least partially to blame because she should not have let her son have access to those guns in the first place.
You are not too bright. It's not just about a specific type of weapon, one in fact that is used in a very minute amount of crime, it's about the government taking away peoples rights. You won't be so happy when they take away your right to free speech because some folks have deemed it dangerous. If you start giving up rights where does it end?
I agree 100% with your comment you wrote,these two women disgust me that are on Piers program tonight.They are ignorant.
I would not give these women a platform. Their smiling and laughing at such a serious subject is truly frightening. It is disrespectful to the all the slaughtered innocents of the recent massacres. Very sick.
Cars and drunken drivers kill people every day, including kids. Are you going to give up driving and never drink again because of that? Responsible law abiding gun owners are not the problem and no ban or regulation is going to make a dent in the criminals getting weapons in order to commit crimes.
Yah, I hated to turn it off, but could not take any more of those idiot women. D. Loesh said the AR15 was not an assault rifle, the definition of assault is "a violent attack, either verbal or physical". Would a rifle used in a violent physical attack not be an assault rifle.
What the heck is an assault rifle if not one used for a violent attack?
It is a gun the fires rounds at the pull of the trigger, not always used in violence. It can be used for hunting, home protection and other things. My question is, have any of you ever shot an AR-15?
I have and wasn't all the impressed. I might be a bad example because I’m not a big fan of any semi-automatic rifle.
As I understand it, the AR-15 is a M-16 knockoff. I can tell you that I used an M-16, but carried a S & W 38 as a backup – M-16’s weren’t that reliable. The guys liked the AK-47 better we captured.
I flew Hueys in Viet Nam and I’ve fired Mini-guns, M-60s, rockets and a grenade launcher. But that is a good point, I wonder how many of this AR-15 pushers have actually had to take someone out with one?
The AR-15 in Vietnam was a death trap. It jammed like crazy. The M-14 hit harder, shot further and never jammed. With the new stocks for it today, it is a great weapon. Here is an example:
The interview with these two ladies did bring out the fact that how they are incredibly close-minded and intransigent to any common-sense regulations about gun safety. I believe that's what Piers wanted to bring attention to. These women have sold their souls to the Devil. Do they even think for a minute about the terror that those twenty innocent kids went through, while watching their teachers and fellow friends being slaughtered and their limbs being torn apart, right in front of their eyes. These women are a disgrace to their kind. How can they be responsible mothers to their own children? They lack basic decency and empathy towards fellow human beings. They have no place in society. They are only fit to live in jungles with wild animals.
I agree that last nites interview was unproductive, however do we not owe it to the Pro-gun people to try to explain their side. Personally, I think Morgan should have booted them off after it was clear that they would not answer a straight question.
Yes Piers, it makes me sick to the core. How is it possible that two women would argue to retain their rights to own and discharge firearms and ammunition that are clearly designed to obliterate the flesh of men, women, innocent children and babies? I thought this was an agenda that only terrorists would have.
There are data and stats which show that "guns protect". Please do some research on "Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs)". There have been about 13 non-NRA studies, on DGUs that estimate at minimum 800,000 instances occur each year where someone has stopped a criminal act, either from commencing or completing, with the threat of or actual use of a gun.
I saw that study. You left out one little detail, 790,000 of them were by law enforcement officers doing their jo.
I introduced the most conservative estimate. Depending on what study you read, the statistics on Defensive Gun Uses show that between 800,000 and 2,500,000 were saved by having a gun. And even considering what you stated, the lives of 10,000 people, who are non law enforcement personnel, were indeed saved, which is more than the number of gun homicide victims of 8,583 in 2011 (the latest year for which detailed statistics are available by FBI's uniform crime reports)
So, shouldn't Defensive Gun Uses still be part of the conversation?
I applaud your effort to introduce the facts. The one simple truth everyone forgets is that when seconds count... the police are just minutes away.
It figgers you would call those great woman terrorists . right out of joe Gerrbals play book .
we need the 2nd to protect us from people like you .
You are the real terrorist .
Hey Dick – get used to it. Gun reform is coming to your Country, your State and your Municipality – theres nothing that you or anyone else, including the NRA can do to stop it !!!!!!!!
You keep asking why Americans need an assault rifle? Obviously,your no history buff. The second amendment is there, not just for personal protection or hunting. It's there,so if an American citizen must take up armsto defend our nation against a foreign invasion or if our own government or a faction within our borders decides to try an take the freedom we fought so hard for away. Perhaps In asituation like that you'd prefer to defend yourself with a shovel or some big stones. Personally I would prefer something more effective whether it' an m-16, tank, F-16 fighter jet or a few cruise missils . It's always people like you that think things like that would never happen . Thank goodness our forefathers had more foresight.
History Buff...First of all, let's stop referencing a bunch of white male slave owners who reveled in their lofty ideals of freedom and liberty for all. Obviously we need to work with a modern interpretation of the second amendment.
And Why would the government need to guarantee the right to overthrow the government? FYI, King George certainly didn't give the founders the right to revolt! And do you think he actually let them keep their muskets so that they could reserve the right to revolt if the urge came upon them? Certainly not. Your argument is a complete paradox. What good would a government be if if gave any of it's citizens the right to overthrow it? What you are saying, implicitly, is that YOU are ALLOWING the government to continue to operate, because you have yet to determine that it has become sufficiently tyrannical to overthrow. THANKS!!
Great Ron, Let's arm everyone with cruise missals, so instead of us living in fear just to go to the store ( because the NRA supports criminals in having gun), now we can live being terrified to go even out our doors. Before you know it this country will no longer be run by the people but by tyrannts who want to terrify the people with their weapons. I would not feel safe being in a room with the likes of someone like you even if I did have gun.
Margie; you guys have had the freedom to own firearms since your country's foundation. Your analogy of people arming themselves with missiles is as lubricious as those that believe the government is out to get them.
Well said. Margie... Your an Idiot!
And Peirs.... SHUT THE F UP and and let people talk... You obviously are an imported Ass that doesnt undertand the 1st Amendment. and furthermore the lady didnt say we should all be able to own a tank. So open your damn ears and listen, let people talk and maybe we wouldnt be so inclined to switch to Fox News where "Americans" Anchor and let the interviewees give a full and coherent sentence and thought!! Douch!!
Oh and quit putting words in peoples mouths. I am a broadcaster myself and there is true, factual and ethical ways to do the job. I think a 5 year old knows the difference between what's right and what you are doing. As soon as you say something incorrect like, and I am paraphrasing "She said she believes everyone should own a tank" NO SHE DIDNT! And if you would have let her speak you would have got the facts straight..
CNN, Fire this guy... I have a 10 year old niece that can do this better than this guy!! Dang!
I believe we have a Navy, Air Force, Army and Marines to defend against a foreign invasion ? are you saying our troops can't handle a foreign invasion ?
Our own government ? meaning you need them to defend yourself against or own sons and daughter in uniform that defend you and your freedoms ?
280,000,000 civilian-owned guns in the United States. How many will be enough to take away our national paranoia?
And how many massacres have there been? four? five? Now this is an indictment on the 279999995 law abiding gun owners.
You know what makes me sick? The fact an extreme leftist like Piers Morgan is given a respectable platform on one of the major news organizations, that has historically been politically neutral, to further his gun control agenda. What would Larry King have done? One night dedicated to this at most and, most importantly, not shown any political bias and given both the pro and anti gun groups their voice.
I seriously miss Larry King.
We want LARRY KING back!!!!! No more bias, argumentative Piers Morgan. Please hire someone else.
Larry King criticized Piers Morgan's CNN show in an interview with HuffPost Live. Ｉt has been two years since Morgan took over King's 9 p.m. time slot on CNN. Speaking to HuffPost Live's Marc Lamont Hill, King pointed out that he and his successor have two very different approaches to their shows.
"I never gave opinions," King said. "Piers gives his opinions. The show is a lot about him as much as the guests... He's so different from me."
"A lot of shows, they make it about the host and the guest becomes a prop to the host and I never liked that."
"It's not the quality that counts anymore," he continued. "It's how loud did you yell, how vituperative can you be."
WE MISS YOU LARRY!!!!!!!
Makes us all sick.
He is speaking on behalf of all the victims of gun violence because no one else is. To you people who want to have access to any guns and provide guns to criminals, those 20 kids are only collateral damage to your cause You people don't give a rats ass that those 20 kids are dead. All you care about is your damn guns. Between gun manufacturers, dealers, irresponsible gun owners who sell to anyone, you all are doing nothing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. You people enable these violent criminals to harm and kill innocent people. You are all a bunch of pathetic idiots
Are you serious!! There are hundreds of gun laws on the books that are not effectively enforced. All more gun laws will do is prevent the LAW ABIDING person from owning a gun and protecting themselves. The criminals don't obey laws.
I am sick and tired of Piers Morgan voicing his personal opinions on a public news show. CNN, until you take this guy off the air I am boycotting every channel you own and will ask everyone I know to do the same. Get him off the air NOW! See ya...
We are too!!
No one is forcing you to watch!
These two women in Piers Morgan this evening make me want to throw-up. After Newtown massacre judging President Obama decision on gun control. Do these women have children? Do they know the pain of child birth? They are laughing as if that was a party in Newtown. Why Piers bring these people in his panel to aggravate mothers who have been raising children and empathize with the parents of Newtown. These People do they have a soul.?Are they human. I do not think so. I think they are species from another planets who are living incognito among us and try to do everything in their power to harm us. I do not believe human beings could insist to carry these machine guns after what happens to these Newtown little angels. I wonder how come these people keep on laughing about so serious matters concerning children 's safety who are in jeopardy? Do they understand that children are our future? I still do not understand how these two women could be laughing talking about such dramatic Newtown tragedy. I still do not think they are real women. They make me sick ! I know what you feel Piers about Newtown because you have children and you are an empathic person unlike these guesses of yours in the gun control debate. They do not have souls, they are monsters and I do not believe they are human beings. These two women, the blonde and the brunette still get on my nerves.
Marty the thing that bothers me most is that these gun advocates do NOTHING to prevent criminals from getting the guns. If anything they promote in letting them have the guns. BTW, I am a gun owner myself and nothing in these proposed laws will infringe my right to have a gun or protect myself They are spewing bs just to get their 15 min.
What would Larry King have done? Nothing. Sorry to upset your world, but the world IS upset. Thank God for the questioners and action takers.
Like it or not, your view is going to be in the minority very soon. Watch ""The Abolusionists" on PBS and take note.
Sadly, this is a tactic of "pundents" from both sides. When they have a like minded person on you are able to complete your thoughts without interuption. But if you have your own opinion, which has become the HIV of politics, you are shouted down in hopes that their yelling will make you silent. And it's funny that these worthless lumps of flesh are all endowed with the bully gene that allows them to sense weak prey (people who don't have an intelligent argument or are so extreme the don't make sense).
Please check out the above link! I think it is a fabulous story about what my principal has put in place at our school! It gives our students and community a sense of peace, during this crazy time! I am so proud to be part of this school and love that my Kindergartener feels safe each day when he sees an officer walk around our school or the police vehicle parked in our parking lot! I know that you will love what we have put in place!
Thumbs up, Nicki...I'm passing this along to my granddaughters' schools
I live in California and we have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation pretty much what Obama is proposing but our gun crime is one of the highest of the nation. Criminals do not obey laws that is why they are bad guys. If these laws pass soon they will regulate ammo sale make you register all guns including the one's passed down from family 200 years ago so they can take them away later. Than you have marshal law. BG's running the country
California led the nation in gun related murders in 2011 (latest reporting year) however that was a 3% decline over the previous reporting period. Many of the guns used in those crimes were traced back to gun sales in neighboring states with lax gun laws. The murder by gun rate increased significantly in Indiana, Arkansas, North Carolina and Louisiana.
Your right down 3%. Now we are at 1,220 murders for the year 2011. I am not againts back round checks and 10 round magazines but I am scared that the government will not stop there. I can see them making it hard to get ammo for the range put a ban on semiauto pistols so on and so on. It's a trust thing I guess.
I would like to suggest an alternative negotiation tactic to this gun debate. Can the buying power of the U.S. Military bully the lobbying power of the NRA into making intelligent concessions.
Loesch's argument that the AR-15 and similar weapons are not "assault rifles" is pitiful. The "assault rifle" concept was invented for use by the German Army near the end of World War 1. The original design was improved by the Germans in the early years of World War 2 and then copied by the British and American armies. Russia's Kalashnikov then further refined the German design to create the AK-47 in 1947, which remains the "classic" assault rifle. The American army made its own version in the 1950s, leading eventually to the M-15, the AR-15 and more modern designs. All these weapons were called "assault rifles", they were made for use by national armies, and they have many fundamental design features in common. To say that the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" is not only misleading to the point of being a downright lie, it displays a woeful ignorance of the history of how this class of military weapon evolved over the past 95 or so years.
The common theme for the Assault Rifle tag is that all those military weapons you describe are select fire. The fact that they are select fire and can fire in fully auto mode is what makes them assault rifles. The AR-15 is a civilian version, semi automatic rifle based on the M-16 military rifle (Assault Rifle), Colt calls it's version an Ar-15 Sporter.
I don't know if I agree. Many of the M-16 select fire is only a three round burst. In the end, the semi-auto gets the job done just as fast. I also think the M-16 only has a 20 round magazine in most cases, so I guess you could say that the AR-15 gets the job done even better. If you want to call the AR-15 a hunting rifle, then let’s restrict the magazine to 5 rounds on all of them and you will be just like all the other semi-automatic hunting rifles. I think we can all agree that an AR-15 with a 5 round magazine would be a really cool looking hunting rifle, but let’s face it, everyone wants the 30 round magazine because that makes it an assault rifle.
yeah right john,just like my super bee is a race car .
@Dana, that is a truly pathetic analogy. The AR-15 (originally called the Armalite) basically IS the US Army's M-16 assault rifle. Even as basic a source as wikipedia gets this right... Of note is that several terrorist groups, such as the IRA, used the AR-15 as their weapon of choice (or perhaps because they could obtain it more easily than the broadly comparable AK-47).
Whatever. The M-14 was called a battle rifle and the civilian version is a Springfield M1A. It is basically a Winchester 308 high powered rifle. All these facts don’t make the rifle anything special. The magazine accessory is the only thing that makes this a weapon of mass ability. There are a lot of hunting rifles that are 308 semi-autos with 4 round magazines. Put a 4 round magazine on an m1a and you have a good hunting rifle. Put a 30 round magazine on it and you have a battle rifle. I think the same is true for the AR-15 except I really don’t think a it makes all that good a hunting rifle because of the short barrel.
yes John, do you really think that a 5.56mm round flying at 3000 feet per second is a viable solution to the problem of gun violence in this country? It is currently the preferred weapon of choice for the drug cartels in Mexico. (incl the AK 47)
These killing machines of war belong on a battlefield, not in the hands of peaceful citizens.
I was not able to watch the whole interview with the two chicks. Did they really say they have the right to own a tank?
Yes I believe that was their position. Needless to say that it is a pathetic argument as it takes a crew of 4 experienced army personnel to operate an Abrams tank.
Why not say: "Hey I can have an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with a 10 megaton warhead in my back yard. I'll call him Minute Man. He will help defend against a tyrannical government".
ha ha ha ha!
I also heard that they do not agree with ANY of the proposals for gun control made by president Obama. I'm shock... They don't agree with universal background check(which 86% of republicans agree on) and mental health screening?
Here are president Obama's proposals on gun control:
Reinstating of ban on assault weapons, a cap on high capacity magazine, universal background check, funding for cops, resources for mental health screening and school security.
When the two ladies were asked if there is anything they agree on the presidents proposal, the answer was NO!
I could at least respect a person who disagrees with the assault weapons ban and wish to keep their AR15 but to disagree with background checks and mental health screening when clearly the perpetrators of these massacres were mentally ill, that is just over the top. These 2 people are ignorant, stupid, evil, sinisters, wicked and agents of hell!
And with that the host was truly axasperated.
I dont't blame piers, even I am truly axasperated!
I was shocked. It showed the bias of her possition. She couldn't even give him the background checks?
If you don't know what EXASPERATED is, it means extremely annoyed.
This just shows that there are really people who are irrational. All we asked from them is just a small amount of common sense and they can't afford to give it.
I believe Dana is a Fox commentator. I hope she does not represent the networks view.
We can’t resolve this issue if everyone is going to be so polarized on the issue. I don’t really have a dog in this hunt other than I have grown up with guns and it is a big part of obtaining our food supplies. I think universal background checks will make it through the Senate and the House. I don’t think the specific weapons ban will, but the high capacity magazine might if placed on a different bill. I don’t object to either of those measures and don’t understand why anyone would. I have heard the argument for high capacity magazine and maybe for a pistol, but a rifle only needs 5 rounds. If nothing else you would make the pistol the weapon of choice and that leaves more people alive.
That's true. My hopes are not hiigh if the assaults weapons ban will pass because congress is controlled by the republicans. Plus there are democratic reps in and senators in red states whom I believe would be reluctant to vote for it because they are up for re election. I'll just be very disappointed for the families of the victims.
I hope the cap on magazines will pass. I heard from an interview that these weapons wil not do much damage if you control the ammunition supply. Is that true?
As for these 2 ladies, 'Beauty and Brains' absolutely do not apply to them. It would be very nice just to watch them dance with their mouth shut. If you know what I mean.
Rommel, If the AR-15 had a limited magazine, plus a bullet button (that is a button that requires a sharp object to release the magazine, and banned the manufacturing of the civilian 223 so that there were only full metal jacketed bullets for it like the military uses? No one would own one. What really makes the AR-15 (22 caliber) with a high capacity magazine such a killing machine is the lack of recoil. Take the same weapon like the M1A which is the civilian version of the M-14 (308 caliber) and a person can’t control the weapon near as easy. Can’t shoot near as fast because if you did you would be shooting at the sky.
The AR-15 is the civilian equivalent of the M-16 battle rifle, but is similar only cosmetically and in the 5.56mm/.223 cartridge it fires. The distinction of a true assault weapon is the ability to be switched from semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull- which is the only capability of the AR-15), to burst-fire (2-4 rounds per trigger pull) and full-auto (continual fire until the trigger is released or ammo is expended). It seems the controversy is high capacity magazines (they are not called clips unless the bullets are actually attached to a metal clip, which loads into the top of a weapon. A magazine loads from the bottom and the bullets are in a spring-loaded box- just to make the distinction) and the 5.56/.223 cartridge. The AR-15 cannot fire in any mode other than semi-auto, unless you happen to be a machinist who knows how to alter it, in which case the weapon is illegal for civilian possession. It is another rifle, similar to the M-16 only in cosmetics, that uses the high velocity .223/5.56 round, a cartridge commonly used by hunters of small game. For Piers to spend five minutes badgering the guests on whether they think people should be able to have a tank was ridiculous. A tank is NOT considered a firearm by most standards, but even if it were, an M1A1 Abrams tank will run you about $4.35 million dollars and they don't exactly stock them at any gun shop or sporting goods store I have ever been to. Maybe because at 60-70 tons and 1.5 mpg they're not exactly practical for either home defense or commuting. So why spend five minutes asking the same idiotic question? I think if you buy a tank, someone in the government will definitely know about it sooner or later, so I guess it's okay with them. not as if you can hide it from your neighbors under a tarp in your garage or in the back yard. Under true definition, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-auto rifle which fires the .223/5.56 round, like many other rifles do. To answer Piers question about why it was included in the AW ban of '94, is because our law makers rarely spend any time researching subjects themselves (i.e. calling magazines "clips") and also include provisions such as you cannot have a rocket launcher mounted on a rifle. There is a reason you never see a person standing behind someone when they are firing an RPG or SMAW (illegal in all states, anyway). At least you won't ever see a person standing behind someone firing one, who is still alive afterward. Known as back-blast, it's a phenomenon you don't want to have happen next to your face. At least lawmakers should know enough about the things they legislate, to not include the ludicrous and the impractical. That's a self-correcting problem in the spirit of Darwinism, isn't it? Any idiot who puts a rocket launcher on the barrel of his rifle will only ever fire it once. Go ahead and restrict magazine capacity to 10 and require "bullet buttons", as California already does. Background checks are totally reasonable. You don't need a 100 round drum magazine in my opinion- but a mentally ill person could also kill and maim the same number of innocents in a crowded space in an equal amount of time with a pair of sharpened $15 machetes he can buy at Walmart. As a gun owner, I thought most of what was put forward other than banning the AR-15, was reasonable and something does need to be done about violence. But if they want people to register weapons on a yearly basis, they need to account for the money, and it needs to go towards upgrading security at all schools. My suggestion is that schools should be on lock down when children are present. All interior and exterior doors should be electronic badged/PIN code access only. A person should not be able to enter any exterior door without a badge and PIN, and once inside should not be able to pass any interior or individual classroom doors without the same. Cameras, alarms and glass-break detectors on all windows. Yearly license fees will generate substantial revenue which can fund the retrofit and installation of these measures. Also, at least two armed undercover security or police officers, highly trained for active shooter/hostage environs, with access to AR-15 or M-16, shotgun, flash bangs, tear gas, etc. in a hidden, secure location so the kids never know it's there, but which security can access. After school is in session, any visitors have to pass thru a security checkpoint and be escorted to their destination. I know this sucks and it sounds like prison, but it's the reality of the world we now live in. It shouldn't be easier to get into a school full of kids with a weapon than it is to enter a courthouse or airport checkpoint with one. We just need to be logical and not emotional as we move forward. It's hard not to be emotional when you see the faces of the lost and the grieving, but legislating guns will not solve the mental health issues, it's good to see some movement in that direction with the proposed legislation, most of it is common sense stuff, but guns are not the issue- sick people with guns is. Take away those guns from the mentally unstable and criminal- the few who try to buy guns legitimately that is, they will still find other ways to hurt people if that is what they choose to do. Much of this is probably what Piers' guest would have said, had he shut his flappy lips for more than a breath and let her say it, instead of interrupting to ask if she wanted a tank. Guess if I was a flappy-lipped, entertainment show host, a $4.35 million tank might be a financial possibility. And no, Piers, I don't want one, but thanks for the offer. Ignorant twit.
@John Moore...you can lead an NRA member to history but you can't make them learn. I've hunted my whole life and been a gun owner since before I was born (my old man had a .22 long rifle for me). Whenever we went out hunting, neither one of us grabbed for our trusty AR-15. Ridiculous. As for home protection...sure I've got a pistol...it's only good for scaring the hell out of somebody until I can get to my shotgun. AR-15 for home defense. Even more ridiculous.
@Dean, yes, could not agree more!
Yeah, you are correct. If you can't hit a buck with one round, ...... go back to target practice!
AR 15 rifles are made for those pathetic losers who have a lousy aim or intend to commit mass shootings.
I've hunted with my Colt AR-15 Sporter with 20" barrel. One shot one kill. I have also competed nationally at combat shoots with it finishing in the top three five times. How's that for a pathetic loser! A** H***
Sorry Dean people actually hunt with AR-15's. I own one and I hunt with it. I agree with most everything Mr. Obama said I do not agree with the ban of AR-15's. What makes them so deadly the pistol grip or the telescoping stock. Its none of those things its the ammo capacity of the magazines. It was a great idea to ban everything more than a 10 round magazine. now it is nothing more than a semi auto rifle the same as a rugger 1022 a semi automatic 10 round magazine rifle. I am a hunter I live in a small town of 600 people I do not need an AR-15 for self defense I use it for hunting and fun at the range. It is a 223 the most common caliber used for predator hunting ( coyote Fox Wolves) so why cant I use one with an armalite frame. I also think we need to tighten up the background checks and maybe going as far as hunters safety programs or gun safety training to even own a fire arm. It makes no scene to own a fire arm without knowing how to use it safely.
Why doesn't Piers ever talk about limitations on other civil liberties. Free speech has limitations, you can't threaten someone, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. Why doesn't he bring this up ever?
Morgan is a dueche bag!
Go tack home and leave us the hell alone! And f$&@ your brother!
you need to go home if not i hope someone cuts your neck ear to ear, it,s not a gun
Dear Piers, I am a Canadian. For the most part, I agree with you regarding your position on gun control and the need for the U.S to remove "assault" style weapons. However, we are not American, we do not have the cultural background born Americans have with guns and their strong believe that owning a gun is a "right". The probable really is not a gun problem, its wacko problem and will to kill another person. The country was formed on the battle ground, on the frontier, and on the idea that defending one's self means it is OK to kill another. Unless you are born with a strong belief and cultural background dealing with fire arms, people like us will never understand Americans who are so willing to use lethal force. You truly have to be an American to understand their strong will to maintain the right to bare arms.
They will get this and keep on going! I hunt, and I protect my home... You will never get my guns!
Is he a US citizen?
I don't know for sure if he is nor do I care but there is one place I'd like for him to get stranded. I'd like to see his happy British ass set right on a corner in the projects of Chicago without the "armed" driver/security he has. Since guns are prohibited there, my bet is that he'd have a "come to Jesus" moment.
Guns... Never mind that, take away your keyboard....your ignorance is scary!!
I am so tired of Piers Morgan. He is the most rude host in the United States. I don't agree with his views, however, I would give him the courtesy of speaking his opinion, unlike him. He constantly interrupts and treats his guests disrespectfully. I will not watch such a show. I hope he goes off the air and back to England.
How do you think the NRA treats and threatens members of congress? It is called bullying!
Representatives sit on the side lines and like hungry house pets wait for the next big campaign handout from the NRA/Gun lobby. 75 percent of all NRA members support the recommendations of the public.
It is only a few radicals such as you that are out of touch with reality. This scares law abiding citizens into the wrong direction. Shame on you!
Good on you, Percy!
Piers, keep it up. You are raising important questions and advancing the debate. Sunlight is the best answer by letting each side air its opinions. The gun lobby hurts itself everytome it insists on unreasonable positions.
Honestly gun control is not the problem people need to learn how to raise there kids properly before blaming all your problems on something. How about you teach your children right and wrong, people are mentally sick all round the world you take guns away people just use a knife take those away people will use sticks. 6,973,738,433 That is the population in 2011. 2,556,000,053 the population in 1950......now you tell me are the chances of someone being mental greater now or back then. YOU CAN BLAME THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD ON ANYTHING GUNS ARE JUST THE PROBLEM NOW
What about the consitutional rights of the children or the 900 victims
of gun violence this past month? What about their rights, did they not have
the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Who's rights are under attack. Maybe the victims......
Maybe it was the violent and mentally deranged that infringed on there rights. A gun is just a tool that can be used for good or bad. If the good don't have them, many more will lose there rights from the bad!
Piers Morgan keep up the fight on gun control...
.from an American who appreciates your efforts
Piers is no different from the most rabid right wing talk host. Someone at CNN needs to tell him to SHUT UP and allow a guest to finish a sentence. He does nothing but alienate viewers.
If things in the USA make you sick then why not go back to the UK
Piers, If you do not like our rights....go back to england and let them tell you what to do.
Keep up the pressure on assault guns. I repect you very very much
for your train of thought on having no machine guns.
You must be stupid. Ar 15 is not a machine gun
We are not talking machine guns moron, an AR-15 is semi auto!
Did anyone else see Piers Morgan crinkle up a piece of paper and throw it towards his guest tonight. He won't pass the backround check.
I think his diaper was full lol
I have been a gun owner my entire life since I grew up in a hunting family in PA. In 2004, I attended a gun show at an auditorium in San Antonio, TX. I met a friend of my co-worker in the parking lot who is an avid gun collector. He had approximately 15 weapons with him to potentially sell or trade including a number of rifles, shotguns, handguns and a few semi-automatics. We hadn't walked 20 feet from the car when a number of people in the parking lot approached him about buying some of the weapons. By the time we reached the front door of the gun show, he had 10 of the weapons sold in cash to individuals that may or may not have passed a background check. I remarked, hopefully none of those people are unstable and going home to kill their wife or kids with your guns. He laughed it off like it was no big deal, he made his cash.
Bingo Doug, these are the people who are responsible for letting criminals obtain weapons. Some of the people here obviously think it's ok to give a criminal a weapon. Pathetic!
reason for assult weapons. let piers go into the woods and have a group of wild hogs get after him. He will want a large magazine full of ammo, I promise!
Heres the reason piers.
Piers....Shut Up. you invite people to give their opinions and then you talk over them like a schoolhouse bully. You need to go home to your exciting homeland and march around the palace and recall the glory days of the Empire. Better yet, just go home. We're Americans, and will resolve our issues without you and your s%#thead theatrics.
Go back to Britain and learn how to conduct an informative interview. When you can't let your guest answer a question it is annoying and you look like a 7 year old petulant child.
he gave her multiple chances to answer. no surprise she wouldn't, or is it couldn't?
Thank God that someone like Piers is willing to stand up to these fanatical gun rights activists who have no common sense or idea what mainstream American life really is. They can lie to themselves but not to the families of the victims or to the majority of Americans who they have helped to alienate from their cause. They are as nuts as the people pulling the actual trigger.
I used to watch Larry King every night. DVR always! I gave Mr. Morgan a chance. I understand his passion on this subject...but I am sick of watching him go off on his guests.What point is there to listening or TRYING TOO a program that you cant even hear yourself think?????????????? Good God...MR. MORGAN! Larry was a straight up host that NEVER went off on people as this man has...I think CNN needs to rethink their host selection. Done watching.
OMG, He is so freakin Rude! No wonder he can't learn anything, he likes to hear himself talk too much! My GOD! He's got a wonderful knowledgeable about weapons woman on there and he can't shut up long enough to let her answer anything!!! She tries so hard to be calm and speak anything and he attacks on every other word. Heck I am not sure I heard a whole sentence from her, while I tried, all I could hear was Piers hollering over her putting words in her mouth!
Don't be scared too much Piers to let knowledgeable people talk! If you want to have a show and attack all of America, let these people talk too. Gosh, I aint even all for one way or another, but gosh, you don't want both sides on your show, that's for sure! I had to change the damn channel, that was brutal One way all the way, His Way!!! Wow!
Case in point! Piers asks why you might need more than 7 bullets. She says more than 7 guys attacked a guy (And with a tire iron)(He down plays that, cause it aint him, and says it like a pole thing or something) and so that was her reason why you might need more than 7 bullets. He just wouldn't let her explain when more than seven attack you, you might need more than 7 bullets. He twists that into like a school yard tiff and says "so you think you should shoot someone in a brawl!" OMG I'd love to see Piers getting hit with a tire iron by more than 7 attackers, and then a gun owner walk by and see if he might want a helping hand, because according to him, you shouldn't do all that, it's just a tiff...
Then when he just blindly threw in "So your saying all women should pack AK47's" Where in the hell did he get that from what she said!
He had him a ball looking stupid and ignorant thinking he was twisting everything his way! Wow, He still has a show?
I for one don't understand CNN on this one
CNN come on, your better than this. And I'm not even talking about this fight, I'm talking about his "professionalism!" My Gosh!
Sad part is, I was a fan and thought he was pretty dag gone good and fair, but he has obviously thought he would pick this side of an argument and go all out, and win or loose, well he lost bad. Stupid to start with, but then how he handles it, just terrible
CNN, get out fast! He's awful!
Hi Piers, I think you are very intelligent and wise journalist and I totally agree with what your opinions. Unfortunately, as we see many people do not think LOGICALLY. These who want to give every man a gun so every one can defend himself/herself against everyone else are emotionally not ratiionally thinking people who are able to analyze all consequences. Unfortunately they are more emotional and aggressive in their opinion. So, I think using word LOGIC more ofter would help to decipher their false thinking. THANK YOU PIERCE AND GOOD LUCK!
Have you ever faced 4 men intent on raping you? I have and my firearm was the logic I used.
Piers is the one that is acting emotional. If we trully want to save lives we must use reason and not emotion!
I fully support president Obama on this issue
Did you also support the government when they gave the mexican cartell tons of assault weapons?
Here is something to think about if people are truly worried about numbers of people being killed or injured. I served active duty in the United States Marine Corps from May 2001 to May 2006. I am also a full time police officer, and been in security/law enforcement for 15 years 5 of them in the Corps. I have been a part of more vehicle incidences involving serious bodily injury or death than I have been involved with gun incidences involving serious bodily injury or death in the civilian world.
So you might be thinking that making cars illegal is absurd. I feel making semi auto rifles and handguns illegal is absurd. I feel making cars illegal is absurd. The responsibility belongs to the operator. If you outlaw these types of guns then only outlaws will possess them. You say there is no need for civilians to have them. I disagree, because I own an AR15 and I have hunted with it. You can hunt with an AR15 as long as you use a magazine that holds no more than 5 rounds. I have shot cans with it. I have shot watermelons with it. Shooting the AR15 is fun. I use it responsibly. I use my AR15 like another person may use a shotgun to shoot at clay targets. What we need to do is enforce the laws that we already have. What prosecuting attorneys and county attorneys need to do is prosecute to the full extent of the law and stop allowing charges to get pled down. Like the man who killed his grandma with a hammer; then shot at firemen coming to his home to put the fire out after he got out of jail. From what I understand he was initially charged with murder 1 for killing his own grandmother; then it was pled down to manslaughter. By having the charges dropped down allowed him to get out of jail instead of staying in.
Thank you Stan for putting it better than I ever could, because I have none of your experience, although I want to take a moment and thank you for gaining that experience by protecting us and our rights! Thanks again Stan!, but I want to back you 100% on who or why one may want something fun and maybe even sport like, that is a responsible law abiding citizen, and by gosh may just save your butt some day reader. Finally I seen someone say what I know to be fact, you take good guys weapons away, and you'll be left with bad guys and weapons!
I really don't understand people not seeing that, It's almost scary Stan! I heard on the news where a police officer said he didn't like the new open carry law that was just passed in Oklahoma November 1st because he wouldn't know the good guys from the bad guys! That's a man right there that doesn't need to be a police officer. He can't see that the good guys are the ones carrying guns, and the bad guys are the ones hiding them???
Thanks Stan. Well put!
If the military has it....we should be allowed to have. How many people know that in the Obama care bill that passed will force you to put RFID chips in our hand to track our every move. This isn't about kids,guns, or hunting, it's about control. Wake up people and get ready to salute the next Hitler.
Get an underground bunker, lock yourself in with 6 months supplies, we'll come get you after we fix all your scifi fears in about 9 months!
Oh yea, Pass Word is lol
I do not agree with you that if the military has it then a civilian should be able to have it. Are you saying that civilians should be able to own an AT-4 anti-tank cartridge, M203 grenade launcher, a grenade, or a drone with missiles? To my understanding civilians can have a fully automatic weapon however, as a civilian they need to have a special permit for it.
Just for education purposes I think people should take a look at this article. It is scary.
piers .As a former hunter , and as a mother , grandmother and great grandmother . ,I am ashamed of Dana and the other lady you had on tonight that they are females . to encourage others to buy guns ,and think its funny , shame on them .to thinks that we all should arm ourselves just because we have that right . they were very rude ,and as you said they don't answer your questions the same as the guy that has a radio shoe that almost went off as a boom, .it scary to know they have guns . Piers keep up the good work and nail them all . Zelda
Piers, thank you for representing me! I appreciate all you're doing to bring attention to the gun control issue. Our country is degenerating instead of evolving. I am seriously worried about what we've become as a nation and exactly where it is that we seem willing to go. I have a six year old daughter in kindergarten. I find myself wondering how many people are carrying guns around us now everywhere we go. I don't want to live this way.
I just wanted to say, 'thank you' and please don't give up.
Keep up the fight Piers!
Why not ask your guests where in the 2nd amendment does it say you cannot sell firearms to criminals or mentally ill? "Shall not be infringed upon" does not differentiate or include bulletpoints as to who can/can't own firearms, yet universally people agree that there should be those restrictions against those types of people. There needs to be limits and I applaud you for continuing to point out fallacies of the NRA's argument.
Piers, you are a dumb a$$ englishman, know what you are talking about before you talk. You ask questions and when you don't hear what you want, you don't shut up and let people talk. The whole problem is the mental health system! Show me any place in the US where they have strong gun laws and where crimes with guns has gone down. O ya, you can't. People kill people driving cars all the time, but your not taking my car! Don't punish me because of mentally challenged people. Instead fix the mental health problem! And by the way, I'dealt with the mental health system helping out family members that needed it and I know the system is screwed. Most of the time a mental person ask for help, they don't get it or they leave them waiting for at least 4 hours. Just what someone with mental problems need.
Keep it up Piers! Every time you open your mouth it makes folks want to go out and buy a gun! I'm grateful that you are representing the The anti 2nd amendment fanatics. You are our best weapon.. A Brit that wants to take away our guns...
you ask but will allways talk over anything you dont want to hear you need to go home,i do understand thay do not want you back. you suck .i hope you die a slow slow slow slow death go home
PIers, you are becopming as rude as Chris Matthews. And here's a suggestion: Since you think it's okay to bring on Alex Jones and try to tell America that this 9/11 truther nut represents the pro-gun crowd (which he doesn't), why don't you book Donald Kaul on your show? He's an anti-gun lefty columnist who wrote that we should "tie John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to the back of a truck and drag them around a parking lot until they see the light about guns". Go ahead. I dare you.
Actually, I have another suggestion. CNN should just fire you.
Dear, gun owners, nobody wants to take away your precious guns. So stop whining and blowing the real issue out of proportion. There is no place in our society for anything specifically designed for destroying masses of life. And now that we've seen these things involved in the destruction of 26 young, innocent lives, THERE IS NO TOLERANCE.
I bet the number 1 cause of death for children is automobiles. I guess they should take them too!
If automobiles are purposely being used as weapons against humanity, then maybe you're on to something, Jon!
Dear Brad, if you believe that the U.S. should ban the semi-automatic AR-15 Bushmaster, then do you also believe that the .223 semi-automatic hunting rifle should also be banned?
Well, don't stop there. Pistols are a much bigger problem and all these numbers of deaths everyone keeps talking about is with pistols. Bet that is next.
I live in the country and hunt deer. As a matter of fact our whole family does. We sent both of our children to gun safety programs. We wanted them to learn from experts even though both of us were born and raised in hunting families. What I worry about any gun control measures is our government writing and passing laws about firearms in which they know little to nothing about. I'm retired law enforcement and I qualified routinely on the Remington 870 at the range. I had to become an expert at speed loading this firearm. Any nut bucket could take out quite a few people with speed loading practice. This firearm is law enforcement approved and is a standard weapon for prisons.
There's no guns in the UK? Lie. There's about 1.8 million. Piers couldn't tell the truth if he tried. His attempted stunt about tanks? Tanks are legal to own in the US and UK. How's that violent crime rate in the UK? Oops, it's about 5 times higher than the US. .223/556 caliber is so anemic that it isn't legal to deer hunt with in all but a few states. The Aurora shooter did most of his shooting with his shotgun because his AR jammed. Lanza waited until his mother left for a weekend spa trip and then broke into her gun safe and stole her guns. Save the children? We need to protect our children, but how about the 1.2 million abortions in the US every year?
Piers is a fraud and a liar. I'd love to be on his show for an entire hour and make a fool out of him face to face. If any of his people dare it, send me plane ticket.
WTH does England's crime rate have to do with the Sandy Hook Elementary? The killers mother was getting a mani/pedi so he was able to get her gun?! The AR jammed so he used the shotgun?! I'll send you the cost of a plane ticket if it means you stay at your keyboard and continue to type these hilarious deflective posts! Two words buddy, Executive Order!
I think Piers Morgan is on point. Great job! I thank you for calling out these zealots and NRA lobbyist on their attempts to twist the 2nd Amendment and urinate on the ideas of our Finding Fathers. When the 2ndAm was created, they were dealing with muskets, not AK47s or hollow point bullets!! They were worried about Ol' King George and those chaps coming back and the citizens not being prepared. The best way to protect US citizens from being massacred by high powered assault weapons is to get rid of high powered assault riffles.
When the 1st Amendment was written the quill pen, parchment, your unassisted voice and the hand crank printing press were the only means of free speech. Can we roll back the 1st Amendment too?
I looked for an e-mail address I could use to talk to you in private...But I could not find one...So.. Here goes, I am a retiree who owns guns and has always owned guns..I spent ten years in the military and year in Viet Nam with the Marines..
I have some answers on guns that I think are very true but you can decide
Handguns were originally designed and to this day still are a projectile weapon to kill human beings..
Assualt weapons ..No body knows..I have not heard a definihng definition as to what they are
People like the M16 or one of its variants, because its what the goverment taught them to shoot and for many an easy failarity is with this weapon
As to why we need lage capacity magazines...I saw this on another webpage so I can't claim credit for it...But its true
"Because the goverment has full aoutmatic weapons."
I am old and retired and disabled, but if you can trust our lawmakrs (any of them ) then you are a far better man than I am
If you want a tank want a fighter get you can ban what you want if you have the cash you can buy any what you want if you need it or not look at the drug trade!!!!!!!
An AR-15 is NOT an ASSAULT RIFLE. It is a Semi-Automatic Rifle. An ASSAULT RIFLE must comprise::
1. Selective Fire Capability (both semi-automatic and fully-automatic in one weapon)
2. Intermediate Caliber (normally a shorter cartridge around 35-45 mm long case this began with the 7.92 kurtz Kurtz means short in the STG 44 the first assault rifle)
3. Detachable Magazine with 20 or More Round Capablilty.
The AR-15 CANNOT fire full-auto.
Perfect for hunting or Skeet—right?
You are wrong! The AR 15 is a cheap copy of an M4 ASSAULT Carbine. The charge inside the round creates a velocity of 3000 feet per second. The bullets are designed not for target practice but to inflict maximum damage on human tissue. The ammunition is very effective and allows soldiers to carry more due to lesser weight. This is an assault killing machine and not intended for home protection or hunting!
An Assault Killing Machine? Really? Mine must all be defective because mine have NOT killed anyone and will NOT fall into the wrong hands. I spent 20 years serving my country honorably and I'm a responsible law abiding citizen, and I PROPERLY SAFEGUARD ALL OF MY FIREARMS. Regardless of type.
3000 fps? Ohh-Emm-Gee. AR's are legal to deer hunt with in some states but the round is so weak, that a large portion of US states do not allow it. AR's are hugely popular hunting rifles for hogs, coyotes and such.
How about getting your information on the subject from the real world instead of the pack of lies Piers spreads?
80,000-100,000 alcohol related deaths in the US every year. I vote to bring back prohibition.
1.2 million abortions in the US last year. Better get rid of abortion, it's for the children.
What's the big deal about velocity. There are hunting cartridges that have a higher velocity and all centerfire rifles are high velocity.
What does the ammunition have to do with anything? First off, the AR-15 is made by various companies and many are better made than the M-16 our soldier carry. Second, what does the terminal velocity of the ammunition have to do with anything? The 223 or 5.62 x 45mm Nato round is a FMJ 77gr bullet at 2750 fps not 3000 fps. Any hunter knows that a FMJ (full metal Jacket) bullet is not designed to “inflict maximum damage on human tissue”. Most hunting rifles on the other hand hit with 3 or 4 times the energy and exceed the 3000 fps. If you put a 4 round magazine on an AR-15, it is no different than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. So, I guess it is just the magazine that makes it an assault / military style weapon. However, I think the M16 only has a 20 round magazine.
Yes Jackie, I never had a VC tell me that they were glade it was a 7.62 round and a 50 Cal round that killed them.
You know the old saying, "Dead is Dead!"
Tony, Yes dead is dead. Of course, if you leave the jungle and get out in the desert where long range comes to play, the M16 isn’t what you want to be using. So sizes matters.
Nothing better than watch piers get his ass handed to him by two (2) educated women who answered his questions but spun him up when they didn't like his answer.
BTW Piers – You CAN buy a tank in America. You can't buy a tank in Briton becuase it ISN'T AMERICA. The cannon (which you can also buy in America) is de-miled, but with the proper paper work and fees from ATF you can have a tank with a live cannon. Nuclear weapons you dolt are controled under U.S. Laws and international treaty.
Those two women didnt have a brain between them!
"Answered his question"
He asked a simple yes or no question, which she avoided answering
That would've annoyed you too
You make a good point about nuclear weapons. Of course this president is allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb while he is taking guns away from Americans.
Neil – whether you want to believe this or not – some form of gun controls will be coming to the USA – that is an absolute fact ! .... and when they do, Piers Morgan can stand up and take a bow because he will have been part of the reason for those gun controls coming to America ! Well done Piers – KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !
The United States has become totally obsessed with weapons. This obsession is out of control. I have a fear that our country will eventually go over the edge. I remember a time when very few owned a weapon and it was not something you talked about because you rarely used them. We do need some restrictions on our gun laws and who owns them, but people are self centered and have lost the ability to compromise. Everyone wants what they want with no regard for others. I hate to think what all of this is doing to our children. Glad I won't be around to see it!
We've always had a lot of guns in this country! Our problem today is deranged mentally defectives and all the left wingers that want the guns gone. Hey, how do you tell the difference between these two groups? Beats me!
Please read this Piers
I am writing this because you countinue to ask why a person needs a rifle with a large capacity magazine. My response is due to a conversation I just had with a single female friend of mine. We live in a rural area and when I had an intruder 2 months ago it took 17 minutes for the Sheriffs office to respond because they had to wait for "back up" Where was my back up? It was in my right hand. That's not my story though. She lives in an even more rural area than I do and it would be closer to 45 minutes to an hour for sheriff deputy response. She has two teenagers living in the house. She also has trouble with a former spouse so domestic violence is a real issue. This situation is a real need for a person to defend her and her family with a semi-automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine. This cannot be disputed for where can you draw the line at a persons right to defend themself. Please respond because all week, Mr. Morgan you have been asking why people need these types of weapons. Could you defend yourself for 45 minutes to an hour without the proper weapons and ammunition? Probably not but you certainly have the right to.
Yes, you can defend yourself for 45minutes. Its called leaving the dwelling. If they steal anything, call the insurance company and tell them someone just stole THEIR stuff and to please send your reimbursement check.
Leaving the dwelling is not such an easy option here. For one thing it was -19 wind chill here Monday night and another it could be a mile or more to the next persons house. So they can have whatever they want while I and my kids freeze to death outside. Wake up not everyone lives in urban America
Mark, I completely understand your point and I sympathize with you. Anyone who thinks you should find another way to protect yourself and your family members (what if they are small children, they can't run fast enough!) are simply ignorant or totally selfish for not being able to put himself into your shoes.
We are in the same situation as you. We live in a large county and on any given night there are only 2 road deputies on patrol.
Dear Pears,i admire your work specifically gun issue that is way overdue. However i have question for all those that try to stick to second amendment.Please ask one question,did they envision all this arms we have today with high capacity magazines.Also if they respect second amendment so much let them have arms from 1789
I've only heard that one a couple of hundred times! MORON
The argument over the 2nd amendment is misunderstood in regards to the intent of the framers. The right to have arms and form a militia was put in because they were against the federal government having a standing army. Without an army it was necessary for the people to have arms and provided for their own defense. It was not to defend themselves from the government although they did have that concern since the republic was so new and no one was sure it would work. Parts of the country still was without law enforcement or adequate defense. Are those the current societal conditions today? So we should ask ourselves today, should we discontinue our armed services and revert back to local militias? Will the republic survive without armed civilians? What is the bigger threat, a despot taking over the country or a crazed person armed with an assault rifle killing innocent children?
After Hurricane Katrina there were citizens that formed "militias" to protect neighborhoods from looting, this went on for several weeks in some areas. So yes, I think the 2nd Amendment still makes sense today.
I have tried to watch Mr. Morgans show many times and I am sorry I find when he has a guest that does not agree with his point of view that he is rude, condescending and speaks over MANY of his guest. It is not enjoyable to watch I realize his show is not a true news program but I feel you can still be professional and let someone else view their opinion. He often speaks of his country as though it has it right and superior. I think perhaps he should go back there and try it on those folks. It is not working here for us.
Piers Morgan is rude. He does not know how to maintain a dialog. This is very unprofessional. He needs to be taught how to respect women.
PLEASE hire someone else!!!! We're tired of hearing the yelling and hearing him pushing his opinion on Americans. Bring the money back to an American. We gave Piers a chance, but will not watch anymore.
I love you Piers! I watched your show tonight and will continue to watch it in the future. More people need to stand up to the fanatics of the world - be they religious, political or gun zealots. Piers, you are an intelligent and brave man.
hes dumb ,and needs to go back to england get out of america if u dont like our rights
Piers Morgan: You are wondering why a civilian needs an AR-15 Bushmaster, which is the same as asking why a civilian needs a .223 semi-automatic hunting rifle. The only difference between the two weapons is the cosmetic appearance. With all due respect, I think you are experiencing an outsider's view, looking inward at a Culture and Right that you do not understand as a British chap.
You have still not answered why you need it?
For hunting, target practice, protection in the home. If you think it isn't neccesary to own this weapon then you might as well say that about a semi-automatic hunting rifle. What is next? The .22 Rifle? I agree that large round magazines are unnecessary. Should we banned pencils or pens so that people cannot write hateful letters? Should we banned Alcohol or cars because of the mass number of deaths that result from their misuse and abuse? Lets get rid of airplanes because of the 9/11 tragedy. I think not.
LOL... The AR-15 is a .22 rifle.
I'll answer it. The AR-15 is the foundation of my personal defense. If three armed intruders present themselves, I need a weapon that gives me a fighting chance. Accuracy, Dependability, Firepower and Flexibility!
Oh Piers, Time to give it up ! I happen to agree with you, but as a fellow Brit I have to say, if I were American I would be really annoyed . You are a guest in this country and it is not your place to force your opinions on them. They will never accept the Australian / UK comparison. Finally, I hate guns too, but I have to say that it is more a mental health, break down in the family values and of course the 24/7 violent video /media problem.
thanku marissa we dont need his opinion its time for him to shutup...
As a french citizen, hearing that guns protect you from invasion is really sad...
Nobody wants to invade your country ! What would be their purpose ??
Don't you trust your country for the 2nd amendment and the right to possess a gun ? So why don't you trust it to protect you instead of yourself.
I love USA but seriously, owning a gun is just sick and is causing more death than it offer self defense. There is no balance !
fred its our right if u dont like it dont run your mouth stay in your country
So you're not even open to discussion and to look how is life out of your country.
You know, good things and good systems exist everywhere.
I come and speak in peace and you tell me to stay in my country. Why so much hate and bringing border in that discussion. What a lack of self-confidence.
you have more killing in your country then we do why tell us what to do....thats why we live in america we didnt want to be part of you guys rules thats why our forfathers came to start a new country away from u guys and u are still trying to tell us what we should do..
You really need to work on your culture man. We have less killed people. Really a few due to guns/riffle.
And I'm not here to give lesson but to speak.
You are sooooo narrow minded !
Piers ! Just from Canada looking down. With all due respect.
Ask the question and let them bury themselves ! Stop talking ! What a lot of nonsense ! Guns are the tool that is killing. Anyone with any common sense knows that. I am a perfectly balanced Canadian. I would not trust me with an assault weapon. Good luck leggislating kinder and gentler humans by the next election .
Returning to school as a teacher it "made me sick" to see my first grade students after the Sandy Hook shooting. They are so sweet and innocent. Talk about exploiting children?? Have they ever heard the saying "out of the mouths of babes" where children think and speak purely and truthfully. They are more sane than these two adult women. Please don't waste any more time with these crazies who come on tv and have the nerve to laugh and joke about this issue. Just because it is more fun or exciting or because "they can by law" shoot more and faster rounds of bullets doesn't make it humane. If a person likes to stab and kill an animal once, twice or 50 times because it is exciting or because it is their right doesn't make it ok. It doesn't matter what the guns look like or what they are called-there is no need for this over the top , (over-kill) mentality. My family members are hunters, but there is still a sense of decency. They agree that only a certain amount of power and ammunition are necessary. Oh and forget about me EVER being equipped with a gun at school. Now I can become a killer as well?? I would do anything to protect my students, except resort to this kind of stupidity? Who needs violent video games when there is NRA propaganda about the president's kids, and these public figures who see assault weapon ownership as progress? I felt utterly disgusted by your show this evening.
look dee is sad really is i would go crazy if it was my kids ,but the gun didnt do it ...people who had the guns is the problem ..better back checks yes do it ,but ban our guns no...not right
Dee I just want to remind you that civilians cannot legally own assault weapons. Assault weapons have a switch that gives the options of semi-automatic, fully automatic, and select fire. I agree with you that people do not need 100 round or 50 round magazines. But the power of a semi-automatic AR-15 Bushmaster (the weapon predominantly used in Sandy Hook) is the same power and speed as a semi-automatic .223 semi-automatic hunting rifle. Most deer hunters will not even use anything less than a .223 caliber rifle for hunting. In fact, deer hunters often use more powerful calibers
If the Sandy Hook shooter used a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle with a large magazine, it would have been no different than the weapon that he actually used.
the shooter used 4 handguns you dont know what u are talking about........watch this..The Sandy Hook Shooting – Fully Exposed
Dude, not everything you read on the internet is true. Just a FYI.
Let me begin by saying I support some gun control. I want to see consistent and universal background checks / registration. I don't object to a prohibition of automatic weapons, anything that continues to fire until the trigger is released, and the 10 bullet maximum clip is okay although I wonder since a serious criminal can carry extra clips. I know that restricted areas still have gun violence, but much of that violence is done with weapons bought elsewhere and universal registration/background limitation would go a long way to solve that. But I am disappointed when broadcasters focus on hunting or target shooting. When the shot heard round the world on Lexington Green was fired, the British were there to confiscate weapons. The reason for the second amendment was to resist tyranny. Tyrants often begin by confiscating weapons, requiring citizens to open their homes to the government, and locking up opponents without cause. That's also why Congress members cannot be arrested on their way to Congress (colonial governors could convene their legislatures and arrest the members en route). It is not surprising that a Brit might not understand the Second amendment. But 30,000 people die from guns annually, 100,000 are hit (including the 30,000). Each of those people are the children of someone. Each of those has a mother and a father. Yes, mass killers use weapons that enable them to fire continuously. the other question is should continuing registration be required? Currently background checks and registration is only for the sale. Individuals can then transfer them at will and without further registration. So once a gun is sold, there is no control of where it goes. Should there be an ongoing registration? Should a ballistics (rifling marks) profile be part of that registration? Those are the questions that must be addressed.
There were about 8,600 criminal murders with guns in 2011 not 30,000. Out of that 8,600, 323 people were murdered with a rifle or shotgun. There are more people killed by hands and feet every year than by all types of rifles and shotguns combined. There are twice as many people killed by blunt objects every year as there are all types of rifles and shotguns combined.
There's 80,000,000 legal gun owners in the US. If every one of the 8,600 criminal murders were committed by a different person that is .0001075% percent of gun owners committed a homicide that put them or will put them prison. Read that percentage again, then read it again.
Now, if every criminal homicide in the US was committed with a different gun in the US (there are approximately 300,000,00) that is .0000286% of guns are used in a criminal homicide. Read that percentage again, then read it again.
Should I go on?
Thank you for what you do Peirs. It is such a relief to see someone standing up for reason, intelligence and morality. When faced with the lies and pure evil of the simple minded gun fanatics, you do not back down as the others at CNN do. I and many others are grateful for your passion for what is right. I hope that others in the media will follow your lead and not let the corrupt money and fear machine puppets continue to lie and play on the childish minds of those who agree with them. It is sad to see these comments from the darker side of humanity, who react just the way they are told to by their corporate puppet masters. These people will never have the ability to think for themselves or use their minds rationally or morally. Every step taken forward in humanity, to better the lives of us all as humans, has been met with the same evil. Just know, that the good people in this country will always prevail. Thank you again for your bravery. Please, do not back down.
Piers must be complimented for bringing out the utter insensitivity of his pro-gun guests. It was utterly disgusting to see them laugh away the questions about the grief that those owning the deadly weapons can bring. Would they have the guts to advise the grieving families, which have lost their little darlings to the mindless behaviour of those who have the “licence to kill”, that they should just laugh away their loss? People who argue that guns are needed for self-defence should step back to think about the ways they can make the America a safer place for the citizens. I hope they would not end up suggesting that every the Government should give every American a gun, preferably the one that looks the deadliest, to make the country a safe place to live in.
look guys go to this site im posting...The Sandy Hook Shooting – Fully Exposed ...........the shooter used handguns not what the gov wants banned
You are Jeff. He had handguns didnt use them
he did use them they found all 4 in the school and the other gun was still in the trunk of the car he never got it out....those poor kids shouldnt have been done that to them but please gets the facts right before someone bans something that wasnt even used
Jeff, at the start of this there was a lot of misreporting. I saw the video and whatever that was they pulled out of the trunk was not an AR-15.
The Sandy Hook Shooting – Fully Exposed please watch
I believe you have your facts reversed.
just watch it .......that guy should have never had any of those guns with him ...if it wasnt one of those guns he would have found another way of killing a bomb would have been worse they need rules of owning guns not to ban them ,,thats just nuts
OK, I will agree with you on that.
i dont know what i seen it look like it but i wasnt there ,if i was those kids wouldnt have got killed
Jeff, he could have used another method but none as easy as a AR15. Just makes it to easy
yes he could have ,but the hole they showed in the car that was shot was from a 9mm
We'll wipe the smiles off these two ladies mouths, they think its cute to laugh at the expense of american childrens safty over their own personnal rigts. Thats what it all was about wasnt it. Did you look beautiful on camera and drum up a few more followers for you blog or whatever. THE NRA IS WEAK!!!!! WE WILL DEFINE THE @ND AMENDMENT FOR YOU AS IS " Assult weapons ( semi-automatic) will be illegal. Thie will be a national Back checking system. We are to strong, we the American people who care about others safty as to their own will cretainly prevail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep smiling ladies!!!!!!!!
Your scary enough for me. I'm now convinced to go buy several guns. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want you to be the first to TRY to take my rifle away.
* PLEASE READ* .....CNN should be ashamed to have Piers Morgan on the network covering this topic of gun control. Not because of his views, but because of the format in that it is displayed! CNN continues to allow Mr. Morgan to continually and disrespectfully cut off and talk over his guests there by ensuring his biased opinion. We as Americans take this subject very seriously and as voters would like to hear both sides this very serious debate. Listening to the host of this program continually push is opinion and not letting an opposing voice to be heard is COMPLETELY against everything that this great country stands for! .......I truly hope this comment reaches someone affiliated with CNN who can address this issue, thereby insuring the American people can be intelligently informed and able vote without the misinformation / opinion of one man, so we may able to move forward as a country from this issue!.........(let the biased and amateur Piers Morgan program argue the subject of the Jodi Arias trial)......
Piers... I get so annoyed by your rudeness that I think I will go out and purchase a Bushmaster rifle with a large magazine and fire it without ear protection. Instant deafness= relief. This rude and inappropriate comment to you is an example of how inappropriate and rude you are to the people whom you invite onto the show. Have a little class like the people on BBC radio.
Also, the inaccuracy of my comment concerning instant deafness also is an example of your inaccurate and all together false claims.
Guns are a useful tool in the right hands and deadly weapons of destruction in the wrong hands. I think gun safety and background checks are key for the future of this country. I do not think AR-15s should be ban because of its looks. ammo capacity I understand.Ban high capacity magazines then we should be able to own an AR-15.
Finally someone that has given this some thought.
Criminals are still going to find ways to get these weapons. Plain and simple. Look at drugs for example, which are illegal, people are still able to aquire them. Banning assault rifles and extended magazines because they are more dangerous? Anyone can be tactically effective with any weapon. It doesnt matter just because its a rifle, or a bigger clip.
This is true. If criminals can find ways to make weapons and kill people while locked um in maximum security prisons, an assault rifle and large magazine band will not stop them.
II understand that criminals will find ways But I follow the laws right or wrong and i would much rather have an AR with a 10 round mag than none at all.
I have the perfect solution. We'll divide the country in half. All the anti-gun people move to the left (West of the Mississippi) and all the pro-gun people move the the right (East of the Mississippi). In ten years we'll review murder statistics and see who's doing better! Anybody interested?
The people on the right might be tempted to go to war and kill all the people on the left since they will be unarmed hahaha j/k.
You need to reverse that. All the good hunting is west of the Mississippi. I'm for it.
Oh, I forgot about that. Yea, all the best hunting is west of the mississippi.
We'll just turn the map upside down then. Right is West and Left is Wrong, I mean East.
That isn't going to work. There is already more pro-gun people west of the mississippi.
I have an idea.... we should just ban murder!...oh wait...
BTW I'm loading 30 round mags for my AKM while I post.
That is ok because you need that many rounds with that rifle. LOL
I finished loading my 20 round mags for my M1A National Match earlier, just killing time!
LOL, I have a M1A Scout and love it. Now that is a true battle rifle.
You are the best.
I don't think Piers actually reads these!
He can READ?
I do not agree that if the military has it then a civilian should be able to have it. That would be saying civilians should be able to own an AT-4 anti-tank cartridge, M203 grenade launcher, a grenade, or a drone with missiles. To my understanding civilians can have a fully automatic weapon however, as a civilian they need to have a special permit for it. If you are new at reading this; scroll up to see what I wrote earlier.
Just for education purposes I think people should take a look at this article. We need to remember history no matter how bad it was. It is scary.
Hey Stan, sorry I hit report abuse by accident when trying to tap on the link that you provided. That is a great article and I think everyone should read it. Thanks for sharing. I think my comments were a little of the wall, so I will stop watching sci fi movies and only watch mainstream media for now on. Thank you all for awakening me I am an idiot for thinking such Crazy things.
Yes...a citizen can own a machinegun...I know because I have one. The answer to the question as to why I own one is that I am a gun enthusiast, collector, and as an investment for monetary gain. The process to obtain such a weapon through legal channels is not an easy one. An applicant must first try to get local law enforcement approval, then get finger printed for an ATF background investigation, pay a special tax ($200), then wait for up to six months for final approval.
Even if you buy it at a gun show?
Piers is one of the biggest A**holes I've ever watched as A so called News reporter comeand ntator or so called talent critic. They should just give him his buzzer thing he had on AGT. So he could just push it when someone does't give what he thinks is the correct answer. Personally I 'd like to see someone and one of those women he was so very rude to, as always he is, stomp him right in the teeny little nuts he most have , with a big pair of military style assult boots.He Makes Me Sick with your very rude actions, you invite people to come and give their views on then you don't even listen to what tey have to says. I think I'm begining to believe the whole conspiracy thing as to if this even happened as they're roporting, Hey maybe you and Geraldo, with the journal news shoul go to some of the tvhomes they reported . We've almost all read the book abuot what will happen when the four horse man come riding throught spelling out the end of times, and we as a super power are not even mentioned. I for one took the money i've saved the get one of this gun and gave it to the NRA so maybe when this is finishing up in onesided debat, and start coming to take our weapons for defence from the terrany that is coming, there will be so much blood shed even if we have to use militsry style knifes. And as for the NRA video out abuot THe Obama children being exoloited by the, media is true what was he expecting, They cant have everything perfect Especially when we send the real assult weapons to countrys that kill women and children. The guy in AZ that shot Gabbie and along with children should be executed along with the Arrora shoots not given a plea bargin and let live at our expenceThey shuolg be hung or face thr firing squadPiers is a joke and shoul not even be allowed on TV.execpt to report from Chicgo, or La. Fire his stupid a$$ $400 million guns sre loaded and the devil crys fair gsme,
Rico I believe you just earned yourself a spot on the no buy list>
OMG... Peirs didn't even let the ladies talk and make their points
Get this loser off the air! What a waste of air time.
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?
Piers Morgan is the demagogue of the year.
Not really interested in the answers of any of his guests who appose his leftist ideology.
Many Americans died battling Piers Morgan's forefathers for the right to free speech which this brittish visitor uses against the descendants of those long ago deceased.
He is a first class twerp!
YOU are the twerp!
As a retired soldier of the United States Army I support what Piers is doing, although I do not always agree with his methods. I do not agree with the disgusting views of these two females.
Thank God you retired! America is much safer without you in any military position.
Dear Lisa, thank you so much for your military service to our country. I suspect that the vast majority of the "gun enthusiasts" on this forum have never done so. Instead, they seen to view their guns as metal phallic symbols, based on the comments being posted.
Your debates are designed to avoid the most crucial and key elements of this debate........so to make awareness of those key issues often absent or criticize those key issues as nonsense. You are engaging in the indoctrination of misinformation.....
The American people are not sheep swayed by the system like you think we are....
Guns are for every citizen to defend his life and freedom.......from any enemy foreign or domestic
You can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist as mentally ill for being an objector to the current political climate......and the official stories
Then the voices of opposition are silenced and become enemies of the state as mentally ill people who lose even a right to consent........
Are there mentally ill people in America............Of COURSE
What your operation is doing is what the entire socialist and liberal machine has always done here in America........
You piggyback on legitimacy to sneak in changes of which the real purpose isn't revealed to the people.....
American citizens and especially our veterans have been able to predict all of this for more than 15 years.........
you are a wolf in sheep's clothing....deceiving very few people
if we can get the evidence we need you place your link on this operational effort........you wont be fleeing this country to avoid charges......
Piers Morgan. If you don't like the way we do things over here in AMERICA, then go back across the pond. Don't try to live here and try to change the way we live. We got rid of the misfits such as you during the Revolution. Go back home to the Queens rule. And since you obviously can't be a gentleman and let women "your geusts on your sorry show" speak their mind without you inturrupting, then please go back where you came from. But wait... you do like the money you are paid and it's not in pounds right?
Dewalt's answer to home protection that doesn't require a registration or license. This nail gun can shoot a 16-D nail through a 2×4 at 200 yards and incase of a home invasion well you can NAIL THEIR ASS to the wall. Im not saying it wont kill the perp but they wont get away. You can also help build a friends fence 2 blocks away while sitting in your front lawn. This is truly how you adapt and overcome so Thanks Dewalt.
Photo: Dewalt's answer to home protection that doesn't require a registration or license. This nail gun can shoot a 16-D nail through a 2×4 at 200 yards and incase of a home invasion well you can NAIL THEIR ASS to the wall. Im not saying it wont kill the perp but they wont get away. You can also help build a friends fence 2 blocks away while sitting in your front lawn. This is truly how you adapt and overcome so Thanks Dewalt.
Here is the URL for the picture. Is this an assault weapon???
@Piers...thank you for exposing the mentality of the parade of conservatives and NRA supporters. Their stances come from deeper psychological issues than just "my rights" when it comes to disagreeing totally with President Obama's proposals.
He did a much better job exposing his mentality and the mentality of anti-gun nuts. He's a joke.
Piers keep it up and by not making it someone elses problem a change will come.
Agreed. We need to keep talking about this and hear all of the perspectives of supporters. I would love it if Piers could track down some of the people who are harassing a hero in Newtown - the one who brought terrified kids in, ones who escaped the carnage in Sandy Hook, contacted their parents and gave them something to eat - under the justification that he's part of a government conspiracy to control the sales of arms.
The "assault weapon ban" of the 90's did not include the AR15. The Ban said that the AR15 could not have a bayonet lug, and no flash hiders that were removable, and that's about it. So Piers, please stop speaking on subjects you have no idea about. Any ban will just give criminals the weapons and law abiding citizens will be hurt. Do some research on the DC bans that started during the '70's. Crime went through the roof until they stopped the ban. Now murders has dropped to its lowest levels. Piers please go back to the UK...oh, they won't have you.
OK, I will bite. Why did the ban have no flash suppresser that was removable? What was the thought behind that rule?
Piers, I was watching your program when you said, & I'm not quoting exactly, but you indicated that nobody has given you one good reason to own an assault weapon. May I respectfully comment? I own an AR-15. I have never even thought of hurting another human being, & I do not hunt. I'm a gun enthusiast. I simply own this gun to play with. That's it. It's a grown up toy if you will, even though I'm keenly aware, it is not a toy. But us grown ups enjoy the enthusiasm of taking a gun like this out and "playing" with it in a safe environment. I keep it locked in a large gun safe, so really, what's the harm? I have no thoughts of ever shooting at a human or animal...EVER. I wouldn't grab it for self defense either. I just like to play with guns, but I do so in a very safe manner. Is that so wrong?
It does show a disrespect for what a gun is and your playtime is less important to society than ensuring that people who are not gun-toting individuals do not become the casualties of others' "playtime".
So you have an Ar15 and dont use it – is it art? are you worried you will have to overthrow the government. You have mobsters after you what??
Piers Morgan: "You didn't answer my question, should Americans be allowed to own tanks?"
http://www.tanklimo.com/tank_limo_hire.htm (Private Yellow Tank Limo service in London)
We have a culture of death, which was hastened with the legalizing of all abortions, at any stage of pregnancy. We continue to perpetrate a culture of death with video games and movies which profit from gratuitous violence. Mr. Morgan, I will believe that you are serious about safeguarding our children when you attack the issues of abortion and violence in "entertainment" as vociferiously as you are attacking the ownership and use of certain types of guns.
The least safe person and place to be in America right now, is to be an unborn child in the womb of a woman: there is a 25% chance that you won't make it out alive! 1 in 4 pregnancies in our nation today ends in abortion! ONE IN FOUR!
Read and re-read that stat; then decide where the true tragedy is in the U.S. today.
While I support your opinion on any issue, your treat ment of your female guests was uncalled for, unprofessional and the ladies should both stopped the interview.
If you cannot treat your guests with more respect, I will not watch your show on CNN, but will be removed from my favorites of channels. Somebody should teach how to treat a LADY!
I would have loved to see them both just get up and walk off.
Do not be deceived by their looks Dan, those ladies hearts are filled with black tar. They should have been treated worse.
I saw only part of the interview with the two ladies tonight. It is apparent that anyone with a different opinion than Mr Morgan should not waste their time trying to explain their views. He failed to let the ladies answer the questions he was asking...put words in their mouths...was disrespectful of differing opinions...and tried to instil fear into the American people by promoting a mental image of civilian tank ownership. The American people need to realize that a firearm...by design is an assault weapon...all of them. They are designed to hurl solid projectiles at distant objects thereby allowing the shooter to keep their distance from said object. Allowing our government to ban assault weapons opens the door for slowly chipping away at all firearm ownership until we the people become we the victims. As a legal and RESPONSIBLE gun owner I am all for tougher background checks and tougher punishment for gun trafficking and straw buyers. What I do NOT support is banning a particular type of weapon just because it LOOKS scary.
Hi Mark in GA:
I applaud your efforts to make a difference in the gun control issue, even if only to keep the topic alive. Although we are all global citizens and you have as much right as anyone to discuss this topic, it is a shame that no American journalist has done nearly as much as you have done.
However, you are making two fundamental mistakes that have reduced your effectiveness to almost zero. First, you habitually ask loaded questions. By that, I mean that you ask a question mainly to give you a chance to state your own opinion. You are better than that. Solution: Stop the "broken record" loaded questions. Ask much shorter questions, stop talking, and wait for an answer. Second, your show, on this topic, has devolved into a shouting match where nothing gets accomplished. I have not watched every day, but a few days a week, and it is always the same - no real conversation, no real discussion, no real debate, and so, no real education or progress. Very disappointing and a waste of a great opportunity. Solution: Completely revamp your format and guest list, for this special topic, to create an environment where real conversations can take place. One example is evident in Fareed Zakaria GPS.
Again, thanks so much for what you're trying to do. Hopefully you'll take my suggestions seriously and end up having a greater impact on this crucial topic. We certainly need your input and influence.
If Peirs is going to be on one side of the issue or the other, he needs to be a guest on his show and not the host.
Jackie, Please send this comment to the "hosts" at Fox "News".
Oh, I feel the same way about some of the people at FOX news. Wasn't blaming CNN because I don't think Anderson Cooper is far left or right. Well, not on the gun issue anyway. Anderson will laugh at that, so don't give me a bunch of crap over the comment. He has talked about the gun issue as well and I have never seen him treat a guest different because of their position on the issue.
Piers looks mad that he got his privates kicked by two ladies.
Jerome – I'm not sure that you were watching the same show that everyone else was – because – nobody kicked Piers' privates – let alone the 2 ladies you referred to. Piers conducted himself perfectly fine and he "won the day" .
Someone tell piers to stop shouting at his guests!
All those who agree with the proposed regulations that POTUS put forth, please explain to me which one would have prevented the tragedy?
Concerning the argument "If the good guy had a gun, he can better defend himself."
Since we never know who will be the next victim, nor when the next crime will hit, therefore, mathematically, the argument is 100% accurate only if all the population carry a gun at all time; 25% accurate if half the population carry a gun half of the time; and 1% accurate if 10% of the population carry a gun 10 % of the time.
That is, for the argument to be true most (> 50%) of the time requires that at any moment, at least half of the population carry guns.
Do we really want every single person in this country to carry a gun half of the time so that the argument can be true half of the time?
Go to any gun range and just sit and watch. Then ask yourself that same question again. You won't want most of them to carry a gun around you any % of time.
Isn't that the truth! My door gunner could hit a gnat on the tail of a water buffalo while hovering at 1,500 feet – So he jokingly stated. THAT’S the type of “Trained” person that should have an AR-15. Not the person that hits the target 3 times with a 10 round clip at 100 feet.
Please arrange for a demo of the destructive power of a semi-auto "civilian" AR-15. One video here that shows just how many rounds one of these weapons can fire: http://tinyurl.com/a92d2vg
I'd like to see some of your recent pro-gun guests try to rationalize why any civilian needs such firepower.
The destructive power of the AR-15 comes from the 5.56 or .223 round it fires, a common round used in hunting small game which many rifles use, not from the rifle, itself. An AR-15 can be fired only as quickly as a person can repeatedly pull the trigger, same as any semi-automatic pistol or rifle. It cannot fire faster than that, period. The destructive power of the AK-47 rifle comes from the round it fires, the 7.62 or .308 round, which many rifles use and is a very common round, not from the rifle, itself. Regulate the size of the magazine, fine. It is then no different from any other rifle chambered for that caliber. To regulate guns based upon cosmetic traits when their capabilities do not exceed that of any other semi-automatic weapon of comparable caliber, is ignorant. Simply require these weapons to be limited to 10-rounds and with a "bullet button", which requires the use of a tool to change magazines, just as California has. This law is completely useless however, because any firearm in the hands of an unstable person is a danger to everyone.
Good educated posts. Don't get to read very many of those. Thanks.
Anyone notice his shot groups with the pistol? He proves that even a bad shot with a pistol is a lot better shot with a rifle at even greater range.
What a bunch of fools. If you disarm the citizens of this country, it will become wide open to foreign invasion and we will be absolutely helpless. It takes time to mobilize our military forces and civilians may be the only resistance regionally if we are attacked on all side. I, for one, refuse to be placed into a position of utter helplessness. I sleep very soundly at night knowing that I at least have a chance to defend myself. Yea... I may die during an attack, but at least I'll have a chance to protect my family. Get Piers Morgan off the airways. Who is this fool to promote his opinions about my country on a stage in a forum that I don't have access to. If Piers doesn't like the way this country is set up, let him leave. Try that crap in China or some other country Mr. Morgan but you won't because you know that you would be executed.
Buddy your government's military has killed many more innocent civilians than probably every other nation combined in the past 10 years.
Many innocent ppl are sleeping more uneasy tonight than you EVER will, fearing an attack from the US military over some.. "weapons of mass destruction" perhaps?
(Read estimates, 120,000 civilian deaths in Baghdad alone since 2002)
Open your eyes, as a result of your "feeling safe tonight", some hundred ppl across your country are being gunned to death
It is us Canadians that have to worry. Someday you will want our oil and water.
If your not a citizen of this country, STAY OUT OF THIS ARGUEMENT!
To Dai Griffiths – 2 things :
1. The problem with guns is EVERYONE'S problem – whether they live in the USA or NOT, ok?
2. Please learn how to spell, ok?
Congratulations to Piers Morgan for taking the stand that he is on guns in America. It is sad that there are very few in America who would stand up and take a stand like Piers is doing – he is to be commended for this ! America is certainly on the right path with President Obama – and I would love to see the Vice President duties shared by Joe Biden AND Piers Morgan !!!!!!
New guns that are made should have fingerprint recognition to unlock and also a microchip to scan to see who is the gun registered to. I also a person who buys a gun needs a background check and 3 references of family or friends to see what state mind they are in before buying a gun.
How possibly could you call this a hoax, concerted by the media and "some government"! It scares me that there are such heartless perverts out there, that claim to be "asking questions"!
Well how stupid are you to inquire upon such primitive premises? Let us send you to prison for a couple of months where you can redeem yourself.
well I dont subscibe to this being a gov. setup sure BUT I want the question people are asking which is: Was the AR found in Lanza's car trunk and what where the calibe bullets retrieved from the scene. Should be a full bi-party public investigation.
What will God think about America and guns? A man made object that causes destruction to life who God help create. What do are religious leaders think? Piers Morgan should have a religious leader on to discuss the issue.
if your a muslim you'll get all those virgins God has stached away
Having read some of the rants from gun lovers on this board and elsewhere, I believe the mental health provisions should be tightened to ensure that many of these people have their weapons taken away from them to protect the law abiding and sane members of the public who are at risk from the crazies. Arguments along the lines of "if you try to take my guns away I will shoot you" rather prove the point... As to people who propose to kill Piers Morgan for what he says, that too seems strong grounds for gun-deprivation (so, the First Amendment doesn't apply when speaking about the Second Amendment?). And as to the First Amendment, it's well understood that Hate Speech is proscribed. So I see nothing wrong with applying similar logic to ban Hate Weapons like the AR-15 and similar assault rifles.
Enough already! Piers has made his point, and is now reduced to literally beating a dead horse. Interviewing gun-nuts is a waste of time. The president has signed off on 23 points. We win. Time to move on.
i couldn't agree more. Piers enough. You are wasting your time interviewing ignorant gun nuts. These 2 women laughing belong on FOX & on Rush Limbaugh. Everytime u mention Scottie as having her brother killed, she smiles. The US has a gun mentality. 300 million guns & they continue to buy more. I guess the Founding Fathers intent was for Americans to bear arms so that they can kill their fellow citizens to the tune of 12,000 murders a yr.Anybody from outside the US watching them defend guns is stunned. Piers you won't change them. Basically live in the US & walk out of your house knowing that it is every man for himself.
The US maybe a western country. Maybe be a rich country, but it is very far away from being a civilized country.
I thank God I don't live there. Piers take the money from CNN, interview celebrities & save your self a lot of grief.
They simply have a gun culture, a violent culture & nothing will change them.
They are so ignorant that they don't realize that the more guns they have the less freedoms they have.
I, and many other people in the majority of other developed first world countries with strict gun control (Australia), are breathing collective sighs that we do not live in the USA right now
I'm shocked at the response of so much of the American public to piers.. These two women on his program think its a joke?
Tyrannical government? Such a ridiculous notion, and gun lobbyists are happy to see people die while they wait for this fantasy that MAY or may not happen.
Even the most fanatical must sympathise that piers was asking a yes-or-no question to Dana, which she continually avoided answering, which would frustrate anyone
In the end, I have never seen a gun in my 20 yrs in Australia save on police. The bottom line is, guns make it easier to kill; make them hard to get, and less people will die. This has been proven since the huge gun reforms following 1996 port macarthur massacre in Australia, and the zero mass shootings since then.
Perhaps it's too late, because there are so many military grade assault weapons already in circulation, so banning them will be futile. Surely in the long term tho, this is the answer.
Well done piers, ultimately i think as a result of ur actions and others similar, less people will be killed by gun violence
Please read this link.
Dear Piers, I appreciate you passion, keep it up.
I think it's ridiculous, that those who advocate that all Americans should have access to multiple magazines, tout it as a "safety" measure - as if 10 bullets (10!) would not be enough to protect family and home.
I think it's ridiculous, that those who advocate that all Americans should have access to multiple magazines, tout it as a "safety" measure, as if 10 bullets (10!) would not be enough to protect family and home.
It is amazing that Americans think they must be ready to overthrow their government at any moment or shoot their way out of some situation. the bad things that are happening are because guns are too easy to get and to use. All these wild rationizations of mental health and violent video are specious. 11000 killings a year and most by ordinary people who lost their temper but had a gun. Or a child picking up a gun that shouldn't be there. Loving guns more than life is a form of insanity rights or no rights.
This peirce guy is an idiot and just cheapens your network. He makes you look as stupid as FOX news...Just the opposite..
and oh yeah some facts.. "assault riffles" are used in less than 8% of all gun crimes. In your beloved England violent crime is at a rate 3 times greater than the USA. the inidence is around 1200 in 100,000 in the USa its around 450 in 100,000. Area where concealed carry is allowed have a lower incidence than ares where its not allowed. But I am sure youd just yell and call me stupid for having facts you can't refute.. or just lie and make up your own numbers again..
I was unbearable to listen to the 2 Screech Owls, Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes, let alone watch it and the face making and rolloing of the eyes by Scottie–Pierce please don't cheapon your program and make me turn it off by having meniacal quests on as these two. Please invite people with some class insted of this trash.. I apprecate you Pierce ! We need gun control.
Hey Morgan if it makes you sick sod off back to the UK. As an exBrit who became a proud member of the American nation we dont need your British based dictatorial ideology – your one track minded rantings. Banning one particular weapon and restricting magazine capacity does NOTHING for prevention – granted 3 shootings have utilized this weapon BUT many more objects of murder – not just guns – have killed far more here in the US as well as your UK. YOU Morgan make me sick like Clinton, Bloomberg et-al who are only interested in scrapping our 2nd Amendment – just like the UN, using any means possible. Screw you all!!
Watching your program regarding guns in America is like watching a combo of Springer/Maury.
You're a rude, know nothing individual who will do anything to garner ratings no matter how foolish you sound.
You had on some very intelligent guests who because their opinions differ from yours, you berate them and in the end, don't allow the American people to hear what they have to say.
You bring on a Tea Party moron who is so far out there, that she sounds like a complete fool. You constantly go back to question her because you know she's an embarrassment and only helps your arguments. Those with actual knowledge are asked the fewest questions and cut off the most by you.
Your continued referencing of tanks shows you what a complete fool you are. How many mass shootings have been done with a tank? Since the answer is zero, why would you bring it up?
there's nothing wrong with having a serious debate about gun control, but when you make ity into a springer show, you lose what little credibility you had to begin with.
Any chance of me continuing to watch your show went out the window with the ridiculous tank argument.
Good luck in your future career as a circus clown. You sure aren't a very good talk show host.
forgot to add to previous post – if you look at the quality of the 'rag' (UK newspaper Daily Mirror) he was editor of you'd realize what a shallow, narrow minded sensationalist he is. To add insult to injury look up WHY he was fired from this newspaper
Ah yes, the United States of America... A land of freedom, wealth, and justice... It is also a land of fallacies and changing morals.
The recent mass shootings have fixed the focus of politicians and the agenda-driven mass media towards banning “assault rifles” from being sold to civilians. I used quotations because the weapons in which they are referring to are not the assault weapons that are used by the military. Assault rifles are weapons that contain semi-automatic, fully-automatic, and select fire capabilities. These functions can be selected by moving a switch located on the weapon.
After the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, possession of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Fully-automatic weapons that were produced before the Act's ratification are regulated under the National Firearms Act. However, those manufactured following the ban cannot generally be sold to or owned by civilians.
The commonly mentioned AR-15 Bushmaster is a rifle which fires the .223 round –the same caliber fired by a .223 hunting rifle. It should be noted that deer hunters commonly use calibers equal to or greater than the .223. The outward appearance of an AR weapon looks similar to a military grade assault weapon but falls short in its capability. An AR-15 and a .223 semi-automatic hunting rifle are functionally the same. One is just “dressed” differently.
So many people believe that the United States should ban weapons like the AR-15 as part of an effort to stop tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary and Aurora shootings from happening again. Politicians and the mass media scream that children should not be murdered, especially while at school. I agree. A child should have to face the end of the barrel of a gun.
However, politicians and the media fail to focus on the millions of babies that are aborted in America. They say, “Oh it is the mothers right to decide whether she wants to go ahead with the pregnancy.” Personally, I believe these “fetuses” (what they like to call a human being) are no different than the children killed by the Sandy Hook shooter.
Why are they so quick to carve away the 2nd Amendment? In theory, the United States could make all guns illegal to own and purchase and it wouldn’t stop people. Weapons would still fall into the wrong hands. A current picture of this can be seen when considering the outlawing of drugs. So much is focused on disrupting the supply of drugs instead of stopping the demand. I am not suggesting that the U.S. needs to stop the demand of guns. And how would we stop the demand of drugs is an entirely different topic that would involve writing multiple papers to even examine or explain ideas… which I won’t do.
Why hasn’t the media given great attention concerning statistics on the approx. number guns that are stolen each year? The number of crimes committed each year with stolen firearms?
I can comprehend that it may be reasonable to ban high capacity magazines and to require background checks on all firearm purchases. If you want to purchase a weapon, you shouldn’t have anything to hide. But I believe the leading causes behind mass shootings have not been the primary focus of the president, congress, and the media. For instance, mental healthcare is one example that has been given marginal attention.
Quick correction, "I agree. A child should not have to face the end of the barrel of a gun" NOT "I agree. A child should have to face the end of the barrel of a gun."
There are over 400,000 Class 3 fully automatic guns in private circulation in this country and likely 100s of thousands of post 86 dealer samples that are only transferable amongst C3 FFL dealers. You have to wonder why Morgan hasn't focused on these as well, but then again he's demonstrated he's completely clueless on this subject. Morgan can't even define what an assault rifle is.
According to CNN's most recent poll the country is divided on the issue of gun control. Maybe the 50% decline Piers Morgan's has seen in his veiwership is directly related to this poll as gun owners and proponents of the Second Amendment switch off? One thing is certain many of the viewers he has lost won't be coming back.
You know what makes me sick? You piers. Hallelujah to these wonderful/powerful, assertive women! I think your going to find more and more people using your own "get in your face" tactics your so used to using. You remind me of a little spoiled narcissistic baby, and I really wish you would get the message and go away. I would say home but your kind has no home. Oh and when you try and switch it up and play rational when your confronted as you confront people, we see thru it.Now all we need is some real decent journalism in the mainstream media, not the puppet mouthpieces that pretend to be journalists. We see you for what you are piers, remember that, when people look at you, you know what they are thinking. We have been nice, rational, but those rules don't work for you. The day is coming when your mouth is going to make one of your guests slap you down and I will laugh myself silly. You can have a dozen bodyguards but soon you won't even be able to go out in public. The best advice I have for you is just make the conscious decision to start all over. An apology exit letter would be nice, but not totally necessary.
Being more "assertive" (as you so patronizingly put it) with a position, does not make that position more logical or ethical. Alex Jones was very "assertive", but his positions still originated from a perspective of illogical paranoia.
@Kim Ellen Campbell –
Why not join with other locals and demand that our Federal Government provide proper military support, for your border town, instead? Press your representatives. Demand that our military keep Americans safe.
When are you leaving Piers I will gladly paid a First Class ticket for you to leave USA for Britian.
Joe Testy – Piers is not going anywhere anytime soon ! He has just been made a Special Advisor to the President and Vice President !!!!! Way to Go Piers !!! Keep up the great work !
Yeah right, and all because Piers' British army brother is an expert! After more than 250 years after kicking these people out it looks like the Red Coats are returning to disarm us!
So a discredited British journalist who was sacked as editor of a British newspaper for publishing fake pictures of British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners is going to be advising the President of this country on major policy. What a joke!
In 2016 :
Hillary for President – and Piers Morgan for Vice President !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Totally agree with Piers Morgan. The pro-gun spokesman (or women in the case of Dana L) really frighten me by their blatant stupidity and lack of logic (ok, let's call it twisted logic). I also had no idea that the 'gun' becomes so addicting to these people. They are like heroin addicts or alcholics. The last masacre was unintentionally orchestrated by the Lanza kid's mother. Obviously a grade A or class A NRA member is not up to securing firearms or making proper decisions about their own children. If people (law abiding or not) are unable to be responsible then, dammit, the goverment has to step in to protect our children. The problem is multi-fold but there is no justifiable and certainly no moral reason that this country has allowed the gun manufacturers to make profits on the lives of the innocent.
Well said Richard! My question is who is letting the criminals have excess to guns in the first place? Where are they getting them from? Manufacturers? Gun shows? Dealers? Other gun owners? What has the NRA and all these gun advocates (extreme) done to prevent criminals from getting the guns. The answer is absolutely nothing. They are actually promoting the criminals right to have guns. Their answer to gun violence is buy a gun and protect yourself from the criminals that they allow to have guns. Do something after the fact and not do preventative measures instead. Example, A person is in the road ahead of my car, don't step on the brake to avoid hitting them, hit them first and then step on the brake. Too late for that person! Get the guns out of the hands of criminals and the need to have so many weapons to protect ourselves will diminsh. BTW, I am a gun owner too!
If Mr Morgan is going to bring any credibility to his arguments he needs to bring on semi-intelligent people from the Midwest who have guns. I am a NRA member and have guns, but I do not totally agree with their argument. There needs to be limitations on acquiring guns. The President on the other hand just did a dog and pony show that will not stop crimes with a gun and all he did was make it emotional and political. The every day people will send a better signal than the people you have on. Arguements just turn people off. One other thing quit bringing other countries in, Americans do not care and it clouds the real issues.
Piers Morgan continues to be an embarrassment to journalists everywhere.
Piers is a disgrace to journalism and the UK he is very rude and has no professional decorum. He should not be welcome in the USA whatever their views on guns. He is a guest in your country and needs to pull his neck in and learn some manners. As a Brit living in England I can only apologise and suggest you get rid.
Those 2 women were disgusting. Greed, power & money is their motivation. Absolutely no common sense. It is time to take down these gun lobbyists and create a new one with safety in mind. These people sound like war mongers. And they are destroying the good that is in America. They are all self serving people with no conscience. They like to talk about family values but need to justify their warped view. And they are stirring up the wrong people. The dangerous element who don't need any encouragement. Horrible women.
Piers – if you read this...
I have yet to get a clear understanding of why an AR-15 is necessary. 100 bullet clip? The only reason for having a 100 round clip is so you can be in a *protracted* gun fight. Something that, if you talk with people trained in combat, is not something you want to partake in. If these gun-toting civilians are so confident in their abilities, they should only need a few bullets to take down a shooter. Say 5. That leaves 95 misses that can happen. How many people are going to be wounded or killed by that hail of bullets?
The issue of the AR-15 being easy to learn on is spurious at best. I think the last thing you want is to equate firing a gun with is "easy". Besides which you can just as easily learn on a 5 round clip as you can on a 100-round clip. And learning to pull the trigger is the last thing you learn. How about sizing up the situation? Do gun owners practice combat drills regularly under stressful condition? How about locking up the weapon?
Gun onwership should be a privilege and not a right. Not everyone should be able to own a gun. Mental health should prevent gun ownership, and if you agree with that point, then you've already made the case that gun ownership is a privilege, and not a right. No one is asking to take the guns away, just the ridiculous ones. If you are walking around with 15 or 30 round clips or high-velocity assault rifles, you've missed the point of what it means to be in a gun fight, which is to say, you want to avoid that. Let's look at preventation of gun fights, rather than promoting it.
Darius, we need more than 10 rounds for the exact reason the Second Amendment was written. Should we ever be faced with tyranny or an attack from a foreign enemy, we need to be able to defend ourselves with weapons as close to those our attackers are using. People don't get that this is ALL about the Second Amendment and the intent of our forefathers. It's not about anything else.
The NRA and gun advocates are allowing criminals to get the guns. How anyone like these two woman can actually defend their right to let criminals have guns is beyond me. The NRA has done nothing to prevent criminals from getting the guns. Statistics show the continued increase in deaths with guns, yet the NRA and gun advocates do nothing to prevent more killing, only to promote the criminals to continue with their killings. These two woman stated they do not agree with anything in President Obama's proposed gun laws. So obviously they agree that people who are mentally unstable should be allowed to have guns. They just admitted on national tv that the shooter in Conn had every right to have access to those weapons that killed those 26 kids nad adults. All I can say is I am totally appalled and I thank GOD I don't live anywhere near them as I would be in fear of my life. They are exactly the knid of people who should never have a weapon.
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the gun control issue. I don't own any guns, never have. While I respect the second amendment, I also don't have a problem with restrictions on assault weapons. However, Piers' obnoxious bullying and demagoguery on this subject is contemtible. I'm beginning to understand why he is so disliked in two countries. Add me to that growing list.
Can everyone agree on universal background checks? If not, why is that? Why would the NRA have an issue with this if they want to make sure bad guys don't get these guns?
Because in times like this many Americans have an inherent fear and loathing of intrusive government. It's programmed into our genetic makeup. Universal backgrounds checks are a very good idea, but use a carrot, instead of a club and the threat of gun bans, to sell the idea and it might just gain more favor.
The elephant in the room that I do not hear much about, is that, most of the people who live in rural areas of this country(I know as I have lived in these areas, will not stand for a black man telling them what they are can or can not do. Even if they partially agree with what the President has to say. Think about the evasive answers that are given to Mr. Morgans questions. They are smart enough to know not to bring racism up, so they will argue on any ground they can find. End of story!!
Stereotypical responses like this are not helpful. To assert that people who live in rural areas, many of whom are black, won't stand for a black man telling them what to do iis prejudiced and creates a rural vs. urban mentality. Apart from that, your opinion and your experience having lived in a rural area, is just that, your opinion and your experience, It becomes offensive when you take your experience and claim that it represents "most" people living in rural areas. IT does not, anymore than it would be true to say that most people living in urban areas are violent since that is where most of the violence takes place.
I do agree that this response is not helpful...but it is still a fact. Perhaps I should have not walked so gingerly around the subject by saying that many,not all, who are white and avid gun right activists feel that way. Experience and opinions are all we have.
My father is a legal gun owner and has owned guns all his life. I dont choose to own them but have no problems with the. As we all know it is not the gun that kills people it is the holder of that gun. I feel limiting the types of guns and the amount of ammo that can be in a clip is necessary. Even if there were several people in Colorado or Conn. that had guns they would not have been able to stop the assult of a weapon that was used. A "GOOD" gun owner has their guns locked in a box or has trigger safetys on them. Should someone break into your home unless you are a magician and can get to the cabinet and unlock it there is no way you can stop someone that has a semi automatic weapon. The ones saying they need a semi automatic weapon and large capacity clips are only out to kill someone and should have their mental state looked at also. This whole debate is only about the ones out there that dont care about human life. Putting armed guards in schools is not going to help the problem either. Unless you have an armed guard in every class room one guard or even two guards can not patrol the whole school and besides that could never get to their guns fast enough to stop an assult like in Conn. People dont look at reality of the situations.
1. Please tell these people that semi-automatic rifles are not "assault weapons."
2. No AR-15 was found at Sandy Hook.
3. 300 witnesses in Aurora, CO and not a single one saw James Holmes, before, during, or after the incident.
Get a mental health check please!
I'd like to see Dana Loesch and Ben Shapiro together debating Piers. I suspect that Piers would quickly wither under the weight of their well-reasoned and well-spoken arguments.
I'm glad that Dana pointed out that Piers doesn't have the decency to allow people he disagrees with to answer the questions he asks without interrupting them. I also liked how she took him to task for manipulating peoples ignorance between "military style" weapons and military issue weapons.
If we separate the issue of high capacity magazines from "assault weapons" then it becomes obvious that the gun grabbers have no legitimate reason to ban AR-15s (other than trying to play to peoples ignorance and emotions).
Piers says himself that he doesn't have an issue with people owning handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Without a high capacity magazine, a semi-auto "assault" rifle is no more of a threat to society than a semi-auto handgun or a semi-auto shotgun. A semi-auto handgun has essentially the same rate of fire as a semi-auto rifle; almost all deer hunting rifles are more "high power" than an AR-15, and a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot is far more devastating at the close ranges ( under 75 yards ) that these mass shooting are typically happening at than a semi-auto AR-15 rifle.
Essentially Piers wants a ban on these weapons because they were used in the last few mass shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter used 2 handguns to murder 33 people. A ban on "assault" weapons will just cause these guys to arm themselves with handguns and/or shotguns. We need to keep ALL types of weapons out of the hands of these deranged madmen, not just certain types because they are scary looking.
If anyone listens to his show, when he has been asking the questions the person he asks is skirting the question and not answering it directly. They always have their reason for something and not the actual answer. It is pathetic that they can not answer a question without making an explination for themselves. When it comes to background checks for any sale of a gun, I think this should be done. It is not picking on anyone it is just making sure of who the person is before they can take a gun. Most companies have background checks on new employees and no one thinks this is wrong.
@Alta. That's because Piers asks emotionally charged and ridiculous questions then expects the guests he is debating to give yes or no answers.
Last night he asked about owning tanks. Last time I checked, tanks rolling the streets of out cities was not a serious daily concern. He was just trying to create a straw man argument. He claimed that he was just trying to point out how "these people have no limit" yet deep down he also has no limit and would be perfectly happy to have Americans turn in all their guns like they did in Britain. Most people would agree that we are somewhere near the proper line. Let's stick to the real issues rather than arguing about ridiculous extremes.
I was disgusted with level of disrespect and rudeness he showed to his female guests last night. He can talk to people that agree with him without being rude and interrupting, so why cant he at least show a little bit of proper debate decorum and be respectful while the other side responses to his question?
He also likes to ask "why should people should be allowed to own an assault weapon?" If we separate out the issue of high capacity magazines, and we agree that people can own a semi-auto handguns, then the question is "why shouldn't we be allowed to own semi-auto rifles?" This is America.. you know, the land of the free and the home of the brave. If it isn't obviously clear why we shouldn't then we should come down on the side of personal freedom. I take responsibility for my own actions and don't expect the government to be my nanny.
BTW.. I don't have an issue with background checks, and I don't think most Americans do either.
Those two ladies deserved the way they were treated by Piers because they are Devils.
But Piers is misleading his viewers when he says he doesn't want to ban handguns too. When he was editor of one of Britain's tabloids, The Daily Mirror, his paper led a relentless national campaign to ban all privately owned handguns in that country. He was successful in Britain and his current campaign will turn its attention to handguns, without a doubt. The notion that he supports the Second Amendment is bunk, and just a smoke screen to lull many proponents who won't be affected by a ban on so called assault weapons into a false sense of security that this is not about them.
I hope that Piers is successful in BANNING EVERY GUN IN THE US of A !!!!!!!!!!! What a great TEAM " OBM ( Obama, Biden and Morgan ) !!!!!
If we want your opinion we'll rattle a bucket! Americans don't want the opinions of Canadians, this is not your country, just as you don't like Americans dictating policy in your country. We hope you freeze :)
CR – open your eyes – the world does not start and stop at the borders of the USA. Guns and especially "out of control gun laws" as you have in your Country is EVERYONE'S business no matter where they live in this world !!! Go Team Obama, Biden and Morgan !!!!!!!!!
I agree! I think many responsible gun owners are in favor of closing the gun show loophole and increasing background checks. However, you have to understand that many Americans have a deep distrust and loathing of intrusive government. It's in our genetic makeup. If lawmakers used a carrot, instead of a big club and the threat of a gun ban, they might have better success at selling some of these more logical proposals. BTW I love Canada really, apologies for the earlier comment :)
Guns are not banned in Canada...why the lies?
BC – I never said that guns were banned in Canada.
And Canadians can own AR15s and other semiautomatic rifles!
Piers needs to be less disrespectful to women. I watched with disgust as the non-American citizen repeatedly interrupted and did not let the female guests on his show finish a thought or sentence. Note how pleasant he was to his male guests last night.
Lori – Morgan's treatment (however you took it) had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact Loesch and Hughes are women, and everything to do with the fact he (and I) thought their opinions and question-dodging were pathetic. He had to keep jumping in, because neither (especially Loesch) would actually give him a straight answer.
Can someone please tell me who the tyrannical government is these tea people talk about ? are they saying they need these guns to defend themselves from our brave sons and daughters in uniform that defend this country ?
@freshyoungminds; If Piers Morgan likes gun control so much, why would he MOVE from a country that has GUN CONTROL to a country that was BASED ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?
What an absolutely silly question. Obviously IF Piers' ONLY reason for coming to the USA was based on the gun control issue – then he would not have come – DUUUUHHHHH eRIC !!!!!!!
Canada has more guns per capita than the US. Are you living in fear every day? Although I do see you’re from Ottawa so that would explain the delusion.
Hey, NRA, eat dirt!
When are we going to send thes egostistical Brits back to their own shores. Piers morgan, Simon Cowell, and the like have heads bigger than their butts and filled with the same stuff. A few centuries ago, these puffed up a–holes were sent packing back to Jolly Old.. send them back.
Yes, maybe they should take their language with them. If the 2nd amendment said bare arms those two women would think it meant bare ass
Oddly enough, polls show the most americans share the "egotistical brit's" views. Want to deport them as well?
Who cares what this pompous ass thinks!!!!!!!!!!
I don't blame Pierce for his exasperation. So the guests DON'T agree with putting more SRO's in school (also known as, the NRA's big idea?) With universal background checks? Encouraging doctors to report a person who exhibits dangerous behavior? What a bunch of reactive partisan hacks. Makes me even sicker.
When the Levee Breaks.
I know many people laugh and clap on P.M.'s show when a guest states they should have a hi capacity clip in case of this, that and other but please note....
When Katrina hit New Orleans, no one would have thought the city would go upside down. The prisons were emptied, people were trapped and scared and the city was practically lawless. Police Officers covered their shields and abandoned their solemn oaths. Even the government took a pause and wanted to reflect while folks suffered. If one desired 10, 5, 2 or even 0 rounds, please be my guest but if there is civil unrest. I can only hope for the time that emergency exists, I might be able to protect my person, my family and those I care about.
Now before anyone cast judgement; Honestly, I just enjoy going to the gun range for purposes of target practice. I do not have anything as serious as what people are talking about. I just like the sport shooting but do so respectfully but I cannot overlook moments in history when people felt powerless such 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, etc. I would never be so bold to say, "Oh, that will NEVER happen again". I prefer the statement, "Never forget". Those that never been prudent in such manner of thought are surely less prepared and often the victim of a crime or situation that could have been avoided. I chose not to be a victim.
P.S.- After given enough thought, I think America is wise to not rush to judgement on an emotion. We tend to make the worst decisions like that. After 9-11, we rushed to get to Iraq and almost skipped over the importance of Afghanistan. The rush toward immediate action left this country financial broken and in a perpetual state of recovery. Many people after this recent shooting simply wanted someone to blame and in this case, the shooter and his mother died. We needed someone to point and extract vengeance and it was "guns". First, it was all guns not it was assault rifles.
Fact: More people have died by what caliber in shootings....A) .45ACP B). .223 C) .308 D) 9mm or D) None of the above.
The answer is D. More people have died from the .22 LR. That us a round used for high school and college shooting teams, the boy scouts, etc. It is a tiny lil squirt of a caliber. It's quite weak yet that has done more damage than any assault rifle ever could. We are not outlawing such a caliber. Why, because it would be absurd.
P.S.S. – I am not 100% certain but in the state of Alaska, Montana, etc. where one can be cut off from society as a whole, I would think it would be logical to think they would need a 30 round magazine to survive. There are enough reality shows to support the claim they can only depend on themselves. Please exclude Amish Mafia. I might suggest water and nerf guns for those characters.
The only ones asking for more guns in our society are people who sell guns and those who haven't been through tragedies from gun violence. Those who go through these tragedies all resoundingly say we need less guns manufactured and trafficked in our communities. Solving gun violence with gun violence doesn't equate to safe or positive neighborhoods for children to grow up in.
This is not N. Africa or middle east where extremists use fear and weapons to intimidate peaceful civilians. This is America, it's 2013, and we are not going back to the wild west days of John Wayne no matter how nostalgiac middle-age people want to be.
Police officers are paid by taxpayers in our society to be the protectors of our neighborhoods. That's what separates us from Third World countries that don't have taxpayer money used for public protection.
If memory serves me correctly, didn't he ask her why does anyone need a clip that holds 100 bullets? I'm still waiting on her to answer that question.
Piers might get more of his questions responded to if he gave his guests a chance to answer. Piers' idea of a debate is to badger his guests until they say what he wants to hear. Rather like the apartheid era security police force's method for catching a crocodile: catch a lizard, and beat the cr@p out of it until it admits it's a crocodile.
Mr. Morgan, I'd like to explain a few thing to you. First, do you know the percent of fired bullets hit a target in self defense situations? According to police studies only 15-20% of fire shots hit its target. Second, do you know how many bullets it takes to stop an aggressor? Unlike in the TV and the movies, it usually take 2-3 well places shots (with a handgun) to stop (not kill) an aggressor. It takes more if they are high on drugs. If the proposed magazine capacity ban in approved and citizens are only allowed to carry 10 rounds this will be barely enough to provide adequate protection. If you are confronted by more that one aggressor, your chances of success are know very much reduced. Please have your staff research this and confirm for yourself.
Also please investigate this study http://www.dikseo.teimes.gr/spoudastirio/E-NOTES/V/Video_Games_Viewpoints.pdf on the impact of violent video games on peoples agressiveness and violent tendencies. After reading this one must conclude that violence in media as as much if not more to blame for the tragedies we have witness in recent times.
I'lll answer the question about the 100 round magazines. No one needs a 100 round magazine. Very few people like to have them but no one needs them. The same way no one need a Ferrari, a 15 room home, a private plane a 100 ft boat or a gold watch. We don't need these things that is not the question. The fact is 99.99% of AR15 owners use magazines of 30 rounds or less. A better question is: Mr. Gun Owner would you allow th e government to ban magazines that hold more than 30 rounds as a contribution to reduce the damage of this gun in the event that an insane person that shouldn't have a gun and has fallen through the crack take a hold of one? Follow that with, I know it is your right to own it but both you and I want to reduce the number of people killed in massacres by crazy people. You would be surprised at the result. Gun owners like myself want to join the discussion for gun safety but feel threatend by gun-banners. We are afraid of falling for the slippery-slope of how many rounds is too much. 100, 30, 10, 7 (in NY), 5 or 1? We are afraid of vilifying weapons. My handgun a Beretta 92 is used by our armed forces so is it a "military style" weapon. It is also a semi-automatic handgun. It will fire as fast as an AR-15, as their mechanical functioning is almost identical, one bullet for each pull of the trigger. One AR-15 and one semi-auto handgun can both fire at approximately the same rate (given they have the ammo capacity). So if you take the AR-15 will you then come after my pistol?
Gustavo – absolutely – your pistol will be next – right after the "bigger badder" weapons have been "taken care of" – GET USED TO IT and enjoy your guns you fools – because you don't have much longer to enjoy them !!!!!!!!!!!
Gun control and gun bans haven't worked in Canada (or any other country that has tried GC for that matter), why would it work in America. I'm from Canada and own and have shot everything you say is "banned".
Where does the slippery slop stop. Drunk drivers kill more than weapons. So all cars should have a breathalizer to start them right. Why do I need to own an ar15?, is the same as why do you need to own say a corvette, BMW, or any sports car. Some prefer high performance. We do not need more than 150cc motercycles let ban them. Oh I forgot he is damageing my ears with his car sound system. Lets ban any sound system over 15 watts, Come now your TV show offends me, so lets ban it... Where do you stop?
Has anyone thought of bringing back the death penalty for first degree murder? I am not sure what 'enforcing the laws' is going to amount to, if at the end of it all, the lawyers get the murderers, ( axe, gun, knife or whatever) off the hook or a short prison sentence. I think the death penalty would be the best deterrent to anyone thinking of taking someonelse's life. And cut the crap with the fancy ass lawyers and the long million dollar trials. Just hang 'em as soon as you catch the f..ker on the video camera doing it. You'll see all kinds of crime rates dropping and the good folk can hang onto their tanks and nuclear weapons in their sheds.
So, the fact that the shooter from Aurora went and bought several large capacity magazines, for his ar-15, and committed the massacre that we all know of, we should ban "military style rifles". So, having said that, if someone were to buy say, 100 throwing knifes, walked into a crowded area, and killed several people, we should put a ban on knives as well? What if someone bought a nail gun, bypassed the safety mechanism on it so that it could now shoot projectiles, went on a shooting spree. Are we going to ban that as well? People that have murder on their mind, that want to kill, will find a way to kill. By taking away our rights as citizens of this country, by banning a style of weapon, simply because it resembles a SEMI-automatic version of its military counter part is not going to change anything. Evil will find a way, and by taking away our right to protect ourselves from that evil, is a mistake in itself.
Maybe focusing all this time and energy on a subject that could BENEFIT our COUNTRY would be much better than wasting it on something that was part of founding it. Just my $.02.
Piers, you need to concentrate on the "well regulated" clause in the second amendment to put these morons in their place. In addition, you have to be in the United States militia (not a made up crazy person militia, but a government run well regulated militia).
From the story of the brutal beating in NY: "McCarron’s assailants ran to the trunk of a black car and returned with the motley array of weapons, sources and witnesses said. That’s when all hell broke loose. At least seven men descended on McCarron, beating him unconscious and fracturing his skull, witnesses and court papers allege.
“They used a bat and a tire iron,” said a bouncer at a nearby bar.
“I’ve been doing this job for a few years now and I have never seen such a brutal fight,” said another bouncer.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-beaten-bat-tire-iron-village-article-1.1240933#ixzz2IH399kH9
But to Piers, it would not have been "reasonable" for anyone to use a firearm to stop this beating before it happened or neutralize an attacker if he persisted? Piers, you're the fool and you make US "sick".
Sorry cschultz66, but you're off the mark. Piers is not suggesting it would be unreasonable to stop a vicious beating by pulling a gun .. he hasn't been arguing the right of Americans to have A gun, he's debating what TYPE of gun the public should have access to purchase.
Far too many people are getting all up in arms that their so-called 'rights' are being impinged by the proposed gun law changes – and this is clouding perspective. Joe public would still be able to purchase a weapon, but there would be a limit in regards to the 'damage' these weapons would be able to do.
On the contrary, Lucas, let me explain. The clip of the interview here is edited. Immediately before this clip starts, the beginning of the interview has them talking about a beating of an individual which I referenced in my link. In the interview Piers says (summarizing), "but this guy is still alive. What would you do, have somebody pull out a gun and shoot him? Is that what you'd want?" By the nature of that comment and his tone, Piers is indicating that he does not believe this to be a reasonable or viable solution or outcome, and would rather see a single indivdual be beaten within an inch of his life by 7 others with weapons. That was were my comment was directed. This reveals the true nature of what Piers and many would like, complete disarming and helplessness. I belive my comment is "spot on" the mark. If you'd like to educate yourself by watching the entire interview leading up to this clip, you can view it under #2 here:
Piers' Morgan, if he stopped for just a few minutes to consider the laws and checks already in place, would not keep making false assertions. Loughner, and Holmes, if they failed to disclose their mental health issues in background checks, as required on the background check forms, effectively committed perjury. The last time I checked, perjury was illegal. To whit – they obtained their firearms ILLEGALLY.
Please! Must we have all this rancor just 9 days after Elvis' birthday? Show some respect.
No one liked their guns like Elvis. He had a big collection of guns, I remember hearing he use to shoot flies with his gun in his hotel bedroom – shot up his TV set when one landed on it or maybe he just didn't like the program he was watching.
I saw the footage on CNN about Pierce Morgan attacking the two female guests who were very polite. Why is a British citizen using every ounce of influence to force his will on American politics and to force US Citizens to think like him, a British Citizen. If there is gun control in America at least let it be by the hand of US Citizens and not from a country we had to use our guns to revolt from in the Revolutionary War, becuase they imposed their will against us and forced us with guns to do what they say. I think that is called irony.
Ahh, another person who has assumed having a smile and speaking quietly = being polite! To actually judge, you need to listen to WHAT IS BEING SAID! I didn't witness an attack by Morgan at all – despite the fact his voice was louder and he was frowning.
I watched the whole thing and felt Morgan was actually doing quite well to be as restrained as he was. Loesch in particular was incredibly smarmy, and lacked any substance to her arguments.
One common rile for a debate is not trying to out talk or raise your voice to out speak a person you just asked a question while they are tying to answer your question. Reductio ad absurdum, is not a polite form of debate on a news network. He made wild accusations about what the person was saying before they could even finished saying it. Still you did not cover the apart about this is an American debate and Pierce Morgan is attacking us about the 2nd Amendment a main reason for its placement was the British and their use of force that ended in the deaths and executions of American colonists.
One common rule for a debate is not trying to out talk or raise your voice to out speak a person you just asked a question while they are tying to answer your question. Reductio ad absurdum, is not a polite form of debate on a news network. He made wild accusations about what the person was saying before they could even finished saying it. Still you did not cover the apart about this is an American debate and Pierce Morgan is attacking us about the 2nd Amendment a main reason for its placement was the British and their use of force that ended in the deaths and executions of American colonists.
piers keep asking dana could you own a"TANK" The answer is YES A company not 5 miles from my house sells surples military motor vehicles from'MULES' to jeeps armored personal carriers "DUCKS' and much much more and yes even TANKS
CNN: If you are concerned about your "readership" you need to reconsider keeping Piers Morgan on your channel, and Piers Morgan needs to be deported to somewhere where his opinion is of value to others like himself...it ain't here! He's rude, condescending and bigoted. If he is promoting himself on CNN, then he has failed miserably.
We beat the British before, it's time to do it again.
I watch CNN faithfully because when they changed the news reporting format for HLN, and it became a "personality" entertainment show, I needed someplace to go to for current news. If you guys are going to put "personalities" like Piers Morgan on to entertain and inform me, don't bother...I'm headed to Fox!
PIers, go home!!!
Saying what you want is another right given to everyone. Just because you dont like what he says "CHANGE THE CHANNEL". There are others out there that like to listen to him and see how he can make people squirm because they will not answer his question directly. People like you and others that are commenting how horrible the interviews are and are so against things such as getting rid of the high capacity clips and guns that can shoot large amounts in a short time are the first ones to yell if someone does something to their families. They have no idea how important it is to protect they just want guns to "KILL" others. These people along with you are the ones that will have accidents happen to them and they will blame someone else.
Bullies Anger And Revenge Equal School Shootings Not Assault Weapons
Grades 1 through 12 at all schools should require mandatory viewing from all students to watch the real videos of school shootings, slideshows of real photographs taken at the crime scene, no matter how bad, awful, or scary in nature it might be to watch, (even for first graders) and make them watch it every year, and make every student sign in at the viewing for proof that they attended so that they can be aware of bullies at school whether they are the bully or see someone else bullying someone so that they can report it to the teacher, principal, their parents, and even the police so that the police can follow up and handle the bully to prevent the bully from causing a victim distress (even if it requires locking the bully in a juvenile home if they continue), that way they can see the effects of a bully and how it could cause the victim of bullying mental distress, which could, for someone who is emotionally a weaker person, cause them mental health issues that turn into anger until they snap and seek revenge. No matter what ban of certain weapons, etc. will stop them from getting revenge if they want. A simple homemade pipe bomb will kill more.
All this banning this and banning that is totally ignorant when common sense should be to correct the problem the real problem that causes one to want to kill in the first place. Even if they keep certain weapons out of reach or make it tougher to get, they will use something else because they want revenge by killing.
Fair point. But what is more likely to have any chance to succeed? Changing our very ill society (violence, poverty, elitism, selfishness, national egocentrism, racism, to name a few) or trying to restrict weapons that are explicated designed to kill quickly and in significant numbers? We need to do both, but the first step seem obvious.
I think there needs to be a ban on wearing high heels while holding a gun for health and safety reasons.
How do these women fit assault rifles in their handbags, anyway?
Piers Morgan, Your interview made you look like a bully. An arrogant bully like the bully's in school –the ones that push some kids into retaliation. Gun Control will never stop the problem. You saying this made you sick - well you make me sick. You need to take your liberal agenda back to England & stay there. are you an AMerican citizen?? just go back across the pond!!!
This Dana woman needed better parenting. I feel sorry for her. She also sounds exactly like the type of person that may accidentally kill someone in her home.
Dana and Scottie,
Both of you were like moron right wing robots with your constant chirping on “Second Amendment; Second Amendment; Second Amendment” like brain dead parrots.
At least Dana tried to present arguments. But tried and miserably failed. You Scottie were just stupid and obviously were just on the show due to the American’s obsessions with TV exposure (and guns..!).
Neither of your could answer Piers Morgan’s question about the tank. Are you both just stupid or misinformed about your own subject? And your insistence that the 2nd Amendment is the only legal basis for weapons-owning is WRONG!!! THERE ALREADY ARE LIMITS – AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE BANNED!!! So it is just a question of WHERE the line is drawn, not IF. And you were both too stupid and self obsessed (and probably under the control of NRA and/or Tea Party) to admit that and to engage in an intelligent discussion of WHERE the line should be “re-drawn”.
You were both examples of stereotyped, unthinking, unanalytical right wing automatons, without a single original thought in either of your parrot brains.
But fully automatic weapons aren't banned. Nearly half a million Class 3 guns are owned by private individuals in this country. Piers just hasn't had kittens about these yet!
I sit in the break room each night at work, IMorgan Piers show is on our break room tv so I have no choice but endure this show each night.
I do not own a gun of any kind nor do I plan on it however this is America, the land of opportunity, land of the free, not England ! If I or any one wants any gun for any reason, our fore fathers fought and died so we can period! If you hurt or kill any one with said gun, you are breaking the law and will be tried and sentenced by a court of law.
Funny how our topics has changed from our economy and the much needed budget plans.
Great job and effort in keeping a tragedy of a disturbed youth alive so others can reflect on his deeds and follow his foot steps Morgan, if you put half the effort in our economy and budget issues i am sure something would be done in no time in reducing our debt but you have let us know you are British not an American so why would you care?
This is probably the most important video that explains the right to self defense.
The video also provides Piers with the answer as to why anyone would need an AR15.
WOW, CR, what a powerful statement!! Honestly, I cried…
Why doesn’t Piers invite these people and have a fair debate, if his mission is to “save lives”.
A couple of news stations have picked up on this also.
May be monitored. I was talking about the bushcrapper I mean the bushmaster and I never could get that one to post. I tried everything in how it was worded, but will not post. Hey, this one might not.
Yes, but since it does not further his personal agenda, it too will be ignored and overshadowed by his ranting style.
That is so true. I feel like ordering an assault weapon in protest. LOL
LOL, don't forget a couple thousand rounds of ammo to go with it. Piers is the best thing to happen to the economy in 4 years!
LOL.... I didn't want to mess with 223 ammo, so got a SCAR 17. Lots of 308 ammo still around. It's a mans gun.
Peirs wouldn't ever put someone like her on his show.
Jackie, are you having problems posting comments to this site?
Sometimes it posts and sometimes it doesn't. I noticed that I have to change the wording to get some posts to work and then other times if I repost it says it is a duplicate but doesn't show the post.
I have two posts that I have tried repeatedly to post, and have even done as you have suggested, changed the words, but the site just won't post them. No tinfoil hat, but it makes me wonder!
Same problem here. Maybe we said something to offend?
Compared to what some people have posted, the two I've been trying to post aren't even close to being offensive.
I tried to repost on this thread ones that failed and made changes and still no go,
Some news stations have picked up on this also.
I agree Piers Morgan has his own agenda and I will change channels every time he comes on. We do not need a Brit telling us how to use guns.
The over all crime rate in UK is as bad as here but not murder with a gun
The UK violent crime rate is one of the worst in the western World!
According to Brtain's Daily Telegraph:
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
So....if I gave you a choice that one of you family members was going to either: shot with a gun, stabbed with a knife, or hit with a blunt object, which one would you choose? Which one would give them the best chance at surviving? If you had to choose which one is least lethal?
All violent are crime are bad...but let's not put them all in the same category.
Let’s say a guy is coming after one of your family members. Which one of those would you put in their hand to protect themselves?
I would be happy to answer your question, if you could answer mine first.
Piers is worse than O'rielly. He asks a question then before the guest answers it, he goes on a rant or tries to ask another question based on an answer he hasn't gotten yet. This is terrible journalism. We get it Piiers, you hate guns, but if you want to present the discussion, you need to step out of it. Trouble is, if you do step out, the facts start to tell the story you don't want to hear.
Wikipedia says, “In June 2012, it was reported that Piers Morgan Tonight had the lowest ratings for a CNN primetime slot in 21 years.”
To me, he is using the gun issue (‘cause it strongly appeals to emotion) to get higher ratings. He’s a hack. We should simply "STOP WATCHING" and his show will be "CANCELED".
Yet, you are here commenting on his page.....seems at odds with your own "good" advice.
Every media outlet does this – FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN.
But that being said, it is an emotional issue because it is very difficult for some of us to understand why others need so many of these high powered weapons that are being used to kill our fellow citizens.
Don't worry, I am sure he will have a Taylor Swift interview for you soon.
I actually stopped watching the show a week ago. I don’t think my posting here would help his ratings. I’m just reminding people who don’t like Piers that the strongest protest they can make is to "STOP WATCHING".
Sorry if what I said about Piers was spiteful, but I don’t do that to just about anybody without a good reason.
Here’s evidence that he is the worst kind of hack.
… Taylor who? doesn't ring a bell…
THE WALL STREET JOUNAL – The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT JR. – OPINION January 17, 2013.
Dr. Piers Morgan
You keep asking the question,why does an American citizen need an ar-15 "military style assault weapon" that can shoot a hundred bullets in a hundred seconds. First off your comments are outrageous,because you simply are trying to spread false propaganda of a weapon and its uses and capabilities. You keep saying that this weapon should only be used by the military in a war zone. What is crazy to me is the fact that mr Obama declared the United States a war zone months back. So for my safety I feel as though I need a weapon capable of being able to defend myself, my family and my commandants in a war zone.. Precisely the place we live in.. As long as the U.S.A. Is classified a warzone it looks like we need these" military styled assault wepons for defense" and that is the reason I give to you as my answer to your question.
Thank you for your time
-legal gun owner
This is such a selfish point of view and underscores the biggest problem in American society today. Yes, you have right to defend yourself, but not at the risk of everyone else. American citizens are dying at an unacceptable rate from gun violence. Period. Blame the people. blame the guns, it doesn't matter. Mothers, father, sons, and daughters are all dying in staggering numbers. Yes, you have a right to own a gun. But, we must objectively look at the facts. Americans are killing Americans with guns and we should try to stop that. If a few really minor restrictions on the killing capacity of the weapon you purchase can help prevent such enormous tragedies in the future, we are morally obligated to pursue them. Yes, you should have the right to defend your home and yourself, but I cannot understand why you think limiting the killing potential of such weapons is a bad idea. You can still kill people if you chose, but perhaps we should limit how many.
Perhaps you should read comments from "Kim Ellen Campbell RN MS"(at the top of this threat) and "Mark" (posted January 17, 2013 at 12:51 am). New restrictions proposed by the Obama Admin. can seriously affect these people’s lives, while they may not contribute to reducing gun violence much.
Irene – I think that your perspective does not consider the national implications. That is a specific regional concern that should be and needs to be dealt with better. But it does seem crazy to be arming to ourselves to the teeth against "potential attacks" when these kinds of weapons are already being used in real attacks against our own people by these American gun-toting terrorists.
So if we accept a high capacity magazine ban, just how do you think a law abiding gun owner is going to stop a criminal with an illegal 100 round drum style magazine in the future?
One bullet to the head.
JD, Why Federal ban on high capability guns, shouldn't each state decide what their people need? Are you saying Kim and Mark among other people live in rural area are collateral damage for urban people?
Or even worse for law abiding New Yorkers who are now restricted to only 7 bullets? We know this new restriction won't apply to the guns used to protect the life of Governor Cuomo.
Irene – thanks for the discussion. I am glad we can have a nice debate on friendly terms. More of that is needed.
Given that gun violence in general (and the larger tragedies) have taken place all across the country, I do think this is a national issue affecting all Americans that requires a collective federal response. I think in our discussion we need to be very careful to make a clear distinction between actual collateral damage (the countless innocence lives that have been already lost to gun violence) and the potential or possible risks one might have to endure if they did not have access to high powered weapons designed to kill multiple target in the shortest time possible. It is very difficult for me to put all the death we have seen ahead of much more intangible concerns.
I would like everyone to be safe from gun violence, and I do believe we have the right to own guns, but if our society is currently so flawed that mass shootings are becoming more common place, we need to try to limit the damage that can be done. I don't believe my 2nd amendment rights are curtailed if I cannot buy a high capacity magazine or an assault rifle. As a society we have decided that the police and their federal counterparts are tasked with the job of protecting us. Sometimes they are exceptional, sometimes they are not. But having millions of homemade sheriffs, often lacking in training (and therefore common sense), with extensive high-capacity weapons collections, that can be stolen or misused by others, is just a bad idea.
JD, I totally understand where your argument stands, believe it or not, I was originally leaning toward much stricter gun-control and in favor of assault weapons ban, but after doing some research, I realized very small percentage of homicides were committed using those particular guns, so I no longer see the point in banning them. If there are many studies that suggest implementation of the new restrictions will reduce violent crimes significantly (not just by guns, but as a whole, since perpetrators can simply change their methods), by limiting the capability of guns, I may reconsider, but so far, I fear more harm may be done by the new gun laws than good. By the way, I’m not a gun enthusiast. On the contrary, neither I nor my husband own a gun.
Also, below is the other rationale for my current opinion. In your earlier post, you stated that guns are “the biggest problem in American society today”, but that’s just not true.
(I posted this in other threads, but I post it again here.)
I know anti-gun people don’t like my saying this, but fixating only on guns is not doing much service to our society, in my humble opinion. Naturally, people, including myself, are emotionally stirred and distraught by the horrific image of massacre. It’s an honest human reaction. But let us all calm down and rationally examine what would work better, more efficiently, for the public safety as a whole, before we “vilify” gun owners or call them selfish.
For example, car accidents kill over 30,000 people every year and many of the victims are children too. I don’t understand why we are not having vigorous national discussions over road safety. For non-gun-owners, myself included, it is so easy to point our fingers at gun issues and demand stricter gun laws, because it won’t impact us. And yet we are unwilling to look at the fact of the frequency of car accidents and recognize that stricter traffic laws are imperative. Is it because it directly impacts us and we don’t want lower speed limits and higher fines imposed on us? How about punishing speeders, tailgaters and phone users just as harsh as DUI drivers, making all of them subject to instant license suspension or $1000 per ticket? Understanding anti-gun people’s goal is “a safer society”, just as mine, I’d expect that you’d welcome my suggestion.
If anti-gun people were equally vehemently pushing stricter traffic laws, then I won’t have a problem. I just don’t think it’s fair to demand law-abiding responsible gun owners to compromise their way of life, IF we are reluctant to be saddled with stricter traffic laws when we know that could save thousands of lives. Do you know how hypocritical that is? Cars victimize three times as many as guns do, so why don’t we do something about that first?
Why is this point of view so selfish? As this women testified those shopkeepers were faced with an angry mob of rioters he'll bent on taking lives and destroying property. With no police coming to my protection, I know in that situation an AR15 or something similar with a 100 bullet magazine would be my first choice for protecting my family.
Hi again Irene,
Just to clarify my comment was, "This is such a selfish point of view and underscores the biggest problem in American society today." I believe the biggest problem in America is selfish, egotistical, and self-centered thoughts, not guns. I love guns. I just don't think I should be legally allowed to possess a gun that is designed to kill a lot of people all at once because I think it will be more often than not used accidentally or with malice.
Your car analogy is interesting, but I think there is a fundamental difference. A car is designed and primarily used for transport (given some drunks and other criminals may not used it as such and I believe should be punished more severely). A gun is designed as a weapon and primary used to shoot things. I believe that is a very big difference. We are talking about a weapon/tool that is made to shoot things – and more and more of things, seem to be us. So we would restrict them because people are now using them to kill people more often. Simple as that.
Blame Holllywood, blame the NRA, blame bullies, blame muslims or anyone you like....but the truth is people are dying from gun violence in staggering numbers. A good place to start seems to be with those guns that are the most damaging.
(I hope some day I can buy you a coffee, so we chat on other subjects too. You are clearly a thoughtful and engage person.)
But JD if you look at the numbers handguns are the most damaging in this country. Using Piers' most used example, handguns were used in the Dunblane shooting in Scotland. What followed in Britain was a national handgun ban. So why isn't everyone advocating a ban on these as well?
I do think a strong argument can be made for banning handguns as well (as you point out). As a society though, I think it is a sensitive issue and we need to start taking baby-steps where we can.
JD, I’m sorry I jumped the gun (pun intended) and misunderstood your statement. Yes, I would agree “self-centered thoughts” is a big problem in this country… that’s why a rational conversation, without name-calling and personal attacks, like this one is good. It gives us an opportunity to put ourselves into others’ shoes and see things from different perspectives, doesn't it?
Yes, I get that counter-argument a lot. Almost every time I bring the car issue to a gun-control debate, that I’m comparing Apples and Oranges. Is it so? To me, the core issue is “how do we reduce the homicides, not just murders”. “How one was killed” is less important to me than “How likely that happens”. I totally understand that everyone has a right to feel safe in our society, and many people will feel safer with an assault weapons ban, but there are people who feel safer with having those guns. So, we can’t really say which side should have the priority.
I really don’t follow the logic of “because cars are not designed to kill, even when they do, we don’t need to further address the issue”. If that’s the case, when nuclear power plants were mishandled by lax regulations and leak radiation causing 30,000 deaths every year, since they are not designed to kill, and despite the dangers they are extremely useful in producing electricity and we all need electricity, we don’t have to do anything about it?
It doesn't make me feel any better if my child was not gunned down, but killed by a careless driver. The latter possibility is 3 times higher, I, for one, want to see something gets done about it. Why on earth aren't we having heated national discussions over it? Why isn't Mr. Morgan hosting shows after shows after shows inviting traffic experts and talking about it? I’m merely pointing out the strangeness of human nature. The fact is, when a smaller number of people are killed here and there sporadically, and when those incidents don’t come with horrific imagery, somehow we don’t care that much.
Coffee would be lovely if we ever have a chance to meet. But sometimes, I wonder, using a pseudonym, what would be the possibility that I’m talking to someone I already know, like my colleagues, neighbors, former schoolmates, etc… you know, like in the movie “You've Got Mail”, lol… oops, that’d reveal my age, wouldn't it? (chuckle) Hope you have a nice evening…
I am sorry but no one needs an AR-15 but that don't mean we don't have the right in acquiring one.Instead of removing a tool being used in crime, why not remove the crime? Become some one important., become a teacher! Teach taking you;re own life is not an option. Teach the wrong in taking some one else;s life and who is all affected by the act. All tool's must be used safe so teach safety in owning such a tool. There are several programs built in our country that does this so get involved in one and support their cause. if the media spent half the time and money doing so gun violence would be a thing in the past.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. This has to do with citizens' fear–not of criminals, terrorists or enemies of the U.S., but of the U.S. government itself. Seems irrational to me. I see no evidence that the government has any interest (or has ever had any interest) in dominating the general population by force.
...Also, it's not as if everyone in the country is running out to buy a firearm for personal protection. It's only a small number of people–each buying many, many, firearms. Very weird, troubling, paranoid behavior indeed.
The same reason why someone would want to own a Ferrari Enzo, Lamborghini Murcielago, Porsche Carrera GT, etc. that can travel at speeds of 200+ mph, which exceeds the country's speed limit, but they allow people to purchase these vehicles, which could endanger the public that just might happen to be on the road at the time when someone sets out to max out their speed in their sports car. They have the right to buy that type of vehicle with no background checks or mental health evaluations, and knowing the speed can go 200 mph. It is their preference if they want to spend so much money on a fast powered vehicle to have for just in case they might need one day to go 200 mph for emergency or something and just like with an assault weapon, it should be the same CHOICE and RIGHT if someone chooses a certain weapon over another, whether they ever actually ever pull the trigger or not or just choose to buy it just to be buying it.
No limits whatsoever? But there are many types of vehicles that cannot be legally driven on our streets due to safety concerns. Can't we do the same with certain types of weapons (for example: missiles, grenades, assault rifles)?
But JD no one is proposing they ban real assault rifles. There are nearly half a million fully automatic Class 3 machine guns in private circulation. No one has proposed we ban these.
Well....I would. It just seems insane to me that we have half a million class 3 machine guns out there in the general population. What is the end game? The NRA's if we'd all have guns, we'd all be safe? Ridiculous. Americans trample/kill other Americans to get cheap TVs and other sale items, our financial sector screwed over the entire country with their greed and lack of morals, I don't trust other Americans. So I really don't want all of these advanced weapons out there.
There you go Piers, now pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee stop saying over and over and over how no one has answered your question of why someone would need or want an AR-15. The right and preference should be your choice whether you want to actually use it for self defense one day or just buying it to lock up forever and waste your money if you want. So there is my answer, you can print it and frame it if you wish, hope you find it helpful.
I find your logic to be flawed....yes, someone may one day find themselves in some kind of high-stakes shootout where a cache of weapons of significant damage and capacity may be needed (like a assault rifle, tank, or grenade). But, today, people are dying from gun violence...real people.
What you are saying is you believe the right to posses any type of firearm trumps the reality of innocent people dying from bullets being shot from them. I believe it is immoral to have that position. But that is just me.
The assault weapons ban will not stop someone from getting revenge and killing. The school shootings, most all of them, involve a current or former student. The problem of the violence starts at school and ends at school. Everyone gets angry, some can control it and some have anger management problems. Just like an abused dog, keeping kicking and hitting it, and it will bite back.
Bullying, starting from the very first day of school, can cause someone mental distress if the one's who witness the bullying does not report it and the staff at the school that does not make sure the bullying is stopped or choose to be blind to the fact. After a while, the bullying will cause someone to want to commit suicide or become so angry they want revenge and go back to the school to kill the bully and anyone else in their way or who they thought knew about the bullying and did not help them.
Controlling and regulating certain weapons will not stop the school shootings, could be school bombings next, but somehow, they will seek revenge with whatever they can find, buy illegally off the streets, or even make.
I think a law for bullying should take place and actually make the bully if they continue make them spend time in a juvenile home until they are at least 18 or 21 so that their continued bullying year after year does not cause someone mental distress and make them suicidal or thoughts of killing.
I largely agree with you.
But until we can more successfully tackles these huge issues (bullying, mental health, domestic violence, etc.) perhaps the best thing to do is to limit the killing power we give to our citizens. All of these issues need to be addressed right now, but as we are doing that, we need to take clear and obvious steps of reduce mass killings.
I live I a nice area, sounded by good people. My reasoning why I own a M4/AR15 with large magazines, Its my Right to and because I want to be prepared for the worst situation. Calling 911 and waiting 5 mins may be to long. Why would I want 10 rounds in my gun when others could have 100??? I'm not saying something will happen, but who knows. I may never shoot my gun, may never take it out of it case, but I would rather waist money on being prepared then asking myself why didn't I ever buy a M4/AR15 when I'm in a bad situation and needing it.
Would you mind me asking in what kind of situation, in your nice neighbourhood, can you imagine where you need to have a large capacity weapon?
What would you do if, like myself, live in a so-called nice neighborhood, which has struggled over the years to stay nice, but has drastically declined over the past 12 years due to crime-ridden, lower income, drug-infested local areas nearby that come over and WITHOUT knocking, they KICK IN your door (3 to 5 people) WITH guns and steals all of your stuff, puts a gun to your head, force you into your own car and drive you to an ATM (with the pin number they force you to give them at gun point) and park away from the building and leave you inside the car with the other 4 to 5 people with guns while the other gunman goes to the ATM with you pin number to steal your money, and if you give them the wrong pin number, they drive you off to a secluded area just outside of town and shoot you and leave you for dead while they take off with your car. How would you self defend yourself one against 4 or 5 people? You only live once, better to be more prepared than less.
Many gun advocates who own an AR-15 say that they are fun to shoot
are very useful for hunting varmints, wild hogs.This and
the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms is the reason
why they oppose the banning of weapons like the AR-15.
We live in a society that values individual freedom, but there are times when
the right thing to do is to forgo something that is useful.
or pleasurable for us individually,for the benefit of the wider community.For example:
Anyone has the right to own a cat.Let's suppose that you are one of those people who
likes to own the biggest, baddest cat around, so you decide to buy a tiger and keep it on your property.
It is fun to own such a magnificent animal and it is useful.It sure beats a dog as a deterrent
against break-ins.Thanks to the efforts of the National Tiger Association, there
are relatively few restrictions to buying a tiger and soon you have one in your back yard.
You are a responsible tiger owner and your owning a tiger poses absolutely
no risk to anyone else.The problem is, that if you can own a tiger,then any other
person can be able to buy one and soon ten thousand other people in your town decide to get a tiger.
Some of these tiger owners are not as responsible as you are and escaped tigers start
hunting down kids with horrific results.What to do?
Some might say"I'm a responsible tiger owner.Why should I get penalized for what some careless or
crazy owner did with his tiger?" It's my right to own any cat I want, including a tiger so get lost".
I hope that a majority would take a different perspective and say
"It's fun to own a tiger, it's useful to me and I can legally own one, but no one can tell
when and where a tiger will fall under the control of a irresponsible or unbalanced owner,
so I'll agree to a ban on keeping this type of cat" for the sake of my community.
dave, it’s an uniquely interesting example, I honestly never thought about that and I see your point. But I think, for many people, guns are essential for their “survival”. People those who live near the Mexican boarder, for instance. Some may suggest local police should do a better job protecting them, but don’t you think they are already doing everything that they can? And still, it could take 1/2 hour to 1 hour for them to arrive. How about after your town was devastated by a natural disaster with a lot of looting going on, your survival could depend on how well you are armed, but I can’t say the same about having lions and tigers.
WhatWouldYouDo (posted above) makes a compelling case, too.
THE NRA'S "PLAN A" FOR PROTECTING THIS NATION'S CHILDREN & PREVENTING ANOTHER NEWTOWN:
(1) Buy a gun; (2) Lay low; (3) Have a shoot out; hope for the best; (4) Mop our children's blood off the classroom floor... WHAT????? The most obsurd, stupid, moronic, outrageous idea ever! If this is the best idea these gun nuts can come up with, then the President's executive orders are warranted! Oh yes! Let's wait until a crime is being comitted, then.... AFTER THE CRIME IS ALREADY IN PROGRESS.... do something.... ????? Who ARE these idiots that come up with these insane ideas!!!!!!????
Calling each other names doesn't help. Insulting each other doesn't help either.
In my opinion, bullies at school are the root cause of most of the blood on the classroom floors and not necessarily assault weapons, because a person who is mentally distressed seeking revenge by killing will find and use anything. School shootings start at school and end at school.
Years ago, kids would meet after school and fight it out, but now there are so many options out there they can use rather than fight and by the movies, so-called music noise, video games, etc. makes them think it is the norm and is acceptable to do those violent things since TV, movies, video games, and the noise "music" is basically all there is to watch or listen to. Being bullied every day will cause a sane person mental illness and if the students witness someone being bullied and do not report it, or parents do not try to stop it, or school staff cannot stop it, then the police should have to get involved to prevent the one being bullied to come back to the school for reveng and killing the bully and everyone else he can that they feel like knew and would not help them. If they are wanting to make laws to prevent school shootings then I think they should start with the main problem that causes one to even think about picking up a weapon of any sort, assault weapon or a butcher knife, and go to the school to kill. The law should be like a "third strike your out" for bullying someone and lock the bully up in a juvenile detention until he is an adult. It might sound harsh, but actually it would be saving his life and just maybe the victim that was bullied would not have a chance to become mentally distressed with thoughts of suicide or killing.
The use of a gun is a life-or-death decision and advices should not be given causally. There should be social, moral, and even legal responsibilities in making such claims.
Many people you interviewed asserted that a person with a gun can better defend himself. They offered various scenarios such a person being mugged. If the victim pulls a gun in these situations, is he or she always better off? What is the probability that he or she might suffer more or even get killed? The outcome is uncertain, depending on a number of factors such as is there only one assailant, two, three, or more, is it daytime or night, are there other people around,, etc.
Such questions are no less serious than whether a doctor should amputate a patient's leg. While it would be outrageous for a doctor to go on TV and say "if you have a headache, take a Tylenol and you will be better off," how can it be acceptable for people to proclaim that "if you have a gun you will be better off."
Note that since merely having a concealed gun have the same effect as not having a gun in these scenarios, the clear implication of such statements is that the gun will be drawn, and used if the defender had the chance.
Some gun advocates have described the AR-15 as the perfect weapon to kill a
large group of wild boar before they scatter in panic into the bush.I wonder
if they ever stopped to consider that pigs have long been used in forensic science for trauma studies?
The effect of bullets on pig muscle, bone,cartilage and organs
closely matches that on human bodies. What their comments about the AR-15 reveal is that this gun
is also the perfect weapon to kill a large group of people as quickly as possible as they try
escape. Shooting wild boar would have been the ideal practice setup
for Adam Lanza at Newtown, to simulate a frightened,crying, panicked group of children as they
and their teachers desperately tried to escape or hide.
Since Lanza went to elementary school their himself and his father said he was a little different, I bet kids picked on him and bullied him. His mental health issues he was having was probably contributed to how he was treated at school and probably did not have anyone try to help him and over the years, it probably affected his adult life such as job, buying a home, getting married, etc. and the anger or depression from the treatment was too much and he was not strong enough to handle their anger/depression issues and thought suicide and killing where it all started was best.
It sounds to me, banning high-capacity weapons only makes it SAFER FOR CRIMINALS to do what they want, ‘cause Mexican cartels are gonna sell them underground and now only criminals can have them. Well, maybe I’m wrong and I hope I’m wrong.
FOX news just got duped by the NRA on the Hannity show. Had an NRA shooter to demonstrate all these weapons and she made out that the AR-15 is the weakest of them all by shooting holes through a board and showing how the 223 makes the smallest hole of them all. What a jok.
And your point?
LOL... I thought I could trust their integrity in reporting the facts? No, this was out and out fraud. Used the word weakest of them. They know that the kinetic energy of the 223 is only second to the 30.06, yet they played it like it was the bottom of the list. Once you add the 30 – 100 round magazines that the 30.06 doesn’t support and the ability to shoot without any recoil which even showed the expert shot group was better, the 223 leaps out in front of even the 30.06 in terms of killing power. They played up the 9mm and 45 being worse because it made a bigger hole in the paper. That 45 doesn't come close to the kinetic energy of a 223 or create a fraction of the wound channel.
The only way to keep guns off of the street is to hold the gun manufacturers responsible for any civilian wrongful death caused by a gun. Revoke all legislation protecting the gun manufacturers from civilian liability suits.
I disagree and agree. I don’t think you can hold the manufacturer of weapons responsible for what others do with it, but we can’t even hold them responsible for weapons that have defects and kill people. There is middle ground there, as with this whole debate.
With a government that publicly claims it has the right to detain without charges. torture and kill any person on earth it wants to do so to, we need keep all our semi-automatics, automatics, and other weapons and munitions we have and advocate our right to them and more. We need to get rid of the government that thinks it has right to violate our rights. If we do not resist and condemn them, we will not be enabled to escape their fate or leave them forever out of our nation.
Piers... You think no one 'needs' an AR-15... Well no one needs a whiny Brit telling Americans what to do, yet here you are.
The last time a whiny Brit tried to tell Americans what to think... and what to do... it sparked a revolution. Remember that?
The 2nd amendment exists because America's founders understood that just as an armed guard deters a robbery, an armed citizenry deters a tyrannical government.
Since you have no idea what makes America, America; I've listed what our first three Presidents had to say about the right... no, necessity for a Free Person to bear arms:
In the words of George Washington; "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
In the words of John Adams; "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
In the words of Thomas Jefferson; "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Finally, I offer this departing lesson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." – Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
It really amazes me at how illiterate some folks can be.
Do you honestly believe that being armed with AR-15s would protect you against the US Government?
While I was in Viet Nam, (And that was in 1968-69), we clear out 300 NVA and CV in an hour. In 3 days of fighting, we wiped out 1,500, and that was before Drones, F-16s and Cruise Missiles that are accurate to with 10 foot of its intended target. And easily clear out a city block.
Come on guys, use your head for more than a hat rack.
How quickly do you think the government could eliminate a couple million AR-15s – About 4 or 5 days.
I disagree the insurgents in Irag and Afghanistan have been creating havoc with AK47s and simple IEDs despite our superior firepower and high tech weaponry. Furthermore, the Vietnamese employed the same tactics and we didn't win that war.
Not to say it will happen here. But there are plenty of examples through out history that demonstrate military might doesn't win out in inconvential fights.
It might work. They could fall off their trucks and hurt themself from laughing. I think you are wrong about one thing. I believe we fixed the problem with the Cruise Missiles and got them accurate to with 3 foot.
It is a matter of freedom. Moreover you are wrong, if many millions of American,s were better armed, the government rather it is a malevolent foreign government or a malevolent and corrupt domestic government, the show of force would stop it in some issues and is our best defense.
Our biggest problem is the government not paying the bills and getting repoed by China.
But why? I can tell you it is because of the peoples sins and the people make the government. Do you understand what evil is? Evil is evil and it can confess, repent and restore for its sins or it can abandon these three and not do them so it will be righteous,or wicked accordingly. I am evil, and I try to be righteous by confessing my sins and wrongs and by repenting of them in my heart and mind and by restoring or paying forth as best I am enabled and by talking my soul to my creator through hos will by the sacrifice of another of his sons I consider the least evil and most righteous, one Jesus of Nazareth son of Mary by Gods clean implanting and Joseph her God given husband.
I am an ante christ which is to say, I am a christian, though I claim being a christian in more then one manner. I am also hebrew but by faith unless hidden and a pagan as well by the clan Macgillivray aka the son of the servant of judgement aka the son of God and I am very much an influence to all as all are to me.
And CR, do you know why – Politics.
Tony... Obviously, you need to look-up the word illiterate and learn what it means.
I have a 30.06 and with one of those I can get as many m-16 as a guy needs. The range on the M-18 is half the 30.06, so I'm not even in danger wile doing it. Just got to watch out for those darn drones. LOL
So Nae, I did check the facts and...
China is one of the oldest countries in the world with over 4,000 years of continuous history. And, solid fossil evidence points to Chinese civilization existing as far back as 18-20,000 BC and, Greeks have over 8000 years of scripted history as well does egypt. And Africa is even older. So your statement is correct. " Fact-check before you post and expose your ignorance."
In the words Thomas Jefferson,"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
Hey Quenzel – guess what – 25 or more people a day in the U.S. die from guess what – guns. Wake up. Another way to look at it – hey we have all kinds of crazy people out there – lets let them have a gun.
Quenzel, YOU ARE DARN RIGHT!!
Piers is concerned about the crazies who kill 10 to 70 people. He's worried about the crazies who kill maybe 100. We are concerned about the crazies who get into government positions and then kill millions. He has a naive view that governments are well behaved and are always good. Government is good. People in government kill. Guns are good. People with guns kill.
Tony C, first, I’d like to thank you for your service to our country.
However, you and many others like Piers, don’t seem to “get” the Second Amendment….
Somehow you think “fight against tyranny” only means an all-out war between the government and the citizenry... civilians are no longer any match for the military force even with assault weapons, what’s the point, obsolete, eh? …Wrong!
Tyrannical leaders do not want public outcry, much less International attention, since if everyone notices what they’re doing, they have very little chance in succeeding. So they’ll try to do it as secretly as possible. For that, it'll be very convenient for them if we didn't have powerful guns.
This is where our Second Amendment saves us. If the government wants to arrest a dissenter who is well-armed, they'll have to send a SWAT team, then the entire neighborhood will realize something is going on. If that happen here and there to good people, the rest of the country will realize something is wrong. And remember, we still way outnumber them. For them to suppress a large number of people “quietly” is not so easy, not when people put up a good fight.
Simply put, high gun ownership by the citizenry makes it darn difficult for tyrannical leaders to succeed. That’s the brilliance of our Second Amendment.
Also, this is the supplemental explanation of what I mean… If any government (especially among major democratic countries) used a tank or bomb against their own people, you can imagine that other countries are going to know it almost immediately, right? (Even Communist China couldn't hide it.) Do you think the government can give the world a persuadable enough reason to justify it? If something like that happened in the US, do you think England, France, Germany, Italy, India, South Korea, Canada, (not sure about Russia and China) will just stand idly by and watch?? So what I mean is, unless the government can do it without other countries knowing, tyranny won’t stand a chance in succeeding. If the majority of the populace stands up with powerful firearms, there is no way for the government to suppress it without causing huge commotion. That is enough to let the world know that we are in trouble and needing their help.
This is why, still to this day, high gun ownership by the citizenry is a strong deterrence against tyranny.
That’s what we have to love about this country…WE pick our leader…WE make and assemble our government. All of what we speak of is hypothetical and most likely IMPOSSIBLE to ever happen.
All of our amendments periodically need to be updated to the real-current world. My point has always been that we need weapons like the AR-15 to protect our style of living – Free and Democratic – and I just do not believe a Military style weapon is needed by John Q Public, but are needed by those that defend that freedom.
We are concerning ourselves with excuses that will never happen.
I had a professor in 1972 that said it best and this is what I’m worried about. “No foreign country could ever take America by force, but…I’ll be damned if we won’t sell it for the right price.”
Think about it…Though 9/11 was a tragic event in our history, not a single citizen needed to pull out an AR-15. Within seconds we (and remember WE ARE a single unit.) had one of the most sophisticated armament system deployed in the world. F-16s scrambled; Airports locked down and our emergency responders coming from all over the country.
You need to get real about what we really need to focus on.
I’m having a problem posting here. Maybe a short one will go through….
Just think about Hitler and Tojo, no one in those countries had an idea what they would do when they elected them…
How is 9-11 (terrorist attacks) relevant when we are talking about tyranny?
Since I’ve been having a problem posting (sometimes comments appear and sometimes they just don’t), and seems short ones go through more often, so I hastily summarized one of my former comments just to make my point, and ended up not reflecting the real facts. So I’d like to restate it….
Neither Hitler nor Tojo were elected by the general election, they were appointed by President Hindenburg and Prime Minister Konoe (who were both elected), respectively. My point is, these president and prime minister made a huge mistake, which further solidifies my long-held belief that elected officials won’t always do the right thing, either intentionally or unintentionally. So I’m hesitant of giving my complete confidence to any politicians, either I like them or not. Democracy is not infallible, just as none of us are.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. You’re comparing empires, one of which has been an empire for over 6,000 years. The one KEY difference is that we’re 200 years old and we were started as “A government by the people, for the people for freedom and liberty for all.”
200 years ago we all came together for a specific cause and we are known to go to the ends of the earth to protect and help others in the world to develop our beliefs. (Right or wrong, it IS what we do.)
I’ve read several comments stating that weapons are needed for protection against a “Tyrannical Government”, but that can’t happen. We have a military force that would never copycat a Hitler type movement. Why? Those five little words, “Freedom and liberty for all.”
It was the bases for the Civil War and it would had never happened IF we had stayed true to the “Freedom and liberty for all” part.
We Americans live in a giant bubble often oblivious to woos of the rest of the world except when the media dramatizes events.
The recent hostage event is an example. The Algerian government should have called us first and let our Seal team do what they’re good at accomplishing. I believe the outcome would have been quite different.
But, did you notice something – We don’t look at “hostages” as Brit, French, American or whatever, they’re all one unit in trouble and need our help. And that’s what makes us known as the police of the world. Like it or not.
While in Viet Nam flying along the DMA I know of a 100 times we said “I just wish we could cross over and finish the war.” (Politics wouldn’t allow it.) Had our military been able, no, allowed to do their job, North Viet Nam would most likely be free now.
Think about it? We ARE often our own worst enemy.
6,000 years? No countries have lasted that long. Fact-check before you post and expose your ignorance.
GOSH! Why won’t my post show up!
Tony, look up what "a country" means in a dictionary.
I meant, the definition of a country.
What you stated was the record of humankind existing in those areas.
For example, European countries didn't invade “country of America” when they started migrating. They invaded the land where Native-Americans lived in a tribal form of society.
A country means “nation” where a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government.
Sorry I made you upset by calling you ignorant, but if you are gonna call some people “illiterate”, you’d better get all the facts right.
Geesh!!!! What block a post site manager?!? Scared of the truth?
Piers Morgan is garbage. This is America not Great Britain! If you want a gun free country move over there. Piers Morgan is a joke a ratings Patsy!!!!
Could not get the copy-n-paste to take from the Bullying section, due to the language they were called. The link is below.
Bullying 3.1.1 (This section describes from witnesses and their journals of their torture of bullying, which led to their anger)
If they really want to prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. school shooting, they should put laws into effect to punish the bully and the one's, (teachers, bystanders, etc.) that see it and know that it is happening and choose not to report it. Should have a law that punishes the bully and others involved as criminals and make them serve a sentence so that the one being victimized does not suffer daily mental distress of the bullying torture that causes them to want to seek revenge and kill.
If the school shooter's carbon dioxide, propane tank, etc. mixture pipe bomb would have detonated correctly, investigators predicted it would have killed over 100+ people, which would be homemade, so banning certain weapons cannot and will not stop someone wanting revenge.
I have watched a couple of his shows about the gun issue. Mr. Morgon you have it wrong on several things but the biggest one of them all is I have never heard a well cared for and properly maintained weapon Ever killing anyone ever. If you have proof or evevidence of such I would love to know about it. As a side note I can fire my pump shotgun just as fast as most people can fire a simi auto. As well if used with 00 buck 31/2 in. round every time its fired would put 18 30 caliber projectiles down range. avaverage shotgun holds 6 rounds that would put 108 bullets in the air in under 5 seconds. should we banned pump shotguns as well? or buck shot rounds?
they would really need a long, long, long, very long list of weapons to ban that could be considered an assault weapon. Really, any weapon that you could assault or physically harm or kill someone could be an assault weapon. Anything, hands, guns, knifes, stones, bats or clubs, just about anything you can pick up could be considered an assault weapon that could kill somebody and even kill a lot of people. As far as trying to prevent school shootings, they need to remove the cause of most school shootings from the school and lock them up to prevent the one from being tortured and treated so cruel which would cause them to become emotionally and mentally distressed to the point they are full of rage, anger, and hate, and then set out for revenge, and no ban or law will stop someone wanting to kill.
The M-16 assault rifle has a selector to enable it to be used in semi-auto mode. This is the default mode, adjacent to the safe position and is the mode that infantrymen are trained to use in most situations because semi-auto fire is the most efficient way to kill people.Use of full auto mode is discouraged for most situations because it is far less accurate, wastes ammunition, is more likely to jam and wears out the barrel. The AR-15 is just as efficient for killing people as the M-16 in its most widely used semi auto mode. Those who claim that an AR-15 is just an ordinary hunting rifle dressed up to look scary like an M-16 assault rifle are being very dishonest. Any weapon that can be demonstrated to be as efficient at killing people as an M-16 in semi auto mode should be considered to be an "assault rifle" and banned. Testing by qualified personnel at an FBI or Military combat training range would easily determine which guns should be on the list.
Dave, If the AR-15 only had a 5 round magazine, what would make it different than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle? Tell us what makes it more efficient at killing people? I don’t think you can point anything out that makes it different in the efficiency of killing one the high capacity magazine it out. Once we determine that the weapon itself is not the problem, let’s talk about the magazines.
If Pierce has such a problem with guns in this counrty then maybe he should leave and move back to his own country. We are sick of everywhere you look he is arguing with law abiding citizens in this country. He is a complete idiot. We have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves.
Is this blog closed? I'm having problem posting again1
Same here. Changing wording may help and keep trying.
I've done that, and completely redrafted some posts but still no joy.
The blog monitors at CNN must be having some fun with some people.
Jackie: Limiting the AR-15 magazine to 5 rounds would be a start, but we are still left with a weapon
that was designed for combat, to rapidly acquire multiple individual targets quickly and kill them instantly.
Light weight and low recoil for fast traverse,available flash suppressors against blinding and a huge mv2 kinetic energy cartridge for max damage to tissue are some of these design features that make it different from most
heavier conventional hunting rifles.It's ease of concealment makes it an attractive choice for mass killers. The same characteristics that make the AR-15 /M-16 such an effective combat weapon makes it a useful weapon for killing varmints and wild pigs. Responsible gun owners are being asked to make a moral decision whether give up something that is useful and gives them enjoyment, in order to help their community by keeping these weapons out of the hands of people who, in an episode of rage or instability use them to slaughter our children.
But handguns are the weapons of choice. Incredibly concealable and light weight. What are you going to do about these?
These so called assault weapons with 5 round magazines are no big deal. Yes, they are low recoil, but a muzzle brake gives you the same thing with a 308 or 7mm Remington mag. Pistols are the source of the vast majority of the deaths and no one talks about that. Well, I guess we are talking about limits of 10 rounds? I can change the magazine on a pistol a lot faster than a rifle. The deal is, we are not going to see an assault weapons ban. It just isn’t going to get through both the Senate and the House. Last time it made it through the Senate, the Democrats lost control of the Senate because of it.
Convince a majority of responsible handgun owners that a six shooter and maybe a Winchester 94 are adequate for home protection just as they were for Wyatt Earp.The crooks trying to break in will be just as dead. Keep the Glocks locked up at the gun range. Get legislation passed to make it so.
Dave, It isn't doable. We will never see the guns already on the street removed. It just isn't going to happen, so we have to limit their ability. That might be doable.
No an AR-15 is not like any other weapon. Bolt action, lever action and pump action are quite different and hold much fewer rounds! And so are revolvers! Vietnam vet 1967 thru 69
Gus, 67 – 69? Thank you for your service. Quick question. Did you carry an M16 or M14 during that time? I didn't think the M16 entered the war until around 70? I was just curious if you had a preference.
Gus, I’m always glad to hear from a fellow warrior that made it back. I was there from March 1968 to March 1969 in I Corp and we covered everything from Chu Lai to the DMZ.
Jackie, I do know that the M-16 was in use in 1968. The guys hated them and seldom used them in auto as they were notorious for gamming. We used the 7.62 round. When I flew, I carried my M-16 stored in case we went down, but I always had my Smith & Wesson 38 strapped to my side.
On all our Hueys we had M-60s and every 5th round was a tracer. Only one time did I have an M-60 jam. Luckily it wasn’t during a CA.
2nd Amendent Rights (Arms) interpetation also includes Rocket Propeled Gernades, Mortars, Stinger Missles and all military weapons that may be required to put down tyranny. Why are these suppressed? You can kill just as many people with large capacity assault weapon as you can with a gernade or mortar! What is the number of lives permited per weapon?
The AR-15 style of rifle is just a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle! It is no different than a SEMI-AUTOMATIC hand gun or other SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle or shotgun. The term "Assault Rifle" was developed by the anti-gun lobbyists to make it sound scary. In fact if any of you so called experts actually did any research before you opened your mouths, you would know that the "AR" in AR-15 actually stands for Armalite Rifle. The company that actually developed the SEMI-AUTOMATIC civilian version. Also the true definition of an assault rifle or weapon is one that is capable of selective fire. Meaning FULLY AUTOMATIC. (In case any of you sheepies don't know what that means, it means that as long as the trigger is held and there are bullets in the magazine it is going to continue to fire. (IE a MACHINE GUN) ONLY THE MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE AND NEED MACHINE GUNS!!! The AR-15 and variants are SEMI-AUTOMATIC! They are not machine guns or "ASSAULT RIFLES". Wake up and do some research. Don't believe what all the other sheep tell you!
I don't own an AR-15, but I can tell you this as a Veteran of the United States Marine Corps, the AR-15 is NOTHING like the M16 A2 or A4 except that they look alike. My M16 in the Corps had a selector switch that allowed for the weapon be put to either semi or 3 round burst, my father-in-law has an AR-15 and it does not have this feature.
I do believe however that Mr. Morgen needs to be more polite and allow his guests ample time to answer questions, it seems to some anti-gun people that these to women were "avoiding" answering the questions but when you look at it, it is deffinitly Mr. Morgan not allowing them to answer or putting words into their mouths. Mr. Morgen if you do not like the way we Americans do things or if you dont like that some Americans enjoy owning guns than the solution is simple... move back to England and enjoy your gun free country there. Please stop trying to force us by bullying us with your anti-gun views. Thank you and have a nice day.
Gee, I can’t post anything! Did they put me on their black list????? See if this goes through…
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS SITE!! CNN TECH, FIX THE PROBLEM!!!!!
Comments (591) | Friends (96)
Piers Morgan: Alex Jones 'Terrifying,' A Perfect 'Advertisement For Gun Control'
Read More: Alex Jones Piers Morgan, Piers Morgan Gun Control, Piers Morgan, Piers Morgan Alex Jones Interview, Piers Morgan Alex Jones, Video, Media News
Commented 2 weeks ago in Media
“Many reasonable suggestions regarding the sale of guns have been proposed and should be considered. If you believe in true market forces as a means to regulate the cost and use of a good or service, perhaps these forces can be considered as a means to regulate gun ownership and use. If every gun had to be registered with the government like a car, the owner of each gun would be identified and in a national database. If ownership of a gun required liability insurance like automobiles, compensation related to damage created as a result of the proper or improper use of that specific gun would at least in part be available and the owner of that gun would be held liable by law for related damages. A specific gun could not be sold by anyone to anyone without proof of insurance for that gun by that specific buyer. The insurance industry would determine the cost of insuring a specific gun owned by a specific individual. The insurance premium would be established based on the individuals specific ownership risk factors and the unique risk and related characteristics of a specific type of gun. Ownership of that gun would be immediately forfeited to the state without proof of insurance and use of a gun without insurance would result in confiscation. The cost of ownership of a gun would then result in some level of management and control.”
Five people get wounded at three separate pro gum rally's– kind of says it all really!
Just says to avoid pro gun rally's. LOL
How many people injure themselves or others at Ski resorts?
How many people injure themselves or others playing football?
Read this and shut up Morgan: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338261/do-gun-control-laws-control-guns-thomas-sowell#
Peirs Morgan wants to return the laws of America to the same British laws our forefathers fought to free themselves from during the revolutionary war.
Drunk driving kills more than 13,000 Americans a year – that's one every 39 minutes. Over 1.41 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics – Should we ban cars, beer, wine and vodka too?
How about obesity? $416 billion dollars on health care – should we ban food too? From the CDC Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
• 443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
• 49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
• 269,655 deaths annually among men
• 173,940 deaths annually among women
why doesn't the president talk about this?
The first thing we need to do is define what an assault weapon is. Is it magazine fed, semi automatic, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash supressor, silencer, or all the above. I'm not up on all the fancy stuff you can put on guns but from what I've seen most of these are cosmetic. I believe that you need to look at the base model of a gun. Can it shoot multipal rounds extremely fast. A fully automatic military issued m16 can shoot 20 rounds in 3 seconds but the military modified them to only shoot three round bursts to save ammo. I can shoot 12 to 15 rounds in 3 seconds from a Ruger 10/22 which is a legal semiautomatic weapon.
The definition of "arms" is "weapon" but we can't have any weapon. We can't have bombs, missiles, tanks, machine guns, ect. which is an infringment on our 2nd ammendment rights so what's the big deal with assault weapons. If you need any of these types of weapons to protect yourself, you need to take a look at your lifestyle.
Then, the Govt. has to assist relocating (buy a new house, find a new job) for all the people who live near the Mexican border since there’s something wrong with their “lifestyle”, but they may not be able to afford to move elsewhere on their own. But then, after everyone moves out, those areas are gonna become ghost towns and Mexican gangs are gonna take over. Is that good for our country?
And some people in Louisiana may want the Govt. relocation assistance too, since they may wanna move out from the area in case another strong hurricane hits and their towns go into anarchy again, but we won’t let them protect themselves with potent guns.
...I wonder how much all the relocation would cost us tax-payers…
Great way to put a Democratic "SPIN" on it. Arms = Weapon = tank, hand grenade, bombs. ARMS = GUNS. That is it!!. Don't try and make a case with smoke and mirrors (Another thing Democrats are good at!!)
You also just blew your own case. Why ban a gun just because it looks scary? You just said yourself that you can shoot just as many rounds with your SEMI-AUTOMATIC pistol as someone can with a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle! Banning guns is not the answer. Much stiffer penalties for gun crimes and doing away with the violence in our daily lives is. Along with parents taking an active role in their children s upbringing instead of leaving it to TV, X-Box and violonce in movies!
TALKING LOUDER WILL NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT MORGAN!!! LEARN THE FACTS BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH TO SPEAK. YOUR STATISTICS ARE WRONG!!!!! WATCH HOW HOW MORONIC YOU ARE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_we43-q7C7g
Peirs is rude, obnoxious, narrow minded, loudmouth. If anyone challenges him with accurate facts, he talks right over them so they can't validate their point or answer the question he asked them. Go Back to The U.K. and run some more phony stories in the papers. Oh That's right, they don't want you either!!
Why own and AR-15 or AR-10? Perhaps we should asked the Korean shop owner's forced to defend themselves for six days during the rioting that followed the Rodney King verdict. If they were armed with only handguns, they certainly would have been overrun by the mob and likely killed. Police were largely absent as it was deemed "too dangerous" for them to be out on the streets. Or, perhaps we should ask the victims of the wide spread looting and mob attacks that occurred during the aftermath of Katrina, while many police stayed home with families. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has dealt with this twice already, First, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174, ruling that the Second Amendment applied to "ordinary military equipment". And the more recent, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER No. 07-290, where the court found that the 2nd Amendment was an "individual" right to "keep and bear arms", whether for target practice, hunting, self-defense, or any other reason that I choose.
Thanks for sharing these two important decisions.
So very tired of that obnoxious Dana Loesch. Oddly, it seems she managed to get MORE irritating after her precious Romney lost.
I had to shut you off tonight, sorry.
Dana, please try to remember what you just said it is so sad that you have repeatedly contradicted yourself.
1. There is nothing about what Obama has done that she agrees with...... but she is against background checks...... Obama tightened and strengthened background checks.... OOPS
2. I know military assault weapons your sources are wrong... the sources are Colin Powell and Gen McCrystal..... OOPs
3. Background checks would have raised red flags on the VTech shooter as he had a history of mental illness, The Tuscan shooter also had history of mental illness... OOPS
Poor Dana facts are such hard things to get around...
LOVE THAT PIERS CALLS THEM ON THESE inconsistencies.....
MOst of the gun supporters who say they need guns to protect them from the government or foreign invasion. These governments have NUKES, do you really think your little toy will stop a NUCLEAR weapon from going off.. Get real and join the discussion in the present not the 18th century.
Our founding fathers were very intelligent (so most of you are already way out of your league) and stated that the second amendment called for a WELL REGULATED militia. Even if you get past the discussion of militia vs. private citizens.
How do you refuse to accept any regulations when the founding father and your precious 2nd amendment clearly states a WELL REGULATED. How do you deny that was the intent of the amendment.
No matter how evil a tyrannical govt. gets, they don’t want to contaminate their land and water, which they’ll have to deal with for the next several decades. And how would any govt. benefit from indiscriminately decimating the number of taxpayers? Besides, tyrants would rather not resort to mass killings unless they have a specific agenda against a specific group of people like Hitler did. They want to control us and force us to obey them so they can exploit us, not kill us. If they drastically reduce the number of people they can exploit, they’ll enjoy much less return, k?
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." – Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Morgan, I live 7 miles from town I mile or more from I'm closests neighbor. I live alone. Do you think I have the right to own a gun? I
I on longer hunt (work & health) and you do not need 20 rounds to hunt. But I still enjoy shooting my AR. why do I need a 20 round clip? Because I'm law abiding person who in joys it. why do some guys need a car that can go 200 to 250 MPR? they like to do it. why does a woman need 30 plus high heals? they like them' etc..... why punish all of use because of 5 or 6 bad people?
Well said, Joe!
I typically do not post on this board or any other board for that mater but do feel it massacre the 2nd amdement and the assault weapons and high capacity magazines are out their. as far as I am concerned it is not a total failure of judicial policy (whether state or federal) it is more a ethical question. media pundits (demagogues, jesters town criers the names go on) have no place in informing or influencing the American people such as mister Morgan on policy and how they should act on it. first off mister Morgan is an outside observer and lived a life of very different experiences in the UK, he as far as I am concerned has no horse in this race per say. he is not a citizen of this nation thus does not participate in the electoral process and holds voting. but he says what we should do as a nation. the American people listen to this mediocre drab person of influence and count on him to formulate reasons governing domestic policy and call it news when they are lectured to like a child from on top ivory towers such as mister Morgan. I imagine many a great actual news broadcaster is turning in their grave concerning the sad state of affairs are one true protection(media news) against government has become. we decry about our rights and liberties but do nothing to protect them when the ignorant and powerful secure in their place strip them from us. the 2nd amendments one of witch I hold dear not to protect against a federal power or sovereign authority but against any force wishing to do me harm physically. as pertaining the assault weapons (ar-15 or any other brand name we can demonize the next time) I believe their is legitimate reason to ownership In the world we live in today with economic crisis war unbound and scrooge of terrorism witch are media faithfully cries of every day, people are afraid and at the least in this nation we afforded the right to protect against such chaos. I know many will call me by many names (right winger extremist wacko) but say nay to them I want to own a firearm for I refused to be oppressed by any man who will do me harm or my family. further note I fall in middle ground in terms political belief and find that mister Morgan and the network that broadcast him are biased as are all other American news organizations and am deeply saddened by what my great nation has become partly due to this. if Mister Morgan or subsequent aide ever read this I hope he will reach out to talk to the common man for their are people out their that firmly belief their rights are under serious threat of otherwise ignorant legislative bodies that are poorly run by lesser men but beautifully built on paper and theory.
Piers Morgan grandstands about Assault Rifles even though ONLY hand Guns were used at Sandy Brook? Check the facts here is a link http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 to the Today Show explaining just that, the AR type rifle at the school was left in the car... But as far as Piers is concerned TRUE FACTS ARE NOT NEEDED. If this is the type of reports that CNN supports they need to be put out of business!!!
I have been a fan of your for years but your continued persistence of taking away or banning my semi-automatic AR-15 is very disappointing. I have been a AR-15 owner for 25 years. I sleep well at night with it under my bed. If a intruder breaks into my house to cause me harm, I would use everyone of my 30 rounds. I know a number of policeman, but the bottom line due to all the frivolous law suits, they can not protect public anymore. The legal community has tied their hands to the point they can no longer do their job. I have voted democrat the last two elections, but if President Obama gets his way with this gun control issue, I want ever vote again for another democrat. You we have mass shootings because of irresponsible parents and violent video games that act as simulators to desensitize the killing human beings. I am for banning violent video games and jailing irresponsible parents. So please stop trying to take away my semi-automatic weapons otherwise I will have to watch FOX.
I don't even know the way I finished up right here, however I thought this post was great. I do not understand who you are but certainly you are going to a well-known blogger if you aren't already.
hello thanks for support again best arm yourself with facts to argue opponents, typically gun crime is committed for economic means not for personal reasons. I simply felt like to needed to say something in light of this argument I live in CT where new laws have been passed of witch I disagree with and I am supporting the legal battle to revoke them, the more important aspect is teach children to seek better means and provide them more resources to deal with their problems to deal with problems and better mental health.
Notify me of new comments via email.