Get To Know Piers Morgan
READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Thank You
![Into the Jungle with Jack Hanna](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121126045719-pmt-hanna-cheetah-00012828"-search-tease.jpg)
Tonight: With a live audience in studio, the gun debate hits Washington, while Nick Kristof talks about the North Korean missile threat
As Wednesday sees a pair of U.S. senators from opposite sides of the aisle join forces to expand background checks for gun purchases, this evening "Piers Morgan Live" welcomes a cast of newsmakers, experts, academics, and innovators, all charged with adding some context to the country's on-going gun debate.
With a live audience engaging for the second time in as many days, tonight Piers Morgan will be joined by Mike Thompson from Washington, as the California Democrat plans to join forces with Republican Representative Peter King of New York to introduce a background check proposal in the House.
In addition to Thomson, Independent Firearm Owners Assoc. President Richard Feldman will present his perspective, while spikethewatercooler.com founder Marjorie Clifton adds her unique insight as well.
Meanwhile, amidst rising global tensions centered around a potention missile strike coming out of North Korea, this evening Nicholas Kristof will rejoin the primetime program with his educated analysis. A regualr guest of "Piers Morgan Live," in the past the "The New York Times" columnist has used the platform to share insight on everything from Barack Obama's performance during the presidential debates to the death of Moammer Gadhafi.
Tune in this evening at 9 as Morgan hosts a collection on intriguing guests, as well as a live audience, inviting all parties involved to activately participate in a conversation on the day's most polarizing topics.
-
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram
Latest video
check out Sarah Palin's latest photo ... she is holding a gun and gives a message to msnbc, as a member of moms demand action I thought it was disgusting.. She's either sellng her soul for NRA money ... or she really is a lava lamp
probably a little of both-you becha!
Sarah Palin is yesterday's news and always has something controversial to say with little substance.
She's all about self promotion and cares little for the American people.
The talkative Lady?? Piers just had on appears to be a very highly skilled employee of the NRA. & she probably is the very well paid ...Her arguemently invoked vocal energy is an embarressment.
Anderson Cooper to the gloves off tonight and globbered NRA president on his idiotic idialology of gun registration, Awsome Anderson, Awsome!
So what, your own words make you pretty disgusting and ugly yourself.
Cr thats why you guys are all still living in your mothers basements because you have no barrings of common sense about life. This is how you all evaluateproblems to not find answers or solutions to? sure lets just spew out statistics ( By the company paid for how have the vital interests of gain and benifet : PLEASE!) and show how immature and unready to be fit to have a family and be productive in our real world! Go outside and play your armymen games , Young whipper snappers! WOW!
sm, you're the perfect example of a modern blind liberal. Don't know what to say so you attack the character of a person without ever meeting them or knowing if what you say is even true. Libel, slander, malice, LIES, misdirection without talking to or directly answering the questions/challenges thrown your way. In general DISHONEST!
If you really have a problem with Sarah palin's photo, then you are a sad person. What was so offensive about it?
No problem, she' the absolute poster child for " DUMB" and " STUPID" I have nothing to say but pay for my road trips, Hey ya'll in Alaska My peeps! Ouch!
Why punish law bidding citizens, when you refuse to punish crimminals, and you protect the mentally insade,
Go after the bad guy-GUNS DON'T KILL, HUMANS KILL–PUNISH THE MENTALLY INSADE AND THE CRIMINALLS--–BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALLY, AND LET HONEST CITIZENS ALONE
How would a law abiding person be punished with a background check?
What many people fear is that any expanded national background check system would lead to a back door registry.
Thats right we absolutely need a manditory back ground check on all the irrisponcible , idiotic people crawling out of the woodwork!
Stop already with people don't kill guns do drivel. If this is the best you can do perhaps you need to make comments where the average IQ is 7.6. You fit right in there.
Sounds to me Len like you're the one with the 7.6 IQ. Typical spastic, knee-jerk, liberal reaction.
I do not think limiting the size of magazines for guns will change anything. if you take away a 30 round magazine someone will just buy two 15 round magazine. if someone wants to shoot people they will. there is nothing you can do to stop this.
Lets see a show of hands with your live audience who of them owns a gun? What makes you Peirs so quiet when you have a interview with people who are on your side and hold the same comments, you let them talk. But when they are on the other side you put them down and never like a debate as you call it. The conversation is for your own ego and nothing else. If you had a different opinion while interviewing with the queen of England would you badger her, no you would show some respect.
It's sad that no American journalist has the balls to call us out on a ridiculous obsession with lethal weapons.
There are much easier ways to stroke an ego. He should be applauded for taking on a difficult issue.
This is too pierce morgan someone comes in your house you have a knife he has a gun what are you going to do by the time you try to call cops your dead
If it's Piers Morgan, he'll just do the same thing little Hitler (Bloomberg) does, have his armed bodyguards take care of it, all the while denying us the right to protect ourselves.
Why are we still giving the focus on the weapon used by a mad man, and not the mad man him self? to think that if you get rid of AR-15's and 30 round magazines Sandy Hook's wont occur is plain ignorance.
Why focus on the weapon of a masacre and not the people who cause them?
If current Background checks dont work, why will this Universal "nice marketing word" work? this is no differant then Universal Health care, as if now the universe will have health care? we will be lucky if 10% of the nation will have health care at the cost of the other 90%. you Believe "Universal Background Checks" will stop a Sandy Hook? why he didnt buy the guns? he stole them and that is already a crime. Put the focus on the Mad men and not there weapons.
Had he gone in to the school with a six shooter, there would have been a much different body count.
The point is that the madman wouldn't have been able to slaughter children had this weapon not been available for public use. Otherwise, why not let people own AK-47s, M-16s, Tanks, Grenades, Flame Throwers, etc.?
Nonsense, I can reload my Redhawk .44 (6-shooter) in 3 seconds and begin firing again. Drop the foolish liberal BS!
In your dreams. The World champ six shooter did it in 2.99 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Miculek
If you're good for 3, why not go for the record? You're only .01 seconds off? Keep kidding yourself.
Amen brother, this is all about government bs
Mister Peebles, Jerry Miculek record was 12 rounds in 2.99 seconds, including the reload!
http://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw
Thanks CR, I was just getting ready to mention that. I can actually on a good day do a rapid reload in ~2sec with my speedloaders but that's pushing it. 3sec for reload is an easy pace, and about what I accomplished with my GAU-5 and Barrett M82 in my military days.
Hi from New Zealand generallly kiwis just can not understand the reluctance of the USA to librate themselves from owning overpowered weapons of mass destruction available to the general public
Could you define "overpowered weapons of mass destruction"?
Hi Jenny,
Well said! I totally agree with you. It would be fantastic if we could end the love affair with weapons and begin one with life. I would like to see all guns removed permanently from this society. There is no reason why we need to have a society saturated with guns. Its obviously proven to make society more dangerous instead of safer as many gun lover would have you believe.
Give me one good reason why these people shouldn’t need firearms…
1. People who live near the Mexican border in order to protect themselves against Mexican gangs. Police could take a half hour to arrive, so how would you hold them off without a gun, if multiple assailants busted into your house all armed? (FYI: criminals don’t follow the law)
2. People who want to be prepared if their town should go into anarchy after a catastrophic disaster. We can’t always count on our government as we all saw in Katrina.
Oh boo-hoo Amy.
Ichiro,
Re your #2 above, you mean a city like Detroit? Or like Chicago is soon to become?
IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR 2ND AMMENDMENT, AND OUR RIGHTS TO OUR GUNS, WE GIVE YOU ANOTHER RIGHT, AND THAT IS TO GET THE HECK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.
MOVE TO ENGLAND OR IRELAND WERE THEY GAVE UP THEIR GUNS, AND CRIME RATE IS HIGH.
IF YOU WANT TO PROTECT KIDS IN SCHOLL, THEN ARM THE TEACHERS.
Was Just Looking At The Kilwell Sporting ltd Catalog an hour or so ago. The SKB Semi-Auto Shotgun line was avaliable in New Zealand and Canada and my Old XL 900 12 ga. is still here . Is it stilltrue that Mr. Geater holds the Guiness Book of World Records with his SKB XL 900 / 1900 as My XL 900 was the shotgun I broke all my best scores at American Trap , and I put an 18& 1/2 in short barrel on iyt for the house gun when not sport shooting. SKB Shotguns still sold in New Zealand ?
And I personally don't give a $*** what you think about us way down there in New Zealand. You're not here! If you don't like it, stay down there south of the equator.
Piers,
I respect your right to voice your opinions....specifically in regards to your views on the current firearms debate. However, your views aren't shared by the majority of Americans. I am a retired Army Vet with 4 CIB's awarded......a former Texas Law Enforcement Officer, Army C.I.D agent, and former Military Police Officer (just to justify to you my level of expertise/experience in this topic). I am a NRA member who believes in background checks for ALL weapons purchases (believe it or not). My point is this........if I load a handgun or a rifle and leave it sitting on my bed......that weapon will not kill anyone by itself. It HAS to be picked up by someone and used. Therein , in my opinion, lies the TRUE problem. We need to somehow make weapons unavailable to the mentally ill (or other criteria such as domestic violence convictions, ect)......along with somehow identifying these individuals and getting them proper medical help. As I'm sure you have heard in the past.....Guns don't kill people.....PEOPLE kill PEOPLE! Whether with a tire iron, rock, knife....whatever.
Surely as a veteran you can appreciate that some objects are more lethal than others.
Otherwise, would you feel comfortable going to war with bats and sticks? Why bother outfit the Army with M-16s, just give them a six shooter and save tax dollars. Just as lethal, right?
Actually......I agree with you Peebles. I would have preferred going to war with bats and sticks. If you have been in an armed conflict (which you may have).......it drives home the barbarity of armed conflict nowadays. It one thing to drop someone from 400 yards with a rifle.....it's ENTIRELY another to take a life "up close and personal".
I wish I could star your comment. If you've fought, you actually get a distaste for death and bloodshed. Not a bloodlust for it. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but bullets... hurt like hell.
Why don't you ask our founders how they would've felt going up against the brit army without the same level of firepower?
The founders had no organized army, it was militias composed of locals. The second amendment mentions a "well regulated militia", so that could be interpreted to mean that in the absence of a standing army, people should be able to have weapons to fight enemies.
The founders were opposed to any form of standing army, but of course the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard were later formed, making the use of citizen militias and their vaunted guns somewhat redundant.
Mister Peebles, I respectfully and strongly disagree. Our founders meant the individuals (the people) to be armed to fight against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and the enemy of the people can be their own governments.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" – Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." – James Madison
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." – Richard Henry Lee
“The unlimited power of the sword [arms] is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" – Tench Coxe
"But if circu*mstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." – Alexander Hamilton
Those are nice quotes, but why did the USA form a standing Army etc, and eventually the National Guard if the founders were so opposed to standing armies?
Surely leaders after the founding fathers should have questioned the idea of organized military since it was the "people's" right to bear arms? In reality, they figured out that shifting the burden of national defense from farmers, cobblers, blacksmiths, and sea merchants to a professional military allowed those people to focus on improving their businesses and economic standing, rather than worry about being called into active service.
How did you get the idea that our founders were opposed to a standing army? Can you provide me any proof that they were? My understanding is that our founders wanted the people to be armed and strong, so we won’t be oppressed or abused by the government.
Read the following. James Madison, whom you quoted, was also against standing armies:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/07/29/both-james-madison-and-the-anti-federalists-were-right-about-standing-armies/
“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and A DISARMED POPULACE.” ~ James Madison
This only further solidifies my belief that our founders wanted the people to be armed in case standing armies abuse them.
That's a philosophical argument that later leaders do not agree with. If they did, why bother forming the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard?
In reality 100,000 organized citizens would stand no chance against a tiny fraction of our military. You can't own a bomber or anti-aircraft missiles, so just one stealth bomber could wipe out thousands of citizens and their Ar-15s in minutes.
I agree that citizens have delegated national defense to a professional army, but I disagree that it is a slippery slope to tyranny. If so, we've already lost. More importantly, if there was no standing army, how effective would our country be when people must train to fight and make a living at the same time? We're more productive as specialists and our economy, though weakened, is still strong across the world.
Perhaps you think “fight against tyranny” means an all-out war between the government and the citizenry... we civilians are no longer any match for the military force, so having guns doesn’t help... WRONG!
For tyrannical leaders to succeed in taking over the country, first, they have to avoid public outcry at all cost, also International attention (this is the biggie). Clandestineness is the key to their operations, since if everyone notices what they’re doing, they have very little chance in achieving their goals. Tyranny won’t happen overnight, it creeps up gradually... At the beginning, the government will seize control over the media, and then use secret police to make dissenters disappear without most people knowing why. For that, it'll be very convenient for them if we didn't have powerful firearms.
This is why we need high-capacity firearms. It’s to make unlawful arrests/abductions difficult to do in “a secret manner.” If the government wants to arrest a well-armed person, 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, then the rest of the country will realize something is wrong. Suppressing a large number of people “quietly” is not at all easy, not when people put up a good fight.
And remember, we still way outnumber and outgun them. Our odds don’t seem that bad, do they?
Estimated number of guns owned by law enforcement and military - 4 million
Estimated number of guns owned by civilians - 300 million
Oh yes, you’d say I’m forgetting that the government has tanks, jets, missiles, so how can we win against them anyhow? As I said, tyrants do not want, actually cannot afford, International attention. If the International community notices what they’re doing, they have very little chance in succeeding. If any government (especially a major democratic country) used a tank or bomb against their own people, you can imagine other countries are going to know it immediately, right? Do you think the tyrants can give the world a plausible justification for it? If something like that happened in the US, do you think the UK, France, Germany, Italy, India, South Korea, Canada will just stand idly by and watch??
Like North Korea, when people suffer the oppressive government meekly, sadly, there’s not much other countries can do. But imagine, if those people had firearms and are physically fighting against the government, it gives the International community the legitimate reason to intervene even militarily, thus the people will have a much higher chance of overthrowing the corrupt government.
If the majority of the populace stands up with powerful firearms, there is no way for the government to be able to suppress it without causing a massive commotion. Even after the government gets control over the media, if tenacious insurgencies occur here and there, it would suffice to sound the alarm to the world that America’s 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 first. Thus, as long as the people are well-armed, we are safe. As long as the government fears the people, we have liberty. This is why, still today, the Second Amendment is a strong deterrence against tyranny and the protector of world peace.
You don't seem to trust our leaders, but that's a fair criticism.
They could keep it very secret and not even fire a shot: poison our water, release biological weapons, in which case the well armed populace is dead long before they realize what is going on.
The "New World Order" conspiracy isn't impossible, but highly unlikely. The "powers that be" have had years to take control of the world, notably after WW2, the Black Plague, the American Civil War, and no such powers have taken control. What are they waiting for? It's not because people have guns. Guns mean little to them.
The notion that skull and bones societies are running the world makes the 3rd Reich look like innocent victims. They were, after all, trying to assert their economic and military dominance, and were crushed by the rest of us.
I don't know, the NWO has had plenty of time to make their move and many different ways of doing so. You assume it will be a Western style standoff, and I think they could be a little more crafty than that.
You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. It’s a free country. I really don’t mind that you don’t like guns and think they have very little value, as long as you extend me the courtesy to believe otherwise. I leave you with the words of one of our greatest forefathers.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Const*tution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." – George Washington
Mr. Peebles,
I think our founders are not necessarily against having standing armies, they understood the necessity of professional military personnel, but “concerned” that any centralized armed power could lead to tyranny by the government abusively using standing armies against the people. That’s why they created the 2ND amendment to guarantee the right of individuals bearing arms so that the elected few cannot take that right away and the people could fight against standing armies if the situation is called for. Isn’t that exactly what Alexander Hamilton is saying in his quote? Hamilton actually urges the citizens to be “little if at all inferior to them [standing armies] in discipline and use of arms”, he wanted the people to be armed and proficient in firearms.
If you believe our founders were opposed to standing armies, then the word “militia” which founders said whose rights of bearing arms “not to be infringed” cannot be meant for standing armies, can it? Then it is clear that “militia” meant “the people”, which means our founders wanted us the individuals to bear arms, is it not?
"Militia" doesn't necessarily equal people, and doesn't necessarily mean armed.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=militia
According to the word etymology of "militia" used circa 1777 in the USA, "In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777)."
That definition essentially means anyone willfully volunteering to serve for National defense, under no condition of enlisting and neither armed nor trained. Justice Scalia, who believes he can channel the founders at will, forgot this bit of basic 1770s English in his Heller majority opinion, but I respect that ruling. He also said reasonable gun control was legal.
Right now, the United States does not operate with such a system. It does not need to. Even those drafted or registered for selective service must duly train and enlist in the Army. You can NOT bring your own gun to active duty service. You are issued firearms to use.
Furthermore, A militia is an organized group of people, not any one person running around with a gun. The closest modern day equivalent would be the National Guard, who serve the people in times of emergency and supplement soldiers on the front lines in times of war.
Using a gun as a sole citizen in the context of "militia" would suggest you're serving your country, when in fact most gun owners do not consider themselves be to serving. Further, if merely owning a weapon makes you part of a militia, that definition is ripe for abuse: the Black Panthers, KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Drug Cartels, Anti-Government groups etc. could all claim they are exercising the right to defend the country. That's a stretch and your idea doesn't bear itself out in reality.
We are discussing here about how we should interpret our founders words, not semantics of the word “militia”. If you insist “Militia” doesn’t necessarily equal people”, how do you explain those founders quotes? Care to dispute each one of them? From what I see, you either had never read them until now, or completely misunderstood them, or are trying to put your own spin to suit your anti-gun rhetoric, which to me is a dishonest way of manipulating a conversation (many politicians do this).
If “The closest modern day equivalent [to militia] would be the National Guard”, then how do you explain the quote of Coxe “not in the hands of either the federal or state government”? Isn’t the National Guard a branch of state government? Also, the quote of Madison you yourself brought up, “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and A DISARMED POPULACE”, clearly indicates that he thought “a disarmed populace” was a negative element in fighting against tyranny, does it not?
If you even bothered to click the link,you would see that the etymology of the word in U.S. history is the year 1777, indicating the definition I listed. The rest of my argument is self explanatory.
Madison was also opposed to standing armies, but we have a few different forms of that now.
Yes, I did bother to click the link. It doesn’t matter what year the definition was formed, it matters what the founders meant in the context of their conversations. Like I said, we are not talking about semantics.
Yea, if Madison was opposed to standing armies, my take is that it’s because he was afraid of the possible abuse that armies may inflict on the people. And how does Madison being against standing armies equate him being against the populace being armed? On the contrary, Madison was against the populace being disarmed, as his quote states clearly. If you still don't get it, here’s what Coxe and Madison exchanged.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear THEIR PRIVATE ARMS." Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Const!tution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back and the quote follows.
"Accept my acknowledgments for your favor of the 18th. instant. The printed remarks enclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here [New York] ... The amendments ... will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen." James Madison in a response letter to Tench Coxe above supporting the interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right.
If you are still gonna insist that the founders did not mean “the people” to be armed, I repeat, how do you explain these and aforementioned quotes by other founders? Care to explain each one of them? Hey, here’s another one that supports the individuals’ right to self-defense by Thomas Jefferson.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … 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.” — Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book.
Well said sir!
Thanks Ronnie........just calling it like I see it.
AMAN AGREED
Exactly. With the recent mass stabbings we've had, I keep waiting for liberals to say we need to ban or control (through legislation) knives.
Steve, would you have rather faced any of the knife attackers or the gun attackers?
All the knifing victims survived. 0 died. The guns, well, that's a much sadder story.
I personally don't want to face either Mr Peebles, and pray each day for the Good Lord to watch over me. Each situation mentioned can be just as dangerous. A longer blade than the X-Acto knife used can be deadly, and quiet...so in a crowd people wouldn't know it's coming like, no gunfire to alert the crowd to scatter.
Worse yet is outlawing guns like many here want and these sick people realizing it's cheaper to make bombs, and easier to obtain the materials for it (I'm retired EOD). That's troublesome, you're running the risk of making a bigger disaster by taking away our rights...
Steve in denial? Were definetly going to take your knives away from you! idgit!
The same way cars, homes ownership have to be recorded, guns need to be registered...
We are not wild animals living in the jungle without record keeping. Civilized world must keep organized records.
That is beside the individual security and safety issues that would make it necessary for us to make sure that every transaction must be recorded.
Because we are NOT given a guaranteed, unrestricted, right to autos (transporation), house, or even food. But we are for weapons, without them we'd probably still be a colony of the brits...
YEP!!!!!!! negligance insurance for gun stupidity!
Guns are a REACTIVE response to crime.
We need PROACTIVE measures to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place.
I believe your use of the word "reactive" is incorrect. For something to be "reactive"......it has to respond to some type of initial act....or provocation of some type. Something has to happen FIRST......and then there is a REACTION. The root word is react. Look it up in a dictionary.
I agree to any proactive (which means some type of action that occurs BEFORE something else occurs) measures to keep the mentally ill (or others like I mentioned in my earlier comment) from acquiring/posessing a weapon. Along with that gun owners need to take responsibility to secure their weapons.
I used the words correctly.
When I say reactive, I mean instead of preventing crime from happening in the first place, we wait until we are confronted with an attacker and shoot. That's not very productive.
The cause of needing to fire a weapon is someone in your face. What's the cause of that person being in your face? That's the more important question and worth tackling. A proactive crime fighting measure would be fixing the problems that cause people to commit crime.
Fruity peebles, " Dummies with guns kill people! No way around it, people with guns kill Innocent people!
The lady you just had on could not be more wrong. So the answer is arm the woman and the man instead of stopping the man from having the gun. This kind of thinking just makes no sense. She even said if the background checks worked he would not of had a gun in the same sentence she argued against them. I just don't get it. What about a woman that is crazy and gets a gun and attacks her family or husband? or kids? I guess that does not matter. I cannot believe this type of thinking occurs.
I find it absolutely rediculous that we are more concerned about our 2nd amendment right than the right to live free from the type of shootings that happen in our country today!! Where is the harm in mandating background checks. The system is not perfect but it's certainly a step in the right direction. I don't understand the how a background check is an obstacle to a woman's ability to purchase a fire arm per your guest tonight. Our congressional leaders need to remember why they're in office and if they can't get the job done then get out! How many more lives must be destroyed before something changes!!
OMG, that last women, so embarrassing. "We don't want background checks because then women will be at risk." I'm convinced these are paid NRA shills who are trying everything possible to sell more guns. I believe the GOP are done, at least for a few election cycles, if they filibuster and vote against UNIVERSAL background checks. It would be blatant pandering to a lobby at the expense of public demands.
Ok! Is Gayle Trotter the dumbest person in the world; or just another big mouth conservative who refuses to answer the question asked to avoid something that she cannot logically defend. That may have been one of the dumbest discussions I have ever seen on television. PM should have cut her off much earlier and moved on to someone intelligent.
At this Point I can see nothing has changed on the Piers Tonight Interrogation Of Gun Owners In America and Tommorow will tell the tale. I Predict NO Background Check law , No Gun Ban of any kind/ model No Magazine ban either and to make sure I leave happy THE TRUTH ABOUT MAGAZINES IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT U.S. MILITARY SURPLUS STORE CHAINS SELL / AND HAVE SOLD MORE HI-CAPACITY MAGAZINES TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AT SURPLUS SUPPLY STORES WHERE NO FIREARMS HAVE EVER BEEN SOLD , THEY HAVE SOLD MORE MAGS TO THE U.S. PUBLIC THAN ALL COMMERCIAL MAGAZINE MANUFACTURERS COMBINED OVER THE LAST 50 + YEARS.. YOU PEOPLE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A CARNIVAL OF CLOWNS WITH ZERO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AMERICANS LIVE / WORK AND DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST CRIMINALS , POLITICAL CRIMINALS INCLUDED.
Check it Pilgrim, No matter what, everyday and night the people are going to ram the point of gun responcibility down your throats to fix the next generation of our children! Your in denial, We know who the voters are and what way the Conress and Senate vote1 Jobs will be demised, lost, taken away! Politicians are holding their own rope . We got the axe to grind, and like France and the French revolution, the aamerican majority of concerned parents are cleaning house, Litteraly! 2014 and 2016 Remember at election time , social media is a " B"
The French Revolution. Really, that's your sick twisted perverted frame of reference for how you'd like to proceed. You truly are a sick b***h with no sound reasoning or judgment. As for how to protect our children, shouldn't it be best if we love them (something obviously beyond your grasp) and teach them respect, decency, civility, and everything else that used to be taught before the BS called political correctness?
Piers it's time to give up.
America is a land of the free...
Free to buy a gun without checks and shoot an estranged wife the same day.
Free to leave a loaded gun out where children can find it and kill other children.
Free to buy a gun when suffering from diagnosed depression to commit suicide.
But hey the second ammendment is an absolute...right?
I wonder about the freedom to feel safe...oh right...the gun manufactures answer...everyone should have a gun...that will make us all feel safe.
The rest of the world must be laughing at us.
Wrong answer mate! Things are going to change now, nothing you can do, 2014 and 2016 is the new lighted future for american safety and smarts! Doyle
SM, shut the F*** up while you're losing. Stupid ignorant liberal moron.
HEY ISNT THIS THE SAME GOVERNMENT THAT TOLD THE INDIANS LAY DOWN YOUR GUNS, COME TO RESERVATION , WE WILL TREAT YOU RIGHT.
Nope...that government may have been liars but they at least had brains. This government lies and has no brains what so ever.
SAME GOVERNMENT THAT SAID, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE MONEY FROM YOUR CHECK AND SAVE IT FOR YA ,FOR RETIREMENT, YOU GET IT BACK AT 57 0R 62 YOUR CHOICE, THEN LATER, BETTER MAKE THAT 65 ,NO 67 , MAYBE 70 OR 72, AND IF YOUR UNDER 35 , WELL DO THE LETTERS F O MEAN ANYTHING TO YA, BUT TRUST US ON THE GUNS . ITS NOT LIKE WE HAVE A HISTORY OF LYING, JUST ASK OUR VETERANS, HOW THEY ARE TREATED ,WHEN THEY GET BACK AND APPLY FOR HEALTH BENEFITS .
Supporters of the second ammendment are worried about being supressed by their government. Have they seen their government react to anything? They can't agree on simple things let alone suppressing their citizens. Seriously NRA ... you don't have to worry.
we the Majority love you saying that, reassure yourslf that the NRA is O.K, Their Doomed! Weak, weak, weak. 2014 and 2016 Kepp telling yourself the NRA and the present idiotic non- action gun plan is going to be their for you! Tick, Tock First step The SENATE! feel the squeeze!
LETS SEE, POST OFFICE RUNS SMOOTH AND EFECIENT, VA HAS NO PROBLEMS, COUNTRY RUNNING SMOOTH, I PAY 30 % TAXES, RICH PEOPLE PAY 11 % OR LESS, GE CORPORATION PAYS ZERO, I WAS SKEPTICAL AT FIRST, BUT I KNOW THE GOVERNMENT IS TRUSTWORTHY, AND HAS MY BEST INTEREST AT HEART , WHERE DO I SIGN MY RIGHTS AWAY, AND TURN IN MY GUNS.
Personal Responcibility, thats all it takes, and Knowone seems to understand that anymore, Were all getting stupidier each decade! Blame some other industry, agency, or law. Cars kill, Wallstreet gambled the economies future away, my 2nd amendment rights, birth control, on-and-on, etc make excuses1 personal responcibility, my man!
I dont feel any squeeze, at most they will get background checks at gun shows , most states already have that, the assault weapons and clips ban were the big fish , I feel the power of the NRA, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, its a right and its going nowhere, its here to stay, get used to it ,and get over it, face it you lost, gun owners rule.
Cars kill? I thought is was the drunk people behind the wheel that kill. Oh right you're using sarcasm...like I have been. And responsibility is spelled with an s not a c.
Your the reason for the down fall of our society Doyle, your the poster child of ignorance. Your a weak minded individual, and are vulnerable! Join a spelling bee, Doyle. Stay away from guns, you'll hurt yourselfor probably someone else!
Shut the **** up SM. You sound like a whining woman who's in a drought.
HOWEVER, if you are looking for gun bans, and people who like that, talk to piers morgan ,he can probably direct you to a country that has banned guns, do you mind a lot of burglars when youre trying to sleep.
If you can produce a reliable statistic that shows more than 50% of gun owners successfully defend themselves with their weapons during a crime, I'll agree with you.
Sadly, past studies put the figure just under 2%. So even if you have a gun, 98 out of 100 times, it won't help you. Those are horrible odds and do not outweigh the dangerous free flow of weapons on to our streets in the name of "the second amendment' and all the other talking points the NRA recites ad nauseum.
past studies put the figure just under 2%....
can you give us the sources of the data?
Sure: http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf
This was BEFORE the assault weapons ban, so it proves that despite the ability to own horrifically efficient killing machines, they were rather useless.
Thanks. And this is my source. I’d like to think Wikipedia is more up to date and has examined more than one study, therefore has more credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
@ Sebastian
Well, Peebles certainly has no credibility...
Your source quotes mine as the "low" and Kleck as the "high". So if we take the middle, guns still aren't that successful at preventing crime. John Lott's numbers have been disputed by many statisticians with better credentials.
OK, so 95 out of 100 times your gun is still useless, or 5% of criminal attacks. Still not great odds.
Watch your spending, dont compulsive shop, make a sensible budget. pay your bills and dont party every weekend! Get an education. Quit filing bankcrupcy for the third time, Dont cheat on your spouce, Commitment means a commitment to anything you agree to. a hand shake use to mean something............ People built things with their hands. You do business Face to face............Can you hold a friendship or relationship for more than two weeks. get outside and quit texting and being in everybody elses business. Sorry Now, but Your ignorrance has crossed way over into incompetance in the Simple Safety of the Children of the Future, and our families. Weve had enough!
get some Balls and grab a baseball bat! who said ban hand guns, " KNOW ONE, Period1 Ignorant freak!
Feinstein will, that's next. First she's got to get her assault weapon ban through, then she'll join with the Brady bunch to go after handguns. Pretty soon it'll be shotguns. At least that's her orgasmic fantasy.
I'd prefer a knife welding burgler than accidentally shooting a friend or family member.
You should live in my city! you wouldnt last a week. Youd shoot at anything that moved, your a gun owner with a twitchy finger and no common sense! Give it some physical effort and dignity before you put your tail between your legs , Please!
Whens the last time anyone of you walked or ran a mile? If you can address a need for a gun, you can address a need to get in shape and learn some defense skills. I work with single moms who could take alot of guys if seen in this coutry! Thats weak!
AAAH THE IGNORANT MIND,DISMISSES WHAT IT DOESNT UNDERSTAND AS PURE CHICANERY .
I JOG TO THE 7-11 FOR CIGARETTES .
WHAT CITY YA IN SM
Id sure wish you were in my city, Id show you around and we'd make all the local stops! Loser!
Gee, Hey stupid, What city you live in Dana?
I bet from somewhere in Canada!
Please, your all talk, and would wouldnt last in my state ,let alone city. Weak minded!
Actually where I live we leave our doors open at night because we feel safe. And I don't feel the need to own a gun. That said if you want to own one more power to you. I just think its stupid how easily you can get it. There is more hassle getting smokes or beer than a gun.
I AGREE john some people own guns , some dont , and its a personal choice no right or wrong answer, not that hard to buy one , mostly just getting the money , fill out paperwork , gun shop calls fbi takes about 15 minutes on good day, been so busy lately ,takes about 40 minutes,then you try to find ammo its all gone .
MAYBE I AM WHERE YA AT, BE IN VEGAS ON THE 24TH FOR A WEEK . SHOW UP ILL PROVE IM NOT ALOSER, WELL PLAY SOME POKER .
Yeah, id bet you'll get poked......
Too bad not everyone is sensible, and smart. so we need to monitor you alittle better, and thats were its going to go. 2014 and 2016! we'll help you with the details!
CAN YOU PLAY CARDS , YOU KNOW IF YOU CANT SPOT THE SUCKER IN THE FIRST 30 MINS AT THE TABLE , YOU ARE THE SUCKER .
In my city , you'd better be able to spot the sucker in 30 seconds to have the upper hand!
ITS HAPPENED, BUT ITS NOT OFTEN AND ITS NOT EASY, BEEN ON TV FEW TIMES YOUVE PROBABLY SEEN ME
JUST realized wont be on here for over a week, how will i amuse myself.
YOU KNOW IN ALL HONESTY I HOPE THEY DO CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, NEVER DID THINK THAT WAS RIGHT, JUST DONT WANT TO SEE ANY BANS ON ANYTHING.
THEY have alot of gun auctions here, they just auctioned off a new ar-15 highest bidder , no background check , not cool
Are you a big time poker player Dana? Ever played with my home town star Kid Poker?
SLOWIN DOWN SOME, NOT PLAYING AS MUCH AS I USED TO 500 TRIPS WILL DO THAT TO YA, , NEVER HAD THE PLEASURE TO SIT WITH HIM YET, BUT SOME DAY PROBABLY ,
Speaking of not cool...how about those towns trying to pass laws mandating everyone legally able to own a gun must own a gun. Ever hear of freedom of choice?
I have not heard of that , that would make me get rid of mine, I dont like being told what to do,
Yep...here's the link...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#section_10
And it was even voted one of the top 10 family towns.
YOU know thats just crazy, I think the thing that irritates me on this current legislation, is it makes me feel like im being told what i can and cant do, actually the ar-15s and large clips , I dont own and dont have a desire to, I just dont like people telling me I cant ,so I have taken that side , guns arent that big of a deal to me, I like to go shoot some ,and enjoy it, then put them away till next time, mostly I play with old hot rods , harleys and love to play cards .
I hear what you are saying...but having absolute freedom to do anything isn't reasonable. If you wanted to drink and drive should you have that freedom. Of course not. If you wanted to build a bomb in your basement would that be ok...see where I'm going. The problem is where do you draw the line. Anyway good luck at your next game.
YEAH I HEAR YA, with rights come responsibility , it shouldnt be a free for all, no easy answers, cause I dont want to shackle the innocent , bit i dont want crazys to have guns either, have good evening
Many have such a major irrational fear that someone is coming to get them and that they need the most powerful firearm to inflict massive damage on whoever that perceived threat is. It is irrational. There is a far more likely chance that one is going to die from a medical illness or be hit by a car than be killed by someone.
Three times now CNN won't post my comment? Why?
I'm dumbfounded that Congress has turned a deaf ear to the will of 91% of Americans who favor extended and thorough background checks with the purchase of any and all firearms. I've seen the towering NRA building and understand they have many, many law abiding citizens funding their top notch lobbyists who bend the ear of all members of Congress, even contributing hefty amounts for many of their re-election campaigns. I hear the "first amendment right to bear arms" being played as the opponents "trump card" over and over again as if that should automatically negate any and all rational discussion concerning the implementation of universal background checks.
Enough of the 91% BS
@Steve in mo–
It's disconcerting to think that someone with your lovely disposition owns a gun!
No one is saying that you can't buy and sell guns. No one is demanding that you give up your weapons and if you have no injunctions against you that would prevent you being barred by law from owing one, why in the world are you standing in the way of perfectly sane and beneficial legislation meant to lessen the chance of malefactors being able to get their hands on one? I truly don't understand the paranoid and completely irrational opposition to more stringent universal background checks. It's a baby step for crying out loud.
BECAUSE AT EACH AND EVERY GUN STORE, YOU MUST BY LAW FILL OUT A 4473 FORM, THEN THE FFL HOLDER CALLS NICKS, (FBI) TO DO A BACKGROWN CHECK.
THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THE NICK CHECK STOPD THE SALE OF THE GUN, THE POLICE OR ATF OR FBI DO NOT GO OUT AND PUNISH THE BAD GUY OR WOMEN FOR TRYING TO GET A GUN.
INSTES OF MAKING MORE LAWS, ENFORCE THE ONE'S THAT THEY DO HAVE.
LAWYERS, STOP DESTROYING AMERICA. I CAN SEE WHY CHRIST SAID THAT IT WOULD BE HARD FOR LAWYERS TO GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY ARE SO WICKED AND THEY MAKE WICKED LAWS TO CONTROL FREEMEN.
Baby step toward what Sheila? It's progressivism I dislike. Those baby steps you mention lead where? Hitler started out this way and did the same; Stalin did the same; Castro did the same; Pol Pot did the same.
I guess one out of three is the best I can hope for!
I don't follow your linking the atrocities of Hitler, Stanlin, etc., with the Progressive Movement of the early twentieth century as it certainly doesn't lend itself to your narrow and generalized summation of what it seems you believe is its modern parallel. If not for progressives of the early years of industrialization in America women's rights would not have found a voice, we'd still have children working in factories and we'd all still be working 12 hour days for pennies. I think you're equating progressivism, as it was birthed then, with the liberalism of today. While it did morph out of necessity after WWI and the Great Depression in response to the abject poverty and hopelessness of the greater majority of Americans, I don't see the parallel between background checks for gun owners and the morally bankrupt despots of foreign countries.
Do you mean to draw the conclusion that background checks would eventually lead to "someone" one day coming for our guns? And who would that someone be? The military industrial complex, local police–who? Those opposed to common sense background checks have created a boogie-man who's just lurking in the shadows waiting to topple our first amendment right to bear arms. Americans are incomparably armed and dangerous–do you think we'd allow that to happen? I don't.
The baby steps I'm speaking of is for us to at least make it somewhat more difficult for unstable people, criminals and even homegrown terrorists from acquiring weapons that they have no business possessing–that's all. If you have a better way to prevent, even just a few, from obtaining deadly weapons, by all means speak up.
If you trust the government (not just the current government, but all the government we and our children will have in the future) not to abuse the individuals’ info. they get from the background checks and registry, why not give them our medical info. as well to know who among us have mental issues? Congress passed the “National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act” in response to the Virginia Tech shooting. This law was to provide funding to the states to add mental health records into the FBI’s database. The ACLU, a progressive civil rights organization, threatened suits for privacy violations under the federal HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules if the states comply with this measure. As much as I want to prevent the dangerously mentally-ill from getting their hands on guns, I agree with the ACLU for protecting the individuals’ right to privacy. And the ACLU said a gun bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on March 22 mandating background checks could infringe on Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.
The ACLU has "significant concerns" about the language of the bill, said Chris Calabrese, a privacy lobbyist with the ACLU. He said, when approved sellers use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, they destroy most of the obtained records within 24 hours, and all the records must be destroyed within 90 days. Reid's proposal doesn't have any such requirement for universal background checks when it comes to unlicensed gun sales.
Calabrese warned, “Unfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us. That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly. As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”
In 2011 the total firearm murders came to 8,583 according to the FBI. Now during that time the total murders committed by rifles – all rifles, not just semi-automatic rifles – were 323. That's 3% of all murders. Hammers and clubs killed half again as many people as rifles. Hands and feet murder twice as many and knives kill five times more Americans than all rifles combined. Preventable medical errors killed about 98,000 people per year. Medical malpractice kills more than twelve times as many people as are murdered in the US each year. That's more than three hundred times the number killed by all rifles – not just the so-called assault rifles. No one talks about limits on hammers or knives or doctors or hospitals. No one does that because the good we perceive from hammers and knives and doctors far outweigh their perceived harm and yet studies show that firearms prevent anywhere from 800,000 to over 2,000,000 violent crimes every year. The lowest estimate means that 100 times more violent crimes were prevented with firearms than the total murders committed with firearms.
12 million unarmed men, women and children were unable to resist being murdered by their own National Socialist government in Germany. Perhaps 50 million unarmed men, women and children were murdered by their own Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 50 million Chinese murdered by their own government under Mao who also disarmed his people, and in Cuba and in Vietnam and in the killing fields of Cambodia. Now you say that can't happen here. You say we're protected. BY WHAT??
– Watch “GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)” by Bill Whittle
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/bill-whittles-virtual-state-of-the-union-guns-in-america-video-2588444.html
1. Hammers and clubs killed half as many people compared to rifles, 323/2 = 161.5 (Not cool, but considering gun violence in the aggregate, fairly unimportant).
2. Hands and feat twice as many = 323 * 2 = 646 (Still not cool, but gun murders number into the thousands)
3. Knives kill fives times as many = 323 * 5 = 1615 (That's concerning, for certain)
Total non-firearms on your figures = 2422.5 . You said 8,583 were killed by firearms in comparison, so firearms kill 354% more (or 3.54 times) as many people. Firearms are obviously used to kill more than any other tool combined. Therefore, firearms regulations are necessary. This doesn't include suicides, which is a greater problem.
Interestingly, firearms murders per capita (adjusted for population) in the USA is 3.2, and with unintentional firearms deaths per capita 0.2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
And the overall murder rate in gunless Britain is nearly 40% higher than Switzerland, Germany and France who are ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th globally in terms of private gun ownership. Furthermore, Britain's homicide rate is nearly 20% higher than Spain and Italy, two other large gun owning Western European countries. If guns are the problem these 5 countries should have significantly higher murder rates than Britain, but they don't.
Mr. Peebles, First of all, you misunderstood the figure. “Hammers and clubs killed HALF AGAIN AS MANY”, which means 1.5 times (=484.5), NOT 0.5 (=161.5), k? Bill Whittle’s (featured in the video) argument is trying to address the hypocrisy of anti-gunners who go after banning certain rifles while willfully ignoring other objects that kill more than rifles.
“Firearms are obviously used to kill more than any other tool combined.” - NOT TRUE. Cars kill more, Alcohol kills even more, which of course you anti-gun folks are perfectly fine ignoring, because to you guys, it’s not about saving lives, it’s about punishing the people who use the tool you happen to dislike, or you’re one of those unthinking liberals who are interested in only pushing your own political agendas.
Numbers per capita (per 100,000 citizens)
USA: 88 guns own p/c, 4.8 homicides p/c, 3.2 gun homicides p/c
Switzerland: 45.7 guns p/c, 0.7 homicides p/c, 0.52 gun homicides p/c
Germany: 30.3 guns p/c, 0.8 homicides p/c, 0.06 gun homicides p/c
Spain: 10.4 guns p/c, 0.8 homicides p/c, 0.15 gun homicides p/c
UK: 6.2 guns p/c, 1.2 homicides p/c, 0.04 gun homicides p/c
Switzerland owns 51% as many guns per capita compared to the USA, but has 14.58% as many homicides and 16.25% as many gun homicides. The UK doesn't even match 1/4 as many homicides as USA. Do the math on Germany and Spain and they do not have as many guns per person and not nearly the same results as USA.
Yes, but on a per capita basis the Swiss privately own nearly 8 times as many guns as the Brits, and the Germans and French own nearly 5 times as many, and yet with all these guns in circulation these three countries have significantly lower homicide rates than the British. The argument that Piers has been making that more guns mean more homicides is incorrect as this example provides.
This can be further demonstrated using the Canadian numbers. The Swiss privately own just over twice as many guns as the Canadians, and the Germans and French marginally more, and yet the Canadian homicide rate is twice the rate of these European examples. The argument that a correlation exists between the levels of gun ownership and homicide is misconceived.
Piers is making his argument on nominal numbers, not on measures that would actually reduce the incidence of violent events. I have never advocated for gun confiscation, but instead ways to decrease violence. A necessary component of stopping people from getting hurt is limiting access to firearms that make this possible.
1. Universal background checks – how is this even controversial?
2. Mental health reforms – stronger funding for community support groups, relaxed standards for temporary commitments for those deemed as immediately dangerous to themselves or others.
3. Restrictions on sale of large magazines and assault weapons. Mass murderers typically use high capacity magazines and rifles to commit their crimes because these weapons are more efficient compared to a six shooter or pistol.
4. Public funding for youth programs, schools, and after-school activities. Teach kids there are alternatives to gang life.
5. Improve the economy and employ people. Most crime is for economic gain. Take away the economic incentive and allow people to earn an honest living.
I totally agree with you on many of these points. However, given there are an estimated 6 to 7 million AR15s in common use, along with countless numbers of similar style firearms, not to mention the 10 of millions of larger capacity magazine that are in circulation any ban would be futile. As has been pointed out on this forum before, handguns are the choice of most of these killers, as they were in Dunblane, Scotland. Following Britain's example, any move to ban or restrict the use of AR15 style rifles in this country is perceived as the slippery slope.
I have a problem with Mister Peebles' comment’s No.3.
If someone was attacked by multiple intruders all armed and he only had a gun with 10 bullets causing him to lose the fight and he and his family were killed, would you say “oh sorry, bad luck, at least his gun couldn’t be used by others to commit a mass killing, so it’s better that only a few people died instead.” ????? By the way, he may be protecting his CHILDREN too!! Why would you prefer a good civilian be under-armed against criminals, putting him at a disadvantage?
If this type of situation (good guys being outgunned by bad guys) happens more than 10 times anywhere over the year, the casualty is just as bad as Sandy Hook! If this happens more than 30 times throughout the nation in a year, it’s worse than all the mass-shootings combined!! How is under-arming civilians against criminals morally right???
Interesting recent national survey of police officers shows that the vast majority of the 15,000 polled (Mar 4th – Mar 13th 2013) do not think an AR15 ban and magazine ban will have any effect on the rate of gun crime.
When asked about the specific effects of an assault weapon ban more than 70% said it would have no impact, but more interestingly, in addition to this group, 20% said that it would have an overal negative impact!
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
tell me how! how! WOULD IT>>>>> the shooting! at sandy hook! could it be prevent it by having backgrount check or low capacity mazgazines! when the mother who was the one who purchase the weapons! was sane or she could it purchase many magazines! im ok with mental check ! but ! cut the other crap!
Have you ever heard of second life (sl for short). It is essentially a online game where you can do anything you want. Second life is literally my second life (pun intended lol). If you want to see more you can see these Second Life authors and blogs
http://everydayliteracies.blogspot.com/2018/05/border-crossers.html?showComment=1566405127065&m=0
This was great! I would like you to clean up all this spam though
https://www.linkedin.com/in/yusufhanafy
This was awesome! I would like you to clean up all this spam though
https://www.linkedin.com/in/yusufhanafy
This was awesome! I would like you to clean up all this spam though
https://www.linkedin.com/in/yusufhanafy
Have you ever heard of second life (sl for short). It is basically a game where you can do anything you want. Second life is literally my second life (pun intended lol). If you want to see more you can see these sl articles and blogs
http://everydayliteracies.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-book-in-our-series.html?showComment=1417340865709
I don't know about you people but I infatuated with airplanes. I have a friend in highschool that loved airplanes, so here are some airplane related stuff I don't know about you guys but I love airplanes. I had a friend in highschool that loved airplanes, so here are some airplane related stuff https://www.airlinereporter.com/2011/01/boeing-begins-final-assembly-of-1000th-767/
http://privatejetstoday.blogspot.com/2010/08/private-jet-flight-attendant-jobs.html
Have you ever heard of second life (sl for short). It is essentially a video game where you can do anything you want. Second life is literally my second life (pun intended lol). If you would like to see more you can see these Second Life websites and blogs
http://everydayliteracies.blogspot.com/2007/10/brief-history-of-manga-wired-has.html
Have you ever heard of second life (sl for short). It is essentially a game where you can do anything you want. SL is literally my second life (pun intended lol). If you would like to see more you can see these sl authors and blogs
http://myvedana.blogspot.com/2010/04/connecting-sites.html?m=0