Piers Morgan Crushed by Dana Loesch & Scottie Hughes on Gun Control Debate!

[RMorgan]

Posted by alamojo (here)
I believe it's pointless to compare crime rates between countries/cultures; there's too many variables in play. The are cultures with lots of guns and little crime (Switzerland), and no guns and little crime (Japan).

IMO, for purposes of this debate the only statistics worth discussing are, when we can examine a single country/state/city, and look how changing laws in that region affect crime. Examples are Australia and Chicago.

An there are countries like my beloved Brazil, where no guns are allowed and has one of the biggest rates of gun deaths in the world, if not the biggest.

How come people aren´t allowed to have guns, but so many people die from bullet wounds?

Well, I suspect the criminals, by nature, don´t care much about breaking the law and buying guns from black markets...

Since Brazil has a a 16.000 Km land border and a 10.000 Km maritime border, I guess it´s impossible for the authorities to effectively control what comes in and goes out, including guns, lots of guns.

So, independently from the cultural difference, which is abysmal, I believe the same thing would happen in the US if they prohibit guns.

The bad guys will buy them anyway and the good guys will be turned into prisoners in their own homes. That´s pretty much what happens here. I´m not joking.

My house is inside a 560 square meters lot, surrounded by 7 meters high walls with electric fence on top of it, with two trained Dogo Argentino dogs,with steel bars on every window and reinforced locks on every door. Basically, I live in a prison.

I find it to be surreal whenever I watch a Hollywood movie and see those amazing suburban houses, no walls...just green grassed front yards and kids playing in the street...The American Dream...

PS: I don´t want to make Brazil look like a bad country. It isn´t. We have no snow, no hurricanes or tornadoes, no earthquakes, no volcanoes, no FEMA camps, no CIA, NSA,TSA, NRA, DHL or George W Bush... Oh, and our Central Bank is still public, not private.

[modwiz]

Posted by bogeyman (here)
The right to bare arms,

I think anyone has the right to bare arms. weather permitting, in any country. The right to bear arms is another discussion entirely. I had a choice to pick on your logic or English. I chose the latter.

[andrewgreen]

Interestingly a linguistic expert analysed the constitution. Her findings were fairly interesting and sheds a more objective light on the situation. It was based on America's military which has evolved in a way completely different to the times of the Founding Fathers.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ontrol-Debate-

Expert opinion: Does the US amendment really give citizens the right to bear arms?

The right to bear arms is frequently cited by adversaries of gun control laws
Why is personal gun ownership so vigorously defended by so many people?
Dr Liz Morrish
The second amendment was not drafted with a view to providing untrained civilians with unfettered access to the assault weapon of their choice.
Dr Liz Morrish
I spent the recent Winter Break in the USA, arriving in New York on the day of the appalling mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. It seemed from the voices of outrage that this incident might open the way to reform of the permissive laws on gun ownership in the US. Indeed, a whole week passed before any sign of 'pushback' from the politically powerful National Rifle Association.

I listened to the Vice President of America's National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre, defending what he assumed is his constitutional right to bear arms. To this speaker, it is a Right which is hardly necessary to justify, and brazenly, in the certainty of his analysis, he proclaimed, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

This may seem an absurdity to most people in Europe where gun ownership is restricted by law, but in the USA it is well received by a large proportion of the population whose gun ownership rates are 88.8 per 100 people. Indeed CNN were claiming that there are more gun sale outlets in the US than all supermarkets and McDonalds burger restaurants combined. How did guns become so essential to American culture? Why is personal gun ownership so vigorously defended by so many people?

The NRA is fond of pointing to the US Constitution's Second Amendment which is said to guarantee the citizen's right to bear arms, but rarely is the full text of the amendment quoted. What the statute actually says is: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms is frequently cited by proponents and adversaries of gun control laws, but in the weeks after the Newtown tragedy, I did not hear any mention of the important first clause.

I am not writing as an expert on constitutional law, rather, I write as a linguist versed in English grammar. There are three things to note about the construction of this statute: firstly, the initial clause ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…") is a reason-type subordinate clause - it provides the justification for the provision of the main clause. Secondly, we note that this clause is non-finite - it contains no tensed verb - and this usually gives the proposition a general applicability. Thirdly, and most importantly, the clause is placed first, and so fulfils the grammatical role of theme and focus of the sentence. In layman's terms, this first clause is the most important bit of the sentence.

For the founding fathers of the US constitution to have laid so heavy an emphasis on a "well-regulated militia" suggests that this was considered the necessary and appropriate context for the keeping and bearing of arms. They might have envisaged a situation similar to that found in Switzerland where young adult males are expected to serve in a people's militia, and to keep their weapons at home as part of their military obligations, in a state which has no standing army. We can be sure that the second amendment was not drafted with a view to providing untrained civilians with unfettered access to the assault weapon of their choice. At some point, the US state decided to entrust its defence to a national professional military arm, not a civilian militia.

It is unfathomable that Members of Congress could attempt to justify the routine arming of teachers. It is already common to find US college campuses employing their own armed police force. We can only hope that they are "well regulated", but the consequences of both police and students having guns is a prospect I'm glad we do not face in the UK generally.

The US quite rightly defends its Constitution vigorously, but the language of the statute ensures that there need be no undermining of its wisdom in order to bring about serious restriction on gun ownership.

Dr Liz Morrish
Principal lecturer
School of Arts and Humanities

[TargeT]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by bogeyman (here)
The right to bare arms,

I think anyone has the right to bare arms. weather permitting, in any country. The right to bear arms is another discussion entirely. I had a choice to pick on your logic or English. I chose the latter.

anyone who actually looks into this topic will find that the more able a population is to protect itself the better off they are.

the less restrictions a population has the better, it is propaganda driven stories that say other wise.


We are responsible individuals when allowed to be, when not allowed to be we (humans) have a small tendency to act like spoiled children or wild primates.

[Lettherebelight]

Interesting how, in this interview, Piers Morgan seems to have taken a feather from the cap of Alex Jones regarding debating etiquette (or the lack thereof?)...

He did his best to talk over the girls and corner them into traps of semantics, but I agree, the ladies handled it very well indeed.

In the end, Piers lost his temper with his little tantrum and overall, he came out looking all the more like, well,

...'a hatchet man for the New World Order'!!

Touché!

[Hervé]

From: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...an-With-Rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.
***************************************************************


PS: for some reasons, frying pans and rolling pins haven't been included in that picture.

[Hervé]

Although the following is coming from "Before It's News," the study seems to be legit:

Essential Gun Charts And Facts No Matter Which Side Of Firearms Control You Support
Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:12

(Before It's News)
The guiding gun control legislation in the United States is the Gun Control Act 1968 (this is Federal legislation only: each US state and territory enacts its own gun law) The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000. The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.8 firearms per 100 people
The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,553(3) firearms. Police in the United States are reported to have 897,400(4) firearms.

World’s Highest 25: Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population

Credit: GunPolicy.org

World’s Highest 25: Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People

Credit: GunPolicy.org

High Income Countries: Rate of Unintentional Gun Death per 100,000 People


Credit: GunPolicy.org

High Income Countries: Rate of Gun Suicide per 100,000 People


Credit: GunPolicy.org

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2009: 9,146 7
2008: 9,484 10 7
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659 7
2002: 9,369 11
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259 6
1998: 9,257

Credit: GunPolicy.org

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2009: 2.98 5 7
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.3 7
2002: 3.25 11
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.97 6
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.07 12

Credit: GunPolicy.org

Table 1.3: Ranking of world’s small arms producers [by sales]

1) Major producers: China, Russia, United States;

2) Medium producers: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Kingdom;

3) Small producers: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yugoslavia;

4) Unassessed producers (Inadequate information currently available to permit ranking): Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cuba, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

Source cited: Appendix 1.1



The Small Arms Survey 2012: Moving Targets looks at what is changing, and not changing, in relation to armed violence and small arms proliferation. Chapters on firearm homicide in Latin America and the Caribbean, drug violence in selected Latin American countries, and non-lethal violence worldwide illustrate that security is a moving target; armed violence continues to undermine security and well-being around the world. The goal of curbing small arms proliferation, embodied in the UN Programme of Action, appears similarly elusive. Chapters on illicit small arms in war zones, trade transparency, Somali piracy, and the 2011 UN Meeting of Governmental Experts highlight some of the successes and challenges in this area. Country studies examine Kazakhstan and Somaliland. The final installment of the authorized transfers project looks at the total value of exports and imports globally, including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, and parts and accessories.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publi...rvey-2012.html

[Fred Steeves]

A question I've yet seen discussed anywhere, is who gives governments, supposedly serving their people, permission to shop with an unlimited credit card at "Weapons Unlimited"?

[mosquito]

Please note well - Despite being in exile myself, I think I can speak for the majority of my fellow countrymen when I say ....

We DO NOT want him back !! Keep him, or export hime somewhere else, Mars springs to mind.

[Ol' Roy]

To voice my esteemed colleues from Great Britain, they don't want him back. ( from another tread).

[jagman]

Unfortunately it looks like were stuck with him. Thanks Great Britain. lol We need to send one of our meatheads over to Geat Britain, To see how they like it.

[Lazlo]

Piers Morgan will be forever remembered as the rabid anti gunner and when this blows over so will his career. He hitched his wagon to this pony.

Anybody remember Geraldo Rivera? Piers Morgan is in the same category. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite behaving like that on air?

It is actually tragically comic. The more he rants and raves, the longer the lines get at the gun dealers. We could pull together some statistics, put them in a professional format, stick a name on the bottom of it like Americans for Sensible Gun Debate and "prove" that Piers Morgan is responsible for firearms proliferation in the American suburbs.

If I can find some free time it would be worth the laugh.

Mark Twain: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

People are going to believe what they like when it comes to an emotionally charged topic like the second amendment.

One more point I'd like to make:

Both sides of the debate like to talk about what the founding fathers intended. If the far left interpreted the second amendment in the same way that they interpret the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights, they would conclude that every able bodied person in America was REQUIRED to own a firearm.

[WhiteFeather]

They made an Ass-Clown out of him. Photo Enclosed. Piers got schooled nicely by the ladies. Wow....The brunette didn't come up for air. Nice Job!

Ladies 1 Piers 0.

[ExomatrixTV]

I post this SPECIALLY for people who claim that "The People" can do "nothing" against Government Tyranny:

Paul R. Howe quote:

~I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as

I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.

WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?

United Nations (UN)?

We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.



Federal Government Military?

Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.



Federal Government DHS or TSA?

The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.


State Law Enforcement?

The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:

• Seize guns
• Ignore the Federal Orders

If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.



Local Law Enforcement?

Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.
Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.



Kool-Aid Drinkers?

Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid. Over 900 people died.


In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders. They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.
Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided. I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.
Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked. I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.


History of “Gun-Free Zones”?

Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind. Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones. Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard. That is embarrassing.

Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed. Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.



How about others in recent history:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Solutions

Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.


Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms. Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car. Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.
In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free. Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.


Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”



About the Author:

Paul R. Howe is a 20-year veteran and former Special Operations soldier and instructor. He owns Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT), where he consults with, trains and evaluates law enforcement and government agencies in technical and tactical techniques throughout the special operations spectrum. See combatshootingandtactics.com for details.

[TigaHawk]

If someone really wants to kill someone, it doesnt matter if guns are banned or not. They are still going to do it, but instead they'll use a knife, or a blunt object, or household chemicals, or a small bomb. Removing guns from the US would be making it like Australia in a way. Noone but the people you dont want to have the guns actually has them, this being the "bad people" and the police.


That guy, Piers Morgan? Televion and people like him that appear on it are the very reason mine is not connected to the wall. It cant get Free TV, and i dont have or want pay tv.


How can people seriously like that show? Is it for people that need reassurance that only 1 form of opinion is right (his?) ?? Is he so stopid that he realy got brickwalled by two women because they diddnt answer his questions in the way he wanted (specifically giving the answer that he wanted..) that he had to stop and just re-iterate the same thing over and over while becoming louder and more aggressive?


Oh wait... that's how the police generaly shout orders and react the same should you have an opinion/thoughts on anything different to their own? only they can pull a gun or a tazer out and get physicall to re-assure themselves of their power status, This Peirs fella can only get red faced and demand your guns be taken from you for a petty reason.

[ExomatrixTV]

Video 2:

~[Piers quote 6:05] "okay I hear you" [unquote] extremely rare that he admits he actually listens, even if he DID listen, he does not allow any sentence to be finished talking over/through the conversation looking at his key-questions card to go to the next topic, most likely written by editorial staff creating trick-questions using Orwellian double-speak techniques + leading (supposedly) "rhetorical" questions full of false assumptions CLAIMING to do a "journalistic" interview HILARIOUS!

[Piers quote: 6:39] "it makes me sick" [unquote] you mean you already are sick to begin with Piers!

~question: ... how many know that Piers Morgan is Pro Torture & Pro Drone Wars? (with lots of dead children because of it) ... and on top of that Piers is Pro Drone-Wars (where many innocent children died!) AND he approves of Government to be allowed to use Torture!Is there any video available that Piers openly apologized & changed his mind that serves the people interest not the wanking banksters agenda?

Piers is the PERFECT NWO Minion aka salesman for Global Enslavement Mentality!

cheers,
John

[ExomatrixTV]

~Hitler, NDAA & Fema Camps [Warning Dark NwoSatire!] 2013 Gun Control = 1938 German Weapons Act 2.0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oWQSb_w3LH0

[bogeyman]

As I said on Infowars.com, send Piers Morgan to Mongolia.

[scanner]

Posted by Ol' Roy (here)
To voice my esteemed colleues from Great Britain, they don't want him back. ( from another tread).

Yes we want Morgan back , so we can prosecute him for his crimes in the UK and send him to prison where he belongs .

[TargeT]

Posted by bogeyman (here)
As I said on Infowars.com, send Piers Morgan to Mongolia.

why ruin that beautiful country?

Rolling hills and nomatic horse people would not mix well with an english pompus-ass-clown