Piers Morgan is winning...


PDA






Guy B. Meredith
January 13, 2013, 05:14 PM
...points in the current political climate. The common thread with all his interviews with pro-gun people is that we need guns to protect us from the government. Result? "All gun owners are wild eyed militia types."

If we're ever going to really get anywhere and not constantly be coming back to this same rush to the barricades we need to break down stereotypes of firearms owners. We need to promote firearms ownership through firearms sports for the wholesome, family oriented activities they are. We need to put in the public face the fact that the only thing making the firearms community anything short of inclusive is their own bigotry.

We need to get people with irrational fear of firearms ownership to see us as individuals, not statistics. We need to force them to make laws that deal with individuals rather than "them".

I sincerely hope any ads the NRA runs starts working on presenting the wholesome side rather than just a barricaded, 2nd Amendment stance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Piers Morgan is winning..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wow6599
January 13, 2013, 05:15 PM
Piers Morgan is winning...

I respectively disagree.....just my opinion.

Justin
January 13, 2013, 05:15 PM
I'm right there with you.

While the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government, should one take power, this is an argument that is not going to sway people who aren't already predisposed to beliefs in self-actualization, individual liberty, and responsibility.

beatledog7
January 13, 2013, 05:20 PM
Agree here as well. You say to someone who believes in our benevolent, caring government as the answer to all ills that we need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government, and all that person can think is, "Why would you need to do that? Government is our savior, not our enemy!"

bowserb
January 13, 2013, 05:21 PM
You are exactly correct. As much as we may like Ted Nugent and others, they really are not the image we need to project. Massad Ayoob or John Farnham or Tom Gresham, these guys talk calmly and use facts, not emotion. Ah if only Charlton Heston were still with us.


Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

j.kramer
January 13, 2013, 05:22 PM
yes he is whinning

nope he is not winning

figment
January 13, 2013, 05:35 PM
ever read the Second Amendment? Yep, it's there to protect us (the people) from government tyranny. The sheeple who expect the Government to provide everything for them can't grasp this concept. Peers is just another "useful idiot" for their cause.

Hurricane
January 13, 2013, 05:58 PM
If you can't trust your own government, who can you trust? :rolleyes:

gdcpony
January 13, 2013, 06:03 PM
Not your typical "gun nut."
http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/138/3d762b7551dd49519aa359e67398b685/l.jpg
I love to shoot with my girls. Maybe a photo shoot of that? I can put them behind an AR too. Add the wife and the son on a .22 and we get a different image entirely.

anchorman
January 13, 2013, 06:05 PM
As I've told people a hundred times and will tell them a hundred times more, do the world and yourself a favor and celebrate "teach a liberal to shoot" day. Or if your anti - gun friend happens to be a conservative (they are out there, trust me), celebrate "teach a conservative to shoot" day. Teach them safe practices, let them shoot a bunch, Help them get past the irrational fear.

anchorman
January 13, 2013, 06:10 PM
Also, I think Guy is right, the "overthrow the tyrants" line, though it may work on many gun owners, it falls on dead ears with most others. There's nothing wrong with talking about a person's fundamental and inalienable right tI self defense as a primary reason for supporting the second amendment. As justice Scalia and many others have pointed out, the restriction of government action laid out in the second amendment is not limited to service in a militia. So let's start talking more about all of the other reasons our RKBA is protected from government infringement in the constitution.

Carl N. Brown
January 13, 2013, 06:12 PM
The common thread with all his interviews with pro-gun people is that we need guns to protect us from the government.

I made a point of re-reading the transcript of the episode of Piers Morgan with John Lott and Alan Dershowitz. Lott stayed (edit)tried to stay(edit) on the subject that guns are useful for self defense, the gun laws don't affect the bad buys, and "semi-automatic" describes the majority of new guns sold today.

The common thread with ALL his interviews with pro-gun people is NOT that we need guns to protect us from the government.

Maybe with the interview of Alex Jones, Piers Morgan has started scheduling people who make the (theoretical but remotely possible) resist-government-tyranny argument.

But he has had people who argue defense against crime, gun laws don't stop bad guys, semi-autos are too common to ban now. And he can't effectively handle them if the transcript of his interview with Lott is any clue. So he picks Alex Jones.

He wins if he gets to schedule a weak opponent. That's the only way he wins. He's pathetic.

AlexanderA
January 13, 2013, 06:17 PM
Does anybody take Piers Morgan seriously? I doubt it. In any case, he's preaching to the choir (of antigunners). I would suggest it's a mistake for anyone on the pro-gun side to appear on his program. Nothing good can come of it.

DeMilled
January 13, 2013, 06:18 PM
Also, I think Guy is right, the "overthrow the tyrants" line, though it may work on many gun owners, it falls on dead ears with most others. There's nothing wrong with talking about a person's fundamental and inalienable right tI self defense as a primary reason for supporting the second amendment. As justice Scalia and many others have pointed out, the restriction of government action laid out in the second amendment is not limited to service in a militia. So let's start talking more about all of the other reasons our RKBA is protected from government infringement in the constitution. Emphasis mine


There are no other reasons.

sidheshooter
January 13, 2013, 06:23 PM
Does anybody take Piers Morgan seriously? I doubt it. In any case, he's preaching to the choir (of antigunners). I would suggest it's a mistake for anyone on the pro-gun side to appear on his program. Nothing good can come of it.

^^^This. Aside from his paycheck, he is in some ways just a failed Brit ex-pat. If pro-gun people just boycotted his "show", then all he'd have is a short one-sided argument with people like himself. He'd have to move on to some other subject in short order.

Although that Shapiro kid did OK with the hand he was dealt.

Odd Job
January 13, 2013, 06:30 PM
Does anybody take Piers Morgan seriously? I doubt it. In any case, he's preaching to the choir (of antigunners). I would suggest it's a mistake for anyone on the pro-gun side to appear on his program. Nothing good can come of it.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Why go on a show where the host is rabidly set on being anti-gun and doesn't even share a common cultural thread with you as a guest?
He is never going to understand, and even if he did, he would not acknowledge that publicly because that isn't how he gets "ratings."

He is there to trip up pro gunners.
He is there to make them look bad and damage their credibility.

But he can't do it alone. He is being promoted by the very people who hate him. Instead of being a nobody without a voice he is now elevated in the limelight because of idiots petitioning to have him deported and because of blowhards failing to make a coherent argument on his show.

He should be avoided and ignored at every opportunity.

Efforts should instead be spent to counter the real dangers from home-grown morons like Lawrence O'Donnell, who pose a greater threat because they have at least a basic understanding of the American culture and don't have to work as hard to establish credibility.

Carter
January 13, 2013, 06:32 PM
I don't think he is winning, but it would be nice for someone to answer his "why does anyone need an ar-15 with how it is such a great weapon for home defense. The penetration with wallboard, light mount so you don't shoot an innocent person, etc.

I mentioned the ballistics portion on as a call in on a radio show and it blew the radio announcers minds.

SilentScream
January 13, 2013, 06:51 PM
I really have to disagree, I see this as a big step back into the 80's & 90's, which in my mind is playing into the game plan of the anti's. If you pay attention (as I imagine almost all of you are) you'll notice they are propagating the same hackneyed arguments they used back then (hunting & "legitimate sporting purposes") The more that we back step off of what the Second is for, the more we open ourselves up for the classic, anti line of "why do you need this or that" It's military style rifles now, but you can bet your ass it will be the hunting & "sporting" rifles next. Of which the argument will be "why do you need a grossly overpowered round like the .30-06?" And why? Because we compromised on the military style rifles simply because we wanted look good for our enemy? To hell with that I say! Everyone seems to forget that we the gun owners are the majority in this country, the last statistic I saw listed 88 our of every 100 households contain firearms. With that I have to ask... If we are the majority who are we trying to convince to like us? The hardcore anti's who won't be swayed to the other side?

gym
January 13, 2013, 06:54 PM
Don't forget he's why we broke away from England, not him personally, but that way of thinking, the King was the guy who writes the rules, and the subjects carried them out, with nothing to say.
We are no longer subjects of the British Empire, history showed us how well that way of thinking worked for them.
Pierce needs to be remided of this, but wait, he chooses to live here, what does that say?
If everything works so well there then why did he chose to leave?
He won't have anyone like Ayoob, on his show, because he will look stupid, and he won't let that air. So we get people who he knows he can cut up easily, or cut off because they are too polite.
These guys have an agenda, so nothing they do should suprise or annoy us.

Odd Job
January 13, 2013, 07:01 PM
Pierce needs to be reminded of this, but wait, he chooses to live here, what does that say?
If everything works so well there then why did he chose to leave?

He is hated here in the UK more than you hate him there in the US. Google Piers Morgan (not Pierce) + fake photos and phone hacking scandal and see what you get.

figment
January 13, 2013, 07:30 PM
the Second Amendment says NOTHING about


Sporting
Target shooting
Personal protection
Hunting


Just read it to anyone who needs to understand it.
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.

j.kramer
January 13, 2013, 07:38 PM
i am one of those liberals that believes that a starving man trying to feed his family would do anything to feed them and dont see anything wrong with offering struggling families some support if it takes them away from crime

on the other hand i had my first rifle at age 4 if we didnt hunt we didnt eat
and im one of strongest supporters of the second amendment and would like to see any laws regulating guns go away

i dont know who told you that all liberals are against guns most of us are not

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 07:45 PM
I was going to post same as what figment wrote.

" necessary to the security of a free state"

figment
January 13, 2013, 07:54 PM
I was going to post same as what figment wrote.

" necessary to the security of a free state"
Anything less is a slippery slope to tyrannical statements like "you DON'T NEED that!"

Guy B. Meredith
January 13, 2013, 08:04 PM
In three out of four interviews I saw with Piers, it came down to his pushing the question of why civilians need "assault rifles" and the only response has been the intent of the 2nd Amendment. As someone here mentioned, those who are promoting irrational bans don't like the idea that someone might harm their benefactor government.

gdcpony has the right idea. I have been leaving a link to a video of Julie Golob in a three gun match to demonstrate women's involvement, how competent citizens can be in use of firearms and the safety of the sporting environment.

The only way we are going to stop this endless cycle of gun ban attempts is to become the majority. The gun ban movements are based on ignorant stereotypes of firearms owners. We need to evangelize BIG time, break down the stereotypes and take the steam out of the bigotry.

Maybe a shift to insisting on calling "assault weapons" EBRs in a tone of voice dripping sarcasm... I dunno.

As far as I'm concerned it is all about individual freedom being restricted on the basis of others' behavior. I don't need self defense or the 2nd Amendment as justifications. Individuals acting responsibly should not be micromanaged as some part of a statistical "them" based on the behavior of others. PERIOD

RBid
January 13, 2013, 08:37 PM
I disagree, but I do believe that there are right and wrong ways to frame the "tyrannical" point. Ben Shapiro handled it the best way possible, and speaking of the possibility of eventually facing such a government, while being clear to illustrate that he wasn't talking about an imminent threat. The wrong way is to rant in a way that gives the impression that you're about to spring into action.

I do not believe that we should back off of the original intent of the 2A. We just have to be smart about how we present it.

Guy B. Meredith
January 13, 2013, 08:42 PM
The 2nd Amendment was written for a purpose, but I think that using it as a fig leaf gets in the way of dealing with the root problem of not respecting individual freedoms. If we are not the majority, the majority can remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution. The majority may also not respect our idea of self defense.

GBExpat
January 13, 2013, 08:46 PM
Piers Morgan

... and the cayuse he rode in on.

HorseSoldier
January 13, 2013, 08:48 PM
While the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government, should one take power, this is an argument that is not going to sway people who aren't already predisposed to beliefs in self-actualization, individual liberty, and responsibility.


Plus it's an extremely scary topic. Forcing people to think about scary topics tends to produce a negative response to the messenger, because generally people don't like to think about scary, traumatic concepts.

We seem to have reached a point where a lot of people in the neutral to mildly anti-2A part of the debate are willing to buy into the notion that privately owned firearms have a legitimate roll in defending themselves or their children from criminals. Rather than going all fire and brimstone on the idea of a civil war and turning those parts of the population back towards the anti-2A side, we should be coopting them on the notion that they seem more responsive to now, that armed citizens are a legitimate and valuable augment to local police for both personal and collective security.

Gtscotty
January 13, 2013, 09:15 PM
The only way we are going to stop this endless cycle of gun ban attempts is to become the majority. The gun ban movements are based on ignorant stereotypes of firearms owners. We need to evangelize BIG time, break down the stereotypes and take the steam out of the bigotry.

+1000, "They" becoming "us" is the only endgame we can afford to play for. There is absolutely no reason why a respect for the RKBA and an affinity for gun ownership should not span Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Black, White, Brown, Purple, etc. We must develop a controlling interest in both parties and in all walks of life. Luckily, the facts and reason are on our side and patient education of the ignorant can bring them into the fold.

Assimilation is the name of the game.

I do believe that the silver lining on the clouds of recent gun control pushes are the multitudes that have purchased a firearm based on the concern that it might be banned in the near future. Usually once these folks have a chance to shoot, enjoy and learn about their new purchase, they are well on the way to joining our side. Several folks in my office came about their first gun in this way, and are fast becoming 2A supporters.

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 09:27 PM
To Piers;

Why do you need the 1st amendment? You don't need speech questioning the our government (in your case the queen). They wouldn't lie to you or try to oppress you. So why do you NEED free speech?

You don't, so STFU!

Debating rights with someone who bows to a queen is absurd.

-v-
January 13, 2013, 09:34 PM
Agree with the OP and several other posters. As GTscotty points out, we're in the long-haul for this. Our goal is to get as many people to think our way (Pro-2A) then their way. Going hard-liner on the lay populace will only push them away and simply reaffirm their beliefs.

Yes, the point of the 2A is to resist tyranny by the government, I do not dispute that. But, that is something we should remind people of, but not focus and grind. This a sales pitch, guys. We must package this in terms that the average middle of the road person can read and go "huh, that's something I can agree with!"

I doubt the majority of the population right now is worried that "The Government" is actively oppressing and enslaving them, imposing their will on them, and keeping a boot on their neck. They are worried about the economy, education, their kids, and crime.

Focus on things people worry about, and promote that. Here's a few example: Worried about crime? A AR15 is a much better home defense weapon then a pistol, and costs almost the same! Also, its easier to use effectively! Why do you need more then 10 rounds? Didn't you hear, home invasions are at an all time high. You might need only a few rounds if there's 1 guy, but what if there's 3 or 5? Well why not a shotgun? Well, an AR15 is easier to shoot, and it carries less risk to your neighbors or your child in the other room then a shotgun OR a pistol!

Take their "Think of the Children" and run with it. Ask them to think of their children and if they can adequately protect them in their own home.

Now, there is an element of logic and reason in the above example, but also a more subtle element of playing on people's underlying fears as well. If something is seen in the light of "this will protect you from something you're worried about" it goes from a "why does anyone need this" to "why don't I have one already?"

The thing to remember is this is not about the moral high ground as much as its about a damn good sales pitch. If people buy it, we win.

We don't need to be just right, we need to be successful.

TennJed
January 13, 2013, 09:45 PM
Plus it's an extremely scary topic. Forcing people to think about scary topics tends to produce a negative response to the messenger, because generally people don't like to think about scary, traumatic concepts.

We seem to have reached a point where a lot of people in the neutral to mildly anti-2A part of the debate are willing to buy into the notion that privately owned firearms have a legitimate roll in defending themselves or their children from criminals. Rather than going all fire and brimstone on the idea of a civil war and turning those parts of the population back towards the anti-2A side, we should be coopting them on the notion that they seem more responsive to now, that armed citizens are a legitimate and valuable augment to local police for both personal and collective security.

I agree 100%. I think one of the most important things we can do is to get the people in the middle ground on our

Dr_B
January 13, 2013, 09:48 PM
By whose rubric is this guy winning anything?

Shadow 7D
January 13, 2013, 09:51 PM
Isn't he in some legal hot water in Britian for the whole phone hacking thing that went on UNDER HIS WATCH...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/30/piers-morgan-phone-hacking-leveson-inquiry

Yeah, this is the guy you want out front...
when they say 'discredited journalist' remember what he is willing to do to MAKE (UP) the story...

ZombieFromDU
January 13, 2013, 10:25 PM
I think the reason so many are against the idea of defending themselves against the government is because many people have loved ones in the military, National Guard, and in the police force. Many people don't like the idea of shooting on-duty police officers.

Another issue, in my opinion, is poorly defined terms and concepts. What is an assault weapon? What is tyranny? What is a free state?

sonick808
January 13, 2013, 10:47 PM
I heard on a large media site a few days ago that Morgan is going to be pushed back to the 9, maybe 10PM slot. That is not what happens when your show is thought highly of. I suspect that the muckity mucks are tiring of this subject, which seems to be the core of his show every single day.


I think he's losing..... not winning......

I also think gun owners are winning.....

Made signs with the family for gun appreciation day. Will be sporting my "Keep Calm and Carry One" shirt from endotactical (check out their shirts at endotactical.com, no i am not an employee of shill)

docsleepy
January 13, 2013, 10:53 PM
Weren't there THREE reasons for an armed citizenry?

a) to defend against criminals
b) to defend against foreign invasion
c) to defend against usurpers

Might be good to present the balance here.


Just watched a video where the articulate pro-gun person pointed out that both the citizens and the police were up against the same criminals....so why shouldn't the citizens have at least the same defense (an AR15) as the police can bring to bear?

awgrizzly
January 13, 2013, 10:55 PM
I think we need to be clear about something. The concept of winning is the outcome of some kind of contest. Piers Morgan and the many similar Progressive interviewers are not presenting a debate where there can be a winner. It's a setup and the outcome will always be to the advantage of Morgan. The idea is not to have a discussion, but to make gun owners look bad. The best thing is to not participate at all.

Steve CT
January 13, 2013, 10:58 PM
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Frankly, these are the operative words. My reason for keeping and bearing arms is my business, and giving any reason for exercising my rights allows others to rationalize why I should not have those rights.

HOOfan_1
January 13, 2013, 11:02 PM
The ENTIRE Bill of Rights is there to protect us from our government....

I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly and without the aid of sophism for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the laws of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does, that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government, which is not given, while in the particular ones, all is given which is not reserved, might do for the audience to which it was addressed, but it is surely a gratis dictum [a mere assertion], the reverse of which might just as well be said; and it is opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument as well as from the omission of the clause of our present Confederation, which had made the reservation in express terms.

It was hard to conclude because there has been a want of uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because some have been so incautious as to dispense with this mode of trial in certain cases, therefore, the more prudent states shall be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just and wise to have concluded the other way, that as most of the states had preserved with jealousy this sacred palladium of liberty, those who had wandered should be brought back to it; and to have established general right rather than general wrong. For I consider all the ill as established which may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away; and Congress will have a right to take away trials by jury in all civil cases. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.

SuperNaut
January 13, 2013, 11:02 PM
Agree with the OP and several other posters. As GTscotty points out, we're in the long-haul for this. Our goal is to get as many people to think our way (Pro-2A) then their way. Going hard-liner on the lay populace will only push them away and simply reaffirm their beliefs.

Yes, the point of the 2A is to resist tyranny by the government, I do not dispute that. But, that is something we should remind people of, but not focus and grind. This a sales pitch, guys. We must package this in terms that the average middle of the road person can read and go "huh, that's something I can agree with!"
Yep.

So here's the thing, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and the Founders themselves do talk about the right to bear arms being a way to resist a tyrannical government, but that isn't the only thing. They speak of a continuum of uses for the right to bear arms, from personal defense all the way up to resisting tyranny.

We 2A advocates do ourselves a disservice when we jump straight to the most extreme need for personal arms while ignoring, or not exploring, all of the other uses. Yes, it is ONE of the things that our inherent right to personal defense encompasses, but it is also the one that makes us look like complete loons.

Sure, the 2A doesn't mention hunting, as we are so fond of reciting, but the founders supporting documents sure do.

Interestingly, if you read the early drafts of the 2A it becomes clear that the Founders were quite aware of the ultimate purpose of the 2A. Check out this early version:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Kind of destroys the whole Militia = National Guard nonsense the Anti's spout doesn't it? That is why people who bring up the Militia = National Guard thing should be treated as buffoons. Remember that the first thing that Britain tried to do when they were attempting to quell the rebellious colonies was to destroy the militias.

Also:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Smart dude.

Oh, and on topic, people like Piers Morgan are exactly why we fought a war with Great Britain. His opinion about our founding documents is irrelevant.

303tom
January 13, 2013, 11:06 PM
Not in my community he`s not, Everyone I know says he`s a flippen IDOT..................

ConstitutionCowboy
January 13, 2013, 11:12 PM
Don't equate bombast and media fawning as winning. That stuff fades and the truth soon comes into focus.

Woody

asia331
January 13, 2013, 11:13 PM
Piers Morgan winning? I don't think so . In everything he has done so far he has revealed himself as an upper class twit and an elitist without an historical clue.

mikechandler
January 13, 2013, 11:17 PM
Well, the real problem here is playing into his hands. There is no such thing as an Assault Weapon (or, every singular gun ever made in history is an assault weapon - one or the other). They've labeled features of rifles and equated them with military weapons, which they're not. Military weapons may share some features, or even be able to share accessories, but fundamentally they're not the same firearm - the difference between a fully automatic selective fire weapon and a semi automatic cannot be overstated, it's all the difference in the world. The .223 moves from being a good varmint cartridge, to being something exponentially more powerful when fired full auto.

They are winning with a type of a straw man argument - they've taken features of a weapon that are similar to another weapon, and created a new term to classify them both with. And every time we echo it back to them, they score points.

Somebody in the know needs to point out this whole "assault weapon" language is simply incorrect; there's no such thing. No army in the world has ever or will ever carry an AR15 into battle, it's not a military firearm, never has been, and never will be.

goon
January 13, 2013, 11:30 PM
I'll agree that we have at least as good of a case, probably better, if we emphasize self-defense use of firearms.
The Supreme Court did affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that citizens have the right to use firearms in "common use" to defend themselves.
One thing - how do we get the NRA to get on board with this? So far I see a lot of messages from them on facebook, but what is their plan?

We need a PR campaign to combat all the idiots like Piers Morgan emphasizing self-defense (which is important even to most gun owners who don't own military style rifles) and maybe with one or two parts talking about tyrannical government like the article that guy from the former Soviet Union wrote. We've gotten tyrannical government out there and I don't think that's entirely bad - people are concerned about some kind of unrest these days and it's smart to make them think about the worst case scenario. I liked how Shapiro argued that he fears the possibility of a tyrannical government coming to power within the next 100 years, which is what I fear too.
I don't think it will come tomorrow, but without the Second Amendment still providing enough teeth among the population to prevent it, I am sure it would happen eventually.

Hokkmike
January 13, 2013, 11:32 PM
I hope all of us, our families, friends, associates, etc., and etc., and etc., do not watch his show.......

gym
January 13, 2013, 11:33 PM
Don't talk about him and he will dissapear.

BHP FAN
January 13, 2013, 11:39 PM
EVERY time you see his name in print, you should remind folks of this...he's nothing but a fraud!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm

Queen_of_Thunder
January 13, 2013, 11:47 PM
Turn his show on. Record who advertises on the show. Send letters to both CNN and advertisers that CNN has been deleted from the channel selection on your TV.

goon
January 14, 2013, 12:02 AM
I've only watched the show during the gun control debate. I found some of the pro-gun people to have good points but to be inneffective debaters. Alex Jones was a screaming moron. Cpl. Joshua Boston had his head on pretty straight and held his own fairly well, but he comes across more a normal guy rather than experienced debater. Definitely a guy to have your back in a rough place though. Ben Shapiro did the best up to now against Morgan, both at holding his own and at picking Morgan's idiotic "points" apart.

HorseSoldier
January 14, 2013, 12:17 AM
Alex Jones was a screaming moron.

That guy and his interview was pure liability for the pro-2A side. If I set out to do a black propaganda operation to have an alleged spokesperson for the pro-2A community deliberately demolish and delegitimize gun rights in the eyes of viewers, I don't think I could have come up with a better strategy and presentation than Jones delivered.

r1derbike
January 14, 2013, 12:17 AM
Does anybody take Piers Morgan seriously? I doubt it. In any case, he's preaching to the choir (of antigunners). I would suggest it's a mistake for anyone on the pro-gun side to appear on his program. Nothing good can come of it.
Evidently antis do! It doesn't matter that his own countrymen think he is a charlatan, liar, and isn't welcome back in the U.K.

It doesn't matter to him what is written in the constitution. It doesn't matter to him that AR-15s aren't military assault rifles, but just resemble them.

All that doesn't matter, and his followers, even knowing what a treasonous scoundrel he was in his own country, still bow and kiss his feet.

Piers Morgan is a loser. Those who blindly follow his rantings are just ignorant.

I also agree that Alex Jones is off-his-bob. That much has been evident for quite some time.

mljdeckard
January 14, 2013, 12:20 AM
At the same time you have to ask yourself, even if he is getting some ink.....how big of a deal is that really? This is the most people have ever noticed him. If this is their voice, how good is that?

I doubt he's changing very many minds in either direction.

mbt2001
January 14, 2013, 12:28 AM
the gun grabbers have had 20 years to counter the logic and rhetoric of the NRA and other groups. It is down to folks like us to re-frame the argument.

Also, it is worth mentioning that if you look back in any state there are numerous records of local law enforcement engaging in corruption and intimidation (think Katrina). That is the tyranny that we need our guns for. I think the pre-occupation with countering the fed is a horse of a different color. I think that the movie Lawless was based on a true story. Just saying...

krameranzac
January 14, 2013, 12:38 AM
This Piers Morgan?? He who tried to incriminate British soldiers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm

r1derbike
January 14, 2013, 12:41 AM
This Piers Morgan?? He who tried to incriminate British soldiers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm
Yep, that's the scoundrel. I'm surprised the British Judiciary didn't try him for treasonous acts. Ah, forgot, the U.K has a reputation for molly-coddling criminals, and we are heading down that road rapidly ourselves. How stupid of me to forget that.

mljdeckard
January 14, 2013, 12:46 AM
I don't know at all that THEY have been making the points for 20 years. In 20 years, we have had Heller, McDonald, 41 of 50 states are shall-issue, ARs have gone mainstream, Obama ignored guns for his first term, and until now, no one has taken an AWB seriously at all.

357autoloader
January 14, 2013, 12:49 AM
My question to you is why is it important to you how loudly we say NO?

It needs to be screamed so loudly and so often that they understand emphatically and with no misunderstanding. NO.

Wolfman131
January 14, 2013, 01:06 AM
...points in the current political climate. The common thread with all his interviews with pro-gun people is that we need guns to protect us from the government. Result? "All gun owners are wild eyed militia types."

If we're ever going to really get anywhere and not constantly be coming back to this same rush to the barricades we need to break down stereotypes of firearms owners. We need to promote firearms ownership through firearms sports for the wholesome, family oriented activities they are. We need to put in the public face the fact that the only thing making the firearms community anything short of inclusive is their own bigotry.

We need to get people with irrational fear of firearms ownership to see us as individuals, not statistics. We need to force them to make laws that deal with individuals rather than "them".

I sincerely hope any ads the NRA runs starts working on presenting the wholesome side rather than just a barricaded, 2nd Amendment stance.
A couple of things, first off, you're not going to beat an individual such as Morgan in "his" environment, everything is presented almost exclusively from his perspective, contrasted by his handpicked wack-jobs, such as an Alex Jones!

Secondly, on the rare occasion when we do squeaze one past the goaltender, landing a bright, articulate, proponent, such as the the young lad from Brietbart the other day on the program, it is enormously deflating when that bright, articulate, proponent sandbags the entire 2nd amendment community, by agreeing across the board to universal nics, which is literally opening the door wide, to registration, as reasonable, which its not!

Justin
January 14, 2013, 01:15 AM
Piers Morgan only wins if you sit through his wretched excuse for a show.

If you want tl stick it to him, write, call, email or fax your elected representatives.

If you cant do that, donate to NRA-ILA or The Second Amendment Foundation.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you enjoyed reading about "Piers Morgan is winning..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!