Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Piers Morgan is winning...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Guy B. Meredith, Jan 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,281
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    ...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.
     
  2. wow6599

    wow6599 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,417
    Location:
    Wildwood, MO
    I respectively disagree.....just my opinion.
     
  3. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,283
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    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.
     
  4. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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!"
     
  5. bowserb

    bowserb Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Houston, Texas USA
    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.
     
  6. j.kramer

    j.kramer member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Messages:
    89
    yes he is whinning

    nope he is not winning
     
  7. figment

    figment Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    212
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  8. Hurricane

    Hurricane Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    USA
    If you can't trust your own government, who can you trust? :rolleyes:
     
  9. gdcpony

    gdcpony Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Location:
    Sherrodsville, OH
    Not your typical "gun nut."
    [​IMG]
    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.
     
  10. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    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.
     
  11. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    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.
     
  12. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,852
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    I made a point of re-reading the transcript of the episode of Piers Morgan with John Lott and Alan Dershowitz. Lott [strike]stayed[/strike] (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.
     
  13. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,890
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  14. DeMilled

    DeMilled Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    340
    Emphasis mine


    There are no other reasons.
     
  15. sidheshooter

    sidheshooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    NW
    ^^^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.
     
  16. Odd Job

    Odd Job Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,695
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    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.
     
  17. Carter

    Carter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,434
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  18. SilentScream

    SilentScream Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Columbus Ga
    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?
     
  19. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    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.
     
  20. Odd Job

    Odd Job Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,695
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    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.
     
  21. figment

    figment Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    212
    Location:
    Texas
    the Second Amendment says NOTHING about

    1. Sporting
    2. Target shooting
    3. Personal protection
    4. Hunting

    Just read it to anyone who needs to understand it.
     
  22. j.kramer

    j.kramer member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Messages:
    89
    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
     
  23. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    I was going to post same as what figment wrote.

    " necessary to the security of a free state"
     
  24. figment

    figment Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    212
    Location:
    Texas
    Anything less is a slippery slope to tyrannical statements like "you DON'T NEED that!"
     
  25. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,281
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page