Piers Morgan ripped to pieces on national television!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last night he was resorting to tactics used by Scotland Yard Constabulary and British MI 6 in conducting interrogations of suspects to squeeze out a confession. He is now beginning to sound very irrational and obsessed about the AR carbine. WHy , why does anyone need to have an AR? This is the same thing he spews everytime he faces the camera. CNN editors were scripting him to do it again and again . They got the White House backing so there goes Pierce, the mouthpiece of the antigunners. Since he's a Briton the more they wanna irk the American gunowners as it reminds them of 1774 American Revolution.
 
I didn't think it was quite the decisive "win" that you think it was. They both had some strong points, but Shapiro should have used the references to incidents in the US where citizens DID use semi-auito rifles to re-take control of corrupt government (that "Battle of Athens" recently brought up on THR), and the fact that those types of guns have been in the hands of peaceful and legitimate citizens for over 60 years, many of which were SOLD by the government TO the citizens (carbines, M1 Garands, etc). I would have asked that if Morgan himself owned an "assault rifle" whether he would go out and shoot children. Mere possession of one doesn't make for a crime, except soon, in NY. I also thought it interesting that a GUNS IN AMERICA sign was flashing in the back of Piers everytime the camara panned that direction, which was to emphasize some subliminal effect on the viewer, but no SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT sign was flashing behind Mr Shapiro. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the discussion I had with my father last night. Most people can't get through their head that there are legitimate reasons for having an ar-15, and its even harder to convince them that we don't need a reason in the first place. My favorite point is the one Ben Sharpiro made saying if the "left" really wanted to stop violence they should ban handguns.
This question always stumps the person who doesn't believe we need a total ban (though they try not to appear stumped) but they want to ban assault rifles. The usual comeback is to change the subject to "why does anyone need an assault rifle, they are mass killing machines." People just don't get that assault weapons are just like other semi-auto rifles, and that in the grand scheme of things they don't matter. If assault weapons were as dangerous as people make them out to be, wouldn't they be the weapon of choice for everyday criminals? If we are talking numbers handguns are the most dangerous (no matter what the caliber).

This is an easy way to find out what kind of person you are dealing with. Most people don't want to ban handguns or other "normal" guns, or if they do then you can jump right into the 2A debate! That said I can't get my dad to see the light. He didn't even know what a muzzle break was but when he heard about it on the news he assumed it must be a dangerous feature we should ban.
 
If someone can invite him to shoot an AR 15 at the range to see what it can do . ANd once he gets the hanged of it, then ask him the question. Okey , you have an AR with a .30 rd mag and a Smith and wesson revolver that only carries six rounds as your home defense firearms. Suddenly a group of heavily armed robbers smashed through your front gate and you can see them from afar. He has time to grab a gun to defend himself. Which of the two firearms , AR or revolver , would he choose ?
 
Yeah, I finally finished watching it and Shapiro didn't rip him to shreads at all. If anything, Morgan ripped him.
Unfortunately, it didn't turn anyone "on the fence" towards our side, I suspect.

I admire Shapiro for sticking to the real reason for "why does anyone need an AR15?" but the people who know nothing about guns and, as a result, fear them, don't want to hear "Because it's our God-given Right" anymore.

When someone asks me the question ("why do you need") I tell them because when a gang of bad guys invade my home armed to the teeth, I'm going to need enough firepower to protect my family...that's why!
 
when someone asks me why i NEED a gun.....i ask them why they NEED the First Amendment......and when they answer "so they cant take away my free speech"....i answer "...and thats why i NEED a gun".
 
M-Cameron said:
when someone asks me why i NEED a gun.....i ask them why they NEED the First Amendment......and when they answer "so they cant take away my free speech"....i answer "...and thats why i NEED a gun".
Click to expand...
Invariably the antis respond "yeah but you can't yell "Fire"! It's like clockwork :rolleyes:...
 
I had no idea who Piers Morgan was prior to Sandy Hook, now he is the mouth piece of the gun control movement. Interesting. How appropriate that he is British.
 
Piers brought up the four recent shooting involving "assault rifles". Hard to dispute that. And, hard to ignore. Now guys, try to forget you are pro-gun for a minute. If you think like a lib, or just allow yourself a few minutes away from the emotions your feeling, if a guy wants to try to offer a solution to the MAJORITY that doesn't cost them anything (I think semi-auto rifle owners MIGHT be in the minority), then they might stop and listen to what he has to say. That is scary, and simple minds will jump on simple "solutions" (they are not really solutions, but someone is selling them on it right now anyway). We have to be ready to refute any and ALL points they bring up, with articulated reasoning. Anything less, and we look like we are scrambling, grabbing ast straws, or making things up.
 
When someone asks me why I need a gun, I respond that I don't. I then tell her (it's usually a "her") that, should that ever change, it will probably change quite suddenly.

Kind of like a fire extinguisher in the home. Not needed at all, until it is.

I also don't believe that, just because something is likely never to be needed (such as a car capable of exceeding the highest speed limit in the state), it should not be permitted.
 
People need to stop watching him! His ratings were horrible until he found this hook. They were about ready to can him.

Piers brought up the four recent shooting involving "assault rifles". Hard to dispute that. And, hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

You're joking right? No mass shooting has been committed with an assault rifle in this country. The last big one wasn't even committed with an assault weapon.
 
SharpsDressedMan said:
Piers brought up the four recent shooting involving "assault rifles". Hard to dispute that...
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying in that we cannot appear to be implacable and averse to a discussion of 2A.

That said, I would start by telling Mr. Morgan that I do not accept (his definition) that a civilian AR is, in fact, an "Assault Rifle." In fact, its cartridge (.223) is actually far less powerful than "your Father's" old hunting rifle in .308. As we know one must pull the trigger on either platform each time to discharge a round (all of this is obvious and elementary for us I'm just sayin'). My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is one with single, select and automatic fire (only LE/Mil & criminals possess such).

I am willing to have a discussion with the antis but only provided the fundamentals have "properly" been defined.
 
I have to say that I'm rather offended at the anti-British sentiment in a couple of posts here.

It was my understanding that this forum had strict rules against bigotry.

I am British, and I care about the Second Amendment way more than most of my American family members, friends and acquaintances do.
 
Last edited:
meanmrmustard said:
Anyone watch him and Dana Loesch last nite?
Click to expand...
Yup--I am a resident in STL as well and she's a very popular Tea Party leader in our area (her talk show is based out of here).

He repeatedly kept asking "do you think that 2A allows for drones, tanks, RPG's" etc...:rolleyes:
 
The last highly-publicized shootout I can recall that involved something that might be considered an "assault rifle" was the North Hollywood Bank of America robbery, in which two assailants were armed with, and fired dozens of rounds from, fully-automatic AK-47 weapons. Eleven LEOs and at seven civilians were shot, but there were no fatalities among them.

Incidentally, this occurred in 1997, just over halfway into the ten-year "assault-weapons" ban.
 
jamesbeat said:
I have to say that I'm rather offended at the anti-British sentiment in a couple of posts here.

It was my understanding that this forum had strict rules against bigotry.

I am British, and I care about the Second Amendment way more than most of my American family members, friends and acquaintances do.
Click to expand...
I agree that there are exceptions in just about every case including the Brits etc..

However, I do have a question (seriously as I do not know), do the Brits have SO many Americans on British News and TV in general (at least proportionately in line with the ratio of Brits here on American TV)? If so, are those Americans usually espousing left or right like doctrine? In general here, my experience has been that outside of Stuart Varney on Fox, the Brits on American media "tend" to be quite liberal but that's only surmising from what I watch.

--Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Piers Morgan..."Your little book" aka the Constitution of the United States
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
Trent
Trent
Z
  • Locked
Piers Morgan after that Texas LGS visit...
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
goon
G
T
  • Locked
Piers Morgan show canceled. Gun stance hurt ratings
Replies
1
Views
569
hso
hso
berettaprofessor
  • Locked
Piers back, blaming NRA for his firing
2 3
Replies
61
Views
4K
taliv
T
K
  • Locked
Piers babbling bad for us? Not!
Replies
10
Views
593
KMatch
K
Back
Top