Piers Morgan Put in His Place On the Second Amendment

[green73]

Author Carol Roth (http://www.carolroth.com/) gives a brilliant response to the insufferable Piers Morgan when he displays his ignorance about the Second Amendment:

http://i.imgur.com/CMEHN.png


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127699.html

[coastie]

Haha, good one. I really dislike that man.

[itshappening]

Morgan is a socialist. And he's not shy about it either.

[whoisjohngalt]

I've been thinking about this exchange all day. It's been a rough one too so I really needed it. Can't help but laugh out loud every time I repeat the exchange in my head. Thanks, Carol Roth, for making my day.

[EBounding]

Of course there's the predictable follow-up of if we're allowed to own tanks and nukes.

You win Piers. The government has every right to use nukes to keep us in line.

I find it amusing though that he forfeits the "high powered handguns" argument and goes right to nuclear weapons.

[whoisjohngalt]

Someone should tweet this to Piers:

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[VBRonPaulFan]

Piers is a moron. Gun control advocates are wholly focused on the tools, rather than the principle. They don't realize the 2nd amendment isn't about guns, it's about giving the citizens the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government with the same tools the tyrannical government is using.

A weaponless man could be oppressed with just sticks if they weren't allowed even the use of sticks to defend themselves. The tools are meaningless in the discussion, it's all about oppression and being able to defend yourself from it.

[Occam's Banana]

Piers is a moron. Gun control advocates are wholly focused on the tools, rather than the principle. They don't realize the 2nd amendment isn't about guns, it's about giving the citizens the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government with the same tools the tyrannical government is using.

I disagree. They DO realize that the 2nd amendment is about giving citizens the ability to defend themselves against a tyrranical government. That is why pretty much every advocate of "big goverment" supports gun control (regardless of whether they are on the left or the right). In fact, they probably understand this better than many gun rights activists.

There are some gun-grabbers who are, as you say, "focused on the tools" - who think gun control is about preventing crime or whatnot - but they are merely "useful idiots."

[John F Kennedy III]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127699.html

Oh shizzle. Now that's a burn. Who is she? A random poster?

[whoisjohngalt]

I disagree. They DO realize that the 2nd amendment is about giving citizens the ability to defend themselves against a tyrranical government. That is why pretty much every advocate of "big goverment" supports gun control (regardless of whether they are on the left or the right). In fact, they probably understand this better than many gun rights activists.

There are some gun-grabbers who are, as you say, "focused on the tools" - who think gun control is about preventing crime or whatnot - but they are merely "useful idiots."

Second. One of the quotes from the link I posted:

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

[whoisjohngalt]

Oh shizzle. Now that's a burn. Who is she? A random poster?

No, she is a fairly well known consultant who can be seen from time to time on channels like Fox Business or CNBC. I wouldn't go so far as to call her famous.

[John F Kennedy III]

Of course there's the predictable follow-up of if we're allowed to own tanks and nukes.

You win Piers. The government has every right to use nukes to keep us in line.

I find it amusing though that he forfeits the "high powered handguns" argument and goes right to nuclear weapons.

And how would you answer that follow up? I need to work on mine. Just saying every citizen is allowed to own any weapons the government has. Or better weapons if they can get them doesn't come across very well.

[John F Kennedy III]

No, she is a fairly well known consultant who can be seen from time to time on channels like Fox Business or CNBC. I wouldn't go so far as to call her famous.

Thanks. Btw, this is the perfect example of why Judge Nap isn't in Morgan's seat.

[coastie]

And how would you answer that follow up? I need to work on mine. Just saying every citizen is allowed to own any weapons the government has. Or better weapons if they can get them.

Don't even bother trying-it's just a straw man response. There's no convincing people who play with scarecrows.

[John F Kennedy III]

Don't even bother trying-it's just a straw man response. There's no convincing people who play with scarecrows.

That's true. But for the readers?

[KingNothing]

And how would you answer that follow up? I need to work on mine. Just saying every citizen is allowed to own any weapons the government has. Or better weapons if they can get them.

Nah, just punt. No one is advocated for individual development of nuclear weapons. You can't even engage in that conversation.

[Matthew5]

Burn indeed!

Of course he has that thought process, he's a subject of the Royal Crown. This sounds like something a Red Coat would say.

[EBounding]

And how would you answer that follow up? I need to work on mine. Just saying every citizen is allowed to own any weapons the government has. Or better weapons if they can get them.

I guess my response would be that people should have access to the same weapons as the police. Then I would ask "How should people respond if their own government is using nukes on them or other WMDs?"

[TheGrinch]

Oh the irony of an anti-gun Brit trying to tell us what our Constitution says.

[whoisjohngalt]

Burn indeed!

Of course he has that thought process, he's a subject of the Royal Crown. This sounds like something a Red Coat would say.

I can see Morgan's great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather advocating that the people only be allowed to have bows and arrows because only the Crown could responsibly manage such new and dangerous technology as the gun. Sorry Piers, but you guys lost the Revolutionary War. You need to shut your neo-Tory mouth.

[Expatriate]

If the 2nd Amendment only protects muskets, I guess the 1st must only protect quill pens and ancient printing presses.

No Twitter for you, Piers.

[paulbot24]

I can see Morgan's great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather advocating that the people only be allowed to have bows and arrows because only the Crown could responsibly manage such new and dangerous technology as the gun. Sorry Piers, but you guys lost the Revolutionary War. You need to shut your neo-Tory mouth.

They lost that war but they haven't lost THE war. They were smart enough to keep their currency but talk the rest into joining the EU so they could profit from them all. Have you noticed the exchange rate for the USD vs. the GBP? If you look closely you can even see the queen and the "royal family" still walking a few paces behind them out of reverence. They haven't lost a damn thing.

[ClydeCoulter]

I would say "being necessary to the security of a free State, as opposed to a tyrannical State"

[KingNothing]

If the 2nd Amendment only protects muskets, I guess the 1st must only protect quill pens and ancient printing presses.

No Twitter for you, Piers.


Exactly. And words can hurt people! Contrary to the notion that only sticks and stones can break bones, words cause damage too! Why, look at bullying! There should be a law! And what about those people who go around releasing inconvenient facts? We can't have them mucking things up, especially given the speed information travels these days! The first amendment did NOT have the internet in mind!!!! We must update it to protect ourselves!

[KingNothing]

I guess my response would be that people should have access to the same weapons as the police. Then I would ask "How should people respond if their own government is using nukes on them or other WMDs?"

They should shut-up and take it like the insignificant serf scum they are!

[paulbot24]

I remember reading a Time magazine which talked about abolishing the Constitution and "finally" admitting it is outdated. I think that is the last time I picked up one of their magazines. I'd rather sit and listen to the various drills in a dentist's waiting room than fill my head with that filth.

[Occam's Banana]

I guess my response would be that people should have access to the same weapons as the police. Then I would ask "How should people respond if their own government is using nukes on them or other WMDs?"

This. The 2nd amendment is being violated whenever the only weapons permitted are the ones the government isn't worried about.

The government isn't worried about BB guns. They are worried about "assault weapons."

Things like nukes are just big, scary strawmen - they have nothing to do with the issue (and people like Morgan know that perfectly well).

[Seraphim]

Anyone else think Carol Roth is insanely sexy?

:-)

[TheGrinch]

If the 2nd Amendment only protects muskets, I guess the 1st must only protect quill pens and ancient printing presses.

No Twitter for you, Piers.

I was trying to think of a good analogy and you nailed it. Kudos.

[John F Kennedy III]

I guess my response would be that people should have access to the same weapons as the police. Then I would ask "How should people respond if their own government is using nukes on them or other WMDs?"

There you go, put it back on them.

[Todd]

If the 2nd Amendment only protects muskets, I guess the 1st must only protect quill pens and ancient printing presses.

No Twitter for you, Piers.

That's my chuckle of the day...:D

[Rudeman]

I guess my response would be that people should have access to the same weapons as the police. Then I would ask "How should people respond if their own government is using nukes on them or other WMDs?"

I usually use a similar response, but I like the way you worded it. +rep

[aGameOfThrones]

I guess my response would be that people should have access to the same weapons as the police. Then I would ask "How should people respond if their own government is using nukes on them or other WMDs?"

By taking them to court.

[coastie]

I remember reading a Time magazine which talked about abolishing the Constitution and "finally" admitting it is outdated. I think that is the last time I picked up one of their magazines. I'd rather sit and listen to the various drills in a dentist's waiting room than fill my head with that filth.


I asked someone once, "Since the Constitution is outdated, why do you still go to church? After all, the Bible was written (over the course of) ~3500 years ago."

She was like :eek::confused::eek:



:cool:

[jkr]

FING REDCOATS...http://thinkingouttabox.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wellingtons33rd.jpg
X MARKS THA SPOT

[Expatriate]

Another good way to shut this silly argument down is to mention the more destructive but perhaps lesser known arms that were in use by private individuals at that time.

I do not recall the 2nd Amendment as saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, except for warships, bombs, cannons, rockets, submarines, mortars and grenades, shall not be infringed".

In case anyone didn't know, weaponised submarines (http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/revolution-in-a-half-shell/), explosive and incendiary rocket-propelled missiles (remember "the rockets' red glare"), mortars, and blast/fragmentation bombs of many different kinds existed back then and were all privately owned and operated. Even if for the sake of argument we accept Piers' idiotic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, these devices would be protected right along with good ole muskets.

[jkr]

NAH
fuck him
get thee back from whence ye came vermin

[GunnyFreedom]

And how would you answer that follow up? I need to work on mine. Just saying every citizen is allowed to own any weapons the government has. Or better weapons if they can get them doesn't come across very well.

Nuclear bombs are not weapons in the sense of arms, they are weapons of mass destruction and therefore dangerous devices. A person should be allowed to own one if they can find a place to store it such that an accidental detonation will harm nobody and no thing outside of their own property. Just like traditional firearms, dynamite, grenades, etc.

[staerker]

I love how Piers retweets:

Darcy Cameron ‏@darcycameron

@piersmorgan More guns = less crime, and more matches = less fire, and more cars = fewer crashes...

implying that the view that guns don't add to crime is absurd. Yet, doesn't advocate for banning matches and cars? Hah, funny.

[Odin]

This. The 2nd amendment is being violated whenever the only weapons permitted are the ones the government isn't worried about.

The government isn't worried about BB guns. They are worried about "assault weapons."

Things like nukes are just big, scary strawmen - they have nothing to do with the issue (and people like Morgan know that perfectly well).

They're also banning the bb guns too though, at least here in California. I like to play airsoft but can't play it anywhere anymore, even with biodegradable bb's out in the woods/far away from houses, because the police "can't tell the bb guns from the real ones" even though they choose to go out of their way to see what people are doing and the guns have orange tips on them and blatantly sound electrically powered.

[No Free Beer]

All I gotta say...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8D7vribc5c

[Odin]

Btw Piers Morgan was fired as editor of the Daily Mirror for publishing false photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured by British soldiers, so that tells me everything I need to know about him. Also was involved in a phone hacking scandal.

[Occam's Banana]

They're also banning the bb guns too though, at least here in California. I like to play airsoft but can't play it anywhere anymore, even with biodegradable bb's out in the woods/far away from houses, because the police "can't tell the bb guns from the real ones" even though they choose to go out of their way to see what people are doing and the guns have orange tips on them and blatantly sound electrically powered.

I have no doubt. But they're banning things like BB guns because they're control-freak or safety-Nazi assholes - not because they fear the use of BB guns by the citizenry in defiance of State tyrrany.

[BamaAla]

Where is Jeremy Clarkson when you need him!

[TER]

The media has been our greatest let down. The fact that the corruption has reached every market and infiltrated every major new outlet is one of the saddest realities we face. As long as the propaganda machine a la 1984 is under the control of a select few in cahoots with the government, we will always fight to free ourselves from the tyranny they have over us.

[Neil Desmond]

Ice T's gun comment leaves Moore cold (on Piers Morgan show):



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXx-NejsK8

Ok, so Moore coughs up some absurdities:

(@ 1:40): He claims reducing guns & ammo reduces murders; what gives him that kind of idea? The complete opposite is true, according to this: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-2/

(@ 2:12): What? Is he implying that what they (Uhh, "they?" Not "our founding fathers and ancestors," or something to that effect?) thought was right back in 1776 - 1789 wasn't?

He then proceeds (@ 2:25) to make a false analogy argument involving leeches (just check it out for yourself). Mr. Moore, they thought leeches were a good idea back then but know we know they aren't; on the other hand, the American Revolution was a good idea back then, and it's still a good idea today.

Conclusion: Piers Morgan is a bloody British leech attached to America trying to suck its blood dry (and sometimes Moore simply doesn't know what the heck he's talking about). :cool:

...oh and one more thing, + rep for Ice T! :D

[XNavyNuke]

Second. One of the quotes from the link I posted:

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

WIJG,

Your quote is incorrect. Gun Cite, 4th one down (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html) There are lots of good ones out there that make the similar point. That one just doesn't happen to be it.

XNN

[angelatc]

And how would you answer that follow up? I need to work on mine. Just saying every citizen is allowed to own any weapons the government has. Or better weapons if they can get them doesn't come across very well.

I have no problem with tanks. I don't think think the government should be allowed to own weapons that we're not allowed to own. I am not promoting that the citizens be allowed to own nuclear weapons, but that the government should not be allowed to own them.

[seyferjm]

Where is Jeremy Clarkson when you need him!

My thoughts exactly!

[itshappening]

Btw Piers Morgan was fired as editor of the Daily Mirror for publishing false photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured by British soldiers, so that tells me everything I need to know about him. Also was involved in a phone hacking scandal.

Morgan is nothing more than a leftist political operative

[tfurrh]

Oh the irony of an anti-gun Brit trying to tell us what our Constitution says.
Oh the irony of us democracy-lovin Americans trying to tell the world what to do justifying it by our Constitution.

[JK/SEA]

Anyone have computer skills to trace Piers Morgan's family tree?...

[Elwar]

Just ask him at what point should the jews have been allowed to have tanks and uzis.

[JK/SEA]

Just ask him at what point should the jews have been allowed to have tanks and uzis.


........against Hitlers Army.

[compromise]

They lost that war but they haven't lost THE war. They were smart enough to keep their currency but talk the rest into joining the EU so they could profit from them all. Have you noticed the exchange rate for the USD vs. the GBP? If you look closely you can even see the queen and the "royal family" still walking a few paces behind them out of reverence. They haven't lost a damn thing.

Not sure where you got this strange theory from...hardly any of it is true.

They did not 'talk the rest into joining the EU', nor did they know that there would be a single currency in the future when they joined the EEC. The European Economic Community, the predecessor organisation of the EU, was founded by 6 countries (France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands). The UK joined in 1973. In 1975, this was approved in a referendum. The EEC became the EU in 1993 and that was when the Euro was announced. So there was no British trickery, if anything, the British were urged on by their continental cousins.

http://www.contrarian-investor.com/image-files/gbp-exchange-rate.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3323202918_19c5c127ee.jpg
You are absolutely wrong about the exchange rate. The value of GBP is dropping much faster than that of the USD. The UK has a much worse monetary policy than we do.

The royal family have most of their wealth in precious metals and property. They have very limited power and are not responsible for shaping British domestic policy. The lobbyists, the bureaucrats and the politicians of the UK and the EU are.

[Carole]

Hillariously funny. :D

[Czolgosz]

Excellent retort.

And, would hit.

[muzzled dogg]

I just cant imagine the nationalist neocons who are laughing at this ever taking up arms against their beloved troops

[Matthew5]

I just cant imagine the nationalist neocons who are laughing at this ever taking up arms against their beloved troops

I know, right? They see it as government taking away their right to hunt wildlife and protect against robbers.

[angelatc]

Just ask him at what point should the jews have been allowed to have tanks and uzis.

Or if the first amendment doesn't apply to radio and TV.

[GunnyFreedom]

Or if the first amendment doesn't apply to radio and TV.

statist: But, we accept reasonable restrictions on speech too, like shouting fire in a theater!

Liberty: Sure, and just like it's wrong to cause real harm to people through speech, it's also illegal to shoot people just because you don't like them. Besides, we readily infringe the right to speech and religion all the time, but you press loonies get away with all kinds of deranged hogwash.

statist: We do not, we just report the news!

Liberty: Oh, you mean like Iraq building nuclear bombs and funding 9/11?

statist: Oh um, well, you see that's what the President was telling us.

Liberty: quod erat demonstrandum

[Anti Federalist]

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


statist: But, we accept reasonable restrictions on speech too, like shouting fire in a theater!

Liberty: Sure, and just like it's wrong to cause real harm to people through speech, it's also illegal to shoot people just because you don't like them. Besides, we readily infringe the right to speech and religion all the time, but you press loonies get away with all kinds of deranged hogwash.

statist: We do not, we just report the news!

Liberty: Oh, you mean like Iraq building nuclear bombs and funding 9/11?

statist: Oh um, well, you see that's what the President was telling us.

Liberty: quod erat demonstrandum

[GunnyFreedom]

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

LOL I had to look that up because the last two weren't real latin. :p "When all else fails, play dead." Red Green. I never did catch that show.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL - Sorry I made you do that, I thought I had posted the "Engrish" translation.

You must go watch a Red Green episode on Youtube straightaway.

From the webs:

Dear Latin Teacher,

Does the phrase "Quando omni flunkus, moritati" in fact mean "when all else fails, play dead"?

Thank you, Mansoor

Dear Mansoor,

The short answer is no, it does not.

In fact, this phrase appears to be part a Canadian sketch comedy show called The Red Green Show. It might be funny, but it is definitely fake Latin.

First, the Latin word quando is always in a question. It is never used in a circumstantial clause.

Second, Latin has no letter K, except in the word Kalendae, meaning the first of the month - and possibly in words borrowed from Greek. So flunkus is simply not a Latin word.

Omni means "all", but it is singular dative or ablative.

Moritati makes no sense to me at all.

To really say in Latin, "When all else fails, play dead", try the following.

Cum omnibus cecidisti, concidisse simula.

Which translates back to English as "Whenever you have failed/lost in all efforts, pretend to have fallen/died."

Hope this helps, and thanks for asking a Latin teacher.

Sincerely,

John

[Anti Federalist]

Which is what Mr. Morgan needs to do at once.

Play dead.