Another guy stick it to Piers Morgan on the Gun issue

[TensionKiller]

I am at work so can't post too much right now.

However a mass shooting every 14 years to a mass shooting every one or two? What would you choose?

Every 1 or every 14 years.

[The_Demon]

Sooooo, how did Piers get "owned"? If anything, I think the other guy looked like a buffoon with his absurd stance that a regular, law abiding citizen should be able to own a military grade weapon because it is a type of self defense against THE GOVERNMENT! LMAO!! That is the stupidest ****ing thing I've heard someone try to defend in a while.

How anyone can agree with that reasoning is beyond me.....

And thats why innocent children get murdered in your 'civilised' country

Britain may be a shithole,but the US makes us look like paradise

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Obviously it has nothing to do with violence, it was a pun. Second the immigration is not at a negative, I dont know where you are getting your information from. but here is the link to the statistics from the governments homeland security website http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fil...is_yb_2011.pdf where the the figure for immigration in 2011 was, 1,062,040 people. However, immigration to the U.S. has been limited but its not because there is no money as you put, but because the government has severely tightened its policies on how many green cards can be issued throughout the world. This was done partially due to the large influx of already illegal Mexican immigrants who actually came here for work and money.

NET migration since 2005 has fallen to zero and maybe less. The economy has been terrible and there are no jobs.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...-perhaps-less/

The constitution is NOT a living document, meaning it was never intended to be changed, because by that logic if you continue to edit it then over the years the constitution would seize to be the constitution, but in turn would become a whole new document. The only thing LIVING about the constitution is its interpretation. As for the second part of your comment, as long as you are here legally sure, why not.

Really? Is that why Thomas Jefferson said "Any man living under a constitution older than himself is like a man wearing the coat of a child"?

You ever heard of the "evolving standards of decency" under the 8th Amendment? The constitution was written in broad terms and we have made changes throughout the years to fit the changes in our society and we should continue to do that as the times change. It's not the ten commandments, we need to make sure it stays relevant to how we are living 200+ years later.

That is absolutely true, and here is a graph posted in the washing post of gun ownership since the 1960's, until now, which shows a gradual decrease of close to 15% of gun ownership over the years among households. As for the drugs, you might have a point.

Assault rifle sales have gone up through the years and most of these advanced types of rifles weren't even around in the 1950's. The AR15 wasn't even sold to Americans until much later on. It was sold outside of America in 1960 and Walmart played a big part in making it the most sold assault rifle. Gun sales have exploded as of recently because of fears.

No government in their right mind if it wanted to subdue its people would attempt to annihilate them through the use of war planes, tanks, or helicopters. If anything it would be a guerrilla warfare scenario at the utmost extreme, and a well armed militia would be more than capable of holding its own under those circumstances.

Really? You know this how? You seem to think you have the answer of what the govt is going to do....I seriously doubt that.

Gun range, hunting (with the proper ammunition). In Switzerland many of the citizens are mandated to own assault rifles in case their is an invasion on the banks. They have a lot of guns, so what they do is set up shooting competitions every year that are very popular with their people. And the turmoil I was referring to would be a Nazi type regime.

Please don't compare Switzerland to the U.S. It's funny how when it comes to their health care they are all wrong but when it comes to their view of firearms they are correct. They are a much more advanced society than we are and aren't religious nut jobs, give drugs tot heir population the way we do and have a much different cultural view of guns in their society.

The truth is you never read the constitution, or the bill of rights, and you are like any other dimwit person who doesn't understand the important implications of having the right to bear arms.

Oh I see, so you automatically think I don't read and just listen to people on tv to give me my opinions....typical. Actually I have read the constitution, do read very well even though I'm just a brown person but I'm not surprised you would use this logic. It's typical when someone doesn't agree with your point of view to dismiss other opinions because I don't understand this country the way you do.

Reality is, people that think like you are becoming less and less. I know it hurts...

[Enayze]

NET migration since 2005 has fallen to zero and maybe less. The economy has been terrible and there are no jobs.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...-perhaps-less/

You do realize that the link you provided refers to the net migration of only Mexicans into the United States, and not the world as a whole? If you take into account the whole world then America welcomes the most immigrants each year and it isn't even close. As for the decline in Mexican immigration, a lot of it has to do with much tougher immigration laws in the past couple of years, see Arizona for example.

Really? Is that why Thomas Jefferson said "Any man living under a constitution older than himself is like a man wearing the coat of a child"?

You ever heard of the "evolving standards of decency" under the 8th Amendment? The constitution was written in broad terms and we have made changes throughout the years to fit the changes in our society and we should continue to do that as the times change. It's not the ten commandments, we need to make sure it stays relevant to how we are living 200+ years later.

Funny you mention Thomas Jefferson, when he was one of key people who was instrumental to enacting the 2nd amendment. Here is a nice little quote by him
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson

and heres another

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

The constitution is not written in broad terms. When it says freedom of speech and the right to bear arms that is pretty direct.

Assault rifle sales have gone up through the years and most of these advanced types of rifles weren't even around in the 1950's. The AR15 wasn't even sold to Americans until much later on. It was sold outside of America in 1960 and Walmart played a big part in making it the most sold assault rifle. Gun sales have exploded as of recently because of fears.

Assault Rifle sales have only gone up in the past year or two mostly because of paranoia that the government is going to take away peoples guns. Previous to that there was a federal ban on assault rifles from 1994-2004.

Really? You know this how? You seem to think you have the answer of what the govt is going to do....I seriously doubt that.

It is common sense, no one is going to use a tank or a plane to apprehend you at your house.

Please don't compare Switzerland to the U.S. It's funny how when it comes to their health care they are all wrong but when it comes to their view of firearms they are correct. They are a much more advanced society than we are and aren't religious nut jobs, give drugs tot heir population the way we do and have a much different cultural view of guns in their society.

Oh I see they have a different cultural view of guns in their society therefore it is ok for them to be mandated to own assault rifles, but over here in America we are not civilized enough to meet the standards of Switzerland.

Oh I see, so you automatically think I don't read and just listen to people on tv to give me my opinions....typical. Actually I have read the constitution, do read very well even though I'm just a brown person but I'm not surprised you would use this logic. It's typical when someone doesn't agree with your point of view to dismiss other opinions because I don't understand this country the way you do.

Reality is, people that think like you are becoming less and less. I know it hurts...

Basically what you told me in that post is that you are an insecure person.

[cupocity303]

Here is perhaps a good reason why a wackaloon like Alex Jones was justified in shouting/overpowering Piers Morgan. Because when he has two weaker opponents of the opposite sex on his show, he is the one doing all the shouting:



I guess he felt so confident, he thought he could handle two of them at the same time.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

[QUOTE=Enayze;12917321]

You do realize that the link you provided refers to the net migration of only Mexicans into the United States, and not the world as a whole? If you take into account the whole world then America welcomes the most immigrants each year and it isn't even close. As for the decline in Mexican immigration, a lot of it has to do with much tougher immigration laws in the past couple of years, see Arizona for example.

Mexicans are the largest group of undocumented workers, so I think it's relevant. Second, it has more to do with the economy and not laws in racist ass Arizona. You want cheap labor and then pander to the right for votes, can't have it both ways. The hypocrisy of the immigration debate is mind blowing.

Funny you mention Thomas Jefferson, when he was one of key people who was instrumental to enacting the 2nd amendment. Here is a nice little quote by him
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson

and heres another

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

The constitution is not written in broad terms. When it says freedom of speech and the right to bear arms that is pretty direct.

Still doesn't disprove my point though. It doesn't mean it cannot be changed to fit the times. Nobody wants to take away your precious guns, just make some clear definitions of what kind of guns the general public should have, because "right to bear arms" can mean anything.

Assault Rifle sales have only gone up in the past year or two mostly because of paranoia that the government is going to take away peoples guns. Previous to that there was a federal ban on assault rifles from 1994-2004.

Yes and who's created this paranoia? The right wing nut jobs on tv and radio everyday. The gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank. I'm sure every time there's a mass shooting, the CEO's of those companies are giving each other high five's.....

It is common sense, no one is going to use a tank or a plane to apprehend you at your house.

Hahaha, the fear is to defend ourselves from our govt. We don't have the fire power to do so anymore, it's not 1776, it's 2013.

Oh I see they have a different cultural view of guns in their society therefore it is ok for them to be mandated to own assault rifles, but over here in America we are not civilized enough to meet the standards of Switzerland.

Yes absolutely, just like if you have a past record of being violent or doing something lewd, you can't work with children. We should only be allowed to have certain things, if we show as a society that we are responsible. Funny how we have child proof tops on medicine, warning labels on cleaning products and tobacco, can only drive a certain speed and must wear seat belts, yet when it comes to guns its a fukin free for all.

Basically what you told me in that post is that you are an insecure person.

Insecure why? Because I want common sense legislation? Funny how over 80% of gun owners and members of the NRA agree in background checks for crime and mental health issues, yet the republican law makers don't want to vote for them...hmmmm? I wonder why that is? It doesn't have anything to do with the gun lobbyist does it that line their greedy, fat pockets?

They don't give a fuk about you, they just want to get rich and don't give a **** who dies in the process. Bill O'Reilly on his own show said that these types of mass shooting are just something we have to live with.....WHAT!? Imagine if Obama came on tv and said that? People would be ready to hang him.

[res]

Any man living under a constitution older than himself is like a man wearing the coat of a child"?

That doesn't sound like Jefferson, where is this from?

[res]

Any man living under a constitution older than himself is like a man wearing the coat of a child"?

. That doesn't sound like Jefferson where is this from?

I found the original quote. It's a lot more Conservative than the statement referred to above. He is talking about changes over epochs.

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I found the original quote. It's a lot more Conservative than the statement referred to above.

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Sounds very clear to me and I remembered it a little off but you get my point.

[res]

Sounds very clear to me and I remembered it a little off but you get my point.

There is nothing in that quote about a man not accepting a Constitution older than himself . Infact Jefferson seems to be suggesting the complete opposite when he says " I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects."


Jefferson is talking about the need for changes over epochs and is clearly taking a stance against "frequent and untried changes" in that quote. For a " civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors" as he writes, is for society to remain unchanged for epochs, not within a single lifetime. Who refers to their parents or grandparents as their "barbarous ancestors"? lol

Finally the Founders did provide a means by which the Constitution can be changed, it is the Amendment process.