Another guy stick it to Piers Morgan on the Gun issue

[madsweeney]

[QUOTE=Cuauhtémoc1520;12914715]

Actually, that as nothing to do with the violence because it's not something immigrants think of. It does how ever have everything to do with economy and when the economy is good, immigrants come. Since the economy is bad, immigration is actually at a NEGATIVE right now, so nobody is coming into the U.S anymore because there's no work and no money.




The Constitution is a LIVING document, meaning it can be changed when we the people deem something not relevant anymore. The founding fathers intended it that way, yet people like you think that it's something set in stone, far from it. I will also stay in this country and have any opinion I want and you can't do **** about it.




That's not true at all, those guns at this quantity did not exist in the hands of the civilians like they do now and all the drugs we are giving to our children didn't either. Those two things have contributed to these types of mass killings.





When the 2nd amendment was written, those muskets could defend you against a tyrannical govt because they had the exact same guns. Now they have nuclear subs, tanks, war planes, spy planes, attack helicopters, satellites, and weapons we have no clue of. Do you really think for one second we can defend ourselves against that?....LOL




What type of sport are going to use these weapons for? What game do you plan to kill and what turmoil do you want to take part in?

Truth is we don't need this firepower in the hands of people who just want their toys. It's a cowboy mentality and they use the excuse of "tyrannical govt" instead of what is really going on and that's the gun manufacturers are making billions, you fools are buying into the fear and you also want your toys because it makes you think your a tough guy.

Sorry we can't be as disarmed and peaceful as your beloved Mexico....

[Enayze]

Actually, that as nothing to do with the violence because it's not something immigrants think of. It does how ever have everything to do with economy and when the economy is good, immigrants come. Since the economy is bad, immigration is actually at a NEGATIVE right now, so nobody is coming into the U.S anymore because there's no work and no money.

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.

The Constitution is a LIVING document, meaning it can be changed when we the people deem something not relevant anymore. The founding fathers intended it that way, yet people like you think that it's something set in stone, far from it. I will also stay in this country and have any opinion I want and you can't do **** about it.

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.

That's not true at all, those guns at this quantity did not exist in the hands of the civilians like they do now and all the drugs we are giving to our children didn't either. Those two things have contributed to these types of mass killings.

That is absolutely true, and here is a graph posted in the washingpost 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.

When the 2nd amendment was written, those muskets could defend you against a tyrannical govt because they had the exact same guns. Now they have nuclear subs, tanks, war planes, spy planes, attack helicopters, satellites, and weapons we have no clue of. Do you really think for one second we can defend ourselves against that?....LOL

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.

What type of sport are going to use these weapons for? What game do you plan to kill and what turmoil do you want to take part in?

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.

Truth is we don't need this firepower in the hands of people who just want their toys. It's a cowboy mentality and they use the excuse of "tyrannical govt" instead of what is really going on and that's the gun manufacturers are making billions, you fools are buying into the fear and you also want your toys because it makes you think your a tough guy.

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.

[the_ilest]

And ironically the highest immigration rate in the world as well. You'd think if there were so many murders that majority of people would prefer to go to a place like Britain, but no the overwhelming majority desire to come here.

The 2nd Amendment is part of the constitution, and the amendments of the constitution are the corner stones of America. And if you have a problem with the second amendment you are more than welcome to stay out of the U.S.

There were no mass shootings after mass shootings in the 50's 60' 70's. It is a recent phenomenon, but the same sort of guns existed in those years.

Yeah, exactly and that is why the 2nd amendment exists. Only fools would think that their government can't turn on its people, especially after the 20th century.

Because it is my right, If I am a responsible person who uses the semi auto for sport, or if I want to be prepared against some serious turmoil, then what type of weapon do you prefer I use?

An insignificant amount

You're pro one wrong word from getting molested by your government.

It is really funny how " christian gun nuts" are placing the 2nd amendment constitution in the context that it is there to stop violent governments. blah blah blah.

however, in the same manner the constitution was used to support abortion and the crazy "christian gun nuts" are shooting up abortion clinics. Arguing against the constitution.

Slavery is another example. Alcohol. etc


Time and people change.

[cupocity303]

This is too much and messy, you need to cut down the length of your posts, as you make it difficult to respond.

Okay I am back.

So those 16 children. You mention the potential to have saved 500 lives if they had guns. Would these 16 children have been saved if they were armed?

It doesn't matter. You missed the point of my post, to which your 'stats' make no difference.

Since the ban, no mass shootings in schools have happened at all. Guns can kill 16 people easily compared to a man with a blade. Do you agree that a man with a gun is more likely to kill more people than a man with a knife?

All it takes is ONE, just ONE mass shooting to invalidate your argument, as I previously mentioned.

So yeah, thankfully no more kids were killed since the restriction. In 2010 there was a mass shooting that killed 12 people. However, from 1996 to 2010, that is a mass shooting every 14 years since the 'ban'.

Uh-huh. See what you did there. First you say there were no mass shootings and then quietly in the second sentence sneak in the (12 people were killed in 2010) like it almost didn't happen right? Just Collateral damage that happens every 14 years right?

It doesn't matter is the point. It still happened even if at a lesser rate. But what you did there is take away the legal ability of someone to protect themselves on a per individual basis. No law, no person can predict the outcome in every isolated incident involving a assault weapon.

What we can say is, that with citizens having the option to purchase a weapon, they have a fighting chance in any incident. Whether at a school or on the street walking by themselves and getting attacked. This of course relies on trusting the majority of the citizenry to be responsible gun owners, which some (especially in your country) have a hard time with. You'd rather make the decision for them and tell them that it's good for them and the law enforcement will protect them right?

A person in the U.S. does not care about your stats, what they care is that they have the option of protecting themselves in their immediate environment, in their neighborhood (should they feel the need to own a gun of any sorts). You multiply this with millions of other neighborhood's, millions of other localities with individuals in those localities, and you have your answer.

Unless your laws can guarantee ZERO incidents of mass shootings, then the law isn't worth it, whether it happens every 14 years or once a year.

[cupocity303]

P.S. as I previously mentioned. I myself don't own a Gun and don't intend on owning one. But that's my choice, the decision hasn't been made for me. And I haven't done anything criminal for that choice to be taken away from me (yet, never say never) either. I'm not some right-wing gun nut.

As I previously mentioned also, I live in a Bible belt state with lots of Guns. I've lived here for 14 years. So far I have never been in a situation where a Gun was pointed at me or where I needed a Gun but didn't have it. My fists were all that was necessary.

Now I have no stats to back this up, but maybe the reason for that is that around here, nobody is trigger happy and just pulls out a Gun in every situation. That's because they assume that everybody else around them has a Gun also. Thus a deterrent.

If the Technology and ability/the knowledge to make Guns could go away tomorrow, I'd be all in favor of it (not taking away guns from citizens but getting rid of the ability to make Guns completely). And then lets get back to fighting wars with swords, or bows and arrows at best. But since that isn't gonna happen, I don't believe in any legislation from Government solving the problem. So yeah, I side with the Pro-2nd Amendment crowd even though I'm not as hardcore about it as some others.

[My Name Is...]

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.....

[cupocity303]

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.....

Aren't you from Texas. You ought to know such a stance.

[My Name Is...]

Aren't you from Texas. You ought to know such a stance.

I understand and know what it is, but it's f*fking absurd.

[John Barron]

He's more annoying than entertaining. There was a petition to deport piers morgan and got more than 100000 signatures but i heard it got denied

it was moronic to begin with it. all it accomplished was expose their ignorance.

these "_____ DESTROYS Piers Morgan" videos don't entertain one bit. that Larry Pratt whacko, Jesse Ventura, and this little lesbian all seem equally shortsighted when they try to articulate their yahoo arguments.

[cupocity303]

I understand and know what it is, but it's f*fking absurd.

You need to get more in touch with your white Texan side. Thas' all.