Gun control
- Thread starter balsary
- Start date
ConanTheBarber
Legendary Member
That was the calamity.
I would agree that he was impolite in that earlier video. (I have also seen him be impolite with John Lott, to my regret.)
However, in general, he is a polite man -- and in the video that Calboner posted, he is entirely polite, unbelievably so.
(My two cents, anyway.)
"Polite" or "impolite" is not a word that I would apply to his anti-gun crusade. It just doesn't fit.
You might say "wrong-headed" or "naive" or even "foolhardy," if those words fit for you. (They don't really fit for me, but whatever.)
I have no idea why you think he is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration.
The only reason for saying that is that Morgan's sense of what needs to happen is roughly aligned with Obama's.
But Morgan no doubt arrived from Britain with those views.
They are very common views among his countrymen.
Funny, the CNN version cuts out 16 seconds: the part where Alex Jones asks Piers Morgan why doesn't he go back to Britain and face the phone tapping charges:
Angry Gun Advocate Loses It Live On CNN In The Most. Bizarre. Interview. EVER.
compared to the full version:
Alex Jones Piers Morgan Part 1. 1776 Will Commence Again' If Guns Taken Away - YouTube
Skip to 4:40 to see the 16 seconds CNN felt you did not need to see.
Piers Morgan needs to go face his phone hacking scandal in Britain.
Angry Gun Advocate Loses It Live On CNN In The Most. Bizarre. Interview. EVER.
compared to the full version:
Alex Jones Piers Morgan Part 1. 1776 Will Commence Again' If Guns Taken Away - YouTube
Skip to 4:40 to see the 16 seconds CNN felt you did not need to see.
He is using the same talking points as Obama. Focusing on the "bushmaster rifle" as the prime culprit. If Piers Morgan were just pushing for "worst gun" ban, he would go for handguns, since they are far and away the cause of most gun deaths in The United States.
Just because you speak with an English accent while you try to take a birthright and tools away from Americans en masse, just because you speak softly, does not mean you are being impolite. Stealing is rude. Defying the constitution is rude. Coming into a country, and telling that country it should scrap a foundation of its constitution, is rude.
Piers Morgan needs to go face his phone hacking scandal in Britain.
Last edited:
redneckgymrat
Experimental Member
Though I've heard about this interview, I've not seen it until now. Thank you for the link.
Jones' behavior was consistent with his on air persona, brash and outspoken, a very animated character. He provided the perfect counterpoint to Piers' patented brand of mealy-mouthed condescension. This was actually good TV.
As an interview, however, it was pathetic. Usually when an unskilled interviewer loses control of an animated guest, the guest takes over. But in this case, neither took control. I expect, and I'm trying to look at it as objectively as possible, that Jones came across as more passionate, and therefore more authoritative and knowledgeable, but that's because he kept predicting and then pointing out Piers' dirty little tricks.
Overall, though, it reflected badly on both sides.
ConanTheBarber
Legendary Member
Well, CNN did broadcast the whole thing, after all.
And the video that you find tellingly edited was edited, not by CNN, but by Upworthy.com.
Doesn't change my point.
Yes, the views are aligned.
That doesn't make him Obama's mouthpiece.
Many Americans agree with Piers Morgan.
He's entitled to promote a discussion if he wishes; that is all he can do.
His argument for restrictions on the availability of certain types of guns is not stealing; you go too far.
He's not defying the Constitution; he's arguing for changes, after the fashion of an increasing number of Americans. What is wrong with that?
He puts his view into the mix. That's a First Amendment right, isn't it? What happens after that is for the American people to decide. And they will ... in what way, I have no idea.
Lol.
Touche.
He has already testified before the Leveson inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson described Morgan's testimony as "utterly unpersuasive."
To my knowledge, the Brits are not calling him back for further testimony.
I've gotta go to the gym. Not sure I should, SY. You've plum tuckered me out.:biggrin1:
Last edited:
ConanTheBarber
Legendary Member
Calboner provided the link, rngm.
Yes, it was good TV.
I think Jones' behavior will alienate a lot of people, though.
Bad tactics, to my mind.
I can't agree. I thought Jones seemed hysterical.
You can't control an interview with a hysteric.
About all you can do is keep your composure, which Morgan did.
Well, you know my view.
Take care, my friend.
Last edited:
No, it links directly to CNN's Youtube channel, which has edited the video.
Of course he is.
He isn't promoting a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. He is promoting the banning of certain weapons. which is simply a foot in the door.
Also said their is hardly any way Piers Morgan did not know that his paper was hacking celebrities phones and dead people's phones for salacious tabloid stories.
Piers is doing damage control. He was being seen as an obnoxious, dictatorial foreigner. He made a smart, if not sneaky, move to portray himself as the victim by inviting a well-known manic loudmouth on his show to bully him. It allowed Piers to be seen as the victim and garner sympathy.
The rant about Prozac didn't go unnoticed by Fuzzy... yet another piece to the pattern.
The rant about Prozac didn't go unnoticed by Fuzzy... yet another piece to the pattern.
Let's look at Obama's past record.
From http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
Last edited:
ConanTheBarber
Legendary Member
redneckgymrat
Experimental Member
Then, my thanks to CalBoner. I appreciate the link.
Have you ever watched Alex Jones on his own show? He broadcasts through infowars.com And, he behaves *exactly* the same way he behaved on the Piers Morgan show. That's just him...it's his style.
In fact, the "surprise" is surprising to me...it would be akin to watching George Carlin on a show, and being surprised when "7 words" come out of his mouth.
I suspect Alex was chosen for *precisely* that reason...to help portray pro-gun advocates as potentially informed, but short tempered and hostile. Loose cannons, basically. It helps further Piers' narrative.
And, yes, I do believe that Piers is a smart enough man to have a long term goal in mind. He's a condescending, sniveling, closed minded little weasel...but he's not stupid.
And, to touch on another point...Piers as Obama's mouthpiece. I don't believe that Piers is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration...that would require him to be intentionally complicit. I *do* believe that their views and goals are compatible, though, and that Piers *might* go so far as to adjust the angle on a story to show the current administration in a more favorable light than he might have done for Bush.
But that's just about as far as I'd go with that...and it's only a theory, anyway.
It's very difficult for a journo to compete on the world media market stage these days. If they are not controversial, they are soon forgotten. Which is a shame for truth and unbiased opinion in journalism.
ConanTheBarber
Legendary Member
I suspect it's disastrous for him to be exposed to a much larger audience of people who had not already chosen to seek him out.
I find him violent and paranoid.
I admit he is somewhat fascinating ... the sheer novelty of that kind of brashness.
Well, isn't he leading the petition to have Morgan deported? I think it's perfectly normal that, in those circumstances, he be asked to come on the show and explain himself. (That said, the show may have been quite aware, as you suggest, of certain tactical advantages in giving him the bully pulpit.)
... but do you like him, rngr? Do you like him?
Agreed. He's quite competent at what he does, imo.
That could happen even unconsciously, I suppose.
Last edited:
I could completely get where Piers Morgan was coming from in this interview. He kept hammering the correlation that we have more guns than anyone else in the first world and also the highest murder rate. He then posed the question, "What would you do to stop these shootings?" and was met with "Arm the good guys." Honestly, it's like inverted logic, where his guest is convinced in the infallibility of the second amendment and tries to bend all logic to suit his fancy.
People who have the inclination to obtain a gun and the willingness to use it already have no problems arming themselves. A lessening of gun control laws won't make it any more likely that they will.
And for the record, Piers is right that lesser gun restrictions do not mean less violent crime. Check out www.neighborhoodscout.com and look at crime rates. If what that guy is saying is true, then areas of similar population should be significantly affected, and places with full concealed carry laws should have significantly lower crime rates.
New York and California have restricted gun ownership laws, so check out NYC and LA to start. 26 and 29 for their crime rates, (100 is safest) not bad for a big city. But that should be better if they're in an area with looser gun control laws, right? How do some cities in Texas fare? Austin? 6. Houston? 5. San Antonio? 4.
Okay, maybe Texans are just crazy. How about Miami, FL? 3. Atlanta, Ga? 1! Hot shit! Knew we were best at something!!:biggrin1:
Here's a question: Why is it that two of the biggest cities in the US (and also the world) are relatively safe despite their firearms restrictions, and places in areas like Texas (which is almost synonymous for "people with guns") are so much more dangerous? Why aren't the abundance of guns and the legality to carry protecting those people?
redneckgymrat
Experimental Member
I find him brash. I find him assertive. I do find him somewhat hostile to viewpoints other than his own. Basically he's a hothead...that's his schtick.
But I've never seen Alex Jones behave in a way that could legitimately be called violent.
Yes. But, let's put it in perspective. That petition was set up as a "stunt," more than anything else, to point out the inappropriateness of a media figure, and especially one who is not a US citizen, having the colossal gall to lecture us on our own laws. Jones felt that Morgan's behavior was inappropriate and not in keeping with the good faith he had been granted by this country, and decided to use this situation to his advantage.
It has similar political relevance to Howard Stern's presidential candidacy, a few years back...legitimate, but mostly a media stunt.
Piers, by responding to his stunt, is legitimizing Alex Jones' position...hardly the action of a smart man. So, his motivation likely lay elsewhere.
I've already stated my theory.
... but do you like him, rngr? Do you like him?
I don't make a habit of watching Piers, no.
Hey, we're all human, after all.
I think you are mixing a little bit of your terms up as the original M16 the Army used to replace the M14, was a Semi and full Auto through the use of a selector switch (Safe-Semi-Auto). Maybe you meant the original AR-15 as from what I understood it was a semi-auto only weapon (I could be wrong as I never laid hands on one from the 57-63 era when they were first being tested and issued).
The usual reason behind firing three to four round bursts was not so much the jamming but because the weapon traveled high (you basically throwing rounds over the target if you held the trigger for the "rock & roll"). When they fielded it to replace the M14 a detachable bipod was also issued for the automatic rifleman in the fire teams.
The M16 was more prone to jamming and had a lot of bugs. The next rifle was the M16 A1 which also had the three options, but incorporated a Forward Assist, new flash suppressor and I believe the arctic trigger as well as a thirty round banana style box clip as opposed to the twenty round straight box.
The M16A2 basically incorporated a heavier barrel with more twists, rounded hand grips (like the Colt Commando from your era) and the three round burst selector replaced full auto mode after Semi (rock & roll no longer an option).
The M14 was also capable of full auto (as was the .30 cal M1 Carbine), but was a bastard to hump enough ammo for (much like the BAR).
Reading many of these comments.I frankly have come to the conclusion that there isn't a 'hope in hell' that anything in the US will change anytime soon.
The arguement on this subject,as with several others,is so polarized that there will NEVER be an agreement that could sustain any law that might bring about an end to these ghastly massacres.
I simply do not 'get' the political stance of many Americans who (wrongly) seem to assume that if you are in favour of strict gun control,then you must be some sort crypto communist...almost by definition!!!! This is an assumption I have come across time and time again and makes no sense WHATSOEVER.Surely the common goal is to bring an end to the senseless deaths of so many people at the hands of the lunatics who can seemingly buy their weapon of choice at a supermarket and then order ammunition off the internet?? It is,therefore, not a political issue,but one of common sense!!! The fewer guns there are in circulation,the less chance that people will be in a position to use them.
Here in the UK after the Dunblane shootings the government bought in even stricter controls on gun ownership and apart from some concern from some members of the gun/sports lobby, I don't remember any dissent AT ALL.The people of Britain seemed to collectively understand and support the decision.There was no political issue made of it.I know that gun ownership is written into the US Constitution and all that,but I'm afraid something VERY RADICAL will have to be done or else these massacres will just follow,the one after the other...!
P.S I really think that Piers Morgan lost a golden opportunity in not 'winding up' that physco Alex Jones EVEN MORE,as he might have succeeded in imploding on air and therefore, would mean there would be one less nutter to worry about..!
The arguement on this subject,as with several others,is so polarized that there will NEVER be an agreement that could sustain any law that might bring about an end to these ghastly massacres.
I simply do not 'get' the political stance of many Americans who (wrongly) seem to assume that if you are in favour of strict gun control,then you must be some sort crypto communist...almost by definition!!!! This is an assumption I have come across time and time again and makes no sense WHATSOEVER.Surely the common goal is to bring an end to the senseless deaths of so many people at the hands of the lunatics who can seemingly buy their weapon of choice at a supermarket and then order ammunition off the internet?? It is,therefore, not a political issue,but one of common sense!!! The fewer guns there are in circulation,the less chance that people will be in a position to use them.
Here in the UK after the Dunblane shootings the government bought in even stricter controls on gun ownership and apart from some concern from some members of the gun/sports lobby, I don't remember any dissent AT ALL.The people of Britain seemed to collectively understand and support the decision.There was no political issue made of it.I know that gun ownership is written into the US Constitution and all that,but I'm afraid something VERY RADICAL will have to be done or else these massacres will just follow,the one after the other...!
P.S I really think that Piers Morgan lost a golden opportunity in not 'winding up' that physco Alex Jones EVEN MORE,as he might have succeeded in imploding on air and therefore, would mean there would be one less nutter to worry about..!
Last edited by a moderator:
Jones fell into Morgan's trap. He just can't help himself. He carried on like a lunatic. Even Glen Beck, who seems prone to mania, said that Jones looked like a "madman."
Alex Jones screamed about the NWO and Prozac 'sponsoring' gun violence on Morgan's show, and after the show he went on about some conspiracy about the NYPD trying to kill him.
Is Fuzzy the only one who repeatedly notices that many, if not most, of the most vehement gun rights advocates are obsessed with conspiracies (not just in this thread, but in general)?
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Fuzzy hopes that paranoid loudmouths aren't going to take over a certain political party and marginalize them even more.
Last edited:
Similar threads
