On and on the CNN host went, leaving straw-dogs where-ever he could, should people be able to own a tank? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Piers should be asking the more personal question, "How come I am not allowed to own a brain?
Below is the 17 minute debate in two parts---its worth a look. BTW Dana did make one mistake, watch the videos and see if you can find it---the answer is at the bottom of the post (if you cannot see the videos click here)
Dana's Mistake? In the first video she says there are no assault unicorns, but there are:
And even one with a tank:
I rest my case!
23 comments:
She should have explained that the Second Amendment doesn't "give" rights.
Excellent point! And yet if you ask the average high school grad a simple question, "How many rights are granted to Americans in the Bill of Rights?" almost none know that the correct answer is zero.
The government grants no rights becaause it owns no rights to grant. But try telling that to the New York Times.
Tom Clancy has a tank. It's parked in his front yard.
Morgan was incorrect when he claimed that AR-15's were banned under the "Assault Weapons" ban.
It was not AR-15's per se, but rather a combination of certain cosmetic features. Manufacturers made plenty of AR-pattern rifles during that period simply by avoiding bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, etc.
All in all, Dana did fine, but you can't have a civil discussion with Morgan.
I want the spare tire carrier
She might have mentioned the privately-owned artillery that was not uncommon during the time period.
Um . . . any 9mm semiauto pistol is also a "military-style" weapon because the military uses them as well. The phrase is childish, expressing morbid fascination with morphology.
Sorry guys. I like Dana and dislike Piers and have only listened to part one, but to an objective observer, Piers won the debate. Just because you like Dana does not excuse her failure and/or inabiliy to answer basic questions like whether she thinks the constitution gives Americans the right to own a tank. You may argue the question is a diversion, but it is at least relevant and Dana should answer. The same with whether the Newton weapon fell within the assault weapon category. Any judge would give Dana the boot for refusing to answer legitimate questions.
Piers really is an "incredibly stupid" man to think he could win an argument on gun control with a couple of smart and knowledgeable women.
She did well, but made a few mistakes.
1. Full automatics are not entirely banned. Civilians may own fully automatics. Those full autos must have been registered prior to 1986. Ownership requires a background check, a tax stamp payment of $200.00 and approval by the ATF and your local sheriff, unless you do ownership under the trust. Only one legally owned full auto was ever used in a crime and the perpetrator was a police officer. Other crimes using full auto have been illegally altered weapons.
2. The AR-15 was not banned under the 1994 ban. Instead AR-15 with certain features were banned. During the ban, AR-15's were marketed as either pre-ban or post ban. Following the expiration of the ban, the distinction no longer mattered.
3. She should have conceded the point about the tank. I don't think that the 2nd amendment meant tanks. I don't think the history demonstrates that tanks are arms, although clearly an AR-15 is an arm.
rasqual they are called military style because they look like and have similar names to the military versions but they do not have the shooting speed-features-or punch of the military version..hence the word style.
Sorry. In order to see these beautiful women in action I must bear that creep and I already said no so I don't care who he talks to I'm not listening to him. I'm not in the mood for Piers Morgan's on air education. It's too annoying.
I stopped the video right on bilabial plosive where Morgan's whole face is pinched. He's ridiculous. I should screengrab it, but like I said, he's annoying.
The comments here are more interesting than he could ever be. Thank you for posting.
Pants Morgan is the living embodiment of Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."
I served 20 years in the military. I am convinced the problem with America is that most men are wimps. Not all, but virtually all Americans are great big fat wimps. We have become a disgustingly wimpy country. Men are no longer men, they are girls in men's clothing. But that's not quite right either, because girls are more manly than men. In America it is no longer permissible for men to act as men, but it's ok for women to do so. Even military commanders are required to be wimps. Men are scared to death to offend anyone by saying what they really think. Men are afraid to say, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I don't care if I hurt your feelings." -- By the way, why in God's green earth should law abiding citizens not be allowed to own fully-automatic weapons? I want not one, but three ma deuces. One needs back ups, in case the barrels should over-heat. Why a ma deuce? Because little wimpy 7.62 rounds will not penetrate armored personnel carriers. -- Why are we a wimpy nation? Because we have not bombed the mullahs in Iran into submission. Because a terrorist country like Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and our response is that we think we need a better dialogue with these a-holes. Because we care more about Notre Dame football or what Oprah Winfrey has to say than about terrorists obtaining nukes. Because we cannot tell right from wrong. Because we allow free-loaders to spend our hard-earned money instead of telling them to find a job or f***ing starve to death. Because we allow our children to be indoctrinated by godless leftist a-holes in college. Because we do not defend our Christian beliefs, but instead insist all beliefs have the same merit. Because we are afraid to hurt someone feelings… Let me just summarize in case you should be confused: I'm right about every single thing I hold to be true, and everyone who disagrees is wrong and should change so that they are just like me. Got it? If you don't at least get my meaning, then you're one of the wimps to whom I've been referring.
"Verrrry interesting." Way to go Lid for your post.
Bob that dog to vomit thing is excellent. That describes what liberal(some of them) do very well.
I love Dana and Scottie, but they screwed the pooch on this one. Why allow the fool to to set up straw men (tank, nuclear weapons) while not addressing the oh-so-simple question of magazine size? This was PAINFUL to watch. The way to address the magazine size question is to tell the idiot that it only takes seconds to swap in a new magazine and a predator like at Sandy Hook has determined the killing zone. He knows no children or teachers in the 'gun free' zone are going to be armed so he could just carry as many magazines as he wanted and change them in 5 seconds whenever he needed without fear of being counter-attacked. Also, in the case of home defense, the citizen does not know when the attack is going to happen, they do not know how many people will attack them, and they may well--in their anxiety--miss with some shots. Finally, perpetrators don't have to be on PCP to survive multiple gunshot wounds. It happens all the time. Why should the legal gun owner be the one penalized?
These arguments are easy to make, perfectly logical, and have the added benefit of appearing reasonable to any fair-minded viewer...unlike the implicit assumption by both these women that a tank or nuclear arms are not prohibited.
They looked stupid enough that I could not watch past the first several minutes. They completely FAILED to appear reasonable.
Look, nobody watches Morgan anyway, but fer chrissakes, get your arguments down cold and don't let the idiot establish the premises of the conversation.
FAIL, FAIL, FAIL. No wonder we keep losing to the morons.
Fact: There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" owned by law abiding citizens. My AR-15, M-4 is a "defensive weapon" and a recreational tool (just like millions of other legal gun owners). Only in the hands of a lawbreaking miscreant does it become an "assault weapon." Morgan has less testosterone in his body than either of the ladies, and I'll bet they could out arm wrestle him, too.
Of what possible relevance is PM's question whether one needs any particular weapon? The Second Amendment right is to bear arms, not to bear arms if we need them. One may as well contend, with respect to the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, that we have a right to say only what we need to say.
It's not 'Piers' Morgan.
It's Percy Morgan !!!
The question of why does anyone need a military style weapon has not been adequately answered.
The answer is that America needs them. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to insure that we have a pool of militiamen–and women—capable of using military weapons if needed.
The original purpose of the NRA was to train civilians to military standards in marksmanship, to enhance national security.,
It's still a good goal.
Dana had a better second half than first half to probably overall achieve a draw. Dana was weak refusing to answer questions in the first part and in the second half Piers sorta ran out of gas and descended into pretty obvious phoniness. He is using this for ratings. He is smart enough to know that the executive orders and proposed legislation are insignificant.
Why aren't the conservatives driving his advertisers away, like the left did with Beck? Beck wasn't calling for an all out assault on the constitution.
Piers obviously feels that because he's English and a male, he can bully women.
He does stay on message well: guns are icky, and anyone who disagrees with him is a lunatic. Unfortunately, he also refuses to allow anyone else to complete a sentence. I nominate him for Red Herring Chaser of the Year.
Post a Comment