A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Piers Morgan threatens to leave America if the U.S. doesn't change its gun laws.
In conclusion, I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me.
Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.
I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.
Hardly a laughing matter. Not to restart the gun thread, but the NRA's initiative to arm all school security guards is ludicrous to the nth degree. Is that really the culture we aspire to be?
I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.
Hardly a laughing matter. Not to restart the gun thread, but the NRA's initiative to arm all school security guards is ludicrous to the nth degree. Is that really the culture we aspire to be?
Marlow wrote:Hardly a laughing matter. Not to restart the gun thread, but the NRA's initiative to arm all school security guards is ludicrous to the nth degree. Is that really the culture we aspire to be?
I had no intention of restarting the gun thread, and I agree with you that the gun issue is not a laughing matter, but come Marlow. Even a hard-core gun control advocate like yourself must find Morgan's threat of self-deportation rather humorous. It sounds like a line from a Saturday Night Live skit. Does he really think his threat will put more pressure on the Second Amendment advocates to cave in?
I'm begging Marlow, Tuariki and other like-minded folks not to kill this thread by using it to relitigate the gun control debate. That horse is already dead so let's quit trying to beat it to death.
jazzcyclist wrote:but come Marlow. Even a hard-core gun control advocate like yourself must find Morgan's threat of self-deportation rather humorous.Does he really think his threat will put more pressure on the Second Amendment advocates to cave in?
He wasn't threatening anyone or trying to influence anyone. He was stating a personal fact. If we don't clean up our act, he's going to leave - pure and simple. He's not an American, so he can't change squat. I am, so I can vote to try and change the (currently broken) status quo.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm begging Marlow, Tuariki and other like-minded folks not to kill this thread by using it to relitigate the gun control debate. That horse is already dead so let's quit trying to beat it to death.
We are in agreement there - the whole subject makes me ill.
jazzcyclist wrote:but come Marlow. Even a hard-core gun control advocate like yourself must find Morgan's threat of self-deportation rather humorous.Does he really think his threat will put more pressure on the Second Amendment advocates to cave in?
He wasn't threatening anyone or trying to influence anyone. He was stating a personal fact. If we don't clean up our act, he's going to leave - pure and simple.
Let's see: "If you don't do this, I'll do that." I don't what they call that where you come from, but where I come from, they call that a threat.
jazzcyclist wrote:Let's see: "If you don't do this, I'll do that." I don't what they call that where you come from, but where I come from, they call that a threat.
??!! But it's also just a straight conditional statement: If this (doesn't) happen, this happens. Cause and effect.
jazzcyclist wrote:Let's see: "If you don't do this, I'll do that." I don't what they call that where you come from, but where I come from, they call that a threat.
??!! But it's also just a straight conditional statement: If this (doesn't) happen, this happens. Cause and effect.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm begging Marlow, Tuariki and other like-minded folks not to kill this thread by using it to relitigate the gun control debate. That horse is already dead so let's quit trying to beat it to death.
No worries jazzcyclist. I am happy to leave the debate to Obama.
If Morgan deports himself, that only pleases the bigots who are collecting the petition for his deportation. If I were him. I would stay around to prove a point that they cannot force me out. If he is worried about the safety of his children, he could send them to boarding schools in other countries. But let the bigots declare victory by surrendering to their demand? NO WAY!
another minor irony is that those who created the second amendment, whatever their intent, were "attacking" the original Constitution. Should they have been deported?
gh wrote:another minor irony is that those who created the second amendment, whatever their intent, were "attacking" the original Constitution. Should they have been deported?
?? I was taught that the Bill of Rights was simply to rectify 'oversights'* in the original, not to 'correct' it.
*That were known to exist at the Constitutional Convention, but 'tabled' so as to pave the way for a 'speedy' ratification.
TN1965 wrote:bigots who are collecting the petition for his deportation
Isn't this positively delicious? They want to rescind his First Amendment protection by claiming he is attacking the Second Amendment. ROTFLMAO.
Considering the fact that Morgan wants the U.S. to adopt the U.K.'s gun laws, I think their claims are justified.
Here's a good illustration of the losing battle that gun control advocates are fighting:
On the day of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., we published a chart showing the Sisyphean nature of the national gun control discussion. In the immediate aftermath of a shooting, such as the one that took place in Aurora, Colo., mentions of the term "gun control" spike in the news media. In a matter of days, that discussion all but disappears.
This time was supposed to be different. "It is hard to believe this will not be a watershed moment when we start to talk about, deal with and even perhaps legislate on guns," ABC News's Z. Byron Wolf wrote. He was one among many in the media who believed the momentum for gun control legislation was strong enough to turn the tide on a familiar pattern.
Blame it on the fiscal cliff, blame it on Christmas, blame it on our ability to forget, but the national discussion about gun control has once again ebbed. Mentions of the term "gun control" on television, in newspapers, and in online media are down to pre-Sandy Hook levels, according to the Nexis database.
Marlow wrote:I was taught that the Bill of Rights was simply to rectify 'oversights'* in the original, not to 'correct' it.
*That were known to exist at the Constitutional Convention, but 'tabled' so as to pave the way for a 'speedy' ratification.
Some truth to that but way more complicated. Over the last 10 years or so reading books about the period of the American Revolution has become somewhat of a passion for me, and I've read a lot about the Constitutional Convention. Madison, who is really the author of the constitution (as much as any single person), was adamantly opposed to a Bill of Rights, stating that it was not necessary and that the rights were implied since they were not denied by the Constitution. It wasn't a speedy ratification that was needed, it was any ratification, since New York was very opposed to the Constitution in its legislature and only the lobbying of Alexander Hamilton was going to get it thru. But he had to guarantee the New York legislature that they would be adding a bill of rights to it "later." There were a few other states similarly minded, but New York was the most important since many states would follow them. As it turned out, it wasn't needed since enough states passed the new constitution without New York so it would have had to secede to not be under it. Original Bill of Rights was presented with about 17 amendments, but only the famous 10 got thru. In the end, despite his opposition to the concept, Madison was the one who wrote and presented the original 17 (may be 1-2 off on that #).
jazzcyclist wrote:Considering the fact that Morgan wants the U.S. to adopt the U.K.'s gun laws, I think their claims are justified.
Denying free political speech is justified?
What I'm saying is that denying free speech and private gun ownership are both unconstitutional. What the gun rights folks should be doing is reminding Morgan that unlike in the U.K. in which private gun ownership isn't a constitutionally protected right, what he's advocating here is unconstitutional. They shouldn't respond to his nonsense with more nonsense. By the way, this past Sunday, CNN's Reliable Sources slammed Morgan for a lack of professionalism in his handling of the gun debate with Larry Pratt, the executive director fof Gun Owners of America. Here's the video of the exchange that Morgan's colleagues slammed him for:
bambam wrote:Some truth to that but way more complicated. Over the last 10 years or so reading books about the period of the American Revolution has become somewhat of a passion for me, and I've read a lot about the Constitutional Convention. Madison, who is really the author of the constitution (as much as any single person), was adamantly opposed to a Bill of Rights, stating that it was not necessary and that the rights were implied since they were not denied by the Constitution. It wasn't a speedy ratification that was needed, it was any ratification, since New York was very opposed to the Constitution in its legislature and only the lobbying of Alexander Hamilton was going to get it thru. But he had to guarantee the New York legislature that they would be adding a bill of rights to it "later." There were a few other states similarly minded, but New York was the most important since many states would follow them. As it turned out, it wasn't needed since enough states passed the new constitution without New York so it would have had to secede to not be under it. Original Bill of Rights was presented with about 17 amendments, but only the famous 10 got thru. In the end, despite his opposition to the concept, Madison was the one who wrote and presented the original 17 (may be 1-2 off on that #).
bambam wrote:Madison, who is really the author of the constitution (as much as any single person), was adamantly opposed to a Bill of Rights, stating that it was not necessary and that the rights were implied since they were not denied by the Constitution.
This part doesn't make sense to me. The government routinely denies us the right to do things that aren't guaranteed by the constitution. They're called privileges. For example, we have no inalienable right to drive. The government grants us this right in the form of a driver's license.
TN1965 wrote:bigots who are collecting the petition for his deportation
Isn't this positively delicious? They want to rescind his First Amendment protection by claiming he is attacking the Second Amendment. ROTFLMAO.
Amen. "I'll defend my right to mangle the meaning of the 2d amendment in exchange for mangling the 1st amendment." People who quote the constitution rarely understand it.
I've said before that the biggest obstacle to any meaningful gun control legislation is rural-state and rural-district Democrats. Here's a video that illustrates what I'm talking about:
jazzcyclist wrote:Let's see: "If you don't do this, I'll do that." I don't what they call that where you come from, but where I come from, they call that a threat.
??!! But it's also just a straight conditional statement: If this (doesn't) happen, this happens. Cause and effect.
Threat Statement Ultimatum
You see ultimatum, I see personal preference. He's just saying that he does not feel safe. Or, more accurately, he fears for the safety of his child.
jazzcyclist wrote:Considering the fact that Morgan wants the U.S. to adopt the U.K.'s gun laws, I think their claims are justified.
The UK gun laws are far stricter than what he stated as the pre-ample to the interview. I paraphrase, he thinks 1) 'military style' semiautomatic weapons should be banned, 2) ban high capacity magazines, 3) Something along the lines of having a waiting period.
jazzcyclist wrote:Considering the fact that Morgan wants the U.S. to adopt the U.K.'s gun laws, I think their claims are justified.
The UK gun laws are far stricter than what he stated as the pre-ample to the interview. I paraphrase, he thinks 1) 'military style' semiautomatic weapons should be banned, 2) ban high capacity magazines, 3) Something along the lines of having a waiting period.
Banning the future sale of large magazines and closing the gun show loophole are politically doable. Banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons is not politically doable.
jazzcyclist wrote:Banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons is not politically doable.
I'm assuming that the prefix of 'military style' means a subset of semiautomatic weapons. And, of course, that is where the loop holes will take the claws out of any meaningful legislation.
jazzcyclist wrote:Banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons is not politically doable.
I'm assuming that the prefix of 'military style' means a subset of semiautomatic weapons. And, of course, that is where the loopholes will render any legislation meaningless.
How do you define "military-style"? That is the central question. How do you write a law that bans weapons like this?
For me the critical thing is rate of fire. I don't know how those two compare. Smaller magazines will definitely have an impact on rate of fire, so I can see why that is a primary target in the conversations on gun control.
For me the critical thing is rate of fire. I don't know how those two compare. Smaller magazines will definitely have an impact on rate of fire, so I can see why that is a primary target in the conversations on gun control.
Both weapons will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and can take magazines of any size.
jazzcyclist wrote:Both weapons will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and can take magazines of any size.
How many shots do hunters need? How many shots does one need to defend their property? How many shots are required to fulfill the spirit of the second amendment?
Daisy wrote: How many shots does one need to defend their property? How many shots are required to fulfill the spirit of the second amendment?
You can't theorize how many shots it will take in self-defense or in defending your property unless you can accurately predict how many may be used by those who are attempting to harm you or take your property. Those people are unlikely to be following any laws that attempt to curtail their usage of firearms.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Most states have restrictions on the size of the magazines you can hunt with. I think its four in Losisiana, which most reasonable people would say is too little for self-defense purposes. By the way, I know someone whose wife hunts with an AR-15 because it has so little recoil and she would be in big trouble if she got caught with a 30-round magazine in the gun while she was out hunting.
Daisy wrote:How many shots does one need to defend their property? How many shots are required to fulfill the spirit of the second amendment?
That's what it all comes down too, not violating the "spirit of the Second Amendment".
I just stumbled upon the most informative and honest news piece I've ever seen in the MSM that explains the gun debate in a way that folks who are ignorant about guns can understand. Here's the link to the 1999 60 Minutes video:
