the Piers Morgan case [split]


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:48 pm

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... zz2Gb7Ysbm
:lol:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Marlow » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:26 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Piers Morgan
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.

:lol:

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
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby lonewolf » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:05 pm

The laughable part is that Piers Morgan seems to think he can influence US policy or that anyone cares if he self-deports.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Tuariki » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:12 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Piers Morgan
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.

:lol:

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?

apparently
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:55 am

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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:14 am

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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:23 am

Marlow wrote:
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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:36 am

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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:41 am

Marlow wrote:
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

All of the above
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Tuariki » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:41 pm

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.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby TN1965 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:45 pm

Of course, this is ridiculous.

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!
TN1965
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Pego » Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:04 pm

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.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby gh » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:19 pm

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
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:13 pm

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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:46 pm

Pego wrote:
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.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 53146.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby bambam » Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:22 am

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 #).
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:57 am

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? :shock:
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:54 am

Pego wrote:
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? :shock:

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmW-P2fA3DM
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby Marlow » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:28 am

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 #).

Interesting! Thanks for 'the rest of the story'. :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:11 am

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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jeremyp » Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:11 pm

Pego wrote:
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.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby TN1965 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:28 am

Alex Jones, the initiator of the petition, made quite a spectacle last night.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/us/piers- ... index.html
TN1965
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby no one » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:19 am

Jones didn't score too many points during that exchange ... in my book. And I've listened/watched him from time to time. He went off the tracks here.

Piers, on the other hand, never gets any points from me. He shouldn't "be in the game" (of interviewing) at all.

But a 'spectacle' encapsulates it pretty well.
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:21 pm

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrTp3xyEq4
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Daisy » Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:42 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
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.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:08 pm

Daisy wrote:
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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Daisy » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:15 pm

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.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:25 pm

Daisy wrote:
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?

http://gunsformassaliens.files.wordpres ... 1/ar15.jpg

That doesn't also ban weapons like this?

http://delgranado.com/pictures/Alf%20pi ... %20742.jpg
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Daisy » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:39 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:How do you define "military-style"?

No idea, that was the term Morgan used.

jazzcyclist wrote:That is the central question. How do you write a law that bans weapons like this?
http://gunsformassaliens.files.wordpres ... 1/ar15.jpg

That doesn't also ban weapons like this?
http://delgranado.com/pictures/Alf%20pi ... %20742.jpg

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.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:54 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:That is the central question. How do you write a law that bans weapons like this?
http://gunsformassaliens.files.wordpres ... 1/ar15.jpg

That doesn't also ban weapons like this?
http://delgranado.com/pictures/Alf%20pi ... %20742.jpg

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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby Daisy » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:28 pm

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
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:20 am

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.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: You can't make this stuff up

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:59 am

Daisy wrote:How many shots do hunters need?

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".
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:21 pm

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:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n

I have no comments to offer, but pay close attention at the 9:00 mark when they get to the crux of the matter.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the Piers Morgan case [split]

Postby gh » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:40 pm

sorry, but I've decided guns are now a third-rail topic and we'll not be entertaining those thoughts any further.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rye Catcher and 12 guests