I never thought I'd feel sympathy for Piers Morgan

[hibby rae]

I really never thought I'd side with and feel sympathetic towards Piers Morgan but this guy is possibly the stupidest, most arrogant individual I've ever had the misfortune to listen to. 13 mins long and nothing of any note was said by the guy just loud, aggressive verbal diarrhea.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#TT7qucd

[Geo_1875]

Yes, that's a perfect description of Piers Morgan. A man of no discernible talent and has a platform to display it from.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Yes, that's a perfect description of Piers Morgan. A man of no discernible talent and has a platform to display it from.

I think Alex Jones was right about a few things actually. Medication being as much a cause as they guns themselves.

[Phil D. Rolls]

How come Moron has been living in an America when there is all this stuff to report about phone hacking and stuff. Call him a journalist? He couldn't even spot a story if there was a text message on his own phone.

As for his interviewing skills, his subjects often telegraph something they want to talk about in their lives - like drug taking, or abusive relationships. Yet Moron is either not listening and just hits them with the next question on his list; or, he starts to talk about himself.

[HibsMax]

I heard about this but haven't watched the outburst myself. I'm going to watch it though, should be entertaining.

One thing from the story that caught my eye was this : The interview begins in a more controlled fashion as Jones insist that 'the 2nd amendment isn't there for duck hunting; it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs'.

Everything I have read (which obviously isn't everything) has stated that the second amendment was there to protect the people from a tyrannical government since there was no police, etc. But I've never heard it was to protect against street thugs. I think that might be a new amendment to the amendment. ;)

The Second Amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I find it funny to think that 1776 could happen again if "you" try to take away our firearms. That will be an interesting war. All those with guns on one side, everyone else on the other. I wonder how that war will end...

I also find it funny that Alex is trying to have Morgan deported. Really? What an idiot. I wonder if all people against gun ownership should also be deported? I think I already know Alex's answer to that. He has 50+ firearms to "protect his family". I assume they are not all handguns meaning some can only be fired individually, but let's for the sake of argument say they are all handguns. Two hand guns per person, hell, make that four (two holstered)....he would need a family of 13 to warrant that number of guns....for protection.

What I do find comforting though is that even though Alex got a petition it only had 105,000 names on it. I know that is a large number but it's still tiny compared with 300,000,000. If everyone in America was as nuts as some people think, that list would be far longer IMO.





If people outside of the US think that all gun owners are like the idiot interviewed by Morgan then I can understand people feeling the way they feel. All I can say is that from my experiences, that is not the case. I am a member of a gun club which doesn't make me an authority but it does expose me to plenty of gun owners.

[Geo_1875]

I heard about this but haven't watched the outburst myself. I'm going to watch it though, should be entertaining.

One thing from the story that caught my eye was this : The interview begins in a more controlled fashion as Jones insist that 'the 2nd amendment isn't there for duck hunting; it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs'.

Everything I have read (which obviously isn't everything) has stated that the second amendment was there to protect the people from a tyrannical government since there was no police, etc. But I've never heard it was to protect against street thugs. I think that might be a new amendment to the amendment. ;)

The Second Amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I find it funny to think that 1776 could happen again if "you" try to take away our firearms. That will be an interesting war. All those with guns on one side, everyone else on the other. I wonder how that war will end...

I also find it funny that Alex is trying to have Morgan deported. Really? What an idiot. I wonder if all people against gun ownership should also be deported? I think I already know Alex's answer to that. He has 50+ firearms to "protect his family". I assume they are not all handguns meaning some can only be fired individually, but let's for the sake of argument say they are all handguns. Two hand guns per person, hell, make that four (two holstered)....he would need a family of 13 to warrant that number of guns....for protection.

What I do find comforting though is that even though Alex got a petition it only had 105,000 names on it. I know that is a large number but it's still tiny compared with 300,000,000. If everyone in America was as nuts as some people think, that list would be far longer IMO.





If people outside of the US think that all gun owners are like the idiot interviewed by Morgan then I can understand people feeling the way they feel. All I can say is that from my experiences, that is not the case. I am a member of a gun club which doesn't make me an authority but it does expose me to plenty of gun owners.

If the guy was a sensible person with a meaningful message he wouldn't have got airtime from Morgan. That's not how he operates.

[hibby rae]

I heard about this but haven't watched the outburst myself. I'm going to watch it though, should be entertaining.

One thing from the story that caught my eye was this : The interview begins in a more controlled fashion as Jones insist that 'the 2nd amendment isn't there for duck hunting; it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs'.

Everything I have read (which obviously isn't everything) has stated that the second amendment was there to protect the people from a tyrannical government since there was no police, etc. But I've never heard it was to protect against street thugs. I think that might be a new amendment to the amendment. ;)

The Second Amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I find it funny to think that 1776 could happen again if "you" try to take away our firearms. That will be an interesting war. All those with guns on one side, everyone else on the other. I wonder how that war will end...

I also find it funny that Alex is trying to have Morgan deported. Really? What an idiot. I wonder if all people against gun ownership should also be deported? I think I already know Alex's answer to that. He has 50+ firearms to "protect his family". I assume they are not all handguns meaning some can only be fired individually, but let's for the sake of argument say they are all handguns. Two hand guns per person, hell, make that four (two holstered)....he would need a family of 13 to warrant that number of guns....for protection.

What I do find comforting though is that even though Alex got a petition it only had 105,000 names on it. I know that is a large number but it's still tiny compared with 300,000,000. If everyone in America was as nuts as some people think, that list would be far longer IMO.





If people outside of the US think that all gun owners are like the idiot interviewed by Morgan then I can understand people feeling the way they feel. All I can say is that from my experiences, that is not the case. I am a member of a gun club which doesn't make me an authority but it does expose me to plenty of gun owners.


The guy seems to be a complete nutter. No surprises that he appears to be believe 9/11 was an inside job.

[stu in nottingham]

Morgan himself wasn't particularly professional during this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

[lyonhibs]

The day I feel sympathy for Piers Moron about anything, ever, is the day I jack it all in and become a Jambo.

Contemptible, talentless ******** of a man. Hope his next jobby is a live hand grenade.

[Steve-O]

Morgan himself wasn't particularly professional during this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

Can't see the problem really and I tend to agree with him on many of the points.

[(((Fergus)))]

I find it funny to think that 1776 could happen again if "you" try to take away our firearms. That will be an interesting war. All those with guns on one side, everyone else on the other. I wonder how that war will end...


There would be guns on both sides as the war would start, according to Jones, if [the government] tried to take away people's firearms.

[HibsMax]

There would be guns on both sides as the war would start, according to Jones, if [the government] tried to take away people's firearms.

If there was such a thing as a war between the US citizens and the government (I really can't see that happening) then it would be short and bloody. The US spends more than the next top 11 countries combined on defence. Assault weapons are effective tools against the unsuspecting public (and in combat situations too, obviously) but they really don't compare to the weapons that the US military has at its disposal.

The guy is talking out of his erse anyway. IF the US does anything it won't be to take people's guns away from them, it will be to control what weapons are available to the general public. Laws may change, they need to, but it won't be as deep as a total ban. Hand guns will still be allowed. Long guns will still be allowed. Assault weapons....now that's where a very firm line needs to be drawn (for starters).

[TheReg!]

If there was such a thing as a war between the US citizens and the government (I really can't see that happening) then it would be short and bloody. The US spends more than the next top 11 countries combined on defence. Assault weapons are effective tools against the unsuspecting public (and in combat situations too, obviously) but they really don't compare to the weapons that the US military has at its disposal.

The guy is talking out of his erse anyway. IF the US does anything it won't be to take people's guns away from them, it will be to control what weapons are available to the general public. Laws may change, they need to, but it won't be as deep as a total ban. Hand guns will still be allowed. Long guns will still be allowed. Assault weapons....now that's where a very firm line needs to be drawn (for starters).

Just out of interest, do you carry a conceled weapon or keep it the house under lock and key?

My tuppence worth would be to ban assault rifles full stop and permit only one hand gun and one clip of ammunition per application, I have been to the states many times and I know that it's a pretty scary place to be sometimes and the right to bear arms is a massive thing to people. The NRA are powerful and will pull out all the stops to challenge any law changes, the NRA need to change their stance on gun ownership or we are going to see more and more shootings over there.

[(((Fergus)))]

If there was such a thing as a war between the US citizens and the government (I really can't see that happening) then it would be short and bloody. The US spends more than the next top 11 countries combined on defence. Assault weapons are effective tools against the unsuspecting public (and in combat situations too, obviously) but they really don't compare to the weapons that the US military has at its disposal.

The guy is talking out of his erse anyway. IF the US does anything it won't be to take people's guns away from them, it will be to control what weapons are available to the general public. Laws may change, they need to, but it won't be as deep as a total ban. Hand guns will still be allowed. Long guns will still be allowed. Assault weapons....now that's where a very firm line needs to be drawn (for starters).

The US military would not be ordered, nor would it obey any order, to wipe out civilians over this issue. The point he was making was that if the government tried to take people's guns then people would use those guns to prevent that from happening, albeit the government would back down first. As in any dispute, it is the noisiest voices that get listened to so he is just doing what he can for his side of the argument.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

That interview is both worrying and hilarious. I feel no sympathy for Piers Morgan whatsoever. He knew exactly what he was doing inviting that gun nut on his show. The nut was a better anti-gun advert than Morgan could ever be and now he has load of publicity and people talking about his show.

I agree with what PM is saying and there's clearly no need for a citizen to have a weapon like that in their own home. Sadly, even if they do manage to ban it, it'll be a matter of time until something similar is released with a smaller barrel (or something) so it is classed differently.

[Hibrandenburg]

If there was such a thing as a war between the US citizens and the government (I really can't see that happening) then it would be short and bloody. The US spends more than the next top 11 countries combined on defence. Assault weapons are effective tools against the unsuspecting public (and in combat situations too, obviously) but they really don't compare to the weapons that the US military has at its disposal.

The guy is talking out of his erse anyway. IF the US does anything it won't be to take people's guns away from them, it will be to control what weapons are available to the general public. Laws may change, they need to, but it won't be as deep as a total ban. Hand guns will still be allowed. Long guns will still be allowed. Assault weapons....now that's where a very firm line needs to be drawn (for starters).

What if some military units took sides with the rebels. Not an impossible scenario!

[Jones28]

The interview shows Morgan in a slightly better light, he is still a massive bell end. He was arguing with a bigger one though

[HibsMax]

Just out of interest, do you carry a conceled weapon or keep it the house under lock and key?

My tuppence worth would be to ban assault rifles full stop and permit only one hand gun and one clip of ammunition per application, I have been to the states many times and I know that it's a pretty scary place to be sometimes and the right to bear arms is a massive thing to people. The NRA are powerful and will pull out all the stops to challenge any law changes, the NRA need to change their stance on gun ownership or we are going to see more and more shootings over there.

I don't even own a gun. I have an air rifle but that's it. If I did own a gun then something pretty major would have to happen to me personally to make me consider applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Massachusetts has a May-Issue policy unlike many other states who have a Shall-Issue policy. If I owned a weapon then it would be kept somewhere secure. Lock and key is one method but if you need to get to your weapon fast then that might be a game changer. I would probably opt for some sort of biometric lock.

I'm not sure what law changes I would suggest beyond the banning of assault weapons. One clip of ammunition is very restrictive for the person who regularly uses the local firing range. I don't see any need for large capacity clips though, even for home defence. My thought (hope) would be if I was defending my property then all I would need is one warning shot to scare the intruder away. I don't want someone breaking into my house but if the guy realises he's made a mistake and flees then I don't think he deserves a bullet in the back. A warning shot in that instance would be enough. If I fired a warning shot and he came for me, that would be a different story.

[HibsMax]

The US military would not be ordered, nor would it obey any order, to wipe out civilians over this issue.
I agree, I can't see such a thing ever happening but then times do change. Empires are built and destroyed. Just because things are peaceful now doesn't mean that in 100 years things will be the same. But as far as our lifetime is concerned, I would never see something like this happening.


The point he was making was that if the government tried to take people's guns then people would use those guns to prevent that from happening, albeit the government would back down first. As in any dispute, it is the noisiest voices that get listened to so he is just doing what he can for his side of the argument.
I understand the point he was making but I think it's a ridiculous point because it's never going to happen. Not in our lifetime. He was just blustering for effect and publicity. Either that or he's really nuts. It's unfortunate, to me, that I don't have the opportunity to speak with people like this so that I could ask the questions I want to ask (Why do you need more than 50 guns for home defence?) and get their side of story. I know gun owners and they are serious about their right to own guns but I don't know any that are seriously nuts and can arm a small country.

[HibsMax]

What if some military units took sides with the rebels. Not an impossible scenario!

That is something that has to be considered as well. If we look at the entire universe of gun owners and split them into public and government, there is going to be some overlap. A lot probably. If the government wanted to remove guns from the public using force then they would find that there are people in their own ranks who are dead against the actions they are being instructed to take.

It's tough to imagine happening in the United States but I am sure people throughout history have thought the same thing about their own countries before they split. Europe looks quite different now than it dead just when I was at high school a couple of decades ago.

[blackpoolhibs]

I wont even try to understand the argument about having guns or not having them, but what i find frightening is that guy would be allowed 1 of them, never mind 50 odd?

He does not seem to be playing with a full deck of cards, surely being daft as a brush should rule him out of owning a pea shooter? :confused: