Piers Morgan Complete and Total SMACKDOWN!

This? This couldn’t wait till morning. This was an absolute pleasure to watch, and I needed to share it. Did I approve of everything he said? No. But anyone who calls out Piers Morgan for dancing in the blood of the children of Sandy Hook Elementary TO HIS FACE gets an attaboy in my book. So enjoy.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

200 Responses to Piers Morgan Complete and Total SMACKDOWN!

  1. avatarWC says:

    Ben Shapiro wants background checks for all gun purchases. Is everyone onboard with this?

    • Fact is that most go through background checks now. In my experience, the only ones that don’t are the ones where the transactions involves family members.
      I don’t find it very dangerous to have background checks on all sales as long as the government doesn’t keep the records and turn it into a registry. I have some concern about the mental illness parts. I don’t really like the idea of the government keeping a registry of anyone that has ever received any mental health treatment. I even less like the idea of someone landing on that list without any due process. To me, that is the far more onerous part of what was said.

      • avatarJoshua says:

        If they are going to mandate checks for all sales including private sales that bill should include a set reasonable maximum price to be charge by the retailer or enable state DMV style locations to transfer weapons. I can see this being very burdensome to retailers, but that burden should not have the ability to become a burden for the right of the individual.

      • avatarBobtheGrape says:

        Scott Henson, brilliantly stated! You obviously understand the workings of our guv’mint better than most. If they do a background check they will maintain the records to prove that they did it should any questions arise. Then some bureaucrat will realize that the records could be put to some nefarious use. God forbid we should have records just lying around for nothing. How do I know this? I work for our guv’mint and I see how they do stupid, nefarious things. I will be leaving the guv’mint at the end of this month. I can’t take it anymore. No, I’m not leaving in protest I’m retiring, but I am disgusted with how the gov’mint is run even at my lowly level. I have kept jousting with the windmills and they keep right on winning or is it whinning.

      • avatarAPBTFan says:

        “I don’t find it very dangerous to have background checks on all sales as long as the government doesn’t keep the records and turn it into a registry.”

        You say that despite the constant efforts to create a registry? The ATF recently tried to remove bound books from certain FFL’s premises despite it being absolutely 100% against federal law. By law, law enforcement can only get information from an FFL’s bound book when it pertains to a specific case and only information on that case. Getting their hands on all bound books is the governments wet dream. Say you have a LGS you’ve bought many firearms from and tomorrow the ATF walks away with that book listing everything you bought from them. They don’t want those books for light reading on the can – they want to know exactly what you have even though you’ve broken no laws. Our side fought hard for FOPA and it’s been a huge thorn in the grabbers’ side ever since.

        Think about it my friend, they got the NFA. Did it make them happy? No. Then they got the ’68 GCA. Did that make them happy? No. Then they got the Brady Bill with bound books and the mandatory background check. Did that make them happy? No. It’s abundantly clear that they will never be happy until average joes like us can’t own anything. They’re happy to take every inch we give them and every inch we do give them is an inch we’ll never get back.

        As gun owners we have always had the government stacking the deck against us. Why is it the the government deemed a poll tax unconstitutional because it infringed on the right to vote but if I want to exercise the 2nd and buy a SBR I have to pay a $200 tax?

        Lastly, letting the government intrude on private sales opens the door for the regulation of any privately sold item.

      • avatarAPBTFan says:

        “I don’t really like the idea of the government keeping a registry of anyone that has ever received any mental health treatment. I even less like the idea of someone landing on that list without any due process.”

        Mr. Henson, I am 1,000% behind you on this one. At one point or another there is a very large part of our society that has needed help with their mental health. For the majority of folks that run into hard times getting mental health treatment isn’t much different, problematic or ultimately therapeutic than folks needing rounds of antibiotics for an infection.

        It’s about time this country took mental illness and mental health seriously. I have 25 years experience on both sides of the equation and can say that we have a long, long way to go.

        I’m also 100% behind no guns for those adjudicated by court and will go so far as to say that the current system isn’t able to catch enough individuals that truly should be. Having said that I absolutely agree there needs to be a system in place for those adjudicated to regain their rights.

      • avatarelnonio says:

        Incorrect, Scott. As far a federal law is concerned (your state may have its own twist) there is no requirement that seller and buyer be related to exempt an intrastate the sale from a background check.

    • avatargen4n9 says:

      Not just no, but hell no.

    • avatarJean Paul says:

      I don’t agree with that, and the fact that this feels like an area where the compromise is going to happen just plain sucks.

      I am allowed to sell my privately owned property to anyone I choose. If I want to sell my buddy a gun, why should I put him through a background check? The person who knows they’re ineligible to buy a gun is breaking the law.

      • avatarThomasR says:

        Ben Shapiro is being completely illogical, just like Piers; ” The second amendment is to protect against government tyranny and I want the government that could go tyrannical to have control of knowing who buys and sells guns to each other.”

        Yep, completely illogical, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

        I wouldn’t surprised if he’s a government plant.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      The AR-15 that was left in the trunk in the parking lot and then somehow magically was involved in the school shooting….had already been “background checked.”

      • avatarBlinkyPete says:

        Dude… drop the tinfoil hattery. Several independent witnesses are more credible than the frothy mouthed ‘you heard it here first’ press core.

    • avatarjosh ogkw says:

      I don’t think all gun sales being made to be done with backgrounds checks to be unreasonable. I live in California and so I have gotten very used to ffl’s having to be used between every purchase or transfer. Honestly, if all it involves is walking into an ffl, filling out the forms, walking out(post check) why not?

      My only problem with it is that in my state it means waiting ten damn days for it to be picked up.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I asked this question in another thread, but I didn’t get an answer. I have a buddy that I only see a couple times a year. He wants to borrow one of my guns. In Florida, I just give it to him. How would you handle that in California, with your laws? How do you differentiate (can you?) a transfer of ownership from a long-term loan? Do you just give it to him, like I do, or do you have to loan it through an FFL? If the latter, does he have to return it through an FFL?

        By the way, the answer to your “why not” question is simple. It’s none of their business. I don’t require government approval or acquiescence to transfer any other piece of tangible personal property from myself to another. This is no different.

        • avatarSid says:

          Matt in FL,

          I do need to move to FLto work on your campaign or would you prefer I stay in MS but mail a check?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I’m not sure what you mean, but I’ve never turned down free money.

        • avatarGSL45 says:

          Ask, and ye shall receive:

          http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1/4/s12078

          California Penal Code 12078 states that you can loan a firearm to another person for up to 30 days without an FFL transfer.

        • avatarTS says:

          Matt – I see someone answered the loan question below – but I’ll give you the quick and dirty CA transfer law.

          All firearm xfrs – rifle, handgun, shotgun, require DROS (incl NICS) and a 10-day waiting period. That includes private party, new dealer, used dealer, etc. The max fee for the DROS (dealer record of sale – which includes background check) is $35 – $10 of which goes to the FFL making the transfer.

          Spouses, kids, and grand-kids are exempt. You ONLY have to file paperwork and $19 fee.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Thanks to those of you who answered my California loan/transfer question.

      • avatarBob says:

        That costs money, and is very inconvenient, not to mention it would not have stopped any of the mass shootings. Most criminals (about 80%) get their guns from friends and family.

      • avatarThomasR says:

        Unreasonable? Unreasonable?

        Geez, you people are amazing.

        First off, look at my response above, the second amendment is to protect against tyranny in government and you want the possible tyrant to control the sales of these “liberty teeth” between law abiding citizens?

        Sencondly, if that means nothing to you, then how about the fact that more people have died fighting over ideas, like religion or the last hundred years with communism, so lets get logical and consistent and regulate and control all those dangerous activities, get a permit to get on the internet, get a permit to practice religion let’s not just pick on the second amendment.

        Let’s all just bow down to the supremacy of government and let them control and regulate everything in our lives.

      • avatarOutlaw says:

        Please, keep your bad California law in your own state and don’t compromise on my behalf. FFS, people.

        NOT ONE STEP BACK. NO COMPROMISE.

    • avatarDavid-p says:

      I may be on board with background checks with one condition. That condition would be that you don’t need to go through a ffl to transfer a gun. Why is it that an ffl can make a phone call to the nics system better than me. And if that is the case then why would I not be able to buy a gun online and have it shipped to my home address, as long as my ship to name and address is the same as the address on my drivers license, and I am there to sign for it. If that condition is not there then hell no I am not onboard with this. My local dealer decided to give in and start scalping people $75 for a transfer. Luckily for me there is another dealer 20 minutes farther that is only charging $20 right now. If they make it where you have to do it for private sales then I could see everyone raising their price. Don’t get me wrong I don’t have a problem paying a transfer fee but make it reasonable ($20-$35)

    • avatartdubb says:

      You might know if you buddy is a good guy but, how do you know that some one else won’t in inadvertently to sell a gun to a criminal or someone with mental health issues?

      That was one of the best ones I’ve seen, besides Uncle Teds.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I think this reply was directed at me, and just misplaced.

        The answer is I don’t know that someone else won’t inadvertently do that. But what I do know is that most people, in my experience, go way out of their way to avoid doing so.

        I don’t know if you’ve ever purchased a gun (or even ammo) through a private sale, like through GunBroker or ar15.com’s Equipment Exchange. I have, and in my experience, sellers get flighty at even a hint of impropriety on the part of a prospective purchaser, and the sites generally back that up. For instance, it’s very bad juju on eBay to offer something for sale, and then decide not to sell it to the high bidder. On the other hand, on the arfcom EE, it is a pretty standard rule that the seller is free to back out at any time prior to accepting your money. It happens, not often, but regularly, that in the conversation after making/accepting a purchase offer, the seller will hear something that he doesn’t like, something that makes him feel funny about the transaction, and he will decline the sale. If you’re the prospective buyer and you’re innocent, it sucks, but it happens. Without fail, the community will back the seller, because it’s his prerogative, and “we’re not playing around here.” Sometimes the seller is being stupidly unreasonable, but it’s still his prerogative to be cautious.

        • This.

          There are unsavory people who will sell guns to other unsavory people. Making the responsible ones go through a background check isn’t going to stop that.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Lord Platypus:

          you do realize that when you exempt private sales between individuals within the same state, you create the opportunity for people that can’t go to a dealer in that state (because they have a criminal record or a mental record) to purchase without questions being asked? It’s not just unsavory yet recordless people that sell firearms to criminals. The idea is not so much to put a burden on all, but to ensure that unsavory people can’t exploit the law.

          Last time I sold a firearm intrastate, I didn’t know the buyer, and in a few cases I purchased firearms from sellers that didn’t know me either. Either way, firearm and money was exchanged upon showing proof of residency (DL) and that was it. Not ideal.

    • avatarCpt. Howdy says:

      Here in the Socialist Republic of Illinois, we have the firearm owners identification card, or FOID. To get a FOID you have to go through a background check. When you purchase a gun, you have to go through another background check. And to buy ammunition, you have to present your FOID. So we go through background checks more than once. As far as CNN is concerned, they have NO credibility to me and they never will, with the likes of the pompous English circus clown they have masquerading as a journalist.

      • avatarBobtheGrape says:

        Piers Morgan won’t address the extremely high violent crime rate that STILL exists in Britain. They have draconian gun restrictions so that makes them safer. Safer from what, Piers? The muggings, robbings, rapings that are still happening in spite of your ridiculous gun laws. You need to go back to Ireland/Britain/England/the United Kingdom/the UK whatever you folks are calling yourselves now, and get your Limey overseers to correct all their problems before you attempt to tell us how to run our country!
        You’re not even an American citizen, so
        LIMEY GO HOME (LGH)!

        • avatarWilliam says:

          He can’t. He’s facing arrest if he does. Which is all the more reason to deport him back home.

    • avatarKeith says:

      It is interesting that background checks seem reasonable to a large number of people, even in the pro-gun circles. I admit that I have been ambivalent toward them myself. Considering it more carefully, I have come to suspect that they are yet another of the feel-good, yet marginally effective, barriers to firearms ownership.

      I am not at all good at trolling for statistics, and I wish I were because I would much like to find what percentage of “gun violence” is perpetrated by individuals with guns legally purchased via private sale without the NICS check. With this information I would have what I would need to make my own cost (in liberty) v. benefit (in safety) calculation.

      As Matt has mentioned here in these comments, it really is none of their business as to how and to whom I sell my own property. The cost in liberty of government intrusion here is not insignificant. So the benefit in safety, i.e., crime reduction, had better be high.

    • avatarJAS says:

      I see these checks as a non issue, and here’s why. For decades now all new gun sales have originated through an FFL. The individual ownership information is not kept at the Federal or State level. However, the FFL holder is required by law to keep meticulous records of transfers and those are often audited by the ATF. All the transfer records exist at the FFL source, and are easily obtainable by law enforcement if needed.

      If you sell a gun privately, and then it is used in a crime where the perp is still at large but the gun is recovered, The serial number will be presented to the manufacturer, who will direct LE to the distributor, and so on down the chain of transfer. Soon, there will be a loud knock on your door, trust me.

      On the other side of the coin; Would you like to find yourself in a situation where you unknowingly bought a gun through a private sale that was previously used in the past to commit murder? Wouldn’t you want to be able to prove that you bought it at such and such date, from such and such person, living in such and such address if somehow the gun was traced to you? I don’t and I do.

      If I sell a gun privately I have the other party sign my own document of transfer, which I keep forever. It states when it happened, the serial number and description of the firearm, the price, that they are a citizen of the U.S., that they have no felony convictions, and I require their Driver’s license be presented to me and the number recorded in the document along with their SSN. And then the buyer gets a copy, along with a copy of my original purchase receipt.

      Then again, that’s just me.

      • avatarMatt in SD says:

        What then shall the crime be, should you lose that piece of paper or it gets destroyed?

        I certainly wouldn’t want a felony hanging over my head for the rest of my life should I lose a piece of paper regarding a private transaction for personal property, whether it be 1 month ago or a decade ago.

        • avatarJAS says:

          The point is that if you bought the gun new and then sold it privately it will always come back to you. If I lose the paperwork from my fireproof file cabinet then I’ll be SOL. But that is the way it happens today. If you bought a new gun in the last 25 years or so, it will forever have your name on it. Regardless of FOPA

      • avatarJean Paul says:

        I’ve sold guns to people at gun shows multiple times. I’ve traded guns in to dealers,and outright sold them to dealers, too.

        I’m not worried. If I’m selling a gun to some potbellied white guy with a rifle on his shoulder, I’m pretty sure he’s not a criminal.

      • avatarelnonio says:

        Non issue? Hardly, and the rest of your post says as much. The original sale went through a dealer, yes. All other sales, provided they took place in state, wouldn’t be required to go through a dealer. Fail. That’s one reason I favor universal checks.

        Knock on the door.

        Detective: Miranda statement. We just recovered SN1234 at a crime scene. It was sold to you, so as the owner I need to take you in for questioning.
        Dude: Nope, I sold it.
        Detective: To whom? Do you have proof of sale?
        Dude: Don’t remember his name. It was at my local VFW/Walmart parking lot/Gun show. He showed me a valid state id. Paid cash. I have no record, not even a phone number or email. Sorry.

        Dude in this case is going to sweat a little more, but beyond that, no trace possible.

    • avatar.9mm says:

      In NC we have pistol purchase permits. These are obtained from the local sheriffs office for a small fee. They do a background check and either issue or deny the purchase permit. These permits are used for purchasing a handgun from an FFL as well as for face to face transactions. For a face to face sale, it ensures that the person you are selling to isn’t a felon. A concealed handgun permit can be used in place of a purchase permit. I would be ok with extending this same permit system to include long guns.

    • avatarjwm says:

      I’ll trade background checks for all purchases for nationwide constitutional carry, WC. That’s what compromise is, you give a little and we give a little.

      • avatarWC says:

        Background checks for repeal of gun-free school zone act. This is doable.

        • avatarjwm says:

          constitutional caary is not just gun free zones.

        • avatarWC says:

          There are some places where it is prudent that no guns be allowed. Consider the father who’s always been a law abiding citizen, and has a permit for a conceal carry weapon. It is prudent to not allow him to carry his gun to the trial of his daughter’s rapist, as he may want to just blow the defendant’s brains out.

        • avatarjwm says:

          True, courtrooms, IRS offices and some other sensitive government buildings. I’ve never had a problem with not carrying there, especially not now that most of these buildings have heavy duty security. I want the right to carry where joe average citizen is going to go in his everyday life.

        • avatarWC says:

          I believe private businesses should be allowed to make their own gun rules, rather be forced to allow guns if they don’t want them. If a bar owner thought alcohol and guns was a bad combo, he should be able to make his place a gun free zone.

        • avatarjwm says:

          As a non drinker I have no problem with bars being off limits. Private homes also have the right to ban guns. But public businesses that are open to people, no.

          You can’t open a store and then ban people based on race or religion. Gun ownership is a civil right just like the others.

        • avatarWC says:

          It’s a lot harder to leave your race in your glovebox than it is to leave your gun there.

      • avatarjwm says:

        We’re talking about a civil right. It might be a little inconvient to honor all civil rights, but i think we can do it. All it takes is people of good will all around. No hidden agendas, no creeping increments to encroach on any rights.

        When the anti gun side wises up to this we can have a serious talk about our rights and the safety of our streets.

        • avatarWC says:

          Ownership, not carry, is a right. Would you force a jewelry store owner to allow a big group of strangers wearing guns into his shop? He should be allowed to say, “Leave your guns outside,” and not be sued for saying it.

        • avatarjwm says:

          I don’t know how you conclude that ownership is a right but carry isn’t. Our rights are with us 24/7. And even the federal court in it’s judgement against Illinois blanket prohibition against carrying a gun recognises that our right to self defense is not limited to our homes.

    • avatarFallman says:

      Technically, shouldn’t the jurisdiction on non-FFL firearm transfers within a state be strictly the state government’s and not the federal government’s as the transaction does not involve interstate commerce? If so, each state could specify the law within their jurisdictions. I know legislation pertaining to this course exists (such as Montana House Bill 246/”Montana Firearms Freedom Act”) but judicial “clarification” is wanting.

    • avatarelnonio says:

      I am. If not, what is the point of having any type of background check? it simply makes no sense to say that sales interstate have to go through a check, or intrastate sales through a dealer only, but private sales aren’t subject to a background check. People don’t just sell to people they know, so it’s ridiculous to say that private sales should be exempt from a background check.

      What I don’t want is to have to go through an FFL to sell a firearm to a buyer in my state.

      I believe the public should be given the same type of access to the FBI as dealers have (phone), PLUS I believe they should make a website available to run the checks. IPhone app anyone?

  2. avatarkahless1984 says:

    I often look at this website on my phone, and the videos don’t always play well. Is there any way you guys could put even a short summary of what happens in the videos as text below?
    Much appreciated!
    This is an awesome site by the way!! I’ve learned so much in the past few months. And for the first time wrote a letter to our elected officials concerning the 2A.

  3. avatarEd says:

    He makes a few policy suggestions that I would question. But he stood his ground! David Webb made the point that parsing statistics is futile and to protect our rights this needs to be a citizen disarmament issue.
    I feel that in addition the citizen disarmament, somehow, the point that criminals are willing to break laws to further their enterprise must be made along with the re-branding of the AR-15 from an “Assault Weapon” to “everyday semi-automatic rifle”.

    • avatarAmuse Bouche says:

      Or, you know, just ‘rifle’. Giving these guns their own special category just makes it easier for that category to be demonised, or played as ‘special’. If the talking heads were on the news screaming about banning ‘rifles’ on the news every night, I think by and large John and Jane Q. Public would ignore them. It is decidedly difficult to pull an ‘I support the Second Amendment, but…’ when you’re screaming about banning rifles.

    • avatarBob says:

      Shapiro has a HUGE blind spot by calling AR-15′s “assault rifles“.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Normally I would agree, and when it’s in writing, I absolutely insist on the distinction, but in this case, I’ll give him a pass. In the limited time available to him, I believe he was letting it slide so he could make substantive points, rather than getting bogged down in definitions. Controlling the vocabulary is important, but if arguing about definitions costs you time to make your much more important points, you win the battle, but lose the war.

  4. Are you really saying Shapiro did a smack down to Piers Morgan? I didn’t see it that way. I thought it was a very evenly matched debate with neither guy overwhelming the other but the main points were won by Piers. The part about left vs. right, using Ronald Reagan as an example, made Shapiro look stupid. And the final minutes in which Piers got Shapiro to repeat his ridiculous and paranoid justification for owning an AR-15.
    “People aren’t stupid, they can make up their own minds.”

    • Ronald Reagan is not the Jesus of Republicans.

      • avatarStacy says:

        ‘Jesus’ is a strong word, though libertarians don’t tend to have Jesii anyway, but a person could do a lot worse for a role model. Reagan also wasn’t contending with an Alinsky-style attack on everyone who owns guns. If he was, he’d quite likely have taken the hard line. One thing Reagan really hated, because he experienced it personally, was the left’s penchant for demonization in place of debate.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        He SO not that. It matters little that “one could do far worse”. Debatable.

    • avatarFCMatt says:

      All you’ve done mike is prove you’re one of the historically blind sheep being lead to the butcher shop.

      So Gandhi, our founding fathers, millions of jews, and the descendents of hundreds of millions of people slaughtered by government over the centuries were all paranoid to think a government might some day use force against them? Sounds like a healthy mental state to be in to me.

    • avatarchris says:

      I’d have to disagree and say it made Piers look stupid.
      Shapiro’s justification for owning an AR-15, is the justification of the 2nd amendment– which is not stupid.
      From what I saw, Shapiro was offering valid arguments to Piers’ irrational conclusions, and although Piers’ introduction of Ronald Reagan’s letter into the debate was clever, he used it to trap him and avoid the breakdown of the situation into the “left” vs “right” debate that it pretty much currently is.

      • avatarchris says:

        Ahhhh, didnt realize Mikeb made that comment. I just wasted my time typing that response haha

      • avatarJean Paul says:

        I don’t suppose Piers realizes that the NRA collected donated firearms from Americans and shipped them to unarmed British citizens during WW2, does he?

    • avatarpat says:

      You can be a pelvic ashtray Mike, not me. All hail ‘Big Gov’.
      “Only water will come out of the showerhead all you naked folks are huddled around”. “Whats that smell you ask (Zyklon-B), er…nothing”.
      Trust us, we are the state. We took your power anyway so why even argue now.
      Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        pelvic ashtray.

        that really makes the hair on my neck stand up.

        personally, the only oven im going into is after im old and dead…at the funeral home. in the meantime, i guess ill arbitrarily cling to my guns, so that i dont become somebody’s lecter-esque human gallery.

        • avatarpat says:

          A wise decision. Cremation is way better for mother earth (good conservatives believe in……conservation).
          Our friend…er…aquaintance, Mike, dont get the ol’ ‘Big Gov’ as Big Bro thing. So the need for a second amendment is alien to him.

    • avatartjlarson2k says:

      Shapiro was on point. All he needed to say to the Reagan comment was that Reagan was just one man, a President. Reagan was not one of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution. It all about context.

      If you want to have a debate about the 2nd Amendment then you must debate the 2nd Amendment from the viewpoint of what the Founding Fathers interpreted it to mean, not Reagan’s interpretation of it.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Whether or not his justification for owning an AR-15 was “stupid” or not (which it wasn’t) is irrelevant. One does not need justification to practice a guaranteed right. I know that concept must utterly blow the mind of you tyrant-minded types who can’t fathom anyone living a life you don’t approve of, but there it is.

      • AR-15s may not be protected by the 2A anymore than stinger missiles are. We’ll soon see.

        • avatarSid says:

          Mike,

          Your right to free speech may not be protected by the 1A anymore.

          See the failure of logic?

        • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

          Mike,
          I am trying to find source for numbers, but according to a lawyer, who went on record, 20% of all rifles purchased in the last couple of years are AR style. Having said this, if we look back at SCOTUS decisions regarding what is common or not, this certainly would make it common. I forget exactly which decision it was, I think Miller, but the idea was that if the firearm in question was of common use then it is protected. If that is the case, then yes it is covered under the second amendment according to SCOTUS.
          As much as a stinger missile would be fun those are expensive, and not really re-loadable. The design was introduced in 1978. There have been improvements, but the basic idea has remained the same. It is 34 year old technology. To that end the AR-15 has been available to the public since 1958. The design hasn’t changed which is why it is so popular. That technology is 55 years old.

        • Doesn’t matter, they’re gonna go. You better buy a couple more quick and hide ‘em in the attic.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      I’m sorry, but anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can just look at who’s introducing all the gun control legislation and notice that they all have a common ideological background. The fact that Reagan was a supporter of the original AWB doesn’t change that, just like the occasional Democrat who isn’t so hot about gun control doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. Generally speaking, conservatives and libertarians support gun rights, and liberals don’t.

      As for the justification for the Second Amendment, I don’t think it’s paranoid at all. I’m originally from Brazil, and while I wasn’t around for it, in my parents’ generation Brazil went from a democracy to a military dictatorship, which lasted over two decades. I’ve had the experience of going through my mom’s wedding photos with her and have her start pointing out which of her friends the government murdered, disappeared, or forced into exile. That kind of thing hasn’t happened here in the US. Maybe a little bit of that has to do with the 300 million guns in private hands. And I’d feel a lot better about it if a good number of those guns are ARs with 30 round mags.

      • Anyone who thinks that AR-15s in civilian hands could successfully fight against armed drones and heavy military weapons is deluded. Sorry.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          Tell that to the lightly armed warriors in Afghanistan who fought the Soviets, or the insurgents in Iraq who gave the US hell in the second Gulf war.

          In practical terms you don’t need a lot of firepower to capture more firepower. I know a guy right now who could drive an Abrams tank.

          From a political perspective you don’t need to win every battle on even terms to turn the world in your favor politically. War isn’t a football game, where the side that has a bigger offensive line is going to win. You can stand up to a tyrannical power, lose the battle, and still win the war.

          But most importantly, from a philosophical perspective, you can prevent the war from ever happening by saying (to our populace, our government and the world) that our society values individual liberty over government control so much that we will not restrict the rights of our citizens to own and use the ultimate tool of government control.

        • That is the most foolish comparison imaginable. How much power did the Soviets bring to bear in far-off Afghanistan. You, unlike the Afghan warriors, would be fighting the US government in their own country. Don’t forget the military spending the US government does each year. You really want to compare that to whatever small percentage of the Soviet armed forces went to Afghanistan?

          Plus, you really want to compare the average gun fanatic in the USA with Afghan freedom fighters? It’s a joke.

        • avatarsurlycmd says:

          I disagree. The last 50 years is full of people fighting larger, better equipped armies for years. It would be bloody but it could be done. But if you are right and none of the active military defect and bring their weapons, or the supply of missiles and spare parts dry up due to sabotage or out right source destruction we would still fight.

          Because the principle is worth fighting and possibly dying for. So bow down before whomever you choose and STFU.

        • avatarjosh ogkw says:

          Seriously Mike, not to mention a few valid points already made, but I don’t see US servicemen dropping bombs on downtown phoenix or denver. This country will not have a civil war like it did, but it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that if House Joint Resolution 15 were to pass that things would end up turning violent. Shapiro’s point about AR’s and rifles like it being almost necessary in-case of a tyrannical shift is very reasonable and its not because people would be squaring off on open fields or deserts but instead outside capital buildings and governors mansions against the people who voted for the tyranny.

        • OK, Josh, your AR-15 and the extended magazines you have will be sufficient to fight off the ATF swat team when they come aknockin’. Now I get it.

        • avatarsindaan68 says:

          You make 2 assumptions in that statement:

          1. The military is willing to attack citizens of its own country. Sure some will some wont. I dont expect the Texas National Guard to go along with any of that.

          2. Ordering the military to attack US citizens is basically political and probably actual suicide for the US government.

          Use your brain. Sending the US military against its own citizens is a bad idea all the way around. The current government will be rendered null and void for such and action and my money is on a large percentage of the military not following that order to begin with. But keep dreaming about your leftist fantasy of hiding behind the military to “put us in our place”.

        • You’re the one making those bizarre assumptions, not me. I don’t think it’s even remotely possible. I’m just pointing out how foolish and paranoid you are to even consider it.

        • avatarVet says:

          I’ve seen this argument before, and for those who have never fought an insurgency it makes sense. However ive experienced different. Lightly armed Iraqis and Afghanis fought us to a standstill, certainly in Afghanistan and largely in Iraq. True, a whole mess of them died, but they were very effective. Further, the Iraqi and Afghani insurgencies were never as large as the damage they did would indicate, numbering only in the thousands. Any “civil war” would be very ugly, but citizens with small arms and determination should not be underestimated. This also assumes that many in the military didn’t sympathize with the “insurgents.”

        • You’re not considering two things.

          1. American gun owners are for the most part fat white men. There’s a reason for the cliché. They cannot be compared to motivated freedom fighters who are lean mean fighting machines.

          2. You would be fighting the US Military here in the US, not in some distant land where only a small portion of the forces are available.

          The whole discussion is so bizarre I hate even participating in it. It lends credence to your paranoid fantasies.

        • avatarAndrew Snyder says:

          AS per his MO, mike is deliberately being intellectually dishonest here.

          It doesn’t take much skill to ask Google or Wikipedia about the Soviet vrs Afghan conflict and learn that the soviets brought a lot of power to bear on the Afghans, it was actually one of the most uneven power and tech conflicts of the 20th century in the beginning. And as to the “far-off Afghanistan” comment, umm, do you know how to read a map mike? The Soviet Union and Afghanistan shared a really huge border. Your comment is pretty much exactly the same as saying Mexico is far off from the United States. But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just did not know that the Soviet Union was much bigger than the Russia of today, since it seems you suffer from an allergy to actual history.

          And speaking of history and the Soviet Union, let’s explore that a little more. The Soviet Union started because 10,000 armed men took Russia mostly through deceitful promises they never intended to keep. Nevertheless, it was a mere 10,000 against much larger, better trained and equipped government. The deceitful promises were to the leaders of that governments military, and caused most of them to stand down, an act they quickly regretted as the first thing the new government oversaw was their execution. Still, this is a clear case of a smaller less equipped irregular force taking down a larger better equipped government.

          Then they became the Soviets, and the Soviets became a superpower. Maybe you can recall from your childhood how their used to be two superpowers, the U.S. was one and the U.S.S.R (the first S stands for Soviet just so we are clear) was the other. The Soviet military had technology that rivaled the U.S. military tech of the time. The Soviet people had really strict gun laws that meant most private firearms were muskets. Yet perhaps you can do some Google searching on how that super power fell. Oh right, allergic to History, I forgot. Let me just give you a little, it shouldn’t hurt much. The Soviet Union, a superpower, fell to armed rabble wielding pitch forks and butcher knives with the occasional musket and antique rifle here and there. At least that is how it started. You see, the military was called in to squash the rebellion, trusted units even. But when they got there they looked out into the people they were to kill and many of them saw their parents or siblings and so the army split and turned on itself because about half the troops could not square following orders with killing their friends and relatives. So you may think the entire military here would be against the population, but I personally know many law enforcement and military and most would easily turn on the government if commanded to kill Americans.

          And there are many many historical factual examples of people with less advanced weaponry and training defeating better armed and trained regular troops. Maybe you have heard of the American Revolution (or the great rebellion as Piers Morgan would call it)? That is a great example of one of these.

          And perhaps you are also allergic to the news (or more likely wear blinders to see only the news you want), are you aware that just last year Libya changed government due to a mob armed with much less training and technology than the regular government forces? On their own home turf too, Gasp! Maybe you do not know in Syria the government trained and supplied forces are losing to what started as forces armed more with sticks and stones than guns and bullets, going against a force that included tanks, jets, and helicopters.

          So please MikeB, you may think you sound smart here (you don’t btw, you come across as very uppity and snotty). But until you stop spewing garbage that runs counter to actual factual historical precedence, no one else here thinks you any smarter than your average BS spewing know it all teenager. Also, you have the honesty credibility of a used car salesman, because that is a natural side effect of spouting off junk that runs counter to fact.

        • OK – OK, you’ve convinced me. Tyranny is coming and you guys will definitely overcome. Afterwards, you’ll have guys like Alex Jones and Mike Vanderboegh to lead you back out of the darkness. It’ll be swell.

        • avatarTim says:

          You’re absolutely right.

          Where can I go by a drone and an M1A1 Abrams? I’m even willing to do the background check.

          So here’s the other question, even if heavy military weapons could be owned by the public, would we all run out and start buying stinger missles? Does anyone know what a stinger missle costs?

        • avatargloomhound says:

          Don’t think think Iraq or Afghanistan think Ireland. There is a reason there are two of them and the British have played hell holding on to the one at times.

          If you think our “right wing extremists” can’t do as well as the IRA then you don’t know the country of your birth as well as you should you expatriate turd.

          If pushed this could turn into a nightmare that I hope to never see.

        • avatarBobtheGrape says:

          O.K., Mike, you can defend your family with your Remington 300 while others will be using their AR-15′s. It’s your choice, or maybe you’ll let the gov’mint just run you into a FEMA center and then there will be no more Mike. It’s your choice, Mike, die fighting on your feet or live for the rest of your life on your knees.

        • “Mike, die fighting on your feet or live for the rest of your life on your knees.”

          Yes, the only two possibilities of the deluded mind.

        • avatarJAS says:

          Let’s see…. First, let’s assume in favor of your argument and say that Posse Comitatus was suspended as Bush did in 2007 (repealed in 2008). The first question then becomes how many of the members of the armed forces would follow orders they considered unconstitutional? How many would defect to the opposition? How many LEOs? How many FLEAs?

          Then, how many gun owners would take up arms? For brevity’s sake lets say a million – a small percentage of the gun ownership population. That would still represent a numerically significant favorable ratio of armed militia to government forces. Some of them would have been trained by the government at some time in all their strategy and tactics and could pass that knowledge on. Some would be hunters, not armed with piddly, medium range firearms like AR-15s, but with the experience to use very powerful, very accurate, long range ones. Many, many others that were not directly involved in the shooting would materially support those that are, with all the implications therein. Never underestimate the will and efficacy of the free American people.

          In essence, a conflict like that could turn into a sniper/counter sniper bloodbath, with no “enemy lines”.

          That kind of conflict would not involve tanks, drones, etc. because the civilians killed as collateral damage by those weapons could be their own kin and friends, thus unacceptable. The uproar from families of innocent victims would be deafening, further turning the tide against government. Plus, the government would not be fighting an insurrection thousands of miles from home soil, with all the lack of consequences that implies. Families of government troops, for example, would be in the line of fire just like everyone else. Thus, the use of armed drones, tanks and other heavy weapons would pretty much be out of the question.

          It could get really, really ugly, something I pray I don’t see in mine nor my children’s lifetime. All this said, I am very confident that cooler heads will always prevail, not because of drones and tanks, but because that is who responsible, conservative, law abiding gun owners are. The cream of the crop.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          stop trolling. this has been refuted countless times.

          we lost the iraq and afghanistan wars. two nations smaller than california with comparatively small guerrilla armies carrying less sophisticated weapons than what americans have access to.

          we would be fighting the US government on their home turf? dont you mean OUR home turf? im intimately familiar with the passes, valleys, and draws around my home. i doubt some 18 year old PV2 from New Jersey knows the terrain like I do.

        • The fact that you’re defending this idea with your knowledge of the terrain proves that you’re a fantasy dwelling nincompoop. I hope that doesn’t get flame deleted because I kinda like that word for you and your like minded gun lover friends who live for the fantasy of fighting for your lives.

        • avatarMotoJB says:

          You’re such a twat Mike. You deserve to be bitch-slapped into oblivion.

        • avatarMatt in SD says:

          To quote you’re beloved Piers Morgan, “You’re an incredibly stupid man, aren’t you?” The fact that this right is precisely why we will never have to worry about how effective an any firearm is against a drone or even how effective any firearm is in leveraging a weapon that is effective against drones…

          But we’re not there and as long as our right is protected we won’t have to worry about that. So how about you worry about keeping yourself and your loved ones helpless, and we’ll worry about taking care of the big-boy stuff, mike.

        • No, the reason you won’t have to worry about it is not because of the 2A. It’s because the whole idea is a product of fevered paranoia. It’s the stuff of gun-lover fantasy. Just look at those ridiculous pictures of Colion Noir and the other one I saw today on the side bar. That’s what it’s all about, pretending to be fighting for your life.

        • avatarJustAJ says:

          @mikeb

          Spoken like someone with no military knowledge whatsoever.

        • avatartjlarson2k says:

          Better to have semi-automatic AR-15s than just be limited to pistols and shotguns. Mhmm.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “The fact that you’re defending this idea with your knowledge of the terrain proves that you’re a fantasy dwelling nincompoop. I hope that doesn’t get flame deleted because I kinda like that word for you and your like minded gun lover friends who live for the fantasy of fighting for your lives.”

          Right…im sure the founding fathers were “fantasy dwelling nincompoops too” LOL.

          I know the idea of freedom infuriates you. I know the likes of you take orwell and huxley as examples in application rather than lessons learned. you somehow believe, naively ill add, since we live in the 21st century and we have all of the modern conveniences of life, that we are somehow immune to tyranny. well my friend, we are still a very young and stupid country compared to the rest of the world. The US will make the same mistake that all greedy, imperialistic republics make.

          and you ad hom colionnoir? one of the most articulate and logical pro-gun supporters that we have on youtube!? that is hilarious. you have a propensity for personally attacking people whose points you cannot refute so this behavior doesnt surprise me in the least bit.

          go troll somewhere else. you live in your decaying italian state and cant legally own a firearm so what do you care?

        • Actually you should get out more. I refuted a number of things Colion said on one recent video. I called him a fast talking con-artist and backed it up.

          The founding fathers, the ones I like to call slave-owning misogynists, had good cause for concern. That’s why they worded the 2A the way they did, “A well regulated militia,” you know, the part you like to leave out.

          And, let’s not forget that you’re all over the place here. Colion talks about the hordes of home invaders who are going to attack sooner or later. Shapiro made his position clear, it’s the evil government that sooner or later will have to be stopped with your little civilian guns.

          Both are lunatic fantasies, and I imagine you subscribe to both.

        • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

          Mike…
          If i ever get a chance to go back I will invite you to come along.
          I served in Israel in the IDF, Givati regiment, division almond. We fought against Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists. They we very formidable with little resources. Rockets, and improvised explosives were made in garages and basements. Minus their AK’s and some longer rifles they didn’t have any heavy artillery. Yet they still inflicted great damage.
          I am not going to try and take the time to educate you on urban guerrilla warfare and tactics. I would suggest reading some of Tom Clancy’s Naval War College briefs though.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “Actually you should get out more. I refuted a number of things Colion said on one recent video. I called him a fast talking con-artist and backed it up.”

          oh really? well lets see this overwhelming evidence! im enthusiastic. i wont hold my breath.

          “The founding fathers, the ones I like to call slave-owning misogynists, had good cause for concern.”

          ah, a sad attempt to discredit the founding fathers and invalidate their legacy. by your logic, lets scrap the bill of rights because some founding fathers were slave owners LOL. we have a government that bypasses legal and democratic processes, deals drugs on our own soil, kills and tortures its own citizens and foreign nationals, and starts wars based on lies. but lets worry about those long deceased founding fathers. pathetic.

          That’s why they worded the 2A the way they did, “A well regulated militia,” you know, the part you like to leave out.

          DC VS Heller. Enough said. Apparently you know very little about the constitution.

          “And, let’s not forget that you’re all over the place here. Colion talks about the hordes of home invaders who are going to attack sooner or later”

          …Which has happened before. I suggest you research the statistics on multiple assailants committing crimes.

          “Shapiro made his position clear, it’s the evil government that sooner or later will have to be stopped with your little civilian guns.”

          well im glad you have that understanding. that is, after all, the purpose of the 2nd amendment: to provide the people with the means to overthrow tyranny. A little lesson learned from Europe.

          “Both are lunatic fantasies, and I imagine you subscribe to both.”

          Yes I have been calling the government out on its bullshit ever since I was allowed the freedom to speak after leaving the military and a certain government agency.

          learning history. lunacy. being vigilant of civil rights violations. lunacy. you have demonstrated that you are a pretty consistent statist. kissinger would be so proud!

          you actually make my cheeks blush because you are such a embarrassing liberal. im embarrassed for you.

        • avatarLeo338 says:

          Mike, there is one very important thing you fail to realize if this were to happen. Citizens would not only be at war with the government. They would also be at war with the liberal media and their sheep. Yes, that means you may very well be dragged into it whether you want to or not.

        • avatarBobtheGrape says:

          Mike is under the false conception that his guv’mint will take care of him. He has quickly forgotten the guv’mint’s “help” for the Katrina victims, the BP fiasco victims and more recently Sandy. Yeah, Mike, yer guv’mint does a real good job taking care of us. Oh,by the way, I have this bridge in New York I would like to sell, cheap. And I know you’d be interested.

        • You’re another tough-talking gun owner threatening people who disagree with you. That kind of talk really helps your side. Keep it up.

        • avatarMotoJB says:

          Hypocrite….moron troll.

    • avatarMatt in AL says:

      Are you saying its not left vs right? Sure, some lefties like their guns but this certainly is left vs middle and right! To say otherwise is to be dishonest.

    • avatarSCS says:

      Reagan was senile by the end of his Presidency. Hell, some one most likely put a piece of paper in front of him and told him to sign it. This is the basis of that idiot Morgan’s left/right argument?? Really?

      • avatarBobtheGrape says:

        Right on, SCS. I heard a brief program given by Helen Caldicott, M.D. She was approached by Reagan’s daughter, not the looney Maureen who became a U.S. Senator, but the other better looking one. Crap, I digress. She wanted Dr. Caldicott to talk to Reagan about nuclear dis-armament. Both of the women were taken aback by the fact Reagan’s white house library had no books on the shelves and that Reagan was talking about an intelligence briefing that he had in his hand, unfortunately, what he had in his hand was a Reader’s Digest. Reagan was suffering from dimentia early on in his presidency. I am sure you can get the audio tape from Dr. Caldicott or Democracy Now about her audience with Reagan. Reagan was not running the country George H.W. Bush apparently was.

    • avatarelnonio says:

      Who were the other two presidents on the letter? Carter and Ford. OK, so 2/3 Republican. All the same, while it is true that the gun control issue is not perfectly divided among party lines, it is disingenuous to not recognize that the polarization is indeed democrat/republican.

  5. avatarMotoJB says:

    AWESOME!!!!!

  6. avatarFCMatt says:

    Nope not at all. Farthest I would go is that AFTER the fact, if you let a kid or crazy person have easy access to your guns and something bad happened then you’re held responsible. AND THAT IS IT. No inspections, no banning kids from touching guns, no requiring all guns be locked up, just pure responsibility and parents making a value judgement on if their kid is responsible enough to handle a weapon.

    I think Ben is a tad naive to think we can have a registry and not have that proceed on to confiscation later, but at least he drew a line in the sand and said no further.

    Piers just proves over and over again what an idiot he is. I think he’s just reading this crap off a cue card and repeating it ad nauseum. He hasn’t made a good point in weeks now.

  7. avatarLance says:

    Ben Shapiro got a pat from me anyone who make jerky Morgan flip earns a good job from me.

  8. avatarDavid says:

    Piers keeps showing what an ignorant fool he is with every interview. Ignorant of history and ignorant of how weapons work and why citizens need them. But of course he’s from the U.K. where he was a subject! All the anti-gun media and the pro-gun media for that matter need to go to Frontsight for a submachine gun course. Then maybe they could talk semi-literately about guns.

    • avatarP says:

      I disagree. I think piers is smarter than most give him credit for and knows exactly what he is doing (see: bringing Alex jones on, as if that lunatic is representative of gun owners)

  9. avatarpat says:

    The kid did a pretty good job breaking the Brits beak.

  10. avatarDan says:

    Oh Piers. I can’t decide if you’re brilliant; playing into this role so well and collecting a huge paycheck… or if you really are this silly, silly man fluffing your tail feathers and puffing your chest, strutting around in utmost pomposity while solely utter drivel comes out of your mouth… and collecting a huge paycheck.

  11. avatartjlarson2k says:

    It’s about damn time.

    I was really starting to think all of the articulate, intelligent debate was completely gone from the media in general.

    This is exactly the short of discussion that needs to start happening. Articulate, to the point, unflinching logical debate about the right to bear arms and gun ownership.

    Some ideas for tweaks to existing gun ownership legislation aimed at keeping the guns out of the hands of “bad guys” and the mentally ill:

    1. Stricter and perhaps more comprehensive background checks (perhaps umbrella checks that encompass entire households as a form of risk assessment). Meaning, background checks won’t just involve the potential gun owner, they will now take into account anyone living under the same roof as the person wanting to own a firearm.

    Unfortunately, I think this is necessary because let’s face it, sometimes we can’t choose who we live with and often times, that person is an idiot. The gun laws don’t require you to own a gun safe. They should. The current gun laws don’t require you to store your guns any time you’re not in direct control of them — they should. This opens gun owners up for a bunch of liability from any irresponsible people they happen to live with.

    The idea behind the household background check is simply to provide reasonable and logical risk assessment of the people that will potentially have access (directly or indirect) with that firearm because of their proximity. This legislation tweak also aims to identify any mentally ill relatives or persons living under the same roof where the firearm will most likely reside when not in the hands of the lawful owner.

    Simply put, if you want less of a headache when purchasing a firearm, live alone or don’t live with irresponsible people. If you are the head of your family, know that your check may take longer as they’ll have to run a check on every adult in your household and you’ll have to declare (or assume responsibility) for anyone under the age of 18 with a history of mental illness.

    However, there is nothing stopping you from buying a firearm by yourself, then moving in with idiots which is addressed in my second idea…

    2. Gun safes or a limited access locked room in a home should be a (pre)requirement when purchasing a firearm. Additionally, there should be a fine and potentially a criminal penalty that may be applied to a law-abiding citizen that, through gross negligence, allows their legal firearms to fall into the hands of a mentally unfit person or criminal to commit a crime via gross negligence to store their firearms in a reasonable manner.

    If the firearms were acquired by means of forced entry (ie. someone broke down the door to the gun room or gun safe) or the entire safe was stolen, then that fine and penalty no longer apply since the firearms were obtained via criminal act.

    Only proof of gross negligence on the part of the law-abiding gun owner should be subject to this fine and/or penalty.

    So in a nutshell, if you (law-abiding citizen that owns a gun, or multiple firearms) fail to secure your firearms when you are away and not in direct control of them and those same firearms are used in a crime, then you can be fined or face criminal charges.

    • avatarJoe says:

      Can we agree that if we are to be held responsible for other’s actions with our firearms then people who pass these restrictions be held responsible if someone is denied a gun and is subsequently raped or murdered?

      In other words, if a law you passed caused me to be unable to buy a firearm, and if I tried and was denied, then shouldn’t you be an accessory to my murder? No? Then stop trying to pass laws that add more restrictions to me based on OTHER people misactions or stupidities

    • avatarWilliam says:

      And when a homeowner is killed because either a) they couldn’t buy a firearm because of a false positive (happens many times now, just think about the complications if checks occur on those you live with)
      or b) couldn’t get their firearm out of the safe in time (oh, please wait Mr. home invasion, I have to get my gun out.) Are they SOL?

      No. Err on the side of liberty. Encourage gun owners to buy a safe, give incentives like coupons or discounts, but mandatory purchases only disenfranchise new gun owners and you get crap legislation like California requirements.(Cal PC 12087)

      • avatartjlarson2k says:

        For starters, notice I said unattended firearms. You can carry on your person all you want, or have your firearm within arms’s reach.

        No one is stopping you from doing that, especially if you’re living alone. All the gun safe rule implies is if you are willfully going to leave your guns in your home unattended, you need to keep them in a safe or locked room or face a fine if it’s ever discovered that your guns were stolen because they were in easy reach of a criminal.

        Note the part where I said you would not be subject to a fine or any sort of repercussions if the criminal forced their way into the safe area the guns were secured.

        Unfortunately, this sort of fine would only occur in the event the firearms stolen were used in a crime and it was discovered after the fact that the firearms were not secured.

        This is similar to the suicide fine that can be placed on the families in Japan if a deranged family member decides to jump in front of a train. They get fined for interrupting public transportation schedules.

    • avatarJean Paul says:

      No.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      And the trend of finding anti-gun people posing as “reasonable” gun owners continues!

      • avatartjlarson2k says:

        @ Totenglocke
        So, by starting a discussion about two ideas:

        1. Being required (or perhaps strongly encouraged) to store unattended firearms in secure locations (a safe or a locked room) and

        2. Creating more detailed background checks that take into account relatives and people that live under the same roof

        These ideas somehow make me anti-gun? You’re labeling me based on two ideas.

        I never said these ideas were 100% prepped to go to legislation, they’re just ideas to counter the shortcomings specifically outlined in Sandy Hook — namely unsecured firearms and the fact that there were guns improperly stored in a household with a known mentally unstable individual.

        But I appreciate the other people that offered evidence of any of these ideas not working or having other side effects.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          “Encouraged” and “required” are two very different things. I can encourage you to give my friend a job and maybe give you some cash as an incentive – or I can “require” you to give them a job and savagely beat you and burn your home if you refuse.

          Requiring purchasing a gun safe means that A) the government now knows the name and address of every gun owner and B) it adds several hundred dollars to the cost of owning a gun – that makes it much hard for poorer people (especially college age people) to afford a gun and it makes life much more difficult for those who live in apartments due to moving costs.

          Punishing a person because someone else is a criminal or mentally ill is not even remotely just. Why should I be punished because my sibling stole a credit card? Again, you’re infringing on people’s right to own guns because of the actions of others.

          So yes, supporting both of those positions which will infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens makes you anti-gun.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      How do you verify that someone has a safe? Does their home get inspected? Do they produce a receipt? Who does the inspection? Who pays for it?

      My first gun was my only gun for about 8 months. During that eight months, except for the first few weeks before I had my carry permit, that gun was either within arms reach of me, or on my person. Why do I need to buy a gun safe, simply to satisfy your law? Many people buy one gun, for home protection, that they stick in the nightstand, and there it stays for the next 10 years or more, hopefully never used. You would require all of them buy a safe that they’re never gonna use? To what end?

      Name me another right, guaranteed by the Constitution, that requires me to pass a background check. Name me another right, guaranteed by the Constitution, that requires me to have other people pass a background check so that I can exercise it.

  12. Smackdown? Are you serious? That was Horrible!

    The MSM is purposely trying to demonize guns and make them sound “scary” and “evil” by referring to them as “assault” weapons. This is a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Ben should have called Piers out on this, but not only did he fail to correct him; he referred to them as “assault” weapons as well!!! He made a fatal error, he let Piers control the language. When the average joe hears “assault” weapon, they think it sounds “scary”, like a gun they would see in The Terminator or Scarface. Ben played right into his trap and referred to the guns as “assault” weapons; knowing damn well they were not “assault” weapons….and that’s just inexcusable!

    The only thing anybody who hasn’t already chosen sides in this fight will gather from this is that “assault” weapons were used in the shootings!!!! I’ll take Alex Jones any day over that!

    • avatartjlarson2k says:

      So you’re discounting all the good points Shapiro made along with him calling Piers Morgan out on multiple levels of his BS because he didn’t address the terminology of “assault weapon”?

      On the contrary, Shapiro used the term “assault weapon” to bolster his argument about handguns vs. “assault weapons” to show how ridiculous the terminology was when he mentioned “assault weapons” are hardly used in shootings overall.

      Shapiro backed up his points with facts that anyone could look up and asked questions that made sense (ie. if Adam Lanza didn’t use his “assault weapon”, there’s no logical reason he would not have used his handguns) and make Piers look like an imbecile. I love the part where Shapiro called Piers out on banning handguns vs. banning “assault weapons” because handguns were used in the majority of gun violence statistics.

      Piers backed up his opinions by essentially saying “3 people agree with what I say, so I’m right”. It’s idiotic.

      • He may have made some good points, but he made a HUGE error in letting him control the language of the debate. It was a fatal flaw IMO.

        If you were a car guy; would you let someone you are arguing with refer to a Volkswagen as a Porsche, just because the idiot you are arguing with knows nothing about cars? Wouldn’t you call him out on it? You surely wouldn’t refer to the Volkswagen as a Porsche yourself. If you did, then somebody listening, who knows nothing about cars, now thinks that a Volkswagen is a Porsche. You might win the overall argument, but what did the listener come away with? That a Volkswagen is a Porsche.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Shapiro also made the huge mistake of saying he supports a national gun registry.

  13. and another thing….why do we give a rat’s ass about Piers Morgan? Stop giving him the ratings.

    • avatartjlarson2k says:

      Because he’s loud and he’s seemingly the only one talking. If the pro-gun people had their version of Piers Morgan that was on all the time (but not a total moron), well, that would be a different ballgame.

      This is simply a case where the media happens to be in bed with the left and anti-gunners.

      We need our voices heard. So that’s why we give a crap about Piers Morgan and that is why we need more Shapiro’s showing up on his show to illustrate how baseless Piers’s “arguments” really are.

      • You’re giving him too much credit. The only people who watch his show are brain dead Liberals. He has no ratings except for when we give them to him.

        • avatarJacob says:

          How is TTAG giving Prick Morgan Ratings? When the video is not hosted on CNN? If it was on CNN website then I can see your point.

        • Wasn’t specifically talking about the YouTube video itself or TTAG….What I meant was that people on our side should stop going on his show and debating him over the matter. The guy is an idiot and it’s obvious he has an agenda. When someone goes on his show it just gives his show higher ratings because many on our side will tune in to watch. Let him talk all he wants with people who agree with him. The only people watching his show are stupid Liberals. He’s one of the lowest rated shows on CNN. When someone goes on his show, such as Alex Jones or Larry Pratt, it only helps his ratings.

        • avatarThomas Paine says:

          Didn’t the average Howard Stern listener listen for 60 minutes, and the average Howard Stern ‘hater’ listened for ’45′ minutes.

          Something like that.

  14. avatarSam C says:

    Shapiro missed something: the primary weapon in the Colorado shooting was a Remington 870 Wingmaster. Also, don’t call them “assault rifles.”

  15. avatarJohn says:

    What Ben should of asked him is why is it that a former talent show judge has the right to judge me and the US Constitution. Also, if you notice at 3:36 Piers says that in Great Britain it is never about left or right. I would of said “your right Piers this is not Great Britain and that’s your problem this is the USA and to me it sounds like you don’t like it here so my question to you is why are you here?”

    By the way is Piers a US citizen??

  16. avatarRusseh says:

    Piers, Piers…
    It is a matter of Left VS Right, but in this case, the Right is actually the Center, or anyone to the right of THEM. It is a matter of American Statists (in modern terminology, Liberals/Socialists) versus American Centrists (an amalgamation of everyone to the right of JFK, from the staunchest Libertarians to the few remaining non-leftist Republicans).
    I can think of a few things that need to improve, with regard to gun laws.
    1 Liability for negligently allowing weapons into the hands of criminals/the insane/untrained children. This is probably already legally solid. I doubt any new laws would need to be written.
    2 Automatic destruction of 4473s. Few weapons used in crime are traced to straw buyers using these forms, anyway. It’s a looming threat to citizens everywhere. If the government wants to start confiscating weapons, that’s where they would start. Remove the temptation.
    3 Maintaining a database of CHL permit holders or ANY sort of firearms registry should be illegal. CHL permits shouldn’t be necessary, anyway, but that’s another argument. Make it a felony for private citizens to maintain the information of others without written permission.
    4 I don’t think we should make background checks a legal requirement for private sale. I’d would, however, LIKE to be able to use it when conducting a private sale (see point 1). When I meet someone who wants to buy a gun, I’d like to be able to run a drivers license or other ID through a background check system, the same as the gun stores do. It would go a long way towards keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Have the local cops set aside a room in the police station for transactions, to help avoid any funny business. Just a name and an ID number, seller and purchaser. Forever in the ether afterward, as if it never happened.
    5 Disband the BATFE and DEA. Keep the few useful parts of those organizations and roll them into the Customs and Border Protection, or the FBI. Bring Holder and his cronies up on charges.
    6 End the tax stamp and restrictions on barrel length, suppressors, etc. It is a stupid, meaningless restriction that forces the law abiding to suffer meaningless financial hardship and waste of time. It may well be that a 10″ suppressed AR with an attached light is the ultimate home defense weapon. It shouldn’t cost a lot of money to buy, or take a lot of time. It shouldn’t require “government approval”.

  17. avatarIvy Mike says:

    Nobody ever talks about the violence-inducing drugs.

    SSRI Stories
    Antidepressant Nightmares
    “We Speak for the Dead to Protect the Living”
    http://ssristories.com/

    And now for a word from our sponsors.

  18. avatarSilver says:

    A British-born subject trying to convince Americans to be subjects as well. A man from the country that spawned the revelation that the Second Amendment is needed for free men, telling us we don’t need it. I don’t understand how any self-respecting American could do any more than laugh at such a ludicrous creature.

  19. avatarDoug says:

    Well, he’ll never be invited back to Piers Morgan’s show.

  20. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I only made it 0:54 in before I started laughing, when Piers said, “How dare you…” and then, “Like I say, ‘How dare you…’”

    He literally had no way to refute Shapiro’s allegation of standing on the graves, other than his own indignation. Newsflash, bub: This isn’t 18th century England, and you don’t get to stifle discussion simply by saying, “How dare you…” and expecting someone to stop simply to conform to social norms. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and people are allowed to call you on it.

  21. avatarTheSimpleTruth says:

    What people don’t understand is that Piers Morgan does not give two shits about facts. Neither do most other anchors and “journalists”, or really anyone who works in national, mainstream news. Facts don’t sell anymore, controversy does. You can not debate with this man, because he doesn’t want to debate you. He wants to piss you off.

    Piers Morgan makes big bucks when people tune in. The more viewers Piers brings CNN, the more advertisers will give them money to appear during his show. In return, he will earn more money. Simple as that. Today’s journalism is dominated by results, clicks, and viewers, not substance, fact, or “truth”.

    Now, how does he get those viewers? By being polarizing and pissing people off. On the one hand, this galvanizes the audience that agrees with him, on the other hand it infuriates the opposition, which will in turn give him more exposure and air time. This worked well for countless other assholes on both sides of the aisle, whether it’s Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, or Bill Maher. That is all that man does, whether it is on twitter, facebook, or TV – and it is working really really well. If he stopped pissing you off tomorrow, you would forget about him. That means no controversy, less viewers, and less money. He needs controversy to be relevant..

    The only way you can voice your disagreement with his tactics and antics is to ignore him. Don’t tweet about his rants and don’t click on his facebook. Don’t watch CNNs videos or buy his books. Don’t buy from companies that advertise on his show. Clicks, viewers, and ultimately money are the only means through which you can combat these demagogues.

    If you want to know the real Piers Morgan and his qualities as a human being read this.. The guy will do anything for money, including putting soldiers lives at risk by publishing lies to gain readers and exploiting the mass-murder of schoolchildren to boost his previously fledgeling viewership.

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Here’s the article less photos:

      Editor sacked over ‘hoax’ photos
      (the editor being Piers Morgan; BtG comment)

      The Mirror board said Morgan would be stepping down immediately
      Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake.
      In a statement the Mirror said it had fallen victim to a “calculated and malicious hoax” and that it would be “inappropriate” for Morgan to continue.

      The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR) said the Mirror had endangered British troops by running the pictures.

      Roger Goodman, of the QLR, said the regiment now felt “vindicated”.

      Mr Goodman added: “It is just a great pity it has taken so long… and that so much damage has been done in the meantime.”

      The Daily Mirror… apologises unreservedly for publishing the pictures and deeply regrets the reputational damage done to the QLR and the Army in Iraq

      Mirror statement
      At a news conference in Preston on Friday afternoon, the regiment demonstrated to reporters aspects of uniform and equipment which it said proved the photographs were fake.

      The regiment’s Brigadier Geoff Sheldon said the vehicle featured in the photographs had been located in a Territorial Army base in Lancashire and had never been in Iraq.

      He said the QLR’s reputation had been damaged by the Mirror and asked the newspaper to apologise because the evidence they were staged was “overwhelming”.

      The Conservatives said they hoped lessons had been learned from the row.

      Deputy leader and foreign affairs spokesman, Michael Ancram, said: ”Looking at the facts objectively, this is the right thing for Piers Morgan to have done.

      “The photos that were published in the Daily Mirror have done great damage to the reputation of our troops, who are serving under some of the most difficult conditions in Iraq.”

      ‘Recruiting poster for al-Qaeda’

      The photos published in the Mirror on 1 May appeared to show British troops torturing an Iraqi detainee.

      In one picture a soldier is seen urinating on a hooded man while in another the hooded man is being hit with a rifle in the groin.

      Colonel Black, a former regiment commander of the QLR, said the pictures put lives in danger and acted as a “recruiting poster” for al-Qaeda.

      However one of the Mirror’s informants – Soldier C – said there had been abuse in Iraq.

      The Territorial Army solider has been questioned by Royal Military Police after talking about his claims to the Daily Mirror.

      On ITV’s Tonight With Trevor McDonald he said: “It did go on, it wasn’t all the army, it wasn’t systematic but it did happen.”

      Downing Street refused to comment on the issue, saying it was a matter for the Mirror board.

      This was about the life of British soldiers, and you can’t tough it out when you’re wrong

      Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times

      Reaction to Morgan sacking
      The BBC’s Nicholas Witchell said it appeared Piers Morgan remained unrepentant right to the end

      “According to one report Mr Morgan refused the demand to apologise, was sacked and immediately escorted from the building,” he said.

      Morgan will be replaced on a temporary basis by his deputy, Des Kelly.

      The newspaper released a statement saying: “The Daily Mirror published in good faith photographs which it absolutely believed were genuine images of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner.

      “However there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that these pictures are fakes and that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a calculated and malicious hoax.

      “The Daily Mirror therefore apologises unreservedly for publishing the pictures and deeply regrets the reputational damage done to the QLR and the Army in Iraq.

      “The paper will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation.

      “The board of Trinity Mirror has decided that it would be inappropriate for Piers Morgan to continue in his role as editor of the Daily Mirror and he will therefore be stepping down with immediate effect.”

      The Sun newspaper had offered a £50,000 reward for “information about the fake Mirror photos” but withdrew the offer following the sacking of Morgan.

  22. Klein is pretty fast on his feet and stood up well against Morgan. However, It’s was disappointing to hear him repeatedly classify AR-15′s as “assault rifles” – something they clearly are not.

  23. avatarThomas Paine says:

    11:24 – piers : “you come in here and brandish your little book……”
    Shapiro: “That’s the Constitution of the United States”
    piers : “I know what’s in there .”
    Shapiro: “Do you?”
    piers: “i’ve been doing this for a long time”
    Shapiro: “then you should read the Second Amendment”

    WTF!

    • avatarWLCE says:

      that was perfect. piers made a bed of knives and skewered himself on it. i even winced when he said that because i knew what that “little book” was. LOL.

      what a ass hat. it was nice finally seeing somebody hand him his ass. then he brings up the ronald reagan red herring to divert some heat away…”oh sure, its not just the left”. right because ive seen truckloads of conservatives and centrists frothing at the mouth over gun control LMAO!!!

  24. avatarTim says:

    I would love to know how Reagan defined an assault weapon, and whether our not he meant the full auto variety.

    As for background checks for all sales, i think many of you who are sucking on the NRA teat had better wake up. The NRA will lose the war by fighting without compromise the “no new laws” battle. Universal background checks is an easy one to compromise on for anyone who agrees that every gun owner must take the personal responsibility of keeping guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. If we don’t compromise on this issue we lose much if not all credibility in our own desire to reduce gun violence.

    Make the background check system available to everyone and how could we possibly argue that this its not a prudent measure that doesn’t infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens?

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I wondered the same thing, but since that letter was written in support of passing the 1994 AWB, I’m going to make the assumption that he defined it the same way the proposed (and eventually passed) law did.

    • avatarPascal says:

      I am of two minds — on one hand I am not in compromising mood because the anti-gun ground will always want something more. On the other hand I feel the country is pushing the govt to do “something” even though the majority are clueless

      We have always had NICS checks and sales authroization numbers in CT and the system has not prevented private sales — many of us who have sold privately often even know the voice and names of the person at the DPS who gives us a sales authorization number. And, it is free. I can also see needing a firearms license to purchase ammo provided they had a way for this to work for internet sales as well. This would lead to sales tax on all ammo sales

      If they do it this way, I don’t have a problem. I also agree, something will have to be offered up. Something always does in a compromise.

      We also need to stop this govt tyranny meme. The anti-gun crowd LOVES the govt and wishes the govt would f* them in the a** every night. The issues should be about “choice”. Freedom is about “choice” when you eliminate “choice” you loose Freedom. By defnition, the lose of choice is the lose of Freedom. If you are going to eliminate “choice” from gun owners what other choices should we eliminate. We can say Bloomberg already wants to set a model to remove choices from what we eat. There are groups who want to eliminate chooice from what we watch and what we read — what other choices should the govt eliminate. How many choices should the govt remove? American have always had a right to choose and the govt is trying to eliminate choice.

      • avatarMauser says:

        Agreed on the ‘government tyranny meme’. Although this is the purpose of the second amendment, and it’s very clear to us on the pro gun side, we will not win over any FUDDs, fence-sitters or moderates using this argument. It’s an exercise in futility.

        Shapiro should have made the point that gun owners don’t have to justify a need to own ‘assault weapons’. It’s our right to own them. The onus is on the government to prove why the right should be limited. However terrible these mass shootings are, they are still very rare. According to the 2010 FBI data, handguns were used in 17 times more murders than rifles of any type, knives were used nearly 5 times more often, personal weapons (hands, feet, fists) were used twice as often and the shotgun rate was the same as rifles. This is clearly not compelling data to support a ban of ANY rifles.

      • avatarJoe says:

        No! Why do WE need to compromise? It already can take 9 months and extra money to get a SBR or a suppressor, for no good logical reason! We can barely own full auto weapons and that availability will continue to drop as years pass by. We hav already compromised, and as the Germans showed the world after Poland, enough is never enough

      • avatarWilliam says:

        One side is always expected to offer the “compromise”. You need to look up the definition of the word “compromise.”

  25. avatarPhilthegardner says:

    It’s amazing how bullies are reduced to sputtering “how dare you’s” when they find that their bullying doesn’t work. I don’t agree with everything that Mr. Shapiro says but I would rather support him any day than some brain-dead gun banning lib.

  26. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Followup: Larry King, who hosted the show in that timeslot before Piers Morgan, thinks that Morgan makes the show too much about Morgan.

    Article here on Breitbart, links to video on HuffPo (warning: video autoplays on opening).

  27. avatarThrownunderabusinWV says:

    Just an idea for a “conversation” with anti-2As–since their argument centers on stripping our 2A rights “if it saves one child”, then the same argument should be made against the those that depend on the first amendment, like ol’ Piers. As an example, when a child commits suicide because they were bullied on Facebook, should we not shut down the internet to save a child’s life? We would still have newspapers to satisfy the older crowd not interested in the internet, but regardless of any other purpose the internet would serve, it would have to go.

    Its all a bunch of BS, but it’s amazing how quickly their logic would be foolish if turned around on them.

  28. avatarO.E says:

    The little guy is a schmuck, big pharma and the gun lobby are over the moon people like him are being moved into the debate.

  29. avatarJ- says:

    To answer Piers Morgan’s question “why do civilians need assault weapons?” I propose this answer:

    “Mr. Morgan, your question shows the fundamental philisophical difference between your school of thought and mine. You want a justification for ownership. You believe a civilian should have to show the state a good reason to own such a weapon, and if no ‘good’ reason exists, ownership is barred. I disagree. In a free society, one that prides itself on the liberties it grants its citizens, no law abiding person should show need, or require special permission to own the weapon of their choosing. That is the very essence of freedom. The only limit on the types of fireams I can own should, as a law abiding citizen, be what I can afford. My freedom trumps your false sense of security, every time. In a free society, and dare I say Mr. Morgan that the usa is perhaps the last free society on earth; my fundemntal rights should not/cannot be restricted or require ‘just cause’ becuse of what a few crazy people did.”

    • avatarO.E says:

      The answer can be found when looking at the Russian and Georgian conflict. Long rifles can stop livelihood being destroyed by invading armies (see the number of incidents involving Russian looters and passive victims).

  30. avatarmiles says:

    Well done Sir, Finally somebody with the guts to say directly to that limeys face what he’s been doing all along, and he didn’t rant and rave or back down an inch.. I dont need a book about bullies but it looks like Im gonna buy one now just to support the guy.. Well played sir, Well played

  31. avatarAndy Majors says:

    Mr Shapiro did an outstanding job! Stood his ground. Remained calm & articulated his point well. I agree with most of the solutions he offered up as well to help solve this problem. Better background checks to include persons with violent historys or mental disturbances does not infringe on our rights. Neither does waiting periods or mandatory safety classes or special permits for semi autos or mandated steel safes for firearms or any other slew of laws that help keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldnt have them. An absolute ban of a certain type of firearm DOES however violate our rights & this is what we need to concentrate on & keep from happening. Piers is an idiot who obviously doesnt understand what the 2nd amend stands for. I loved how frustrated Piers was getting near the end & how he was loosing his composure because he knew he was getting his ass kicked on his own show he he he. Now as much as I dont like doing this on public forums; mikeb302000 you are the one who is delusional. If the American patriot had to stand up once more & fight for liberty in a modern American revolution the patriot would win NOT the government. First off history is repleat with examples of how smaller forces have overthrown more powerful forces through sheer will & force of arms. The Soviets brought massive military power to Afghanistan in the 80′s & got their asses kicked. We kicked the shit out of the British to win our independance & he list goes on & on. Secondly, the number of American citizens who would pick up arms against this government if we ever needed to is MASSIVE. We would outnumber any armed forces 20 to 1 at least & thats a conservative number. Thirdly I happen to know for a fact that at least 30 to 40% (probably closer to 60% though) of the current personel in the military would not bear arms against a civillian population in a revolution. The Armed forces of America are sworn to defend the Constitution & the bill of rights NOT the government & dont you ever forget it.
    That is all, carry on.

  32. avatarBeninMA says:

    Shapiro was effective and would have been more so if he hadn’t made this all about “The Left.”

    I’ve listened to the BBC enough (please don’t judge) to know that Piers Morgan employs the pugilistic interview style favored by the Brits. While it may work ok for interviewing, it wears thin in an actual debate. In this case, Piers comes across as less than honest when he says he doesn’t want to ban handguns. And anyone who has followed his coverage of firearms knows that he’s just lying outright.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Piers told Tony Robbins he wanted to ban all guns last night. It’s out there.

      • avatarBeninMA says:

        I saw that in last night’s digest. Thanks for pointing it out:

        • avatarMotoJB says:

          Hearing him say that over and over in this video hurt my head. I want to smack that guy silly.

        • avatarBobtheGrape says:

          O.K., Piers, as you put it, “I’ve got to make a stand somewhere…” So this is my stand: your country has passed extremely restrictive gun controls laws, but it has the highest violent crime statistics in Europe. You need to go back to Ireland and start cleaning up in the British Isles. When you get that done then you can come back here, apply for U.S. citzenship and then, maybe you could shoot your weenie mouth off about gun control. The reason we wrote the Declaration of Independence was because we were tired of putting up with self-righteous, pompous asses like yourself. LGH!

  33. avatarBobtheGrape says:

    We really don’t need an a**hole like Piers Moron, oops, Morgan to tell us how to manage our country. Why did he leave England, Britain, the United Kingdom or the UK or whatever they are calling themselves today? It certainly wasn’t because he solved all the violence in the British Isles by banning guns and enacting those highly restrictive gun control laws. He won’t even talk about the violent crime rates in the UK. Even without guns being abvailable, the UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe or maybe even in the world. Piers go back to Ireland and see if you can get your Limey overseers to straighten out your country and Britain before you tell us how to run ours. We don’t need your lame-ass kibitzing in our affairs. LIMEY GO HOME!

  34. avatarguzzimike says:

    I appreciated that Shapito remained calm & respectful through the whole segment. I hadn’t even heard of PM before a month or so ago but my observation is that like so many other liberal/left leaning folk when presented with valid arguments all they can do is huff & puff as tho you insulted them. It also seems that w/PM the calmer the guest is the more psycho he is (Larry Pratt, John Lott,etc)

  35. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Aurora, Sandy Hook, Portland, etc. Sure they involved semi-automatic rifles, but has Piers ever considered what the police who responded to those tragedies were carrying? Why do I NEED an assault rifle? Why do the police NEED assault rifles? Why do I need a 20 ounce sugary soda? Why does this pompous foreigner NEED to know why I feel the NEED to own anything?

  36. avatarCapt. Howdy says:

    I don’t own any assault weapons. I own semi-automatic rifles. People need to stop letting the left define the terms.

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Capt., I hope that you don’t have one of those semi-automatic rifles that can fire 2o – 100 rounds per SECOND, as was stated in the article about NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Cong. Giffords husband, Mark I don’t remember his last name. I am sure that a semi-auto can’t fire 20 rps which comes out to 1200 rpm or 100 rps which comes out to 6000 rpm. (For those of you who don’t understand my abbreviations: rps = rounds per second & rpm = rounds per minute.) If you have one of those semi-autos let me know where you purchased it, I want one.

      1200 rpm would requre 40 – 30 round magazines; 6000 rpm would require 200 – 30 round magazines. Their argument gets extremely dubious when you sit down and do the math. Regardless, that’s a lot of ammo to carry around. To make the argument more ridiculous @ 20 rounds per second you would be changing 30 round magazines every 1.5 seconds to maintain your rate of fire. @ 100 rps, well, lets not go there.

  37. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Please tell me why anyone would go on this jackass’ show. He asks a question and interrupts before you can get three words out (Shapiro got out 4 or 5 because he’s a fast talker). Our side should just not agree to send anyone to “debate” him. Or at least start out the conversation with, “It is Piers standard operating procedure that he asks a question but won’t let his guest answer without jumping in. I will post complete answers to every one of the upcoming questions on the website ____________ later today.”

  38. avatarLarry says:

    Reagan, Carter, and Ford said that statistics prove they could dry up the supply of these weapons. Ben Shapiro should have responded when that comment was made by Reagan, that was before 10MM+ of these guns were bought by law abiding citizens.

    There’s NO chance of them drying up the supply with our criminalizing tens of millions of people.

    The point also isn’t if, or if not, the United States is going to go tyrannical; but rather that we the American people are another “check and balance” to our Government. Just like the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches are checks.

  39. avatarAharon says:

    “dancing in the blood”
    I think the phrase used was “standing on the graves”.

    Ben Shapiro was great! Ben used facts, history, and reasoning and kept PM under control. I don’t care that Ben called them assault weapons. He got out the key point that the 2A was created to stand up to government tyranny.

    http://benjaminshapiro.com/

  40. avatarChas says:

    Trying to have a logical, reasoned debate with people like Piers Morgan is nothing more than an exercise in futility. They simply do not want to hear the truth. It’s a waste of time.

  41. avatarAlex says:

    Morgan has clearly found a topic he can exploit for improved ratings. I wonder how many more views he has had from pro-gun people alone? I don’t think he really cares about this argument at all – he just wants to promote his show and has found a really good way to do it. Personally, I’ve never watched one second of his show before the clips of him berating Larry Pratt showed up on Facebook. Now, combining all the clips I’ve watched, it’s probably getting close to an hour of total viewing. We might consider that it’s time to stop feeding the troll.

  42. avatarAWW says:

    I love how this ended up with Piers demanding an explanation for “why does a civilian NEED to own an assault rifle!?”

    It is not an issue of need; it is an issue of the Constitutionally enumerated right to own one.

    But if we must provide a “need” or further justification I offer this…

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    -George Washington

  43. avatarPatrick B. says:

    It’s unfortunate that the framers chose just two sentences for the 2nd Amendment to get the point across – I believe they must have thought it was pretty clear. Rather than a bunch of 21st century interpretations, a review of the Federalist Papers can provide much better insight on their though processes about basic rights. A fine example:

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84:
    “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

  44. avatarTyler says:

    Epic. I don’t agree with everything he said but would like to shake his hand non the less.

  45. avatarFreddy says:

    This is the “Jesus Interview!” The most outstandingly debated Pro-2A’er on CNN to date. Shapiro is by far, the most level-headed, intelligent, well-spoken, articulate, factual, and tit-for-tat/balanced Piers gun guest I’ve seen in the last several months – if not ever. Well done!

    My ONLY criticism is that he should have also argued (as a secondary rebuttle) the need of “high capacity” semi-autos for home defense in the (albeit rare) event of a determined crew of home invaders.

  46. avatarjoey says:

    If that pasty pile of Euro-trash had to walk home on the mean streets of New York at night instead of being chauffeured in a limo, he’d change his mind about self-protection. I’d like to knock that smirk off that limey’s face…no fvck that…I’d like to knock his block off.

  47. avatarJavier says:

    What do think Mr. Morgan would say about this :
    http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

  48. avatarchewcudda says:

    My post seems to disappear:

    please tell me why this will not work as a gun check

    I want to sell my SCAR 16 to a stranger.

    1. We walk over to the background check table (run by the ladies aux or the local FUDD club)

    2. he fills out the form with name, address, SSN, place of birth, et al. on the bottom of the form there are three check boxes RIFLE, PISTOL, SHOTGUN.
    below is a place for the SSN of the weapon.

    3. billy joe bob calls NICS for us and does the background check. yeah or nay. no wait 3 days or 7 days or 10 days. yes or no.

    4. We get the form back. both sign it. it is carbon copy. owner gets the original, buyer gets the copy. we part ways.

    that way six months down the road if the gun i sold is used in a crime I show who purchased the weapon. I you bought my weapon then you can prove where you got the gun from if it gets identified as a murder weapon for some reason.

    I know some are saying that it nobodies business who i sell to. well we gonna get butt raped if they instatute there ideas…

    Is there a problem with this…. I understand if i missed a glaring hole in my system.

  49. avatarluigi says:

    overall, good job by shapiro, but like many, i share some general frustrations. some comments:
    -frustrating to not see someone really push back in this type of public venue on the issue of ‘assault weapons’ and clear up the general public’s misconceptions, including
    -the actual definition, and how misleading it is
    -actual very small number of so called AW in this country (about 1% of all firearms)
    -the fact that “AW” are used in about 1% of gun crimes
    -the utility of the “AW” in personal defense, when compared to other firearms
    -the utility of larger magazines in self-defense, and the fact that smaller mags will not make a difference in a mass shooting scenario

    -the immediate jump to discussing mass murder also needs to be addressed. any potential interviewee should becomed versed in grant duwe’s book on the history of mass murders in the US, in which he demonstrates that
    -mass murder peaked in the 1920′s
    -mass shootings peaked in the 90′s (at 42, although we are on that pace or more now, with 14 post 2010)
    -his conclusion: about as common as being hit by lightning – horrific and scary idea, but pretty rare. we therefore need to tread very carefully when creating public policy around such rare events

    -the interviewee should also push back if the issue is gun crime in general, because not only has gun crime gone down significantly in the US in the last 20 years, as has all violent crime, but the fact is that it is one subculture that is responsible for at least 75% of gun murders/non-negligent killing – criminals, esp inner city. iow, the point should be made that despite the huge numbers of guns owned by law-abiding citizens, the vast majority of gun crime is done by a very small section of our population, using illegally acquired guns. the US has a very low gun crime rate excluding inner cities. thus, the issue should not formulated as one of gun access/control for citizens, but rather addressing the complex topic of inner city crime and culture.

    -regarding the 2nd amendment – i feel that there are plenty of very strong arguments to be made – the main being any human’s natural right to self defense – to favor relatively unrestricted access to firearms for law-abiding citizens without even having to resort to argument that the 2nd amendment helps safeguard the people from potential govt tyranny. it’s easy to see how this can be seen as a little paranoid and frankly whacko by some, even if it’s not. instead, or in addition to mentioning this, i’d like to see a gun advocate interviewee discuss some basic psychology – the govt is your daddy, and a pretty shitty daddy. why are so many in this country rushing to guns? why does the 2nd amendment hold so much emotional sway still? one big emotional/pyschological factor is that most of us, not just the gun advocates, do not trust our gov’t. why should we? we see the lies, the hypocrisy, the cronyism, double-dealing, abuse, and after all that, we are expected to feel comfortable with the idea that daddy will always be there for us and have our best interests in mind? what i’m trying to get to is the source of some of the raw emotion beneath the debate.

  50. avatarThe Pit Boxer says:

    Really sick of them always trotting out “gun murders” in the U.K. vs the U.S. What? The rest of those victims don’t matter because they were murdered with edged weapons and blunt objects?

    “How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves…”, and then proceeds to point out that the weapon used in the last 4 mass shootings, was an “assault rifle”. Tragedies? Absolutely. Statistically significant in terms of total nationwide murders? Not a bit. But as long as he’s standing on the graves, most of his audience won’t bother with that logic.

    Regarding Sudafed. Before laws limiting sales of the drug, statistically speaking, someone who went in to Wal-Mart to clear the shelves of Sudafed was likely planning to cook some meth. It is so unlikely that someone walking in to Wal-Mart to buy an AR-15 is planning to – or will ever — use it for murder that it is virtually zero.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.