Piers Morgan vs. Joshua Boston [Ex-Marine Who Told Feinstein to FOAD]

For those of you who don’t remember, Piers Morgan was fired from his position at the Daily Mirror in Britain when he published doctored photographs that showed British soldiers committing what appeared to be war crimes. Said one political leader, “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.”

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

95 Responses to Piers Morgan vs. Joshua Boston [Ex-Marine Who Told Feinstein to FOAD]

  1. avatarRussell says:

    Now this is how one should debate. Not like a crazy rabid dog with no manners like Alex jones

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Right, Russel. Morgan must have really taken tranquilizers to not have talked over Mr. Boston.

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      +1

    • avatarChuck says:

      The thing about Alex Jones if you listen to him and check his sources he hits the nail on the head way way more then he misses

      • avatarJustAJ says:

        The unfortuante downside is the delivery. Too many people won’t listen to the message simply because of that. How many people completely ignore cold hard facts about guns just because the NRA presented them? If a guy walks up to you on the street raving about the end of the world coming, are you going to believe him, or write him off as a raving lunatic in need of help. Compared to a seemingly reasonable, soft spoken person who is presenting the exact same information but not shouting it in your face. This is why the grabbers still have so much credibility, despite having none of the facts on their side.

  2. avatarLance says:

    Whats FOAD stand for? Hope he really wont give that Limey jerk wig. Hope would come to TTAG and NRA news to talk to true friends.

    Come on Robert find him and do a interview.

  3. avatarCharlie says:

    Morgan’s lisp is terrible! It’s no wonder he’s such a manjina.

    Charlie

  4. avatarJohn Boch says:

    It’s amusing that the BBC was at the Guns Save Life meeting in Rantoul, IL last night… A reporter from London flew over to do a story on us.

    I made a passing reference to us wanting to send Piers Morgan back to Britain and she laughed. “I’ve met him. He’s a total douchebag.”

    That made me laugh.

    John

  5. avatarBobtheGrape says:

    Geez, and CNN hired that horse’s ass. That doesn’t say much for CNN. I never did like CNN.

  6. avatarBob says:

    Too bad he wasn’t able to fit in that AR-15′s are not assault rifles. Moran is either an intellectual coward who can’t bother to learn what the terms he uses mean, or he intentionally uses them to mislead and promote his insane agenda.

    I wish more people would view the wikipedia pages on assault rifles and assault weapons.

    ‘Assault rifle’ has a specific meaning, “assault weapon” is a POLITICAL term. It means pretty much whatever any politician or liberal control freak wants it to mean.

    • avatarSkyler says:

      No one except pedantic gun owners really care what a “clip” is as compared to a “magazine.” Nor do they care that some have a different definition of “assault weapon.”

      Words mean what people intend for them to mean. When they say “clip” they mean “magazine” and they couldn’t care less that you think that is preposterous. The same for assault weapon. Despite what gun owners think, the name has been assigned by the law and that is sufficient.

      It really is pedantic and counter-productive to have people interrupt the debate by complaining that a piece of jargon is not being used the way one side prefers. Get over it. Talk about the substance and forget this silliness.

      • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

        Well, except the anti-guns are trying to portray the semi-automatic weapons as full auto- equate civilian weapons with military. That’s why the jargon is important, that’s the substance that needs to be addressed. We aren’t talking about military grade weapons.

        I agree that assault weapon is a legal term. But it varies from state to state. Some states include various shotguns under the term. Again— substance, pro-gun folks need to point this out every time it is mentioned. What exactly are the anti-gunners referring to. Again, they want to raise the image in the non-gun owning public that we’re talking military weapons.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Geez you guys are frustrating. To the Progressives, gun control/confiscation is a party plank. Part of the Fundamental Change” of the country they so desire. Think Universal Health Care, redistribution of wealth, United Nations approach to policing the world.

          And you guys are off in the corner worried about clips vs magazine nomenclature. As Ice said to Maverick, “ENGAGE”!

      • avatarpat says:

        Skyler: it is extremely important to remove the false statements and terminology used by the left. The libtards want everyone to think these things (AR/AK’s) are effing machine guns. They must be set straight, no matter how irritating and mundane it is to do so.

        • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

          Correct. Newspeak must be challenged. A reading of Orwell’s 1984 will clear up why challenging this terminology is worth the effort.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Talk about the substance and forget this silliness.

        You can’t talk about the substance while people like Piers are lying and claiming people can buy fully automatic assault rifles.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          People can buy fully automatic assault rifles.

          They have to get the senior LEO in the jurisdiction to sign off on the transaction, and the gun has to have been registered before ’86, and it’s likely to cost something in the low five figures, and you have to live in certain states…. but if you meet the requirements, you can do it.

  7. avatarPatrick says:

    If Piers Morgan is so unhappy about living in are counrty he should go back home.

    • avatarCanopus says:

      There lies a problem, no one in England and the other countries of the UK want him back. Then to where would they send him? As far as I recall Australia is no longer a penal colony, the Kiwis are away to nice for such a disgrace and India probably knows better.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Piers Morgan is a useful idiot for the Progressive politicians. Nothing but a distraction. Pay attention to your state capital and Washington DC. This is where the skulduggery is taking place.

  8. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    Piers Morgan is a dirtbag.
    Has to have the last word.
    He’s a fraud.

  9. avatarGazzer says:

    He was also involved in insider trading whilst at The Daily Mirror. He’s a piece of work alright.

  10. avatarC says:

    “Everyone in ever mall in America armed with an AR-15…” Good. Deterrence.

    Boston could have pushed a lot harder than he did, and still thoroughly bested Morgan.

  11. avatarJoshinGA says:

    Start video, 10 secs in the devil makes an appearance. Fvck!

  12. avatarCellude says:

    So frustrating. To prevent kids from worrying about dieing in school one needs to address the problem of mental health. A sick person does not care about laws and if one tool is not available at the time another will be used. Holmes would have just made a larger IED and used that, which might have killed even more kids. Gun free zones, registration, bans, etc.. all assume one thing. That the person WANTS to obey the law.

    If a person is set on killing people then they will not care about a few additional infractions when they are prepared to die. Gun free zones are a joke and only serve to provide ignorant people a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

    Why not just get to the point and turn “gun free zones” into “murder free zones”. Same effectiveness and would save more lives I’m sure.

    • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

      You also need to address response time. The police can not be everywhere, it took them 20 minutes to show up at Newton. And I believe they were doing the absolute best they could, since it was an active shooter at an elementary school.

  13. avatarHazzard Bagg says:

    Mr. Boston did an outstanding job representing the cool-headed gun owner. His noble bearing offered a stark contrast to Morgan’s unctuous efforts to portray Boston’s position as ‘fringe.’

    He did miss an opportunity to skewer Morgan when the redcoat argued, “You can’t pass your car to your child without registration for your child…” Feinstein’s bill would prohibit any transfer of any kind from the current owner, so the car analogy falls on its face right there.

    • avatarBud says:

      Not to mention that there is no mention of cars, buggys, wagons or pickup trucks in any part of US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      Firearms, however, are extensively covered as are due process, search and seizure and limitattions of governemnt

  14. avatarEd says:

    Too bad that this is not/cannot only be about the AR-15. I wish he had been able to mention that the .223 is a fairly small rifle round (McCrystal is an ass) and that banning one model of semi-auto is a farce.

    Where is the appendix to the Second Amendment? Since when were muskets not designed to kill as many as technology allowed?

  15. avatarThomas Paine says:

    woah. He almost convinced him after that ’6 shots in the bad guy, what if there was another bad guy’ comment. Piers had nothing to say.

    Awesome. I like the dude, but he needs a stylist.

  16. avatarSwarf says:

    Actually, he didn’t tell her to FOAD.

    That’s why he’s worth having show his face on the media.

  17. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    Cpl. Joshua Boston, you, sir, embody what the essential, fundamental idea of what America is. You are going to make one hell of a father and I am proud to call you my countryman. Semper Fucking Fi Marine.

  18. avatarBobtheGrape says:

    If I was fired from my job I would play hell getting a new one. So, why would CNN hire an arsehole like Morgan after he was fired. Kinda makes you think…what the hell is going on? The only good folks on TV are Ben Swann and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

  19. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Hey Piers,
    These incidents of mass shootings are partly our chickens coming home to roost after decades of anti-gun-nut efforts like yours to disarm law abiding citizens. You’ve created an environment conducive to criminal behaviour. You’ve given more power to the predator class and given them a growing pool of prey to torment with their heinous acts. You are part of the problem, not AR15s.

  20. avatarjosh says:

    What surprises me the most in these interviews especially this one, is that no one ever brings up the cyclic rate of the military version of an M4 and compares it to a civilian AR-15. A M4 carbine has a fire rate of 700-850 rounds a minute. Now taking that fire rate and going the middle of the road 775 rounds minute. You would have to be able to pull the trigger 13 times in one second to match that weapons fire rate 13 times. I know I’m preaching to the quire here but there is no comparison between the two rifles.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Yes, if you’re a complete dumbass you can dump a full mag in just a few seconds on full-auto with an M4/M16 rifle. If you talk to people who have actually been to war with those rifles, you’ll find that (a) the vast majority of their rounds downrange are single-shot semi-auto, and (b) when they do switch to full-auto it’s used in bursts for suppressing fire.

      The problem is that when the gun-ignorant see identical-looking firearms based on the AR platform, and a few of them are select-fire capable, they assume that ALL of them are full-auto. The politicians pushing civilian disarmament, and the media feeding the hysteria, are both well-served by letting these misconceptions stand.

      I really wish the AR design was such that the full-auto military/LE versions were obviously, visibly different from the semi-auto civilian models at first glance. Sadly the only difference is the fire selector switch, and nobody looks that closely but firearms enthusiasts.

      • avatarCoyote Gray says:

        In general troop deployment, Full-Auto isn’t issued out anymore. Phased out some years ago. The military knows it is a waste of rounds, so 3 round burst is the standard for the designated marksman rifle. Actually, I didn’t see any full-auto rifles during my time of service in the early 90′s, unless it was a squad weapon (always belt fed), vehicle/tripod mounted, or part of a special mission deployment.

        • avatarCasey T says:

          Same here while in the Marine Corps from 2002-2006. The truth is that we never even used three round burst except when getting rid of blanks.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          A friend of mine was USMC, spent some of his time on a CVN. He says the Navy has a few full-auto rifles on board the big ships, mostly because they get used so infrequently that upgrading them to the current config is a very low priority for the armorers.

      • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

        I can personally say and agree with AG here. In all my time, I never actually flipped the giggle switch except on the range, just to know what it was like.
        Only the Hamas would use full auto spraying around corners. You just waited till they ran out then single shot, done..

  21. avatarCraig says:

    5.56 is so devastating soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan were clamoring for 7.62/.308 every chance they got. Way to puss out general.

  22. avatardom says:

    Is Jeff Foxworthy his daddy?

  23. avatarDavid says:

    I so wish someone would ask Piers the million dollar question: Do you think our founding fathers got it right w/ the 2A?

    Not that long ago there were some aristocrats who saw thru the hypocrisy of a nation w/ several war galleons telling a farmer he could not own a musket.

  24. avatarguzzimike says:

    I thought Boston did pretty good. You could see (I thought) that he was frustrated @PM & holding his comments in check while still presenting valid arguments.

    BTW, told the liberal leaners @ work I’ve been watching FOX news the last few weeks as in my opinion it seems to be less biased & more factual & they almost had a heart attack!!

  25. avatarSilver says:

    240 years ago, smug Brits were trying to disarm us. Funny how some things never change.

    Too bad what happened at Lexington and Concord won’t happen to this piece of shit.

  26. avatarWLCE says:

    now that is how a civil debate should be done. watch and learn kiddies.

    joshua boston did a outstanding job.

    • avatarCasey T says:

      Yeah, but it was still controlled by a person who isn’t genuine and has an agenda. A true debate is supposed to be run by an unbiased person.

  27. avatarO.E says:

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/ANC-expecting-1000s-at-birthday-bash-20130109

    Wait and see what your Dems say about the ANC chairman yet again leading the masses in a song, a song which encourages machine guns to be shot at the White’s holding out in South Afrika.

    They did it last year, and im sure as the wind will blow the propaganda machine is winding up simply because they too know Zuma et al will once again gesture along with the majority of Blacks that violent racism directed at the Afrikaner is all part of the new African way.

    • avatarإبليس says:

      The stunning thing about black people in America is how irrelevant they are. Spanish, Mandarin, Russian, and Hebrew are the new languages of power here. But you’re right, farm-murders are the ultimate goal of gun banners. Muffled screams in the night. Gunfire is so déclassé!

  28. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Morgans argument summarized, “I dont agree with you, thanks for coming and this interview is over.”

  29. avatarRobin says:

    To me, McCrystal rates right up there with Patraeus. They have no honor and are only looking to feather their own nest. I returned a Commanding General’s coin that Patraeus presented me here at Ft. Leavenworth. I didn’t want it anymore because he dishonored himself when he said the pastor in Florida was abusing his freedom of speech. He showed no regard for the oath he took and McCrystal is the same. You don’t have to agree with something in order to honor your sworn word. The opinions of both are as worthless as they are. When you give your word, you do it. Period.

    • avatarSasquatch says:

      He’s worse than Patraeus. He’s another Wesley (weaseley) Clark. Total political animal, flaming libtard varient species.

    • avatarCasey T says:

      If you want a General to cling to, I recommend General James Mattis USMC. He was the Commanding General of the Marine Division that invaded Iraq. In his speech before the invasion, General Mattis told the division that it was fun getting shot at.

      He also said this to the press in 2010: “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil…. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ‘em.” (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/james_mattis_its_fun_to_shoot.html)

      I met the General in Quantico, when I was stationed there and he is completely awesome, he offered me rides multiple times after I had completed an assignment. Also, he would call and ask for things by identifying himself as a Lance Corporal Mattis to not scare people. He is the ultimate Marine.

  30. avatarإبليس says:

    Piers Morgan is desperately trying to market himself. “Assault Rifles” to him are what heavy metal was to Tipper Gore.

  31. avatarJackBauer says:

    Some thoughts on this vid and Alex from last night. Alex first.
    Alex controlled the debate very well, as in not letting Piers talk. Where he went wrong was with the prozac comment. If he counter jabbed with the prozac line (and didnt allude to sponsor conspiracy) in a calm voice it would have been a great point. Also, he should have asked why Piers was asking about 9/11 which has nothing to do with a gun debate. Instead he went into his views —even though he is entitled to him, are not tv-mainstream and took away from the debate he could have overwhelmingly won. Third, he just went off the rails at the end doing the British accent (I thought it was funny but recognize it’s not good for his cause). Now for Boston. Great composure and never tripped on his words. Here are some thoughts though. When Piers (or anyone) contend how “these rifles are killing machines” why not answer: no kidding…they are guns. Lets not pretend what they are. We should be proud of what they are. They look for you to deny or skirt around which gives them a point. Second, nobody is saying the obvious. Is the AR-15 really different from a handgun? It’s the same concept: pull the trigger as fast as you want. Handgun and Ar-15 do the same, so why not ask the pundit what they think about that? I think the mass murderers use AR-15 for what they see as more militant-type excitement, but close quarters mass killings would probably be better served with a couple handguns with many magazines. Last, point out to the viewer the other obvious: this is representative bias 101. You react to an incident in a population of 300 million people and use that to punish? Doesn’t pass the test.

  32. avatarKyle says:

    You are not an American Piers. And the “Citizens” , not the “Civilians”, could care less what your opinion is about the right to bear arms. Go home you liberal tool.

  33. avatarBonkers says:

    Oh man, you could hear Piers shaking towards the end there.

    He really can’t handle being up against someone that opposes his views. This isn’t even the first time it’s happened, whenever someone has better points than him his throat dries up.

    Piers just isn’t a good talk show guy, he always puts out his opinion first and then challenges people with refuting it, instead of Larry King’s way of just asking tough questions and getting answers.

  34. avatarA Trusted Friend in Science says:

    I’m very impressed with Mr. Boston’s handling of this interview. Kudos to him! He represents gun owners well. I hope he gets more chances to be interviewed by the media.

  35. avatarWiebelhaus says:

    Someone told Morgan to bite his tongue and not to insult guests.

    • avatarCarrymagnum says:

      You insult a Marine on national television and you lose your credibility. He may be a fool but he knows better than that. I wish h had called him some name, it only would have helped our cause.

  36. avatarBeninMA says:

    Really Piers, you don’t want to ban handguns? That’s not what you were saying last night:

    http://youtu.be/MEQ5F4F4jJw

    2:45
    “…as a result, I’m sure you know, a national handgun ban was brought in and it also banned all automatic and most semiautomatic rifles as well. So it would have banned the weapons that have been used at Aurora, Sandy Hook and the Oregon shopping mall and others.”

    5:00
    When a load of schoolchildren were massacred by a madman with a gun, we banned guns in my country and I’m very proud of those politicians and the public…”

  37. avatarctay says:

    Not bad Mr. Boston, certainly better than the raving weirdo Alex Jones. Just wish he would have mentioned the media needs to stop focusing on AR15s when any of these mass murders could have easily happened with almost any firearm. The taboo on AR15 is simply a slippery slope to then go after shotguns because they are just too lethal and then pistols of any capacity and then finally large caliber revolvers. Before all is said and done, the common US citizen is lucky to own only a 22 rimfire revolver because heaven forbid everything else is just too lethal.

  38. avatarCasey T says:

    So I didn’t know about the scandal with Piers before. So I have to ask why CNN would hire someone who has no credibility? It seems asinine to call yourself a news service and employ a person who actively lied to make his own country look bad.

  39. avatarGuy22 says:

    Hey!!! If I went to a movie and every single person choose to carry a AR-15. I would be fine with it. Probably be a polite movie crowd. The AR-15 would not fit between the seats to well. So it might be a little un-comfortable.
    What gets me is that Piers has no since of History. He is a Brit and should have a good understanding of what caused the revolution, that became the USA.

    The British Military at the time was thought of as one of the best in the world.
    The colonist’s too were armed. Often with better guns. Just not organised, or trained. Once they got both, things changed.
    The carry away from that war was the Brit’s often limited gun ownership in their other lands. (Sometimes took them all)
    The new American leaders knew that that the only way you can throw out a unjust Gov. is through armed Rebellion. Which too them was a great thing to do.
    Thus the Second Amendment was put in place to allow the common man to over throw any unjust Gov. Or at least to have the tools to do so.

    IMHO. When I was growing up (NC 1955-still alive) just about everybody had a gun. Often a Shotgun, Rifle, and a Handgun.
    The Police were carrying a six shooter handgun, and usally a shotgun. So the average home had somethihg close to what the cops did.

    This scared the ruling classes of whatever party. Plus our Gov. had a huge problem with surplus stuff/rust.
    So they decided to give it to the police! So we have Militarizing of Local Police.
    But the average guy’s kept up. There are more AR/AK weopons in the hands of us than the Gov.
    The scared the ruling classes are more afriad of armed Rebellion than anything else.
    So take away the intent of the 2nd, and make whatever laws for the greater good.

    Still haven’t figured ot why any car can go over 85MPH???? LOL
    Guy22

  40. avatarRalph says:

    I know who that Boston guy is, but who the hell is Pierced Organ? Is that some kind of industrial accident?

  41. avatarDavid-p says:

    Something else a little off topic is a got a reply back from the White House for signing the petition “to deport piers Morgan” it was titled “when discussing the 2nd amendment, Keep the first in mind too”. When I first read the title I said to myself what gall does this princess have to basically say that “you” have to honor the first amendment while “I” destroy the second amendment. Then when I seen nobody on this form had said anything about it I decided I would actually read through the email and reply on here. I had gotten a reply back for signing the petition to stop the assault weapon ban and he basically called me an irresponsible gun owner because the vast majority, responsible gun owners were willing to compromise for safety.

    This response was different. it is pasted here.

    “Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible — they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.”

    “But you know what, I am also betting that the majority — the vast majority — of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas — that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown — or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.”

    I still trust him as much as I trust a monkey with a hand grenade but could this be a sign that he knows the awb is not going to pass and he is willing to get the background checks done as a feel good measure? Either way keep up the pressure on you congressional members.

  42. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    This creepy limey showed what a typical CNN OWS NWO creep he is by calling Larry Pratt every name in the book when Pratt deflated his hysterical arguments.

    Why doesnt this marshmallow looking freak go back to England, where its so safe there were only “39″ gun murders last year?

    Oh, he got in trouble in England for being a data manipulating fraud huckster. Guess he better stay at CNN where liberal metrosexual tool scumbags get 6 figures for demanding US citizens concede to the British 240 years after getting their effeminate asses whipped.

  43. avatarpat says:

    CNN. If (hopefully, when) this whole gun grabbing mess blows over, I fully expect the good US citizens to make this network pay for their leftist/treasonous propaganda.

  44. avatarRico Shay says:

    When they ask, ” why in the world does anyone need to have one of these guns?, ” doesn’t someone answer that they are to defend from an assault. Like the one that’s fixing to come from our very own government on the people who have them. Equal rights, right? But their idea of the militia is the LEO that WILL stand between them and WE the People, their subjects.

  45. avatarJoe says:

    First off, GOD BLESS CPL. BOSTON. Secondly, Piers go to Afghanistan and YOU serve. Quit thanking us for your freedoms that YOU want to erode and actually fight for them. Thirdly and last Mchrystal is a beauracrat and a tool. Semper Fi.

  46. avatarAlex says:

    piers is an idiot..
    After Marine said people should have a right to ccw, Piers replies, so you think everyone should carry ar15 to the mall…

    Piers is a fool… there is quite a bit of difference between ccw and ar15…

  47. avatarGw says:

    The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
    Excerpt as follows:
    “Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    RESOLVED…”
    Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    source: http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

    [ Note carefully the words, ‘in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added’…]

  48. avatarRockThisTown says:

    Feinstein: “There is no 2nd Amendment right to own every type of weapon that we know of.”
    What Boston should say: “Yes there is, Ms. Feinstein, if you can afford it. I will remind you the 2nd Amendment reads, ” . . . shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say ” . . . . shall not be infringed, EXCEPT in the case of [insert grandstanding, gun-grabbing terminology here].”

    Morgan: If you pass a car to your children, you must change the registration, what’s the difference?”
    Boston: A car isn’t specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.”
    Morgan: Neither is an AR15 assault rife.
    –STOP THE TAPE–
    What Boston should have said: Excuse me, Mr. Morgan, but the 2nd Amendment does mention an AR15. The word ‘arms’ includes an AR15. And I will also point out people are killed by other people operating cars and the government isn’t trying to stop me from passing my car to my children. I will turn your own question back to you – what’s the difference there? (Answer: Prohibiting people from owning & transferring cars isn’t part of the liberal agenda . . . yet.)

    Morgan: “Why would you want to give one of these ‘killing machines’ to your children?”
    What Boston should have said: “First of all, Mr. Morgan, the rifles to which you refer are not ‘killing machines’ in the hands of law-abiding citizens as you infer, and secondly, frankly, everyone who owns one and who has never broken the law should be insulted by your condescending, arrogant & mistaken implication that they are in every case used to kill other human beings. There are many law-abiding citizens who own and use them for defense, target shooting and other lawful purposes, as they have a right to do, and who live their lives without killing, as you imply. And finally, we the people have a right to acquire & own property and along with that right comes the right to pass that property to our children without interference from you, the government or anyone else, especially and including firearms.

  49. avatarNick says:

    You make some good points, but when you’re on the spot on live(?) tv it can be very difficult just to speak with proper sentence form. People like Piers have made a career out of blindsiding their “guests” to make it harder for them to even respond.

    • avatarRockThisTown says:

      Yep, live TV is an unfamiliar environment to most people, and I realize it’s difficult to think and speak in that situation, particularly when you have an antagonistic interviewer like Morgan.

  50. avatarWilliam says:

    NEAT. He thinks British soldiers are war criminals, but American soldiers are heroes.

Leave a Reply

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