Video: Piers Morgan discovers Ben Shapiro isn’t Alex Jones

posted at 8:01 am on January 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Duane hit this in the Green Room, but I want to note a few passages from the appearance of Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro on CNN with Piers Morgan last night. First, Ben calls out Morgan for acting like a bully to his guests and an activist rather than a journalist, a theme that fits nicely with Ben’s new book, Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans. Ben told me on Wednesday’s TEMS that he was relishing the confrontation — and you can see why:

BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR BREITBART.COM: You know, honestly Piers, you have kind of been a bully on this issue, because what you do, and I’ve seen it repeatedly on your show. I watch your show. And I’ve seen it repeatedly. What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook saying they don’t seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids, they would agree with you on policy. I think we can have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don’t think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at Sandy Hook.

MORGAN: How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there. How dare you.

SHAPIRO: I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers.

MORGAN: Like I say, how dare you.

SHAPIRO: Well, I mean, you can keep saying that, but you’ve done it repeatedly. What you do, and I’ve seen you do it on your program, is you keep saying to folks if they disagree with you politically, then somehow this is a violation of what happened in Sandy Hook. And you, I would really like to hear your policy prescriptions for what we should do about guns because you say you respect the second amendment. You know, I brought this here for you so you can read it. It’s the Constitution. And I would really like for you to explain to me what you would do about guns that would have prevented what happened in Sandy Hook. If you want to do what you did in the U.K., right, which is ban virtually all guns, that is at least a fair argument and we can have a discussion about whether that’s something that we ought to do or not.

Shapiro was also prepared to fight back when Morgan brings up “assault weapons” a couple of moments later:

MORGAN: They want to take away assault weapons, which are capable with magazines that we saw in Aurora and Sandy hook, of unleashing a ridiculous amount of —

SHAPRIO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?

MORGAN: No, that’s not what I’m asking for.

SHAPIRO: Why not? Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?

MORGAN: Yes, I do.

SHAPIRO: Then why don’t you care about banning the handguns in Chicago?

MORGAN: We’ll come to that.

Actually, Morgan never answers that question, as you can read from the transcript as well as watching from the video. He also never provides an answer as to why the assault-weapons ban in Connecticut didn’t stop the Newtown shooting — nor did Morgan ever provide a definition of “assault weapon.” That’s because Morgan has been talking out of his nether regions for the last several weeks on this topic, and Shapiro makes that pretty clear in the interview.

Finally, let’s give Morgan’s predecessor the last word. Larry King delivers a damning indictment of Morgan in an interview with the Huffington Post:

Larry King criticized Piers Morgan’s CNN show in an interview with HuffPost Live on Thursday.

It has been two years since Morgan took over King’s 9 p.m. time slot on CNN. Speaking to HuffPost Live’s Marc Lamont Hill, King pointed out that he and his successor have two very different approaches to their shows. “I never gave opinions,” King said. “Piers gives his opinions. The show is a lot about him as much as the guests… He’s so different from me.”

On the subject of cable news in general, King also lamented, “A lot of shows, they make it about the host and the guest becomes a prop to the host and I never liked that.”

“It’s not the quality that counts anymore,” he continued. “It’s how loud did you yell, how vituperative can you be.”

And how ignorant you can be while doing so.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

what most people forget is that the 2nd amendment was written by people who just got down fighting a war over tyranny . they like the russians of today or the jews during Hitler knew what happens when you disarm. They understood what is needed to throw off such evil governments and they understood what it would take to keep the evil at bay and they took that information and that blood earned experienced and wrote a document that would give the people the means to not only keep but a means to also reclaim their freedom if it came to it.

We pamered citizens have no idea what tyranny is. We have no idea what place it means to state that our lives fortunes and sacred honor are on the line. The founders knew. We don’t. Why in a million years would anyone second guess people who lived through it and knew from first hand experience whoat is required to win and keep freedom in a world thatas a history of knowing it not?

unseen on January 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Bravo. Copied again (and bookmarked) because it deserves reposting.

I will add that although most Americans don’t know what it is to live under tyranny, some do – those who fled other countries’ tyranny to become Americans. We should heed their warnings, too.

Missy on January 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Dante on January 11, 2013 at 11:37 AM

No not Back peddling, Trying to get my point across. The point is If the names of these murderous madmen are not made public. Any incentive another mad man would have to kill more people to become famous would be gone.

I don’t care one way or another how the names are kept out of the media. Awards, Prizes, Jail time, warm feeling all over, I do not care as long as the “incentive” for these mass killings is removed. I am open for suggestions on how to accomplish this, I’m all ears. Shoot, I would be willing to take more criticism if it led to putting an end to this madness. But arguing just for the sake of arguing, That went out after Jr. High. I am not talking about this as a guns rights issue. If you look, the same day this happened a madman in China entered a school and attacked twenty-three children with a knife, I did not hear anyone wanting to do away with knives.

Guest1.1 on January 11, 2013 at 2:13 PM

unseen on January 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I’ve been traipsing through the various pre-1787 documents for the colonies, especially the ones going back to the Crown grants… actually pretty fun stuff, when you come right down to it.

The general impression across multiple monarchs is that there was an understanding that there are powers the Crown can grant (like, say, the Admiralty power) and then there are those that are authorized by the Crown but not ones that can really be granted (the militia power). Even when giving authority to grant recipients, there is a distinct line between those who serve in fortifications or other such places, and those who are the armed population who self-organize at the lowest level. James I had a couple of pieces that are very clear in the language between ‘give and grant’ vs. ‘authorize and allow’, and he was a Divine Right Monarchist, but even he could see that there were things he could grant (power from the Crown) and other things he must all that were, actually, outside his power domain.

Military power is the formalized structure to go after those bringing conflict to a territory, but there is the authorization to do that at the local level without oversight. The Militia only becomes formalized with some moderate training requirements, but the actual forming up into companies is at the local level and the authorized government only gets to appoint field commanders during formalized call-up.

Prior to the war this was an understood part of the system amongst the Colonies and the militia system was preexisting: it was something transplanted from Great Britain and its Anglo-Saxon tradition. Our Colonial and pre-Constitution understanding of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is founded in that tradition and supported with the idea that a Free State requires no Army only a Militia because anyone will readily volunteer to defend their freely chosen government. The self-organizing Militia is the greatest concept in warfare for defense of freedom as it puts the ability to voluntarily defend yourself, your family, your property and then your State, in that order, in your hands. And as you must be prepared to deal with a foreign military, you must be able to understand, operate and effectively use military weapons.

The answer as to why anyone should have the right to an AR or AK weapon type is simple: so that I can be familiar with its operation, maintenance and controls so that I can easily utilize one in battle and be able to pick up better ones in the field and instantly use them in the defense of my State. I will depend on NO ONE ELSE to do this for me during such times as it is MY DUTY to my freely chosen and backed government to defend it and I DO NOT TRUST any organized military to be that defense as I do not trust standing armies. That is a prerequisite to being free: the duty to defend it. Anyone who wants to just be defended is no longer free, no longer has liberty and is a subject of the whims of government, no longer the guarantor of government. The armed civil population is the first, last and only defender of freedom at all levels and no one, no law, no government gets in the way of that defense from lowest to highest duty. That is because the power to have all that government flows from the armed people defending their right to be free with their lives. And you can’t do that if you don’t understand the worst of man-carried and used weapons that are available to threaten your freedom. Not only does a free man have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, he has the duty to defend that freedom to live in a free State. And you can’t pick up the knowledge and skills at the lest second, either.

ajacksonian on January 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM

I wish fervently someone – ANYONE – would call Piers out the next time he starts his list of killings with assault weapons. YES, Holmes STARTED to use an AR-15 – that JAMMED. The primary weapon used in Aurora was a FREAKIN SHOTGUN!

PJ Emeritus on January 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM

ajacksonian on January 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM

agreed.

unseen on January 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Video: Piers Morgan discovers Ben Shapiro isn’t Alex Jones

Alex Jones, nut that he is, still beat the pants off of Pierced Morgan every bit as much as Shapiro.

Shapiro’s entreaty to Pierced Morgan to ban all handguns, since they are used in crimes so much more than rifles (even the dreaded “assault rifles”) is not really the way to go. Pierced might have demured at this point but that will soon change. Leftists (American leftists, in addition to redcoat aliens like Pierced Morgan) are itching to ban handguns even more than rifles and, if asked enough times, will just start pushing that, too. In fact, many are already calling for huge blanket bans of all “semi-automatic” guns (which, by their definitions include double action revolvers).

You never win anything with the left by a race to the bottom. That’s where the left wants to go, to begin with. You only fight the left by fighting their idiocy, not encouraging them to go further down the rathole they want to put society in, anyway.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Excellent debate.

Ben Shapiro is a better debater than Pierce Morgan, and certainly better than Berzerk Drooler (Alex Jones), but I disagree with his points about down-the-line government tyranny. Even if M4s and Uzi’s and and military grade sniper rifles were made legal tomorrow, and if the US government somehow became tyrannical some time later, all those civilian infantry honchos would’ve been mowed down with tanks and RPGs, in 2 seconds.

The best civilians can do is a relatively more poorly organized infantry with infantry-grade weapons. They have no hope in hell to fight a government’s military with a much more sophisticated weapons, hardware, organization, training, personnel, etc.

It’s a silly idea. Just as it would’ve been in China or Russia or Germany when tyrannies came about.

The real stupidity of this debate – and you find this stupidity in most debates in America – is that it’s binary. It’s either all or it’s nothing. If one side says “I want to ban weapon of type A”, the other side says “you must want to ban all weapons then! I know you do!”

Don’t ban the type of guns, just limit the amount of guns that’s out there. I think AR-15s have no business being sold to civilians, but if they’re not to be banned, how does this sound: I don’t know how to implement this exactly, but I think that if instead of having 1 gun for every American (more or less), have 1 gun for every 4 Americans, that would reduce gun crimes. And if you think that guns are the only thing that prevents people from being attacked violently, then you must think Americans are really violent…

In short: set a limit on gun manufacturing and importing.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

You tried to make sense, but you didn’t. In any of it.

cozmo on January 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM

In short: set a limit on gun manufacturing and importing.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Better to set a limit on your stupid comments.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Why do countries have Nucs? It’s called MAD. Reason enough.

I don’t worry that the gov will go all rouge on me if they think I might return the favor.

I worry that they might do it if they have NO fear that I might.

landowner on January 11, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I think AR-15s have no business being sold to civilians

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

No one gives a rat’s a** what you think.

The Secondment Amendment reaffirms that I have a right to legally own said firearm.

The Fourth Amendment reaffirms that it’s absolutely none of your business why.

Pale Rider on January 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Even if M4s and Uzi’s and and military grade sniper rifles were made legal tomorrow, and if the US government somehow became tyrannical some time later, all those civilian infantry honchos would’ve been mowed down with tanks and RPGs, in 2 seconds.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

You mean the same way the Taliban was mowed down in 2 seconds?

You’re not very bright at all.

Pale Rider on January 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Better to set a limit on your stupid comments.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Firstly, you’re an idiot.
Secondly, go read your precious constitution, the first amendment to it.
Now sit down and STFU.

You mean the same way the Taliban was mowed down in 2 seconds?

You’re not very bright at all.

Pale Rider on January 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

So many differences between fighting Taliban in Afghanistan and fighting the hypothetical tyrannical American government in America. I’m not sure where to begin…

Just a few points: different terrain, different level of aggression/cruelty, different weapons and tactics used by a democratic America (today) vs. a hypothetical tyrannical America…

You’re a pretty arrogant c0ck if you follow your comments with douch3baggery. Learn not to do that…

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Secondly, go read your precious constitution, the first amendment to it.
Now sit down and STFU.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

“[My] precious Constitution” doesn’t say anything about comments on private property, you blithering idiot.

You really have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. If you had any sense of shame, at all, or any intellectual integrity, you would just shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Ben made some good points, but he made a major mistake. The MSM purposely tries 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 IMO, 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 they were not “assault” weapons….and that to me was inexcusable!

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

dom89031 on January 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You’re a pretty arrogant c0ck if you follow your comments with douch3baggery. Learn not to do that…

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Boys and girls, this is an example of “Irony”.

kingsjester on January 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Secondly, go read your precious constitution, the first amendment to it.
Now sit down and STFU.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Evidently, you think that “[my] precious Constitution” gives you the right to go to anyone’s house and say anything you want and they are Constitutionally prohibited from kicking you out.

Do you really think with that brain?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

So many differences between fighting Taliban in Afghanistan and fighting the hypothetical tyrannical American government in America. I’m not sure where to begin…

Go on…

Just a few points: different terrain, different level of aggression/cruelty, different weapons and tactics used by a democratic America (today) vs. a hypothetical tyrannical America…

You’ve said absolutely nothing that validates your assertion that an armed militia in America would be dispatched by superior military firepower in 2 seconds. It was, in fact, a ridiculous assertion with no merit whatsoever. It’s a figment of your imagination.

You’re a pretty arrogant c0ck if you follow your comments with douch3baggery. Learn not to do that…

I cordially invite you to swallow one.

Pale Rider on January 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM

So many differences between fighting Taliban in Afghanistan and fighting the hypothetical tyrannical American government in America. I’m not sure where to begin…

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Yeah … American citizens on American soil have Constitutional rights. Taliban don’t.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Shapiro did a great job of standing up to Piers and calling Piers out on his garbage. Very ‘Breitbart’.
But he did a poor job in the particulars. Shapiro yielded ground all over the place, chiefly in even using the term ‘assault rifle’ instead of explaining the multiple frauds inherent to the term.

rayra on January 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I agree with this.

Thumbs up for attempting to be constructively confrontational
Thumbs down for not being better prepared

I like Ben, and am confident he will learn from his errors.

Anti-Control on January 11, 2013 at 3:21 PM

My God, you people are just aching for the opportunity to start shooting cops and National Guardsmen. Question: In your feverish fantasies of yours, what’s the endgame? Do you keep shooting until all law enforcement officers are dead? If your children survive these shootouts you dream of, what kind of country would they grow up in? Will it still be a free country, or will America be a land of armed camps?

Drew Lowell

“I was born in Colton, California, which is sixty miles east of Los Angeles, in San Bernardino, Riverside, Redlands area. And we had a grocery store in Colton, my parents were barbers, and we ran a pool hall and a bathhouse, for the railroads that ran through the opposite city of Colton, Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads.

I finished my high school in Redlands, and in December we just had opened the store and I listened, heard on the radio that Franklin Roosevelt says that Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor and I couldn’t believe that happened. This affected us through the fact that, we had a curtailment that we could not travel within three miles of our area. We had to just stay home and do what we could, and then we had orders that we had to either, prepare to go to relocation centers, or, actually it’s just a barbed wire fence all around the camp. It had guard towers on each corner, and machine guns were pointing in to camps.

I volunteered for the Air Force in 1943. But my draft card says 4C. 4C was listed as enemy alien. Cause they wouldn’t take me, so then when all of the campaign finally started, and the hundredth battalion was in such a good job, therefore President Roosevelt, crossed off the decree of 4C and classified it as first draftees, and so I was able to join the Army again, so I volunteered for the Air Force again. 1943, end of 44. I was called for duty, and I was on a train going east and came to this camp landing Florida. And I looked out, and I was looking for the airplane, and there was no airplanes in sight. No, this is the infantry. You are now in the infantry.

And President Roosevelt came to visit the camps, and the, all the Japanese soldiers, American soldiers, put them in a barracks, had machine guns around them, ’til the President left. Now, they’re already in the Army, why should they do this? I figured this is my country, I’m an American, I should be allowed to join the Army. So therefore that’s why I volunteered, to show my loyalty to the United States, this is, when my, kids, when I do have kids that grow up, at least they can be, looked up to, rather than downgraded as being a Jap. And I figured well, this will help to build our country up. Not only this for, Italians, Germans, they were, they didn’t go to camps, but some of them did I hear.

So, in order to prove our loyalty, I volunteered into the service. And my parents said, just don’t bring disgrace to the family. If you’re gonna fight for your country, you fight for your country. But don’t do anything, like, doing extra bombing things – or things that you shouldn’t be doing. And, so respect your country, and everything will be all right. So, this is why we tried to do, to show our loyalty. This is America. I’m an American and I want to be respected as an American, even though I look like the enemy. But, this is what we tried to do.”

– George Sakato, Medal of Honour recipient

Remember: It’s Already Happened Here!

By an Executive Order, another Progressive Dahlink! disarmed more than 110,000 Japanese-AMERICANS, along with thousands of German-AMERICANS and Italian-AMERICANS, de-propertied them, denied them of basic constitutional rights, and sent them to “relocation centres” a/k/a “concentration camps” – concentration camps are called such because they concentrate large numbers of particular people from vast regions into one area, not because the government puts people in ovens.

By the stroke of a pen – and with the later consent of the Supreme Court – an American President labelled future Medal of Honour recipients like George Sakato and Daniel Inouye as “enemy aliens” and disarmed them. “Progressive” American values on display.

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Better to set a limit on your stupid comments.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Firstly, you’re an idiot.
Secondly, go read your precious constitution, the first amendment to it.
Now sit down and STFU.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Perhaps, it is YOU, who needs to read the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Care to tell us where the First Amendment says anything that would prohibit Hot Air from limiting your comments?

Didn’t think so.

Now, sit down and STFU.

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Does this give you more control? I’ve never been particularly pleased with IE.

Tim_CA on January 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Dump the IE, now! :)

Hey Ed! Can we at least admit that autoplay and auto-refresh make a very bad combination? If you can’t stop autoplay, then you need to at least turn off auto-refresh on such pages.

tom on January 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Here’s is my wise suggestion – to stop the autoplay, and to not lose incomplete posts due to auto-refreshing, get Firefox, and this add-on: Flashblock

Here is a direct link to the newest version: http://downloads.mozdev.org/flashblock/flashblock-1.5.16.xpi

Anti-Control on January 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM

“[My] precious Constitution” doesn’t say anything about comments on private property, you blithering idiot.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I can say whatever the hell I want provided that I don’t violate any laws, and I haven’t. But you’re trying to shut me up, and to that I say F you sir, and really, you need to re-read that document I cited earlier.

Boys and girls, this is an example of “Irony”.

kingsjester on January 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I did that deliberately you genius. The c0ck started it, not me. I was merely returning the favour.

Evidently, you think that “[my] precious Constitution” gives you the right to go to anyone’s house and say anything you want and they are Constitutionally prohibited from kicking you out.

Do you really think with that brain?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I’m not in your house you dolt, I’m at work, and you probably are too!
Yes, I do think with my brain, but that only makes one of us!

You’ve said absolutely nothing that validates your assertion that an armed militia in America would be dispatched by superior military firepower in 2 seconds. It was, in fact, a ridiculous assertion with no merit whatsoever. It’s a figment of your imagination.
Pale Rider on January 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM

There are no armed militias in America, and as far as I know (I’m not sure about that one though), so-called armed militias aren’t legal in America. Without getting into the weeds of the definition of what exactly constitutes an armed militia, I’m talking about something like Hizballah in Lebanon prior to a few years ago when they were not in Lebanon’s government, but had a separate military organization.

Now, assuming there was an armed militia in America armed only with Uzi’s, M4s and sniper rifles, with unilimited supply with bullets, (all currently illegal in the US for private citizens to use), such a militia will be beaten very quickly by a military, ESPECIALLY if said military was no longer bound by laws of war that only democracies adhere to.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Evidently, you think that “[my] precious Constitution” gives you the right to go to anyone’s house and say anything you want and they are Constitutionally prohibited from kicking you out.

Do you really think with that brain?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I’m not in your house you dolt, I’m at work, and you probably are too!
Yes, I do think with my brain, but that only makes one of us!

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Holy sh!t! You’re even dumber than I thought.

When you comment on a private site it doesn’t matter where you’re commenting from, you fool. You’re lucky that Hotair allows you to spew your idiocy, here, but that is their choice, not yours.

You really know less than nothing about anything. Is English even your native tongue?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 3:28 PM

He wasn’t talking about Hot Air, you brought it up just now.

Now, if we’re talking about Hot Air, that would be much worse – what, I can’t disagree with some commenter without that commenter and his lady friends requesting to have me banned? Mind you, none of my opinions (other than some fun name calling in response to others’ name calling) are extreme – I’d say half of America think the same way, and of that group, most are much more leftwing than what I appear to be.

Don’t be a girlyman, sir.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM

You really know less than nothing about anything. Is English even your native tongue?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM

My conclusion, based on the above screech, is that you are a homosexual. I congratulate you on being allowed to serve openly in the US military!

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I can say whatever the hell I want provided that I don’t violate any laws, and I haven’t.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Not on private property and not on a privately owned/operated website, you can’t.

Dante on January 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Now, if we’re talking about Hot Air, that would be much worse – what, I can’t disagree with some commenter without that commenter and his lady friends requesting to have me banned?

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Hey, idiot. I wasn’t asking to have you banned. You said that you thought it would be good to limit arms manufacturing and importing and I said that it would be better to set a limit on your stupid comments. It’s called “reparte”, numbnuts. It was not a call to ban you.

You are one dense individual.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Not on private property and not on a privately owned/operated website, you can’t.

Dante on January 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Agreed, but neither of the above commenters who have been giving me grief own or operate this website, and yet they presume to speak on behalf of said peoples’ behalf.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Hey, idiot. I wasn’t asking to have you banned. You said that you thought it would be good to limit arms manufacturing and importing and I said that it would be better to set a limit on your stupid comments. It’s called “reparte”, numbnuts. It was not a call to ban you.

You are one dense individual.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

First, you suggested to violate the spirit (but not the law) of the US Constitution’s first amendment by having the authority limit my ability to express myself, secondly, you’re a weak-minded coward and a bully.

Other than a few disses I haven’t said anything extreme or crazy, so you can suck it. And shame on you.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Don’t be a girlyman, sir.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Guess what,genius. RWM is a woman.

kingsjester on January 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM

First, you suggested to violate the spirit (but not the law) of the US Constitution’s first amendment by having the authority limit my ability to express myself,

Incorrect, as anyone with a brain who read our comments understands.

secondly, you’re a weak-minded coward and a bully.

LOL.

Other than a few disses I haven’t said anything extreme or crazy, so you can suck it. And shame on you.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

I made a recommendation that was along the lines of the recommendation you were making. As I said, it’s called “reparte”. You wanted to limit something that I have a Constitutional right to so I replied that it would be better to limit something that you have no Constitutional right to. Why is this so difficult for you to understand … still?

Stop digging, already.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Guess what,genius. RWM is a woman.

kingsjester on January 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Then I was right on target :)

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Then I was right on target :)

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM

And, your unicorn is waiting to be fed in the backyard, under the purple sky.

kingsjester on January 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Stop digging, already.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Fine.

Getting back on topic, I believe reducing the number of weapons in America will reduce gun crime. As it is now, America is flooded with weapons. All kinds of weapons, not just AR-15s. AR-15s are the best and easiest to get massacre tools for those who wish to commit them, but the majority of gun crimes are committed with less efficient firearms.

So banning AR-15s will merely reduce the efficiency of the next massacre, but by and large it won’t make much of a dent in criminal shooting rates.

Banning all handguns is not the solution either. I have 2 friends here in Canada who personally own a handgun and a shot gun. If they can own a handgun in Canada, certainly it should be possible to own one in the US.

So what can be done if not outright banning?

I’m throwing this idea out there: reduce the number of guns “in circulation”. If today there is something like 1:1 gun-to-American ratio, it should be reduced to 1:4 by limiting the import and manufacturing of said guns.

This way nobody’s guns would be confiscated, everybody gets to keep their weapons, but there will just be less newer ones. Now what’s wrong with that? And how does that violate anyone’s constitutional rights?

Let’s see you answer that without calling anyone names…

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I have 2 friends here in Canada who personally own a handgun and a shot gun.

Oh, you’re Canadian. Then STFU about what you think of American law. And the American Constitution doesn’t apply to you.

Let’s see you answer that without calling anyone names…

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Stay away from my Constitutional rights. And Canadians should worry about their own nation and keep their noses out of America’s business.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Lady, last I checked this is not the US Congress or Senate or White House. This is a private website, not the place where laws are drafted and enacted, and I can and will chime in on any damn topic I choose to here.

This isn’t your website either, so you can’t change my posting here. Now go suck on something big and juicy.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:19 PM

And on a separate note, I have many friends and relatives living in the US, most of whom are US citizens.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Now, if we’re talking about Hot Air, that would be much worse – what, I can’t disagree with some commenter without that commenter and his lady friends requesting to have me banned? Mind you, none of my opinions (other than some fun name calling in response to others’ name calling) are extreme – I’d say half of America think the same way, and of that group, most are much more leftwing than what I appear to be.

Don’t be a girlyman, sir.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I direct you to Hot Air’s Terms and Conditions of use. While I am against banning, there is no right to post on HA and the owners/managers can ban you whenever they see fit and for whatever reason.

As for my ever becoming a “girlyman,” that’s never going to happen. My figurative balls are larger than the literal ones of 99.9% of men.

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

On another separate note, I’ve been reading Hot Air since its first day, and reading Allah’s posts ever since he started blogging at his old blog, years before Hot Air came to be. If anything, I should be the one telling you GTFO… lol

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM

And on a separate note, I have many friends and relatives living in the US, most of whom are US citizens.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

That doesn’t make you a US citizen so STFU about what you think America should be and stop misquoting the American Constitution to me, since you obviously have no idea what it means or what it’s about – and it doesn’t apply to you, anyway, numbnuts. Worry about your own country.

It’s amazing that aliens think they should have some say in how America is run, even while they know nothing about American governance and do little but spew ignorance. WTFF is with you people?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM

What part of “… the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” confuses you?

You aren’t paying attention if you think there is no gun debate.

Dante on January 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM

.
How’s that Chicago City Gun ban workin’ for ya ?

What ? overturned ? The 2nd Amendment lives – but that doesn’t mean the commies won’t give up their populist rhetoric and stops demonizing the NRA.
Realize this forces you to jump to Defend your position.

Shapiro took the offensive approach- quite boldly. The fact he DID NOT BACK DOWN from one of the more prominent leftist Media Darlings out there, and exposed them.

So back to the original point you obfuscated- Ben Shapiro showed how to fight back against these propagandist bullies. His efforts do not need to be belittled.

FlaMurph on January 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Shapiro did an incredible job in that interview — SHOULD BE REQUIRED VIEWING FOR EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

Rational Thought on January 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM

That doesn’t make you a US citizen so STFU about what you think America should be…

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM

The things you wrote that did not make it into that quote above was all irrelevant. Also, all your swearing really makes your arguments weak and yourself weak-minded. Something to think about.

As to the above comments, I am not claiming to or want to be a US citizen, nor am I trying to change America’s laws. As much as I appreciate America, I’m glad to not live there. BTW, I am a Canadian citizen but I wasn’t born there either. I’ll leave it to you to guess where I was born if you wish.

I’m on a private website, throwing ideas. That’s what I’m doing. You should have a shot of bourbon and just chill.

Now this is gonna be a cheap shot, but what the hell: if America can send its military to other countries and FORCE them to change their LAWS via killing, then I can sure as hell post OPINIONS on a PRIVATE WEBSITE… opinions which are not the same as yours but are US mainstream nonetheless.

Deal with it.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM

The kid did a good job making the true case for the second and without coming across as a scary weirdo(AJ). The second is the final check and balance. And Ben was good at making clear that the he feared a future tyranny, not some current FEMA ,911 tyranny that most normal people can’t relate to. And , if you notice, that dainty b*tch, morgan, scoffed at the idea that Ben would not trust his own government. But here in America(pay attention if you are a foreigner to this)–Here in the USA, we do not trust the government. Here it’s patriotic to not trust your government. Piers has an insulting , 2d vision of who we are. He thinks standing for the anthem means we are mindless followers. He figured that Ben’s bit about tyranny would serve as proof that the gun rights mob are nuts. But morgan is wrong. Most apolitical viewers will have a natural inclination to sympathize with Ben on this.

Ben sc**wed up on the database nonsense. Levin had a great bit yesterday about how the liberals always want to solve problems with another database.

BoxHead1 on January 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM

if America can send its military to other countries and FORCE them to change their LAWS via killing,

Figures that would be your argument. You are slime. But feel free to invade America.

then I can sure as hell post OPINIONS on a PRIVATE WEBSITE…

Of course you can. You are. But if you had any moral or intellectual integrity you would realize that you have no basis from which to do so. You are not an American. American governance is none of your business. The American Constitution doesn’t apply to you.

But, you’re a typical leftist douchebag who thinks you reign supreme and should tell everyone how they should live and what their countries should be. You are despicable.

opinions which are not the same as yours but are US mainstream nonetheless.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Hardly. Mainstream leftist, sure, but not mainstream American. Of course, you wouldn’t know. You aren’t American. You’re an alien trying to stick your nose into America’s business … because you see no limits on yourself and refuse to recognize your clear ignorance. You are a mainstream leftist, which is international (as leftism is distinctly un-American).

Get a brain … and an iota of integrity.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Getting back on topic, I believe reducing the number of weapons in America will reduce gun crime. As it is now, America is flooded with weapons.

And, as the number of guns in the US has increased, the violent crime and homicide rates have gone down. The murder rate peaked in 1980 at 10.2 per 100,000 and hit a 4 decade, at minimum, low — 4.2 per 100,000 — 6 years after the AWB expired. There is actually more correlation between the increase in CCW laws and the decrease in the murder and overall crime rates than there is between the AWB and the murder rate. There is even less correlation between the AWB and the decrease in stranger murders.

Homicide rate:

1900: 1.2
1901: 1.2
1902: 1.2
1903: 1.1
1904: 1.3
1905: 2.1
1906: 3.9
1907: 4.9
1908: 4.8
1909: 4.2
1910: 4.6
1911: 5.5
1912: 5.4
1913: 6.1
1914: 6.2
1915: 5.9
1916: 6.3
1917: 6.9
1918: 6.5
1919: 7.2
1920: 6.8
1921: 8.1
1922: 8.0
1923: 7.8
1924: 8.1
1925: 8.3
1926: 8.4
1927: 8.4
1928: 8.6
1929: 8.4
1930: 8.8
1931: 9.2
1932: 9.0
1933: 9.7
1934: 9.5
1935: 8.3
1936: 8.0
1937: 7.6
1938: 6.8
1939: 6.4
1940: 6.3
1941: 6.0
1942: 5.9
1943: 5.1
1944: 5.0
1945: 5.7
1946: 6.4
1947: 6.1
1948: 5.9
1949: 5.4
1950: 5.3
1951: 4.9
1952: 5.2
1953: 4.8
1954: 4.8
1955: 4.5
1956: 4.6
1957: 4.5
1958: 4.5
1959: 4.6
1960: 5.1
1961: 4.8
1962: 4.6
1963: 4.6
1964: 4.9
1965: 5.1
1966: 5.6
1967: 6.2
1968: 6.9
1969: 7.3
1970: 7.9
1971: 8.6
1972: 9.0
1973: 9.4
1974: 9.8
1975: 9.6
1976: 8.7
1977: 8.8
1978: 9.0
1979: 9.8
1980: 10.2
1981: 9.8
1982: 9.1
1983: 8.3
1984: 7.9
1985: 8.0
1986: 8.6
1987: 8.3
1988: 8.4
1989: 8.7
1990: 9.4
1991: 9.8
1992: 9.3
1993: 9.5
1994: 9.0…..AWB signed
1995: 8.2
1996: 7.4
1997: 6.8
1998: 6.3
1999: 5.7
2000: 5.5
2001: 5.6
2002: 5.6
2003: 5.7
2004: 5.5…..AWB expired
2005: 5.6
2006: 5.7
2007: 5.6
2008: 5.4
2009: 5.0
2010: 4.2
2011: 4.7

Concealed Carry Laws:

In 1986:

1 UNRESTRICTED: Vermont.

8 had SHALL issue: Maine, New Hampshire, Washington, South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Alabama, and Connecticut

26 had MAY issue: Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Louisiana.

15 had NO issue: Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Alaska, and Mississippi.

In 2011:

4 UNRESTRICTED: Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming.

37 SHALL Issue: Arizona and Wyoming moved to UNRESTRICTED.

Maine, New Hampshire, Washington, South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Alabama, Connecticut, Oregon, Idaho, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Montana, West Virginia, Tennessee, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida.

8 MAY Issue: Iowa and Wisconsin moved to SHALL.

California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.

1 NO Issue: Wisconsin moved to SHALL.

Illinois. (Illinois’ ban has just been struck down by the Appellate Court)

The AWB or CCW Laws: Which Has Had More Of An Impact On The Murder Rate?

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Mainstream leftist, sure, but not mainstream American.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

In case you forgot, Barack Obama is president. The mainstream left is mainstream America today. Or at least just-over-half of mainstream America is mainstream left.

You’re an alien trying to stick your nose into America’s business

I’m not an alien. I’m not in America nor am I trying to change US laws. US laws don’t have any impact on me. I’m throwing ideas around a hot topic. MAINSTREAM ideas.

American governance is none of your business. The American Constitution doesn’t apply to you.

True and true. You’re just paranoid, that’s probably why you’re lashing out and calling me “slime” and other nice things. You have enough melodrama and flaming for 3 homosexuals :)

you’re a typical leftist douchebag who thinks you reign supreme and should tell everyone how they should live and what their countries should be. You are despicable.

And you’re an idiot. I’ll give you a bit more respect than you give me, so I won’t just leave it at that.
I am no leftist, mister. Actually, I don’t know if you yourself can define what a leftist is. There are too many issues. I am much more rightwing than I am leftwing, but you wouldn’t know that since you never asked what I think about this or that topic – you just assumed and in your paranoia labeled me very quickly and started lashing out quite rudely to your paranoid delusional assumptions.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Thanks for the stats.
Is there any way to show causation in addition to the correlation?

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Ok, I will be your huckleberry, explain to me from a tactical perspective, how the military will subdue the “Valley of Fear” and if you don’t know what that refers to, it is the land between the two mountain ranges. So you know, most of the posters on here aren’t paranoid delusionist, and some I call my friends! That said, I am not some fat slob sitting at a key board, in my mother’s basement making up an alternate reality life for myself.I have seen the face of war, many times over, I have seen ugliness that most can’t even imagine, to include the idiots in Hollywood, so don’t talk to about war as if I don’t know! I tell you now, what tactical advantage is gained by advanced weaponry is lost once the battle moves to fighting insurgency, and it will become that rather quickly. Never presuppose that weapons that you think are illegal to own are and that they aren’t out there in large numbers! You may find that thought process a little lacking.

MarshFox on January 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

‘Toon of the Day: David Gregory’s Press Pass

David Gregory will not be prosecuted even though he clearly violated DC’s gun laws. Surprise! Not.

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM

I’m not trying to come down too hard on Shapiro. He obviously means to be on our side, and I hope he improves and hones his thinking and stops being such an apologist. But imagine how differently Breitbart would have handled that situation:

Breitbart would have walked into that studio knowing full well in advance that Piers had no interest whatsoever in a rational discussion, only in creating a circus, and Breitbart would have, from second-one, out-Morgan-ed Morgan. He would have gratuitously tormented the guy from the very first moment of the interview until the last, and loved every minute of it, and turned the whole thing to our advantage. Sure, Breitbart would have thrown in some reason and fact as icing on the cake, but he would have understood that you’re not dealing with honest brokers when you’re dealing with libs. Liberals are all scum. The lowest of the low. And mush-faced Piers is a quintessential example. That’s why I say that Jones was much more ‘Breitbart’ than Shapiro. Breitbart knew how to beat them at their own game.

WhatSlushfund on January 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

The best civilians can do is a relatively more poorly organized infantry with infantry-grade weapons. They have no hope in hell to fight a government’s military with a much more sophisticated weapons, hardware, organization, training, personnel, etc.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that all cops and military join the hypothetical tyranny against the American people. I doubt most of our rank-and-file military would betray their honor (cops, sure, because they’ve long been corrupted by the elite and police unions), and I doubt that the states would simply give away the bases and resources they already hold, but let’s assume it’s just cops and military vs. the American people.

It would be about 800K-1 million cops and 3-4 million soldiers vs. +90 million gun-owners, maybe much more. Tanks, helis, drones, or not, that’s still a gruesome task for the authoritarians. Ask Assad how easy it is to crush a citizenry backed with well-armed, unified, committed sheer numbers.

This is why fascists, including liberal ones, are eager to disarm the people.

smiley on January 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM

In short: set a limit on gun manufacturing and importing.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Better to set a limit on your stupid comments.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Bahhahaha .. that is the long and short of it.. thanks for the laugh
Primordal

John Wayne ” life tough.. even tougher if your stupid”

MrMoe on January 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Thanks for the stats.
Is there any way to show causation in addition to the correlation?

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM

No more than your ability to prove that more guns equals more violent crime/homicides, but – and realise that I’m not ceding this point – why should causation matter anyway?

If the crime and homicide rates have fallen as guns have become more plentiful and gun laws have become more liberal in recent years, why does it matter the cause? Obviously, stricter gun laws and fewer guns didn’t result in fewer crimes/homicides, which is the point that you and others are trying to make.

If you weigh 300 pounds, begin eating oranges every day, and your weight decreases, does it matter whether the oranges are the direct cause? No. What we do know, however, is the admonition from your friend that eating oranges will cause you to gain weight was incorrect.

Why do mass shootings always happen in schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters? For the same reason that they do not happen at shooting ranges.

Look at yesterday’s shooting in California: The school usually has an armed police officer on duty. Yesterday, however, started with the news that many parts of the area were snowed in. The shooter, allegedly, brought a shotgun and hid it outside of the school. The police officer was not there because he was snowed in. The student went to retrieve the weapon and then used it. A neighbour or passer-by saw him get the gun and go back into the school. This person telephoned authorities. Why did the gunman wait until the day that the armed policeman was not there?

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Now, assuming there was an armed militia in America armed only with Uzi’s, M4s and sniper rifles, with unilimited supply with bullets, (all currently illegal in the US for private citizens to use), such a militia will be beaten very quickly by a military, ESPECIALLY if said military was no longer bound by laws of war that only democracies adhere to.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM

No they would not be beaten, easily or otherwise.

You seem to have a limited and faulty idea of what war is. They would not march up in ranks at some designated spot, and have a showdown with government forces.

Modern militaries have a very poor track record against insurgent forces and as often as not, lose. France lost in Algeria, in French Indo-china, Portugal lost in Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese Guinea, The United States lost in Vietnam, and is losing in Afghanistan. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan. The Syrians are losing to the rebels, the Libyan government lost to their rebels.

The UZI’s, M4′s, and RPG’s aren’t as superior to semi-automatic weapons as you seem to imagine. Full auto doesn’t really add that much to a units firepower unless it comes in the form of a machine gun.

Put bluntly, you don’t understand guns, war, human nature, violence, or how tyranny emerges. The most valuable thing about the Second Amendment is its deterrence with regards to government overreach.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Ben answered his question many, many times why we have AR 15′s and Morgen keeps asking the same question over and over wanting a different answer and Ben repeats his answer and Morgen repeats his question. Nice to see a stuffed shirt Brit get hammered by an intelligent youth like Ben.

mixplix on January 11, 2013 at 6:09 PM

MarshFox on January 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I only respond with shit talking to those who shit talk at me. Your response was courteous so mine will be too :)

Re: fighting insurgency, it’s one thing to fight an insurgency with your hands tied by western-inspired rules of engagement, and it’s another thing to do so with Syria’s or Saddam’s morality. Or the same morality as in WW2 when horrific weapons and tactics were used quite on everybody, not just on soldiers. I’m particularly reminded how American soldiers burnt Japanese soldiers alive with blow torches as one example.

We’re dealing with hypotheticals here, right? America becoming a tyranny. If that happens, then the morality of those in power will be that of tyrants, and the military that follows tyrants would be full of people willing to do tyrannical things. Sounds crazy in today’s world, but again, we’re dealing with hypotheticals.

As to Assad’s lack of success in combating counter insurgency, I’ll tell you this: the opposition forces are being armed, logistically aided and funded by Turkey and the Sunni Arab states. They’re not fighting simple handguns. Furthermore, they’re fighting fanatics groups who infiltrated Syria like Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan were infiltrated – by international jihadis – people who do suicide bombings. Americans (and by that I don’t mean some naturalized guy named Muhammad Ahmed, but a real American) aren’t really into suicide bombings.

The Kurds started an uprising in Iraq, and Saddam gassed them, among other things. That put an end to any insurgency…

The rest of the comments I’ll get to later, I gotta leave now.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Is anyone paying attention here at HA? What the heII is up with that first vid? You are wasting my time.

Bmore on January 11, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Is anyone paying attention here at HA? What the heII is up with that first vid? You are wasting my time.
Bmore on January 11, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Very rude.

bluegill on January 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Piers Morgan loses again!!! lol

sadsushi on January 11, 2013 at 7:44 PM

I’d pay a fee so that the halfwits and trolls were discouraged.

kim roy on January 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

lmao….

you’d be bored in a week.

Plus, we’d have no-one to argue with ‘cept the squishes.

Tim_CA on January 11, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Anti-Control on January 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM

thanxs for the tips!

Tim_CA on January 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM

So banning AR-15s will merely reduce the efficiency of the next massacre, but by and large it won’t make much of a dent in criminal shooting rates.

AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

The biggest “massacre” mass shooting in the US was Virginia Tech. 32 dead, 56 wounded. The weapons used: two handguns, one of them a .22 (!)

What makes mass shootings into mass shootings rather than “two killed today before gunman brought down” is the disarmed-victim zones that we’ve created, where those intent on evil have a much stronger assurance that once they start shooting that they can KEEP shooting for a much longer time period… because no one there who is law-abiding will be able to shoot back.

“Assault Weapons” don’t enable massacres… “gun-free zones” do.

VekTor on January 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM

What is wrong with the AR-15?

Nothing, and don’t let any twaggot tell you otherwise.

tom daschle concerned on January 11, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Haven’t seen the numbers but this Piers Morgan Circus of Ignorance must have raised CNN ratings. He’s a toffee-nosed fool who thrives on publicity. He is lapping up all the attention and his “How dare you!s” are worth as much a Geithner Platinum Doubloon.

His integrity and knowledge are sub-zero so winning a debate with him isn’t really medal-worthy. Shapiro beat the retard, for sure, but it wasn’t fair.

Why don’t people acknowledge that the federal government is powerless to solve this problem? The left’s war on guns is just as effective as the right’s war on drugs. We have a completely dyfunctional federal government and the best thing it could do is nothing at all.

The states would find better solutions for themselves than these entitled know-it-all politicians and their Washington media poodles.

virgo on January 12, 2013 at 2:24 AM

piers should ask why the KKK didn’t want former slaves having guns. I mean that was only what 40 50 years ago that a minority population had to live in fear because their right to self defense was taken from them from.

unseen on January 12, 2013 at 9:36 AM

… here in Canada …
AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Ah. Your input is irrelevant then.

Dante on January 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM

What is wrong with the AR-15?

Nothing, and don’t let any twaggot tell you otherwise.

tom daschle concerned on January 11, 2013 at 9:37 PM

.
I’ve not handled one (yet), but the reading I’ve done would indicate the M-16 had some reliability trouble “in the field”, that the AK47s did not.
I’m assuming (erroneously?) the AR-15 would experience the same.

listens2glenn on January 12, 2013 at 1:01 PM

That was brutal to listen to. Morgan is a level of stupid that is painful to behold.

Shapiro owned him like a lion on a gazelle and I doubt Morgan even realizes it.

Yakko77 on January 12, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I’ve not handled one (yet), but the reading I’ve done would indicate the M-16 had some reliability trouble “in the field”, that the AK47s did not.
I’m assuming (erroneously?) the AR-15 would experience the same.

Too bad you missed the boat. The AR-15 is one fine weapon.
When the M-16 was first introduced into the jungles of Vietnam, they jammed easily because of the mud, water, etc. The A-1 model corrected that with a “Ram” that you had to push hard with the heel of your hand to force an obstructed round into the dirty chamber.
Even while everyone carried a cleaning kit, and gun oil of course, you just couldn’t keep it clean enough. The M-16A2 is even better.

The Kalasnikov takes a lot of abuse and keeps on ticking, er firing. It feels strange as hell though. The first time I picked up one, and subsequently bought (a Hungarian made KBI), I was shocked that I felt “stamped steel” on the weapon. I thought WTF is the big deal with this cheap (not price-wise) POS? BUT, you just can’t abuse those babies too much. That’s why they are the weapon of choice across the planet.
(don’t get sucked into buying a real cheap Chinese SKS. the extra money is worth paying the price for a quality firearm)

By the By … After “the wall came down”, and for several years afterward, you could buy a fully-auto AK-47 on a street corner in most major European cities. I wonder how many are still floating around over yonder?
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 13, 2013 at 8:39 AM

… here in Canada …
AlexB on January 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM
Ah. Your input is irrelevant then.

Dante on January 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Can I tell you I’m proud of your exchange on this thread?

hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 12:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4