Piers Morgan: On second thought, does it really matter what kind of gun was used at the Navy Yard?

posted at 2:47 pm on September 17, 2013 by Allahpundit

Is there anyone in American media who trolls more people with less effort than this insufferable wanker? I’m not even mad. It’s a talent. If you don’t have an actual fan base, the logical thing to do when you’re not playing pattycake with celebrities is to seize a hot-button issue with both hands and start a fight over it at every opportunity. If America ever did ban guns, his first tweet the next morning would be about how, if you think about it, abortion really should be available up to and including the start of labor.

Last night’s talking point: The Navy Yard shooting proves once again why we need to get rid of “assault weapons” like the AR-15. Today’s talking point, now that we know there were no “assault weapons” involved:

There’s no “confusion.” The FBI confirmed hours ago to his own network that Alexis had a shotgun and two pistols. This is simply Piers being unwilling to eat two scoops of sh*t publicly for his demagoguery yesterday. But in his defense, he’s far from alone among media gun-grabbers in that regard. And if it makes you feel better, this new tweet at least represents what’s obviously his honest view. No one who believes what Morgan believes about guns would stop logically at “assault weapons.” They’re merely a foot in the regulatory door. If Piers had his way, at a minimum we’d be talking about a ban on all semiautomatics. Not that that would have stopped Alexis either.

Via Noah Rothman, as of noon ET today, MSNBC was still running a graphic of Alexis wielding an AR-15 instead of a shotgun or pistol. Of course.

aa


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

Yes, because gun knife control has worked so well at reducing violent crime in the UK.

Mohonri on September 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM

OFF SUBJECT: Is anyone with a “voice” ever going to express concern that is seems like we, our leaders, US presidents, starting with carter, then bush, and now obama are getting rid of leadership of middle eastern countries and allowing the void to be filled by islamists????WTF

jarhead0311 on September 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

It Does.

The ShotGun is the White House approved gun. Joe Biden said so.

portlandon on September 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

All gunz R bad, mmmmmmmkay.

stvnscott on September 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Otherwise known as the Hillary Defense

mankai on September 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Get over it idiot libs…. No one is going to take our constitutional rights to bear arms… No one is going to take away our guns… Try as you might, you are going nowhere fools…

mnjg on September 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

What a complete douchebag, it mattered to you yesterday though didn’t it Richard Crainium.

D-fusit on September 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Does that pic also have a grenade launcher on the rifle? lol

MikeInBA on September 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM

No it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the victims were not allowed to carry any gun of any kind to defend themselves.

mankai on September 17, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Does that picture have an AR-15 with a grenade launcher attachment? Because that looks extra-plus scary.

Meric1837 on September 17, 2013 at 2:52 PM

it would have been much more effective if the police were unarmed and they “talked” with this obama supporting democrat rather than shooting at him.

Talk and reason always prevail in the real world.

If obama had a son would he have looked like this shooter?

acyl72 on September 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Notice in the MSNBC graphic that the shooter is “RED” while the innocent victims are “BLUE”.

This is not a mistake or a coincidence.

portlandon on September 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I understand why Piers Morgan would favor gun control over loon control.

While more loon control might reduce the number of shootings by crazies and more gun control will not, Piers Morgan doesn’t worry about being collected in a government sweep for guns. Now a government sweep for loons? Yeah, he has a worry.

No Truce With Kings on September 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM

If Piers had his way, at a minimum we’d be talking about a ban on all semiautomatics. Not that that would have stopped Alexis either.

It was a Remington 870, pump action. Not even a semi auto. He acquired the 2 pistols from police/security.

Rocks on September 17, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Via Noah Rothman, as of noon ET today, MSNBC was still running a graphic of Alexis wielding an AR-15 instead of a shotgun or pistol. Of course.

Not just an AR15, but an AR15 with a grenade launcher! Fluking cripes. They aren’t interested in an honest discussion in any way, shape, or form.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Blame Bill Clinton for passing the law that banned service members from having guns on the base.
Allow service members to open carry and you will almost eliminate these kinds of shootings from madmen. Of course this won’t happen until Ted Cruz is President…..

Cruz 2016 – the only hope left to change America.

redguy on September 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Lots of confusion over exactly what guns Wash Navy Yard shooter used. But do you think it matters to the victims? #GunControlNow

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 17, 2013

What I’ve already told the idjit:

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 53m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ The only one confused IS YOU, Musket.

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 53m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ With SPECIFICITY, exactly what new GC laws would have prevented the #NavyYardShooting?

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 53m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ W/the exception of Tucson, every mass shooting that has occurred in the US in the last 50 years did so in a GFZ.

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 52m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ

Alexis PASSED his background check to get into the Navy.

He PASSED his background check to obtain his CCW.

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 51m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ

He PASSED his BC to secure employment with a defence contractor.

He PASSED his BC for his security clearance.

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 51m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ

He PASSED his BC to obtain a pass to the Navy Yard.

He PASSED his Federal NCIS BC to purchase his shotgun.

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 50m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ He STOLE the two handguns from the bodies of his victims. Should we disarm LEO?

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 50m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ Musket, should we ban shotguns, which is something not even our homeland has done?

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 48m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ W/the exception of Tucson, every mass shooting that has occurred in the US in the last 50 years did so in a GFZ.

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 46m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ Hassan. Manning. Snowden. Alexis. Could not the Feds’ #VettingProcess be a serious problem? #VettingReformNOW

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 44m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ In 2010,10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. #GunControlNow #NavyYardShooting

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 43m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ But, but, but, we’ve drunk-driving laws and they prevent drunk-driving or something! #GunControlNow

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 42m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ In 2010, there were 11,078 gun-related homicides. #GunControlNow #NavyYardShooting

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 42m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ Diff=850 lives…and, yet, we’ve infinitely more gun control laws on the books than we do drunk-driving statutes

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 41m

@piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ So, per the emotion-driven logic of some, we sd reinstate Prohibition–after all, it worked out so well last time

Sophie Ro ‏@SophieRo3 25m

@NedInside @piersmorgan @AceofSpadesHQ Chart of the Day: United States Homicide Rate 1885-2012 ~> pic.twitter.com/ChqIDRhkrT

As you might imagine, the response has been ‘crickets.’

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM

that graphic is an AR15……with an M203 grenade launcher…..??? er that’s certainly not something that he’d have and is another epic fail. Not only that, he would not be wielding it with a half assed grip like that.

ted c on September 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I don’t know … I really want one of those AR-15 shotguns Pierced was talking about. It sounds pretty cool. In 6 gauge, if you could. Full auto. For one-handed shooting.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM

that graphic is an AR15……with an M203 grenade launcher…..??? er that’s certainly not something that he’d have and is another epic fail. Not only that, he would not be wielding it with a half assed grip like that.

ted c on September 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM

What? You don’t shoot your grenade launchers from the hip?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Back meet track.

Side note: Where did the Perp get his hands on an M203?

Chip on September 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I think its also pretty sweet that in the pic the shooter is just casually firing the rifle with one hand, while resting the other on the railing…”laaadeeedaaa..just firing some 5.56NATO rounds like they aint nothin. Rambo made this look hard”

MikeInBA on September 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM

What we need is #NutCaseControl.

Dexter_Alarius on September 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM

He should be referred to from this point forward as Piers AR15 Morgan.

paulsur on September 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Back meet track.

Side note: Where did the Perp get his hands on an M203?

Chip on September 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM

At a gun show with no background of course.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:11 PM

What difference does it make.

Hillary Clinton

- and Piers Morgan

22044 on September 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM

BTW, not that I am questioning anyone’s courage here but it will be interesting to find out how this shooter took 2 weapons off security yet none of them ended up dead.

Rocks on September 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Update: FBI confirms no AR-15 used in Navy Yard shooting

So what? The AR-15 thing will go into the echo chamber as “fact”, and not only the Lefties but folks like Bill O will say a year from now that it was an AR-15.

They know if they throw enough BS out there, most of it will stick to the wall. There’s too much of it to verify or to look up in order to support arguments against the True Believers of the Church of Conventional Wisdom.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM

If Piers had his way, at a minimum we’d be talking about a ban on all semiautomatics.

Ah, no. He would ban ALL guns even shotguns, which is something that not even the UK has done.

Here’s the problem that the ‘Ban All Guns, Now!’ crowd has – in addition to the Second Amendment:

Most of them are for open borders.

They operate under the illusion that weapons will be magically prevented from crossing a border…unlike drug mules and illegal immigrants.

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I like the red perp, shooting all the blue people. Nice touch, MSNBC.

Dusty on September 17, 2013 at 3:18 PM

…and Pyongyang Piers opens his brainless yap yet again.

Dunedainn on September 17, 2013 at 3:19 PM

As you might imagine, the response has been ‘crickets.’

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM

He’s probably just waiting for a good time to call you.
:)

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I implore all British people to rise up against your government and demand that the government change its gun laws to have no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership and carry. (As I do with the people of the US.)

WhatSlushfund on September 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I see the motorized goal posts have been brought into play. Well played, well played indeed!

When you only have one argument, you need to change the playing field to make that argument fit.

Johnnyreb on September 17, 2013 at 3:23 PM

I don’t know … I really want one of those AR-15 shotguns Pierced was talking about. It sounds pretty cool. In 6 gauge, if you could. Full auto. For one-handed shooting.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I’d like an AR-15 Shotgun to carry in my Corvette Truck while shooting Deer Bears.

RadClown on September 17, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Go to hell Morgan.

TX-96 on September 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM

You know which way the guns are flowing, and why – right?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I’d like an AR-15 Shotgun to carry in my Corvette Truck while shooting Deer Bears manbearpigs.

RadClown on September 17, 2013 at 3:24 PM

FIFY

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM

You know which way the guns are flowing, and why – right?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Yes, all of us know about Fast and Furious.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Pathetic Sh*tbag continues to behave like a
pathetic Sh*tbag.

ToddPA on September 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You know which way the guns are flowing, and why – right?

verbalucedouche on September 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Edited for clarity

D-fusit on September 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Send him one of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oYl-Lm9a6U

Trust me, fun for all!

katy the mean old lady on September 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

He’s probably just waiting for a good time to call you.
:)

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM

He hasn’t replied to anyone. Musket is a MUFFIN!

You know which way the guns are flowing, and why – right?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Are you referring to Fast & Furious, perchance?

My point was that, IF WE BANNED ALL GUNS, they would STILL be available unless, of course, you want to MILITARISE THE BORDER.

Is there some Magical Magnet in the sky that will, somehow, some way, amazingly stop guns from entering the United States through the same porous borders, sea coasts, and ports that are UNABLE to prevent drugs and illegal aliens from flooding the country?

How IS life in My Progressive Little Ponyland?

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Yes, all of us know about Fast and Furious.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Of course, that’s the one instance you’ve followed.
(Though maybe not fully. Hint: There was a beginning to all that.)

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

If Piers doesn’t like freedom and the responsibility it comes with he is FREE to move back to England/Europe. The US is no place for pu$$-ies…

Doomsday on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Of course, that’s the one instance you’ve followed.
(Though maybe not fully. Hint: There was a beginning to all that.)

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

BOOOOOSH he screamed!

D-fusit on September 17, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Of course, that’s the one instance you’ve followed.
(Though maybe not fully. Hint: There was a beginning to all that.)

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Wide Receiver was VERY different from Fast & Furious. WR’s intent was NOT to let weapons walk across the border. It was to track sales and stop guns BEFORE they crossed the border. From the beginning, F&F was designed to let guns cross the border and then track them in Mexico.

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Come and get it, Morg.

Ronnie on September 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Via Noah Rothman, as of noon ET today, MSNBC was still running a graphic of Alexis wielding an AR-15 instead of a shotgun or pistol. Of course.

ABC News is still doing it too. Just saw a report on the local news where the re-enactment video clearly shows an AR-15.

Captain Kirock on September 17, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Lots of confusion over exactly what guns Wash Navy Yard shooter used. But do you think it matters to the victims?

No, it doesn’t matter to liberals exactly what guns were used in a gun free zone they forced upon the defenseless innocents who had to work there.

Liberals certainly do like defenseless innocents getting massacred as a result of their policies because they keep wanting to expand those murderous gun free zones and disarm law abiding citizens, don’t they? Apparently they don’t mind having the blood of innocents on their hands.

Apparently? What am I saying? They’re the same ones who support infanticide, some going so far as to advocate killing those infants lucky enough to survive those botch efforts.

When you get to thinking about it, they’re also the ones constantly agitating for imprisoned murders to go free, reducing sentences for violent offenses, and freeing convicts from prison with early parole, and letting them back into society to again prey on innocents.

I’m beginning to see a pattern here, but I can’t quite make it out. It will come to me soon, though.

Dusty on September 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Of course, that’s the one instance you’ve followed.
(Though maybe not fully. Hint: There was a beginning to all that.)

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Yes, we all know “But Bush did it too (sort of, but not really!)!”.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM

The ex-Navy reservist who gunned down 12 at Washington Navy Yard had his federal security clearance renewed in July, despite having a record of violent behavior involving guns and a history of mental illness.

Ya think this might be a problem? Good lord these people are gonna be running our healthcare, stop the freakin world, I want off.

D-fusit on September 17, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Piers Morgan/CNN: Does the truth really matter..?

d1carter on September 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Is there anyone in American media who trolls more people with less effort than this insufferable wanker?

Define “more people.”

On Monday night, Piers Morgan Live (an oxymoron if ever there was one) had a total of 550 thousand viewers, roughly a quarter of the audience for an episode of Robot Chicken which aired at midnight, or about .02% of the American population.

To paraphrase Voltaire, if Piers Morgan didn’t exist, Hot Air would have to invent him. And pretty much has.

de rigueur on September 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Piers is a mini muffin.

There isn’t gonna be a gun ban.
All sorts of stuff will always cross borders, but it’ll never be 300 million guns.
So this isn’t really a point you’re making.

How’s life in Henny Penny-land?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Piers Morgan: On second thought, does it really matter what kind of gun was used at the Navy Yard?

Note to Piers – the ‘Hillary defense’ is as vapid now as it was when she first invoked it to deflect from her failures which resulted in the death of 4 Americans, including the first murdered US Ambassador since the Carter Administration.

The issue isn’t the weapon, it’s your cluelessness, fecklessness, and willingness to embrace anything, including lies to push your fascist agenda.

The only ‘confusion’ is yours – you seem to be confused as your head seems inserted well up your own arse.

Athos on September 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Oh yeah, and slightly OT: EDL! EDL! EDL!

WhatSlushfund on September 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM

My great-great-great-great grandad shot Piers’s great-great-great-great grandad in the arse at the Battle of North Point, MD.

My great-great-great grandmother used to love telling us that story.

Akzed on September 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Yes, because gun knife MEAT CLEAVER control has worked so well at reducing violent crime in the UK.

Mohonri on September 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM

..I think that’s what you really meant.

The War Planner on September 17, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Mass shooters are almost always gang-bangers, jihadis or mentally ill. Blacks and Muslims reliably vote D, and the last group doesn’t live in this universe (which I guess means they lean D).

The left doesn’t want to alienate their base, so they won’t stage an intervention with blacks and Muslims. The ACLU won’t allow them to involuntarily commit dangerous psychotics, leaving us with gun control. They know that the only way to eliminate gun violence is a complete gun ban but revealing their true intentions would flip Vermont red. So, they attempt to just chip away, only hurting the law-abiding Joe just waiting to get mowed down in the next “gun-free” zone.

crrr6 on September 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM

You misunderstand. I’m not inferring anything about Bush.
Pointing out that the program germinated from an initiative to track guns going south….the motivation being to stem the arming (from the US) of Mexican drug cartels.
I should have skipped the hint.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I should have skipped the hint.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

And this thread.

katy the mean old lady on September 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Notice in the MSNBC graphic that the shooter is “RED” while the innocent victims are “BLUE”.

This is not a mistake or a coincidence.

portlandon on September 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Good catch. And you are correct.

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM

The shooter used the weapon recommended by VP Biteme. What’s the problem? PC was the aider and abettor in every mass shooting. No real mandated help for the mentally ill is truly to blame in this instance. Our prezzy samba groove wants to arm AQ in Syria and take away our guns here. UP is down and down is up.

Kissmygrits on September 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Let’s not let facts get in the way here. Poor Piers (who would name a kid Piers???) is like Diane Feinstein…they stake their entire careers on selling water but keep going to an empty well.

Both of them need to click their heels together (interchangable I think) and pray for water in the well.

teejk on September 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM

You know which way the guns are flowing, and why – right?

[verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM]

I’ve read about liberals who run the government shipping untracked guns from the US to Mexican and South American drug cartels.

Today, I saw a liberal waive laws prohibiting the flow of arms to genocidal maniacs.

It appears the why is that they like to see massacres so that they can disarm more even more law-abiding people.

Dusty on September 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

‘Yo Piers, you F-ing idiot, this shouldn’t be about “gun control” but about mental health issues. Wise up you flake.

Cherokee on September 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Lots of confusion over exactly what guns Wash Navy Yard shooter used. But do you think it matters to the victims?

After years and years, barrels of ink and millions of dollars telling Americans that it *does* matter which gun is used in a murder and we’ve got to ban “assault weapons” (now including bolt-action rifles and non-auto shotguns in California), now they’re arguing exactly 180 degrees the opposite?

It’s not the in-your-face what-you-gonna-do-about-it? hypocrisy at work here, it’s that everybody will shrug it off and ignore it when they turn right around and argue their original point yet again.

There is NO intellectual integrity in the anti-gun argument — and nobody gives a damn.

Socratease on September 17, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Piers is a mini muffin.

There isn’t gonna be a gun ban.
All sorts of stuff will always cross borders, but it’ll never be 300 million guns.
So this isn’t really a point you’re making.

How’s life in Henny Penny-land?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Who said that there was going to be a gun ban?

I said that Muffin Morgan wants, in his heart, to ban all guns…even shotguns, which is something that not even an island country like the UK has done. At the same time, he’s an open borders guy.

You really can’t coherently hold both positions.

No, 300 million guns will not cross the border, but enough would so as to give criminals and gang members, but I repeat myself, access to weapons even if everyone else was disarmed.

Why you think that I’m acting like Obama and Democrats with their ‘Sequester is NIGH!’ pronouncements is beyond me. Maybe, it’s just your reading comprehension.

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

I should have skipped the hint.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

And this thread.

katy the mean old lady on September 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Hey, that’s mean.
Oh…right.
Never mind.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Who said that there was going to be a gun ban?

I said that Muffin Morgan wants, in his heart, to ban all guns…even shotguns, which is something that not even an island country like the UK has done. At the same time, he’s an open borders guy.

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Cranberry nut mini-muffin man Morgan may hold all sorts of idiotic positions. It doesn’t mean we have to debate them.
If both you and I agree there isn’t going to be a gun ban – why discuss why it wouldn’t work or be possible?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Track these guns, trolish fools.

Schadenfreude on September 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Yes, because gun
knife

MEAT CLEAVER PINT GLASS control has worked so well at reducing violent crime in the UK.

Mohonri on September 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM

..I think that’s what you really meant.

The War Planner on September 17, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Seriously.

There are 87,000 injuries every year as a result of pint ‘glass’ glasses being used in pub fights.

Shatterproof Pint Glass Unveiled By British Government

Unbreakable Pint Glass on Trial in U.K. to Prevent Bar Fight Injuries

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Cranberry nut mini-muffin man Morgan may hold all sorts of idiotic positions.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM

‘Muffin’ = Pu$$y

It doesn’t mean we have to debate them.
If both you and I agree there isn’t going to be a gun ban – why discuss why it wouldn’t work or be possible?

This thread is about the idjit, Muffin Morgan.

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Pointing out that the program germinated from an initiative to track guns going south….the motivation being to stem the arming (from the US) of Mexican drug cartels.
verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

And why do guns currently flow in that direction? Have you done any research on Mexican gun control laws? Hint – they are far more strict than Chicago or DC. Go look it up. The illegal gun flow currently goes TO Mexico because most guns are illegal in Mexico.
The point you just can’t seem to grasp is that if guns were made totally or mostly illegal in the US, then the flow would shift direction, because it would be as or more profitable for the cartels to ship and sell guns as it currently is for drugs. If the libtards currently in charge of the US actually succeeded in some level of national gun ban, the banned weapons would start flowing in, through Mexico and our unsecured border, originating from many other countries – just as the drug traffic currently does.
Are you really that clueless?

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

It doesn’t mean we have to debate them.
If both you and I agree there isn’t going to be a gun ban – why discuss why it wouldn’t work or be possible?

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM

You’re in a thread about Piers Morgan.

sentinelrules on September 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Someone should point out that the following existing gun laws and regulations had an impact on this shooting:
1. DC’s very strict gun laws made it illegal for Alexis to be carrying the weapons he had (and, I believe, to own the handgun).
2. Base regulations made it unlawful for Alexis to carry the weapons he did on the base (those same regulations also effectively disarmed Alexis’ victims).
3. To the extent that Alexis’ guns were acquired legally, he managed to demonstrate the effectiveness of federal “background checks.”

So, the very strict laws and regulations in play had no impact on the shooter. They did manage to ensure that this mass shooting (like pretty much all the others) would take place in a “gun-free” zone.

Somehow, this clear demonstration that gun laws are either ineffective or downright pernicious has led blowhards like Piers to the conclusion that we need more gun laws.

morganfrost on September 17, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Talk about mental illness. Piers Morgan, he is not even good or interesting, it takes mental illness to watch.

petunia on September 17, 2013 at 4:25 PM

If Piers doesn’t like freedom and the responsibility it comes with he is FREE to move back to England/Europe. The US is no place for pu$$-ies…
Doomsday on September 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

That may or may not be but we did elect a president who wears Mom Jeans.

And is it wrong to wish that Piers has an encounter with the wrong end of a Glock and has an epiphany that this might be a good time to have a little something stuffed in the small of his back?

All it would have taken to stop the shooter yesterday is an armed citizen who isn’t afraid to square off with a punk like that.

Just one.

turfmann on September 17, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Lots of confusion over exactly what guns Wash Navy Yard shooter used. But do you think it matters to the victims?

Probably not Piers. For those Syrian dead, do you think it matters to them if they died by chemical weapons or bombs?

Anyone ever tell you that you’re an insufferable ass Piers old boy?

Here’s a thought, something that rarely enters your pointed head Piers; when discussing solutions to problems, isn’t the first prerequisite to ACCURATELY define the problem?

Chou, Loughner, Harris, Alexis….all LEGALLY purchased firearms. ALL had “mental health” issues. Beginning to see a pattern there old chum? Probably not. You’re not noted for the depth of your intellect.

GarandFan on September 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Get out of my country you Brit twit!

neyney on September 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM

The point you just can’t seem to grasp is that if guns were made totally or mostly illegal in the US, then the flow would shift direction, because it would be as or more profitable for the cartels to ship and sell guns as it currently is for drugs.

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Guns aren’t going to be made illegal here.
But to entertain your hypothesis for a moment, the theoretical demand for guns would pale in comparison to the very real demand for drugs – and be nowhere near as profitable.

There’s a lot of silly and pointless comparisons going on in this thread.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM

I’m not inferring anything about Bush.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

You’re not inferring the difference between an implication and an inference, either.

steebo77 on September 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Pointing out that the program germinated from an initiative to track guns going south….the motivation being to stem the arming (from the US) of Mexican drug cartels.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

And why, exactly, would Mexican drug cartels require arming from a source outside of Mexico?

The Schaef on September 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Akzed on September 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Pointing out that the program germinated from an initiative to track guns going south….the motivation being to stem the arming (from the US) of Mexican drug cartels. verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

By doing exactly that? What’s that, like, homeopathy?

Akzed on September 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I’m not inferring anything about Bush.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

You’re not inferring the difference between an implication and an inference, either.

steebo77 on September 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Your educations dollars at work.

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM

You misunderstand. I’m not inferring anything about Bush.
Pointing out that the program germinated from an initiative to track guns going south….the motivation being to stem the arming (from the US) of Mexican drug cartels.
I should have skipped the hint.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Pull your pants up, your ignorance is showing.

The United States imports far more than it exports.

Quick, tell us again which way the river is flowing!

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Guns aren’t going to be made illegal here.

Likely not – but you Dems keep trying. Do I really need to post quotes from DiFi and your other Dem leaders about what they really want?

But to entertain your hypothesis for a moment, the theoretical demand for guns would pale in comparison to the very real demand for drugs – and be nowhere near as profitable.

Says who? You?
Last year over 19 million background checks for LEGAL gun purchases were run. FBI shows a pace to exceed that this year. Even without adding ammo to that for potential black market sales, you’re talking about a multi-Billion dollar per year business.

There’s a lot of silly and pointless comparisons going on in this thread.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Then why are you here?
Discussion and opinionating is what this site is all about.
Why is it pointless to discuss what your Dem leadership has publicly stated they actually to accomplish with gun control?

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM

education

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 4:56 PM

education

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 4:56 PM

edjamacation
that be new skooo

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Didn’t Morgan say he was leaving the US if gun control didn’t pass?

El_Terrible on September 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

All sorts of stuff will always cross borders, but it’ll never be 300 million guns.

verbaluce on September 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM

But we can dream, can’t we.

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 5:01 PM

education

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 4:56 PM

edjamacation
that be new skooo

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I can’t type cursive.

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I can’t type cursive.

davidk on September 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

That’s ok – I can’t speak it, or read it….

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Morgan = A. Wiener with a talk show.

BobMbx on September 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

On second thought, does it really matter what kind of gun was used at the Navy Yard?

Yes it does – because YOU made it an issue when you THOUGHT it was a skeery AR-15 that you want to ban.

dentarthurdent on September 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2