Friday, June 19, 2015

Piers Morgan is still a dumbass

Embedded in another of his typical polemic [with the usual framing and hyperbole], following the tragic Charleston shooting, Piers Morgan utters the following absurdity:


I’m sick of hearing that the 2nd Amendment can’t be amended to drag it into modern life because the Constitution is such a sacred document. It’s already an AMENDMENT. Do the damn math.


Poor ignorant Piers.......this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment camp has been calling for. We ask that instead of cowardly end-runs...nibbling at the edges in order to mask the true agenda....why won't the gun control camp simply pursue an amendment or revocation of the 2A?

50 comments:

  1. He knows as much of US law as I know of British law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The left never lets a tragedy go to waste. They're also using this to go after the Confederate flag, again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And Jon Stewart, who is exactly like Rush Limbaugh but on the left and more stylish, rants that this is a "terrorist" attack.

    I wonder what his point is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon Stewart's point is that we only call attacks like this terrorism if the killer/killers is/are Muslim. This was obviously terrorism (the shooter said he wanted to spark a civil war by shooting Black people), but the Fox Noozers said this might be an attack on Christianity.

      As for Piers Morgan, he's right about guns, which is, I gather, what makes him a "dumbass"?

      Delete
    2. Given that he's generally wrong on firearms, that does qualify him as a dumbass...but I quoted his specific dumbassery in the topic.

      Delete
    3. No, you said he is STILL a dumbass... meaning that if he had not said what you quoted he would still be a dumbass. You never said why you think him a dumbass to begin with.

      Anyway, I'd say he is generally right on firearms.

      Delete
    4. I'm sure the MSNBC noozers will go for the jugular of the Second Amendment.

      Delete
    5. "Jon Stewart's point is that we only call attacks like this terrorism if the killer/killers is/are Muslim"

      Jon Stewart, like Limbaugh, lies and preaches to his hardline ideologue choir. He forgets that Tim McVeigh and countless others are called terrorists too. He forgets the decades-long war in which the IRA (non-Muslim) was always called, and is remembered as, terrorist.

      Stewart was very quick to try to politicize this incident in a very dumb way. No doubt Limbaugh jumped to it too. I wonder which one of these twin sons of different mothers did it first?

      Delete
  4. Don't worry guys, guns will remain all over the streets like we're a Third World shithole. You have your way.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hope we have "our" way. And the people will retain their right to bear arms, as spelled out in the law of the land... like we're a proper Constitutional republic which recognizes the rule of law rather than the divine right of authority.

    I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point about guns and third world countries? But if there is a point, it is clear you mean that "guns on streets" = 'third world sh*thole".

    Lets check:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#/media/File:World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svg

    When I think of third world sh*tholes, Haiti comes to mind. Awful place... and very low gun ownership as it turns out. Bangladesh also came to mind before I looked it up here as an example of a bad third world country. Low gun ownership there, too. In fact, the vast swaths of nations across that belt of Africa and Asia, the vast majority of "third world", also have very low gun ownership.

    Which countries have guns remaining "all over the streets'... high gun ownership? Most are in the first world.

    And third world countries that have high gun ownership? Pretty hard to find, really. But Jersey, your statement would imply that high gun ownership has a connection with a place being a bad third world country.

    In fact, there are only two third world "sh*tholes" with very high gun ownership: Uruguay and Yemen.

    Sorry, Jersey, I have NOOOO idea where you pulled that from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you can't see it.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. I can't see any sort of correlation between gun ownership and a place being a third-world sh*thole? Of course not. That's because if there is any such relationship, from the real evidence on gun ownership, the less guns a country has the more of a "third world sh*thole" it is.

      Delete
    3. "All over the streets" is bereft of any value save emotion. I'm not sure why people employ such devices.

      Delete
    4. CI: So, other than the gun ownership stats and the geographic matters, Jersey's argument about gun ownership stats and geographic matters was spot on!

      Delete
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    There ya' go.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. And you get places with fewer guns having higher rates than the US, and places with more guns having lower rates than the US.

    We'd be better suited focusing on actual crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Guns are used in crimes too, dmarks.

    Do you know this killer screwball's father gave him a gun, a .45, for his birthday. He gave that screwball lunatic kid a #%@#ing .45. Unbelievable. As far as I know, there will be no accountability for that act. So, uh, thanks a lot.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No we don't know that....and neither do you. CNN is reporting that law enforcement has traced the firearm, and states that Roof bought it himself in April, after passing the NICS check.

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-suspect/

      Delete
    2. "...after passing the NICS check"

      CI, can you venture whether not the stringent background checks, closing the 'gun show loophole', re-instating the "assault weapons" ban, or any such panacea proposed here by the gun control types would have prevented this incident?

      (Anything proposed short of Gov Cuomo confiscating everything).

      Delete
    3. We don't know for certain how the shooter in the Charleston incident obtained the firearm. It looks like he may have bought it legally and passed the NICS [Brady background check].

      The alleged 'gun show loophole' is a false meme. There is no loophole. Commercial, Class III firearms dealers are required to run a NICS for anyone who purchase a firearm from them at a gun show, just as with a storefront. Private sellers are not required to do so at a gunshow, just as if the transaction were to occur outside of a gunshow.

      The 'assault weapons' ban obviously wouldn't apply in this case, it the firearm in question was a handgun. Further, the aforementioned ban attempts to prohibit ownership of firearms that are not mechanically different than other firearms not prohibited, thus making the ban ineffectual beyond some folks feeling better.

      With liberty comes risk. With risk comes consequences and accountability. Those who attempt to remove all risk, albeit only in cases that appeal to their emotions, remove liberty.

      Delete
    4. Thanks. So the answer is that none of these efforts/rallying cries, other than the Democrats' "confiscate confiscate confiscate" would have done a thing.

      All was as I suspected. But I didn't honestly know whether this weapon would have been covered in that silly "assault weapons" ban which considered some guns to be more dangerous than other guns based on the color of paint.

      Delete
    5. They have no need for anything beyond rallying cries. Their narrative is appeal to emotion. It's a fact-free formula.

      They call for further infringement on a Constitutional right that is already has [by far] the most onerous and burdensome requirements by which to practice it. Requirements that they would not stand for, were they applied to other Constitutional rights.

      Since they won't exhibit the courage of their convictions and pursue their true goal of disarmament by repealing the 2nd Amendment, they keep their minions occupied with an intellectual deficit of emotion-driven memes, based on appearance and fear.

      Delete
    6. Seems to be the case. Look no further than Jersey's "gun ownership = third world" argument, which flopped like a fish on the dock in light of the facts of comparative geography. Then it died like said fish.

      Pure bluster with no factual basis.

      Delete
    7. Fibbing much, dmarks. I showed plainly we rank with Third World countries in gun violence, and I pointed out that the kid getting that gun was plainly a display of a reprehensibly irresponsible gun transaction that is legal because that's the way you gun guys want things. So stop lying late on threads, please.

      JMJ

      Delete
    8. Yet that wasn't what you said earlier, Jersey.

      And now we have the "kid getting that gun" which would have still happened had we passed the gun control laws which have been recommended by you and others in these discussions.

      Delete
    9. ...and I pointed out that the kid getting that gun was plainly a display of a reprehensibly irresponsible gun transaction that is legal because that's the way you gun guys want things.

      No. You reiterated initial reporting which turned out to be likely wrong. But it is entertaining that you admit, you would see private transactions between two consenting citizens licensed and taxed.

      Delete
    10. You have to stoop to pettifogging to make your arguments. Pathetic. You want no accountability for guns because you are like little spoiled children, not responsible adults.

      JMJ

      Delete
    11. False. The accountability I want is the consequences for violations of the law.

      But its good to see consistency from you. I'd be shocked if you were ever able to proffer a mature, cogent response. Instead, verbal tantrums are your currency. You do your side no justice.

      Delete
    12. No "pettifogging" happened, Jersey: You made some very specific claims that were at the center of your argument. Not "petty details". These were shown to be entirely incorrect.

      Delete
    13. CI said: "False. The accountability I want is the consequences for violations of the law."

      I know what you mean, CI. Jersey, on the other hand, has repeatedly called for "accountability" for those who have absolutely nothing to do with these crimes, and aren't responsible, or culpable, or guilty, or to blame, in any way.

      It's actually "un-American" in my view, CI. Not "un-American" in a McCarthyite way, but "un-American" in that it goes against our Constitution and the way it handles crime and blame.

      If anything, Jersey's demands might be a tip toward McCarthyism, or what passes for "justice" in Red China. Where guilt for a crime/etc often has absolutely no connection as to whether or not the person is to blame.

      Delete
    14. That's what we get from that camp Attempted end runs around Constitutional and civil liberties, and vague, undefined, and false blanket assertions about what we allegedly 'want' or 'don't want'.....based not on our words or actions, but on the script they follow.

      Delete
    15. ....and if you dare to deal with specifics, you get accused of "pettifogging"

      Which means that to some, only a vague and slap-dash approach is valued. Which is an awful way to deal with matters of law, isn't it?

      Delete
  9. Knives are used in crimes too, Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's not a lot of guys who could take me down with a knife, dmarks. But anyone could take me down with a gun.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. "There's not a lot of guys who could take me down with a knife, dmarks. But anyone could take me down with a gun."

      Thanks, Jersey. A great argument for firearms for self-defense. Having a gun evens the odds for a woman of slight frame who is attacked by some big thug with a knife. Just one such example...

      The Great Equalizer...

      Delete
    3. You idiot. Have you ever actually seen someone shoot someone? I've got news for you, guy, it's over in a moment and whoever fires first almost always wins. You must think it's like Hollywood or something. Walking around with a gun, especially if it's visible, only makes you a more important target, and if it's concealed, it still does you no good to draw your gun with a bullet in your head. Get real. Grow up!

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. Temper, temper. The "idiot" stuff vioates the blog rules, Jersey.

      Anyway, if you had your way, criminals would be the ones who fired first and won, always. Because the victims wouldn't be armed.

      Delete
    5. Speaking of growing up, Jersey....cease the name calling and act like an adult, or your posts ill be deleted.

      I do however love your 'in-depth expertise' on both carrying and utilizing a firearm.

      /sarc

      Delete
    6. Jersey: How many gun fights have you been in? How many have you witnessed, live? How many times have you fired a gun in any circumstance, including practice?

      CI: The same three questions. How many gun fights have you been in? How many have you witnessed, live? How many times have you fired a gun in any circumstance, including practice?
      ---------------

      I will await the answers from both of you. This will tell me who is the expert on the usage of firearms, and who gets all their information from "Hollywood or something".

      Delete
    7. My answers are, in order: more than I want to count, and more than I can count.

      Delete
    8. CI, I think this might be the time that Jersey bows out. Difficult question here. He can't bear to say that his firearm experience came solely from watching "Mannix"

      Delete
    9. The question isn't "difficult", it's irrelative. Jersey (or I) can see the news reports concerning little kids getting slaughtered and form an opinion on it. A person does not need to fire a gun to know they kill.

      CI: There is no loophole. ... Private sellers are not required to do so at a gunshow...

      Translation: there is no loophole... No, wait, there is one.

      Delete
    10. Dervish: And yet...you're wrong. Show the inconsistency in the laws that are necessary to define a 'gun show loophole'.

      dmarks: A fundamental ignorance of how firearms work....as well the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment....are the currency of the gun control camp. Well, that and pejoratives and projection.

      Delete
    11. CI: there is a lot I don't know on the subject. But I am willing to learn from those who are experts and/or speak from a base of knowledge. There is nothing to be gained, in contrast, by dipping an ear toward those who see ignorance as a strength, revel in paranoia, and see getting into deeply important specifics as "pettifogging".

      Thanks for the times when you set readers of this blog straight on matters we are incorrect on. Not all of us stick our fingers in our ears and whine.

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. Not sure. Does anyone care enough about him to know for sure?

      Delete
  11. And by the way, Jersey, if the problem is gun ownership, check out this news

    It's going down. On its own. Are you really such a radical that you want to immediately and severely damage the Constitution in order to solve a supposed problem? Why not just wait and watch this trend....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with this particular study, is that it was conducted in the Chicago area. Hardly a representative sample of gun ownership in America.

      The General Social Survey is administered by NORC at the University of Chicago, primarily using in-person interviewing. The GSS started in 1972 and completed its 30th round in 2014. The typical sample size was 1,500 prior to 1994, but increased to 2,700-3,000 until 2008, and decreased to 2,000 for the most recent surveys.

      There are no shortage of competing studies that are at odds with this one.

      Delete
    2. Ah well, thanks for the explanation. Me? I want gun ownership to increase, anyway. And regardless, I don't want anyone to "immediately and severely damage the Constitution in order to solve a supposed problem".

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.