Top Menu

You’re a Crazy Gun Nut If… Piers Morgan Edition [Video]

Image via WhiteHouse.gov

WHEN YOU have your own show you get your own platform. Sticking your neck out and speaking your mind against the horde is one of the most American of traits. It’s just very few people are willing to do it and incur the wrath of the wingnuts, as well as take the economic hit that can come along with it.

Piers Morgan is incurring the wrath from gun nuts, and this gun owning family applauds him for his efforts!

A petition created Dec. 21 on the White House e-petition website by a user in Texas accuses Morgan of engaging in a “hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution” by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for “exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.” The petition has already hit the 25,000 signature threshold to get a White House response. By Monday, it had 31,813 signatures. [Associated Press]

Only 31,000 signatures? How embarrassing for the wingnut gun brigade.

…and of course it’s from a person in Texas, the state with the legacy of the John F. Kennedy assassination. The same state who has a petition to secede and start its own independent nation!

Today, the Associated Press also reports four firemen were shot and two killed while responding to a fire in Webster, New York.

With this, as well as Sandy Hook and the legacy of Virginia Tech and so many other firearm massacres in our country, Piers Morgan not only has every right, but also has the evidence to make a good case against America’s crazy gun nuts, who are proving just how paralyzed our country is and how incapable our politicians are of protecting citizens here at home.

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

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

, , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to You’re a Crazy Gun Nut If… Piers Morgan Edition [Video]

  1. fangio December 24, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    You can be on a terrorist watch list and be kept off a plane even if you have no weapons on you; however, nothing is stopping you from buying a gun. The gun lobby could say that the shooter in Conn. could have used a fertilizer bomb, or knives or gas; that if a person wants to kill he or she will find a way to do it. But a gun is unique in that it gives an individual the ability to inflict mass death in a very short time with very little preparation. Pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles; they are legitimate toys for hunters and hobbyists, military weapons are not and should be strictly off limits. They should not be sold on the web and not be sold at gun shows. Military weapons, like soldiers, are meant to seek and destroy.

  2. secularhumanizinevoluter December 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    I absolutely love how the gun addicts of the right go from zero to lunatic in .5 seconds when someone from a country with effective gun control points out how heads up their own asses they are.

  3. Cujo359 December 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    “that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown – or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day” – from the President’s speech.

    What strikes me from a logical perspective during these endless debates is a couple of things – first, guns aren’t terribly good at defending us. Statistically, of all the uses of firearms that involve human targets, “self defense” is about the least likely. It is well below suicide, accident, and murder. Yet the exceptional use is the one that we are supposed to believe trumps all the others.

    Self-defense, ironically, takes much more skill and training than merely hunting or shooting targets does. With a few minutes’ training, I was able to hit milk jugs from fifty yards away with a .22 rifle when I was a boy. That’s with bad eyesight and what turned out to be bad advice (I was using my weak eye to aim). I could go hunting, and occasionally hit what I was aiming at. Defending myself with a gun, though, would have taken training akin to what police are supposed to learn – reflexively being able to point and shoot, without hitting targets that would endanger innocents. That’s a skill that’s like being a quarterback in football – being able to ignore distractions, select targets quickly and accurately, and avoid being hurt in what would be an impossibly short time if you had to think about what you are doing. No one does that right without training and lots of practice.

    The other thing is that the exceptional forms of homicide – knives, bombs, etc., are somehow proof that there is no such thing as effective gun control. If we had serious restrictions on what firearms people could own and what they could do with them, this line of thinking goes, people would just kill each other some other way. As fangio notes, though, guns make it much easier to kill. You can do it from longer range, and with much less danger to yourself, than with those other methods. If that weren’t true, guns wouldn’t exist, because there would be no use for them. When something is easier, it is more likely to happen.

    Otherwise reasonable and rational people say these things, too, as if they were something other than batshit-crazy nonsense.

    Responsible gun policy wouldn’t prevent all homicides, but it would prevent a lot of them. That’s the point. As Hugh wrote over at Corrente a few days ago, discussing gun owners’ fetish for their broad interpretation of the Second Amendment:

    start quote:

    All these rights, the very essence of who we are, what made us rightfully proud to be Americans, gone, done away with, without a fight, without a whimper. Yet the least of these, the 2nd Amendment, bent and twisted out of its original context, this is the one you embrace and hold on to? Guns do not make you safe. The law and the decency of your neighbors do. Guns are no protection against the state. What did your guns avail you when the government erased all your most basic human rights, the crown jewels of the Constitution? You. did. nothing. You are hollow men. Hold on to your metal sticks if you want. They can not protect you from your own moral vacuousness.

    end quote

    [emphasis added]

    We prosper by existing in cooperative societies that are able to do far more than individual people can do on their own. If my neighbors are cooperative, responsible people who feel safe, then I am safer. If my society doesn’t let lunatics wander around with firearms unsupervised, then I am safer. When my government obeys the law, I am safer.

    That doesn’t mean I’m perfectly safe, because there is no such thing. Yet that’s the argument against gun control, that without perfect safety, it’s not worth doing.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong