Piers Morgan is always saying we have no right or need to own an assault weapon that was only made to kill people. I would like to ask him the following question. If he planned to rob someone's home what would he rather face, a 6 shot revolver or an assault rifle? I would much rather protect my family with an assault rifle.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How to answer Piers Morgan's question "why does anyone need to own an assault rifle"
- Thread starter skeeter
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Ignition Override
New member
That's a very good question.
If anyone can also present responses in the broadest, practical context, it will be even more effective.
Have you guys/gals watched the recent Piers Morgan interview of the young Marine veteran who wrote a popular letter about gun ownership to Sen. Diane Feinstein?
This young man's level-headed ability to prevent Piers' attempts to distort his responses into different meanings were excellent.
This young veteran kept his ego detached, allowing himself to remain calm, and was prepared to outmaneuver Piers' sleazy tactics.
Piers is so obsessed with private citizens' ownership of the AR-15 and its supposed source of inbred evil, he has abdicated his responsibilities as a journalist.
If anyone can also present responses in the broadest, practical context, it will be even more effective.
Have you guys/gals watched the recent Piers Morgan interview of the young Marine veteran who wrote a popular letter about gun ownership to Sen. Diane Feinstein?
This young man's level-headed ability to prevent Piers' attempts to distort his responses into different meanings were excellent.
This young veteran kept his ego detached, allowing himself to remain calm, and was prepared to outmaneuver Piers' sleazy tactics.
Piers is so obsessed with private citizens' ownership of the AR-15 and its supposed source of inbred evil, he has abdicated his responsibilities as a journalist.
Last edited:
Rifleman1952
New member
There are lots of reasons for owning an AR-15 type of firearm, but the most important is for self-defense in the aftermath of a Katrina like break down in civil society. The best defense against a mob of looters, is a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.
While thankfully, these scenarios don't occur very often, they have happened often enough, especially around major cities, that a high capacity semi-auto rifle, such as an AR-15 or AK-47 makes perfect sense. I'm old enough to remember the many serious riots that occurred in major cities throughout the US during the 1960s. Mobs don't generally respond well to pleas for reason or mercy.
But even today, if one lives in or near a virtually lawless area, like the city of Detroit, a high capacity semi-automatic firearm also makes sense. Anywhere that gangs are a serious problem IMHO, necessitates the ownership of a firearm, capable of fending off mobs until law enforcement can arrive. In a city like Detroit, that could be the next day.
While thankfully, these scenarios don't occur very often, they have happened often enough, especially around major cities, that a high capacity semi-auto rifle, such as an AR-15 or AK-47 makes perfect sense. I'm old enough to remember the many serious riots that occurred in major cities throughout the US during the 1960s. Mobs don't generally respond well to pleas for reason or mercy.
But even today, if one lives in or near a virtually lawless area, like the city of Detroit, a high capacity semi-automatic firearm also makes sense. Anywhere that gangs are a serious problem IMHO, necessitates the ownership of a firearm, capable of fending off mobs until law enforcement can arrive. In a city like Detroit, that could be the next day.
A crude gesture with the middle finger works for me.How to answer Piers Morgan's question "why does anyone need to own an assault rifle"
Until three days ago, I didn't know what a "Piers Morgan" was, let alone where it was from or what it thought about anything.
Now, I know, and I have no desire to waste another second of my life on it...
mrbatchelor
New member
Why does ANYONE need to own a dog?
Do you realize how many CHILDREN are mauled by dogs every year.
And a dog can go off by itself.
I am a responsible dog owner, I have a little dog that jumps on the bottom of my bed at night. You have a big scary dog that's dangerous.
Lets do it for the children.
Do you realize how many CHILDREN are mauled by dogs every year.
And a dog can go off by itself.
I am a responsible dog owner, I have a little dog that jumps on the bottom of my bed at night. You have a big scary dog that's dangerous.
Lets do it for the children.
Ridge_Runner_5
New member
Because the 2nd Amendment allows for the individual citizen to acquire the same firepower as an individual soldier.
UtopiaTexasG19
New member
"Piers is so obsessed with private citizens' ownership of the AR-15 and its supposed source of inbred evil, he has abdicated his responsibilities as a journalist."
Let's put this in perspective.
Morgan is not a journalist. He is actually a arrogant game show host.
Let's put this in perspective.
Morgan is not a journalist. He is actually a arrogant game show host.
Carry_24/7
New member
Piers Morgan needs to be answered in a strategic, academic, planned manner. Anger and finger pointing at him can be an effective part if the plan, but it must be planned, tactical, and under control....passionate "going off" is a win for him.
Until we get the above, we should leave him alone. So far Piers 2, us 0 IMHO.
Until we get the above, we should leave him alone. So far Piers 2, us 0 IMHO.
BPowderkeg
Moderator
assault rifle i am so sick of reading about those horrible assault rifles, WE.., here and now need to stop using that term, i am reasonably certain we here know that "assault rifle" refers to full automatic firing with one squeeze of the trigger and holding it in that position until the magazine is empty !!
actually, in my OPINION there is no "NEED" to own an assault weapon, it is a "want" item and they are very closely regulated by our .GOV, besides, i do not believe we can buy an assault rifle for less than $10,000.00.., i know i can not afford one, can you ?
actually, in my OPINION there is no "NEED" to own an assault weapon, it is a "want" item and they are very closely regulated by our .GOV, besides, i do not believe we can buy an assault rifle for less than $10,000.00.., i know i can not afford one, can you ?
Owning assault rifles reminds our representatives that "we the people" will NOT be controlled, but rather will do the controlling.
Our forfathers did not have hunting or home defense in mind. It is important that assault rifles be allowed to be owned and further more important the government does not know where they are.
The 2nd ammendment was never about hunting or self defense. It's about our leaders understanding they better not push the limits.
AS THEY'RE ABOUT TO TRY AND DO!
Our forfathers did not have hunting or home defense in mind. It is important that assault rifles be allowed to be owned and further more important the government does not know where they are.
The 2nd ammendment was never about hunting or self defense. It's about our leaders understanding they better not push the limits.
AS THEY'RE ABOUT TO TRY AND DO!
This is the real reason for the 2nd Amendment. There is no apparent "need" today for a military weapon, just as there was no immediate need for a "...well regulated milita..", when the Second Amendment was included in the constitution, they were looking forward in the event there would eventually be the need for men and arms to counter some "need" in the future. The USA will not be a super power forever...no country lasts forever, not even ours. Borders are drawn, re-drawn since recorded history. When ours are in flux, that is when we would need not only semi-autos that look like assault weapons, but full-autos that are assault weapons. Or, are you unaware of what has happened in Yugoslavia, Syria, Egypt, Uganda, etc. let alone the Warsaw Ghetto? Is he completely unaware of the "need" for military weapons in his own country after Dunkirk? British naivety almost cost them their freedom then. This is how you answer him.Because the 2nd Amendment allows for the individual citizen to acquire the same firepower as an individual soldier.
Back in Grandpap's day he was given land from a greatfull nation for killing loyal British subjects. He probably used one of those British assault muskets with the bayonet to sqewer those nasty Redcoats. It wasn't about hunting then anymore than it is now. Back then, it was not even legal for a Colonial to own a shovel with a metal blade for fear it could be used as a weapon. I think when the time comes to pick up arms, I hope we don't have to fight with wooden shovels. This is why we need "assault" rifles.
Madcap_Magician
New member
This question drives me nuts.
I need to own an assault rifle because NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
I need to own an assault rifle because NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
I shouldn't have to prove a need to own one any more than I should have to do so to own a car that gets less than 30mpg, or a collection of garden gnomes, or the whole Franklin Mint collection of state shot glasses.I need to own an assault rifle because NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
Rights are not codified by need.
I think the current problem is more accurately reflected in Reagan's quote:
We have a lot of people who can't see an armed man standing beside an unarmed one without coming to the conclusion that the armed man is a threat.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.
We have a lot of people who can't see an armed man standing beside an unarmed one without coming to the conclusion that the armed man is a threat.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The fat man had too many Big Gulps which is why they should be banned - Mayor Bloomberg.
Anyway - Piers wouldn't accept any guns. If someone goes into a place - God Forbid with a six shooter and speed loaders - he would ban them.
Assault rifles or semiautomatic military style assault rifles are the flavor of his current antigun stance.
Anyway - Piers wouldn't accept any guns. If someone goes into a place - God Forbid with a six shooter and speed loaders - he would ban them.
Assault rifles or semiautomatic military style assault rifles are the flavor of his current antigun stance.
You know, I can and have provided objective, logical reasons as to why a person might "need" a so-called "assault weapon" in the past. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion, however, that such an argument is beside the point and comes down to a red herring designed to distract us from the true issue at hand. The real question is why we should have to justify our rights not being taken away. It seems to me that our system of government was purposely designed to place the burden of proof upon those who wish to take rather than those who wish to keep. Morgan and his ilk cannot win a debate in which they must defend their own position, so they attempt to make us defend ours instead.
What we should be arguing is that Morgan and other people who wish to abridge our rights bear the burden of proving that their proposed restrictions represent a great enough benefit to public safety to justify the loss of liberty that they entail. Of course, Morgan and his ilk don't want to debate on those terms because the facts are not on their side.
Credible studies including those by the National Institute of Justice have found that so-called "assault weapons" are very rarely used in crimes to begin with and that their prohibition has no significant effect on violent crime. It is for this reason that gun banners resort to emotionally fueled arguments like "if it can save just one child, then it's worth it" but even that doesn't fly because we can just as easily show examples of children whose lives have been spared because either they or someone who cares about them was able to stop a violent criminal with a firearm.
Rather than trying to justify to Piers Morgan why we should be able to own an AR-15, Piers Morgan should be trying to justify to us why we shouldn't be able to own said gun. Because Piers Morgan wants to take away our rights, the burden of proof lies upon him rather than us.
What we should be arguing is that Morgan and other people who wish to abridge our rights bear the burden of proving that their proposed restrictions represent a great enough benefit to public safety to justify the loss of liberty that they entail. Of course, Morgan and his ilk don't want to debate on those terms because the facts are not on their side.
Credible studies including those by the National Institute of Justice have found that so-called "assault weapons" are very rarely used in crimes to begin with and that their prohibition has no significant effect on violent crime. It is for this reason that gun banners resort to emotionally fueled arguments like "if it can save just one child, then it's worth it" but even that doesn't fly because we can just as easily show examples of children whose lives have been spared because either they or someone who cares about them was able to stop a violent criminal with a firearm.
Rather than trying to justify to Piers Morgan why we should be able to own an AR-15, Piers Morgan should be trying to justify to us why we shouldn't be able to own said gun. Because Piers Morgan wants to take away our rights, the burden of proof lies upon him rather than us.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In pure Constitutional terms, the United States does still officially have a militia, and ALL of us who are male and between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of it. And the intent of the 2nd Amendment and of the Founding fathers (as was VERY clearly and explicitly laid out in contemporaneous writings by many of them) was that the militia -- in other words, the People -- should be armed sufficiently to overpower ANY standing army.
That's all out there, in black and white, and can easily be researched. The quotes keep popping up in these threads and can be copied and assembled into a single document full of supportive quotations. And the Militia Act (current version) is found at 10 USC 311 & 312: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
To faithfully follow the logic and intent of the Founders, it would appear that the Army should be getting the AR-15s and we, the People, should have the M16s and M4s ...
But to faithfully follow the logic and intent of the Founders, we would not have a Federal Department of Defense, and we would not have a standing Army (or Air Force, or Marine Corps).
That's all out there, in black and white, and can easily be researched. The quotes keep popping up in these threads and can be copied and assembled into a single document full of supportive quotations. And the Militia Act (current version) is found at 10 USC 311 & 312: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
To faithfully follow the logic and intent of the Founders, it would appear that the Army should be getting the AR-15s and we, the People, should have the M16s and M4s ...
But to faithfully follow the logic and intent of the Founders, we would not have a Federal Department of Defense, and we would not have a standing Army (or Air Force, or Marine Corps).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.