It's because PM is British, and he spoke his smack here. We have plenty of like minded Americans... Plenty. It's no different than when Mitt Romney criticized the security for the Olympics in London. The British were voicing the same concerns, but when a Yank said the same thing on their turf, he was the new focal point for their anger. It's just human nature. I can criticize me, but you damn sure better not !!!
Piers Morgan show getting canceled
- Thread starter coldbeer
- Start date
- Status
It's because PM is British, and he spoke his smack here. We have plenty of like minded Americans... Plenty. It's no different than when Mitt Romney criticized the security for the Olympics in London. The British were voicing the same concerns, but when a Yank said the same thing on their turf, he was the new focal point for their anger. It's just human nature. I can criticize me, but you damn sure better not !!!
Pond James Pond
New member
And he was employed to do exactly that! Who employed him?! They're the ones to be mad at. I wonder how many on this forum ever wrote to CNN to complain about P.M.
So if we can finally admit it is human nature, and not a rational argument in defence of gun-rights, perhaps we can make a conscious effort to set which country he was delivered in aside and deal with the real issue: the arguments made against the ownership of guns and the highly probably truth that these arguments had the full backing of a major US news network.
IMHO, who the anti gun proponent was and where they came from have little to do with forwarding the cause.
The fact that such a proponent has been axed does forward the cause.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The point that he is British is irrelevant to his right to speak and the right of his employers to hire him to comment.
His background may explain why he feels the way he does and why it grates on many Americans to be criticized by someone who is not a citizen.
America certainly criticizes the actions of other countries in almost every social domain all the time.
So what's important:
1. He was wrong on the issue.
2. His ratings fell - if they didn't he still would be on. Anyone doubt that?
As far as the British attitude - do some research on so-called Americans conservatives - like this Scotus Justice Berger - http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfra.html before you get on your holier than thou horse.
So have we exhausted this?
His background may explain why he feels the way he does and why it grates on many Americans to be criticized by someone who is not a citizen.
America certainly criticizes the actions of other countries in almost every social domain all the time.
So what's important:
1. He was wrong on the issue.
2. His ratings fell - if they didn't he still would be on. Anyone doubt that?
As far as the British attitude - do some research on so-called Americans conservatives - like this Scotus Justice Berger - http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfra.html before you get on your holier than thou horse.
So have we exhausted this?
Yes, some Americans do. And Americans criticize Americans even more.
It doesn't matter what the issue, and it doesn't matter if you are saying the exact same thing as some Americans, if you are not a US citizen, then you are an outsider, "meddling in our business". And you will get an extra layer of dislike, and your home nation will be tarred with the same brush in the eyes of many. Its not right, but its the way the world works.
It doesn't matter that Piers Morgan wasn't chosen as a spokesperson by the British public, he, and those who hired him, put him in that position.
Just as, by posting here, we each become a "spokesman" for the entire community of firearms owners in the public eye.
I think we are at the point of chasing our own tails on this. He's gone, for now, anyway, probably laughing all the way to the bank.
Microgunner
New member
Good bye Piers. No one's going to miss you.
I can't speak for others, but my biggest problem with P.M. isn't his opinion but rather the rude and childish manner that he expressed it. If I can have a disagreement with someone without stooping to calling them an "incredibly stupid man" then I see no reason why Morgan can't do the same.
As far as hypothetical exercises about how I would act if I moved to the U.K., I can tell you that I would have enough manners and respect for my adopted home not to rudely criticize their culture at every turn as soon as I stepped off the boat/plane. Might I eventually voice my displeasure with the firearm laws? Sure I might but I would do so in a polite and respectful manner without chortling about how much better country the U.S. is all the time.
I used British as an example because the subject of the discussion, Piers Morgan, happens to be British. I would be equally annoyed with him were he French, German, Japanese, Mongolian, or any other nationality you can think of. The reason that the UK seems to come up so much in debates about international gun politics is because gun control advocates on both sides of the pond like to champion British gun laws as a shining example of what we should all do here in the U.S.
Also, I never intended to suggest that Piers Morgan speaks for the British people as a whole and I'm sorry if you misunderstood my post to mean that. That being said, it is my understanding that because the Westminster system of government does not have as distinct separation of powers as our Presidential system does, it is actually more vulnerable to the ever changing wind of public opinion than is the case in the U.S. Therefore, it only stands to reason that if the majority of the British people were unhappy with their current gun laws, they would be changed rather quickly.
I realize that, like the citizens of any other country, Americans aren't all as respectful and polite as they should be. I think, however, that judging all Americans based on the impoliteness of some is just as disingenuous as judging all Britons based on the antics of Piers Morgan. You have just as much right to be annoyed with obnoxious Americans who can't mind their own business as we do with obnoxious Britons like Morgan and I never meant to suggest that you didn't.
Yes, he's certainly entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean he gets a free pass to berate anyone who dares to disagree with him. Like I said before, it wasn't so much Morgan's opinion as the rude and obnoxious way he chose to express it that got under my skin.
Since his show was supposedly a live broadcast, Morgan's comments could only have been vetted and approved to a point. I have no doubt that Morgan and his bosses were of like minds on the issue, but that doesn't excuse the manner in which Morgan chose to behave towards his guests. If Morgan were really nothing more than a a vessel to regurgitate his network bosses' thoughts, then I suspect he would have changed his tune or at least moved on to a different issue long ago when his ratings began to suffer. Instead, Morgan continued to double down on an issue that people were, to use his own words, "tired of me banging on about it."
Instead, Morgan continued to "bang on about it" despite the clear message from his audience to move on to something else. Even after his show was cancelled, he couldn't bring himself to quietly exit stage left, much less admit that he was wrong. Instead, he had to make a comment about being a British guy commenting on American cultural issues which, to me at least, suggested that he thinks of himself as just too sophisticated for we poor backward Americans. Someone who continues to beat the drum about something that's already blown up in their face isn't a corporate mouthpiece, they are a true believer. No, I don't think Morgan was allowed to continue to act as he did because that's necessarily what CNN wanted, but rather CNN took this long to decide that eating the rest of his contract was less expensive than continuing to lose viewers because of his antics.
Pond James Pond
New member
I appreciate the sentiment but will add that your clarification puts it all in a somewhat clearer context. Admittedly, I do get a bee in my bonnet about this issue, but partly because very often a dislike of PM and his type then gets extended, by ethnic association to the British as a whole.
On the point of government I can see why it might seem that way and it may well be true to a point, but government is elected based on their manifesto. If they do not deliver on that they risk being voted out and so they can't just chop and change their policies, but some acts do get unduly rushed through to "appease" the public with the illusion of action even if the actions taken do little to solve the problem: firearms abolition being a case in point. However, in my opinion, the bigger, more insidious threat is manipulation of the media through "spin" as they call it. Hateful and increasingly used aspect of political technique. I for one never get the feeling I am getting a full picture of the issues at hand on even the most crucial issues, try as the broadcaster might to give it.
This is why I try very hard not to think of them as disrespectful Americans (for example), but simply disrespectful people.
I live in a country rife with ethnic tensions and I constantly hear that one knows "what all the other side think of them" and vice versa. The fact "they" have never even spoken to one of "them" is not even factored into "their" logic.
That is precisely the point I was trying to make. By giving his nationality equal or comparable importance to his views the negative impression will to some degree, tarnish the rest who share that common nationality which gains nothing, except clouding the issue.
I truly believe that the pro gun community do themselves a massive dis-service by rising to those comparisons. Instead of pointing out that such a comparison of UK and US is non sequitur to the gun issues of the states, the pro-gun lobby continue to try to counter the argument. I see that as playing catch-up to the anti crowd.
Tom Servo made the very same point but about that atrocity in China in a thread ongoing at the moment. Despite the superficial similarities, when it comes to gun culture, comparing the US to the UK is about as useful as comparing it to China...
As for PM. I could not agree more that he is an arrogant, truly unpleasant man, a disgrace to journalism (although disguises it well), and professionally a one-trick pony. I maintain he was employed because of how those points manifest themselves: an uninhibited, irreverent style toward other people making for interviews that might elicit the same fascination in the public as did the diatribes seen on the Jerry Springer show.
I don't deny he no doubt has views on guns, but I believe strongly that those were supported and sanctioned by his employers. It may well be that his "one-trickedness", which initially appealed to CNN as fresh and new, was finally what they tired of. He is the kind of person that will likely never admit the are wrong, about anything.
Unless you are a registered contributor to the likes of a Nielsen Research representative sample group, there is a strong chance your remote will not say anything at all. A complaint email will at least definitely reach the party concerned.
No it won't. A complaint would suggest to that network that I'm watching that network. I have never watched Piers Morgan on CNN. I have seen the youtube videos and such after online notification that he was spanked by Jesse Ventura, Ted Nugent, etc. without ever having to watch the sponsored advertisements / commercials that pay CNN for airtime during his show. Complaints don't change things here, much. Actions speak louder than words.
What I find interesting is that there are a good number of gun owners who actually listened to Morgan. I have to ask "why"?
Piers Morgan fall into the same category of gun-hating nonsense as does:
Rosie O’Donnell: "The Second Amendment is 'Not Really a Right'";
Jason Alexander: "assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre, there is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution."
David Letterman, Oprah, Rupert Murdoch, etc.
I don't listen to any of them! Not only do I not find any of these folks entertaining, I don't care to listen to their drivel about how we need to ban guns. So, for those of you who have actually listened to a Piers Morgan show, I've got to ask "why"?
Piers Morgan fall into the same category of gun-hating nonsense as does:
Rosie O’Donnell: "The Second Amendment is 'Not Really a Right'";
Jason Alexander: "assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre, there is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution."
David Letterman, Oprah, Rupert Murdoch, etc.
I don't listen to any of them! Not only do I not find any of these folks entertaining, I don't care to listen to their drivel about how we need to ban guns. So, for those of you who have actually listened to a Piers Morgan show, I've got to ask "why"?
I listened to Stern for about 6 months in the early '90's....because that's what folks were talking about. Some of the skits he did, when he did skits, were entertaining. But, listening him drone on and on and on about himself - I lost interest and simply stopped listening. However, if Stern were rabid anti-gun, he wouldn't have lasted 15 minutes on my radio dial.
Stevie-Ray
New member
She's absolutely correct on this. Hmmm....she actually said something right for a change.
The 2nd Amendment technically protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you read what O'Donnell really meant, its that she doesn't believe that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms, and she doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment protects any such right either.
Whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right or protects a right from government denial, isn't really relevant. Her willingness to deny that such a right exists is.
Whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right or protects a right from government denial, isn't really relevant. Her willingness to deny that such a right exists is.
From a technical point of view, our rights are not granted by the Constitution, and that document even says in it that it doesn't mention every right we have.
And Rosie if correct in the legal sense, the 2nd Amendment isn't a right, it is a restriction on our government.
Of course, we all know that isn't what she meant when she said it.
Our "Bill of Rights" is possibly the first instance of govt doublespeak. It's really not a bill of rights, it is a bill of restrictions on govt.'s authority over certain listed rights.
But nobody talks about it that way, or so it seems.
And Rosie if correct in the legal sense, the 2nd Amendment isn't a right, it is a restriction on our government.
Of course, we all know that isn't what she meant when she said it.
Our "Bill of Rights" is possibly the first instance of govt doublespeak. It's really not a bill of rights, it is a bill of restrictions on govt.'s authority over certain listed rights.
But nobody talks about it that way, or so it seems.
Willie Lowman
New member
Piers... Morgan? Oh. One of the talking heads that come up when you turn on the idiot box.
Do you know why they call it "the idiot box?" I'll give you a hint, it's not because of the people that are on it.
Do you know why they call it "the idiot box?" I'll give you a hint, it's not because of the people that are on it.
Sorry, my cut and paste isn't working on this device. But I have to disagree with your last point Mr. Pond. The Nielson ratings service doesn't mean much. If you subscribe to cable or have a dish service you do actually provide feedback to the networks with your remote. They can, and do capture that data.
Networks also make money when you go to their websites, even if you're doing so to post a counter-point to what they express. It's all about traffic and views. Morgan wasn't even compelling enough to create that. Although ironically he has here.
Networks also make money when you go to their websites, even if you're doing so to post a counter-point to what they express. It's all about traffic and views. Morgan wasn't even compelling enough to create that. Although ironically he has here.
- Status