By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones (Gun control debate goes awry...)

Tagged games:

 

Should there be more of a restricted Gun Control in the United States?

Yes 47 67.14%
 
No 23 32.86%
 
Total:70

At least this is on the minds of Americans. Even though, Alex Jones is a very loud and obnoxious, he didn't concede and let Piers Morgan do the same (as he had done to Larry Pratt.) So all in all this will put the topic on people's minds, and it will make it much harder for secret legislation (like Feinstein's bill) to be pulled off. It is clear to me that the only way to debate emotionally oriented people is to be emotionally oriented yourself. Just citing facts and statistics is not effective against people who will yell at you, and everybody knows from the interview with Larry Pratt that Morgan wouldn't have acted any more civil than Jones, if given the chance. Of course, Jones was using this to get attention to his radio show, and I couldn't care less about that. Much of what he says is ridiculous on it, but I'm glad that he's at least constitutionally minded and cares about the more than just the second amendment, but also the fourth and the fifth quite often.



Around the Network

No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? And look at the states these mass shootings happen in, Gun Free zones. So getting rid of guns won't solve anything only create more problems.



sc94597 said:
At least this is on the minds of Americans. Even though, Alex Jones is a very loud and obnoxious, he didn't concede and let Piers Morgan do the same (as he had done to Larry Pratt.) So all in all this will put the topic on people's minds, and it will make it much harder for secret legislation (like Feinstein's bill) to be pulled off. It is clear to me that the only way to debate emotionally oriented people is to be emotionally oriented yourself. Just citing facts and statistics is not effective against people who will yell at you, and everybody knows from the interview with Larry Pratt that Morgan wouldn't have acted any more civil than Jones, if given the chance. Of course, Jones was using this to get attention to his radio show, and I couldn't care less about that. Much of what he says is ridiculous on it, but I'm glad that he's at least constitutionally minded and cares about the more than just the second amendment, but also the fourth and the fifth quite often.

Yeah, Morgan knew what he was doing. Jones is the epitome of a bombthrower, so all Piers had to do was shut his fucking mouth (for once) and today everyone is writing about how "rational" he was and how Jones' tirade was a great argument for abridging the Second Amendment. By that logic, I suppose Piers Morgan's entire career is a great argument for abridging the First.



As much as it pains me to say this, Piers is right. He's still the biggest asshole on the planet though



KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.



Around the Network
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle.


assault rifle? who even owns those. they're illegal. have been since 1986. and have been heavily restricted and regulated since 1934.



badgenome said:
sc94597 said:
At least this is on the minds of Americans. Even though, Alex Jones is a very loud and obnoxious, he didn't concede and let Piers Morgan do the same (as he had done to Larry Pratt.) So all in all this will put the topic on people's minds, and it will make it much harder for secret legislation (like Feinstein's bill) to be pulled off. It is clear to me that the only way to debate emotionally oriented people is to be emotionally oriented yourself. Just citing facts and statistics is not effective against people who will yell at you, and everybody knows from the interview with Larry Pratt that Morgan wouldn't have acted any more civil than Jones, if given the chance. Of course, Jones was using this to get attention to his radio show, and I couldn't care less about that. Much of what he says is ridiculous on it, but I'm glad that he's at least constitutionally minded and cares about the more than just the second amendment, but also the fourth and the fifth quite often.

Yeah, Morgan knew what he was doing. Jones is the epitome of a bombthrower, so all Piers had to do was shut his fucking mouth (for once) and today everyone is writing about how "rational" he was and how Jones' tirade was a great argument for abridging the Second Amendment. By that logic, I suppose Piers Morgan's entire career is a great argument for abridging the First.

Less sinister than that (or perhaps more sinister, depending on how you look at it), Morgan made a halfway innocent comment about gun control (natural enough due to culture gap), so Jones did what any good pundit does: make an outlandishly over-the-top response (netting him a lot of attention), which Morgan then reciprocated. Morgan's ratings go up, Jones ratings go up, nothing gets solved.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture.



KylieDog said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

Ignore real issue, argue over definitions. 

Well done.

be ignorant of the topic you are debating, have no idea what you are talking about.

well done.



KylieDog said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

Ignore real issue, argue over definitions. 

Well done.

Proper education is required before even discussing the issue. You are not properly educated. First, discern the difference between an Assault Rifle and an Assault Weapon. Then read Feinstein's revised Assault Weapon legislation, and then we can discuss how millions will suffer.