Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Piers Morgan loses it in debate with gun rights advocate

Last we heard from CNN's Piers Morgan, he was covering the Whitney Houston funeral and trying to figure out this God thing all these Black people were talking about. That was Piers the Confused. But last night, it was Piers the Rabid. He completely lost his composure (in addition to the argument) last night with Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America, when, after accusing Pratt of not offering arguments (which he clearly was), he then started calling Pratt names, and telling him he was "dangerous."

At the end of the interview, he gave the unflappable Pratt a parting insult, and Pratt simply smiled and congratulated Piers on his substantive contributions to the discussion, at which point Piers went off again.

The media has now painted its face and is on the warpath against guns--and completely ignoring its own contribution to violence in America caused by violent movies, television programming, and video games.

Piers, of course, had nothing to say about these.


Anonymous said...

How dare you not realize that the First Amendment is ABSOLUTE. As for that Brit Twit Morgan, if your national tv audience is measured in the hundreds, then perhaps shouting is in order.

Seamus said...

Morgan claims that the US has "by far the worst rate of gun murder, of gun crime, of any of the civilized countries of this world." It appears, then, that he doesn't regard Jamaica and South Africa as "civilized countries." So how does he explain that that *isn't* racist?

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

Saw the interview. Morgan fulminates like a Southern Baptist preacher in a Revival tent.

Liberals talk a lot about separating politics and religion, but, ironically, government is the religion of liberals. They see their attitude as new and enlightened. Truth is, all sorts of ancient regimes conflated the two. Rulers from the Egyptian pharoahs to the Roman emperors wanted to be worshiped by their people.

I remember in history class how the teacher and the textbook were so amused when talking about the "divine right of kings" doctrine in the Middle Ages. Aren't those Christians silly?

But I see that as an improvement. The ruler was ordained by God is an improvement over the ruler is God.

Unless you're Evan "Obama is like God" Thomas.