From the NYTimes.com:
Piers Morgan and CNN Plan End to His Prime-Time Show
by David Carr, The Media Equation
There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more than willing to return the favor. Three years after taking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.
It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.
Perhaps a brief interjection: actual listening Americans deplored being lectured-to by a stunningly ineffectual media cunt who wouldn’t know how to defend himself in a game of tag. Because, after all, that United Kingdom — they’re certainly the epitome of national power and stolid sovereignty, are they not?
Yes. They are not.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” he said. “That’s run its course and Jeff and I have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.”
Yes, I know, it’s that pesky Second Amendment we stupid Yankees seem to revere. Clinging to our “small town” guns and religion. But isn’t it odd that you shepherd’s-pie-eating Brits seem to surround yourselves with more and more guns held by government officials than at any other point in your history? And still you’re losing your culture and your significance and your own sovereignty day by bleeding day?
Perhaps a bit of accuracy is called for:
Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.
Damn Mr Carr for ripping a sheet from the play-book of Captain Obvious.
I say: send Mr Morgan, the quintessential loser British twat, back to the UK where he can take up the cause of Muslims and those who wish to destroy the United Kingdom and other oppressive Western civilizations. And enjoy, Mr Morgan, your prognosticated Orwellian 1984 at least a few more years before we Yanks will.
Firearms-free, of course. Because average UK citizens cannot and never will be trusted with “bang-sticks” in their possession. An actual Webley in the hand of Piers Morgan himself? Think of the children!
A bit of sarcasm there, eh wot?
I wonder from where the origins of the words Prole and Serf and Groundling source? Perhaps you can tell me, Mr Morgan?
Oh. That’s right. From British books and plays and history. Imagine that.
From the Wall Street Journal Law Blog:
By Jacob Gershman
You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.
We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.
And yes, trust me, there is a massive arguable difference between “keep” and “bear.” You may think this is slight, but it may become the Crux of the Biscuit.
The point seems as this:
The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.
WITHIN THE HOME. My quite specific emphasis.
Does that right extend outside the home?
And yes, that is a major question that needs reaffirmation.
The NRA says you can’t really ‘bear’ something in the privacy of your home. I submit, when the issue revolves around any firearm: the founders meant to “bear” a firearm in the defense of your investment surrounding and outside your home. Most everything but.
“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.”
Facts in evidence, assisted with clarity and logic.
Which is why this point is challenged.
You may ask: why is it that I have been focusing on the Second Amendment so much these past few days when there are other, more allegedly immediate topics of interest to discuss with my readers and the nation?
An easy answer: because this nation will explode. There is an astounding erosion of the standard “rule of law” in this nation by the current White House occupant. It is on a death spiral that cannot be recalled, no matter how hard we want it or wish it or “hope” for it. Hope is for idiots. Preparation is for the intelligent. I’m certain you’re quite reading between these lines. I’m simply suggesting.
Various laws in New York ban firearms upon what amounts to appearance. From the NationalReviewOnline:
by Charles C.W. Cooke
Pass a stupid law, get a stupid result. This, Clash Daily reports, is a remodeled AR-15, and it is legal in New York despite the state’s “assault weapons” ban. (see above)
Now, from the ClashDaily.com:
HISSY FIT: The New AR-15 Design is Compliant with “SAFE Act” and Has Gun Control Activists Pouting
by Jonathan S., Guns-n-Freedom
Prototypes for the newly designed AR-15 are hitting gun shops across New York, as gun shops and machinists have designed a rifle that complies with the anti-gun law. At least one gun shop has received a letter from state police saying that the new AR-15 style rifles should be legal in the state as long as they don’t have some of the features that the law prohibits.
The new gun law bans all kinds of semi-automatic rifles that have been labeled with the “assault” term even though these are very common rifles and are no more powerful than the average hunting rifle.
Once again, proving that Leftists predicate all their actions but upon emotions. “Assault rifles” look mean — they look “bullying.”
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?
(thanks for the h/t, Ron)
California lawmakers may not be able to outright ban firearms, but they’re adding enough regulatory hurdles to make it nearly impossible for gun manufacturers to continue doing business.
Smith & Wesson is following the footsteps of Sturm, Ruger & Co. in ending California sales thanks to a bill requiring microstamping — tiny engraving of information such as make, model and serial number — on all new semiautomatic weapons and shell casings.
S&W pointed out that “a number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.”
Therefore, “Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms.”
We applaud S&W for not caving to draconian gun control measures and for rejecting decrees from those who won’t honor their oaths of office.
To the detriment of Fornicalians, but one in the “win” column for S&W and Ruger. A reason that Barrett no longer sells their .50 caliber rifle to Fornicalia LE agencies, and refuses to service same: Fornicalia’s Draconian gun laws.