• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt Debate. DEMAGOGUERY!!

Kazzer1992

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I just watched the debate with Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt on gun laws and simply shook my head. The debate between the far left and the far right is not beneficial for anyone. Piers' debating technique (intentional or unintentional) was to attempt to portray Larry Pratt as a Martian with a barbaric stance on gun laws, which, in my opinion, resembles a demagogue. Larry Pratt attempted to present Piers as an emotional idiot without any logic. The extreme left and right will appeal to ones basic sentiment and thus create a dichotomy. This dichotomy will certainly not help legislators take action and fix the problem.

I do believe that nobody needs an assault rifle. But to simply ban them and think the problem will be solved is incorrect. It will be solved if one is starting a society from scratch. But, there are millions of assault rifles circulating America and they are purchased legally and are not registered. What will happen to those guns already purchased if there is a ban on production of assault rifles? They are unregistered, so how would the police know who is in control of the guns to confiscate them? Therefore the extreme left will not work.

I am okay with having a firearm inside of a school (hidden inside of the school with a code and location known by faculty and faculty only) just in case of another massacre. I would like to know that the adults protecting the children in school have the ability to effectively protect themselves. In the Newtown massacre, perhaps less lives would have been taken if a faculty member had a firearm. But there is a contradiction in what I just stated because you can not solve a gun problem by adding more guns. Putting guns in the hands of the children and in every classroom would cause a plethora of problems.

I think a middle ground is appropriate here. Here are my points on how to solve this problem:

1. The large majority of legal gun owners should not be punished, but should stop being stubborn and agree to register their guns, and agree that there is no need for an assault rifle that is designed for warfare. They all pay heed to the NRA, and it is up to the legislators to end their vulnerability to the NRA gun lobby. There should be a ban on production of assault rifles, but not confiscate the existing guns.

2. End the gunshow loophole!!!

3. All firearms should be registered in an effective way. The Canadian Long Gun Registry created such controversy because of the questions that were asked. It should not be difficult. Simple questions such as, how many guns do you own? Why do you need this gun? Do you have any medical problems (and proof should be provided)?

4. Any person who has used a firearm illegally should be prosecuted in a harsh manor and should be prohibited from owning a firearm for the entirety of their life.
 
you obviously have no clue what an assault rifle is
and when you claim there is a gun show loophole you prove to me you have no clue what the law is

registration is designed for two purposes-to harass honest people and ultimately facilitate confiscation
 
you obviously have no clue what an assault rifle is
and when you claim there is a gun show loophole you prove to me you have no clue what the law is

registration is designed for two purposes-to harass honest people and ultimately facilitate confiscation

Indeed. Guns are already heavily regulation. Most people have no idea.
 
Indeed. Guns are already heavily regulation. Most people have no idea.

Sadly, I think ultimately the issue is going to be settled with firearms the way things are going. the left wants a civil war and hopes the military can be used to kill gun owners. Many of the laws people like that asshole Cuomo and the senile twit Feinswine want are designed for one purpose alone-to harass gun owners and hope they violate silly laws so they can be branded felons.
 
Piers Morgan cannot get viewers with the quality of his program and has now latched on to demagoging the gun issue as a way to boost his profile.

Unfortunately, it's working.
 
right now PM has some crippled kid whining that automatic weapons need to be banned-typical mindless drivel. you can understand that a kid who was crippled would be incapable of rational thought and would emotobabble but it does not excuse the crap that PM spews
 
I just watched the debate with Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt on gun laws and simply shook my head. The debate between the far left and the far right is not beneficial for anyone. Piers' debating technique (intentional or unintentional) was to attempt to portray Larry Pratt as a Martian with a barbaric stance on gun laws, which, in my opinion, resembles a demagogue. Larry Pratt attempted to present Piers as an emotional idiot without any logic. The extreme left and right will appeal to ones basic sentiment and thus create a dichotomy. This dichotomy will certainly not help legislators take action and fix the problem.

I do believe that nobody needs an assault rifle. But to simply ban them and think the problem will be solved is incorrect. It will be solved if one is starting a society from scratch. But, there are millions of assault rifles circulating America and they are purchased legally and are not registered. What will happen to those guns already purchased if there is a ban on production of assault rifles? They are unregistered, so how would the police know who is in control of the guns to confiscate them? Therefore the extreme left will not work.

I am okay with having a firearm inside of a school (hidden inside of the school with a code and location known by faculty and faculty only) just in case of another massacre. I would like to know that the adults protecting the children in school have the ability to effectively protect themselves. In the Newtown massacre, perhaps less lives would have been taken if a faculty member had a firearm. But there is a contradiction in what I just stated because you can not solve a gun problem by adding more guns. Putting guns in the hands of the children and in every classroom would cause a plethora of problems.

I think a middle ground is appropriate here. Here are my points on how to solve this problem:

1. The large majority of legal gun owners should not be punished, but should stop being stubborn and agree to register their guns, and agree that there is no need for an assault rifle that is designed for warfare. They all pay heed to the NRA, and it is up to the legislators to end their vulnerability to the NRA gun lobby. There should be a ban on production of assault rifles, but not confiscate the existing guns.

2. End the gunshow loophole!!!

3. All firearms should be registered in an effective way. The Canadian Long Gun Registry created such controversy because of the questions that were asked. It should not be difficult. Simple questions such as, how many guns do you own? Why do you need this gun? Do you have any medical problems (and proof should be provided)?

4. Any person who has used a firearm illegally should be prosecuted in a harsh manor and should be prohibited from owning a firearm for the entirety of their life.

Ya'll can keep your Canadian gun laws.

Te US is fine just the way that it is now.
 
I just watched the debate with Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt on gun laws and simply shook my head. The debate between the far left and the far right is not beneficial for anyone. Piers' debating technique (intentional or unintentional) was to attempt to portray Larry Pratt as a Martian with a barbaric stance on gun laws, which, in my opinion, resembles a demagogue. Larry Pratt attempted to present Piers as an emotional idiot without any logic. The extreme left and right will appeal to ones basic sentiment and thus create a dichotomy. This dichotomy will certainly not help legislators take action and fix the problem.

I do believe that nobody needs an assault rifle. But to simply ban them and think the problem will be solved is incorrect. It will be solved if one is starting a society from scratch. But, there are millions of assault rifles circulating America and they are purchased legally and are not registered. What will happen to those guns already purchased if there is a ban on production of assault rifles? They are unregistered, so how would the police know who is in control of the guns to confiscate them? Therefore the extreme left will not work.

I am okay with having a firearm inside of a school (hidden inside of the school with a code and location known by faculty and faculty only) just in case of another massacre. I would like to know that the adults protecting the children in school have the ability to effectively protect themselves. In the Newtown massacre, perhaps less lives would have been taken if a faculty member had a firearm. But there is a contradiction in what I just stated because you can not solve a gun problem by adding more guns. Putting guns in the hands of the children and in every classroom would cause a plethora of problems.

I think a middle ground is appropriate here. Here are my points on how to solve this problem:

1. The large majority of legal gun owners should not be punished, but should stop being stubborn and agree to register their guns, and agree that there is no need for an assault rifle that is designed for warfare. They all pay heed to the NRA, and it is up to the legislators to end their vulnerability to the NRA gun lobby. There should be a ban on production of assault rifles, but not confiscate the existing guns.

2. End the gunshow loophole!!!

3. All firearms should be registered in an effective way. The Canadian Long Gun Registry created such controversy because of the questions that were asked. It should not be difficult. Simple questions such as, how many guns do you own? Why do you need this gun? Do you have any medical problems (and proof should be provided)?

4. Any person who has used a firearm illegally should be prosecuted in a harsh manor and should be prohibited from owning a firearm for the entirety of their life.

Doesn't a middle ground imply that both sides get something? Your ideas are the same crap that anti-2nd amendment crack pots spew on a daily basis, that is not anywhere near the middle.
 
Last time I checked there was no need requirement listed in the second amendment of the US Constitution.
 
you obviously have no clue what an assault rifle is
and when you claim there is a gun show loophole you prove to me you have no clue what the law is

registration is designed for two purposes-to harass honest people and ultimately facilitate confiscation

TD:

Sadly, far to many people haven't the faintest idea of an assault weapon.
 
TD:

Sadly, far to many people haven't the faintest idea of an assault weapon.

the less they know, the more they want to ban stuff
 
Video for those who haven't seen it:


Bravo Mr. Pratt :applaud



yeah it was a KO-PM is an asshole who just got reamed steamed and dry cleaned by Pratt
 
Back
Top Bottom