• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Here’s the Anti-Gun Tweet Piers Morgan Sent Out Hours After the Ft. Hood Shooting

Posted by on Apr. 3, 2014 at 11:56 AM
  • 6 Replies

Here’s the Anti-Gun Tweet Piers Morgan Sent Out Hours After the Ft. Hood Shooting

Defunct CNN host Piers Morgan is known for his anti-gun comments, and in the immediate aftermath of the latest Ft. Hood shooting, he couldn’t resist sending out a message on Twitter going after firearms.

'If only there'd been a good guy with a gun...' - such crap. This #FortHood soldier/shooter WAS a good guy. Until he turned bad, with a gun.
Piers Morgan tweets out anti gun message after Fort Hood shooting
@piersmorgan
Piers Morgan

“‘If only there’d been a good guy with a gun…’ – such crap,” Morgan tweeted, attacking the popular pro-gun argument that the key to stopping gun violence is arming more people who can act as a deterrent. “This #FortHood soldier/shooter WAS a good guy. Until he turned bad, with a gun.”

On Friday, Morgan ended his CNN show by also taking a shot at guns.

“And also I want to thank you all for watching, even those who implacably disagreed with me, or just found my funny accent annoying,” he said. “Regular viewers will know that the issue of gun control has been a consistent and often very controversial part of this show. And I want to say something more about that before I bow out.”

“The vast majority of Americans I met are decent, hardworking, thoroughly dependable people. As my brother, a British army colonel says, you always want an American next to you in the trench when the going gets tough,” Morgan continued.

“But that’s where I think guns belong, on a military battlefield, in the hands of highly trained men and women, fighting for democracy and freedom, not in the hands of civilians,” he contended.

Watch his full comments below:



by on Apr. 3, 2014 at 11:56 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-6):
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Apr. 3, 2014 at 12:02 PM

 I have seen many ignorant republican sites and Fox news blame Clinton and even say it's Obama's fault for not learning after the first attck on ft hood

so for those ignorant fools..

 

A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases, but that change in regulations was issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton via an executive order. Moreover, that change in regulations came about in response to a U.S. Department of Defense directive issued in February 1992, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and not at the sole behest of President Clinton.

Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried":

a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

Ednarooni160
by on Apr. 3, 2014 at 12:20 PM


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 I have seen many ignorant republican sites and Fox news blame Clinton and even say it's Obama's fault for not learning after the first attck on ft hood

so for those ignorant fools..

 

A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases, but that change in regulations was issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton via an executive order. Moreover, that change in regulations came about in response to a U.S. Department of Defense directive issued in February 1992, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and not at the sole behest of President Clinton. Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried": a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed. c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what was posted..this is a post about Piers Morgan and what he's saying about gun rights..

Canvas_says
by Silver Member on Apr. 3, 2014 at 12:38 PM

 Funny thing there was a good woman there with a gun and when Ortiz was confronted by her he killed himself instead of more people.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Apr. 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM

It's not his accent Americans find annoying.

In fact, Brits can't stand him either. Pretty sure it has nothing to do wih the accent.

Analeigh2012
by Silver Member on Apr. 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I find him highly offensive and not because of his accent 

1stmuslimah
by on Apr. 3, 2014 at 1:16 PM

I don't like him. I used to watch him not because I liked his show but it would be on while I was waiting for it to be over as my bed time ritual was listening to CNN as I went to sleep. I have stopped putting the TV on CNN because I got so sick of hearing his gun rants and him bitching, and pissing, and moaning about the 2nd Amendment of a constitution of a country that he is not even a citizen of. It's none of his damn business, he has no right to bitch about another countries constitution and he should be worrying about his own countries constitution and laws.

If I'm not mistaken he does not even technically live in the USA or hold even hold a Green Card but is only in America part time for his stupid show.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)