Piers Morgan Clashes With Ben Ferguson Over Background Checks, Infants Getting Their Hands On Guns
VIDEO here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/piers-morgan-clashes-with-ben-ferguson-over-background-checks-infants-getting-their-hands-on-guns/
Morgan cited statistics showing less Americans support infringement of their civil liberties to fight terrorism after Boston than they did after previous terrorist attacks on the United States. Ferguson attributed this to a better understanding amongst the public of what technologies are appropriate to utilize in the name of fighting terrorism.
-snip-
= new reply since forum marked as read
instead of the issue of a 5 year old being given a working .22 caliber rifle as a present, with which the 5 year old shoots and kills his 2 year old sister is even more ridiculous.
...failed in the Senate because Harry Reid failed to reform the filibuster on the first day of the current Senate session like he promised to do.
The bill had a 54-48 majority vote for passage, but since Reid did nothing to reform the filibuster rules, 60 votes were required.
Anything that does not get passed through the Senate due to Republican obstruction for the duration of this Senate session, I place squarely at the feet of Majority "Leader" Reid.
This tragedy happened because a 5 year old was given a lethal weapon as a present. Why should an appropriate gift to a kindergartener be locked away? Daisy Air Rifles and BB guns don't have enough killing power? Five year olds should only kill under supervision??
Jesus.
When I was 5 my folks didn't "give" me a fully operational, deadly weapon as a gift or present. (I had a 2 year old sister at the time also). As a 5 year old, what my folks did "give" me, (two wheel bike with training wheels, toy guns, Lincoln Logs and other assorted toys and games), didn't require being locked away from me whenever I wanted to "play with them", because they knew better than to give a fully functional .22 caliber rifle to a Kindergartener.
Even at 5 I was cognizant of what was mine, and what wasn't. If it was locked away, it wasn't mine...
This Kindergartner picked up his fully functional, .22 caliber rifle, not because it wasn't locked up, but because it was HIS. And then accidentally murdered his two year old sister... 
My condolences to the family, but Jesus Christ! A deadly weapon given as a present to a 5 year old?? WTF???
Was there ever a potential of you possibly maiming or killing someone with your "savings bond" had you been able to cash it as a five year old? I'd venture to say that if maiming and death were a possible outcome of your baptismal gift of the "savings bond", you would not have received that gift.
Get real. Did your folks "flip a coin" to decide between giving you a fully functional .22 caliber weapon or a savings bond when you were 5? Are you shitting me?
...try answerng a few of my already asked questions first?
You started this conversation by playing semantics with the word "infant" which the OP used because that was in the title of the video he posted. As if "infant" or "pre-schooler" or "kindergartner" held some special significance in the context of the posted video.
Next you segue into your apparent position that it's just fine to present and declare to a 5 year old kindergartner that he has been gifted, presented, and is the proud owner of, a fully functional, lethal, .22 caliber weapon, as though a 5 year old (not being an "infant"
is somehow responsible enough to receive ownership of a lethal firearm.
The question to YOU is, would this poor little boy's 2 year old sister be dead if his parents had decided to give their 5 year old a SAVINGS BOND instead of a deadly weapon??
Were YOU never 5 years old? Do YOU NOT recognize how stupid it is to give a 5 year old a goddamn REAL GUN and tell him it's HIS?
Jesus H Christ!
Locking it up is beside the point. He shouldn't have been "gifted" with it in the first place.
...religious practices had nothing to do with the issue. Way to stay on topic.
Wine or grape juice? Sprinkling or immersion? Take this crap to the Religion and Spirituality forum. 
"Nah, I'm not going back to old posts."
I accept your concession. Good day.
"You missed the point of the dangers of guns being available to 5 year olds."
That's been my point all along, as well as the stupidity of the idea of presenting a 5 year old a lethal weapon as a present.
"By the way, not only are 5 year olds not infants, they are not even toddlers anymore."
Deflecting back to semantics once again? Pathetic.
By the way, remember - You said this:
"my brother's infant sons were 'given' .22 rifles shortly after they were born. They remain locked up in a gun safe to this day. (The boys are 18, 21, and 23)."
All three of your nephews are of military age and yet "their" guns remain locked up in a gun safe to this day? Hell, they could have cashed in their "savings bonds" by now. 
And yet you still think it's okay to give a fully functional .22 caliber rifle to a 5 year old ?? Or were your nephew's .22 rifles not really given to them, and therefore not theirs, and something they could only "borrow" from time to time? Is that why they're still locked up to this day?
Are you really non-cognizant of a 5 year old's conception of "mine"?? What is the purpose of giving a 5 year old a full function rifle of his very own, and telling him he can't touch what you told him was HIS??
Jesus!
"Sure the guns are theirs."
But, but... YOU said,"my brother's infant sons were 'given' .22 rifles shortly after they were born. They remain locked up in a gun safe to this day. (The boys are 18, 21, and 23)."
So by YOUR OWN WORDS the guns have been locked up in a gun safe since shortly after they were born. So how did they ever claim "OWNERSHIP" if THEIR POSSESSIONS HAVE BEEN LOCKED AWAY FOR THE LAST 23 YEARS?? As YOU noted in post #5 "WORDS HAVE MEANING". Do you now see how stupid it is to play semantic word games??
Are you really non-cognizant of a 5 year old's conception of "mine"??
"The purpose is to prevent tragedies like the one in the story upon which this thread is based."
So you really cannot comprehend the concept of closing the barn door after the livestock have escaped?? If there was NO 5 year old scaled .22 caliber, bolt action rifle in the house, there would be nothing to lock up, and no family mourning the death of a 2 year old girl at the hands of her 5 year old brother who accidentally shot her with his unknowingly loaded .22 rifle. In other words, No Tragedy To Prevent.
Do you think the 5 year old was as likely to pick up his Dad's full sized .22 caliber carbine and point it at his sister, or don't you??
At 5 years old your nephews knew they OWNED nothing. It was not THEIRS to use at THEIR leisure. It was not THEIRS do play with when they wished. I'll bet dollars to donuts THEIR bicycles and THEIR G.I. Joes weren't locked away until their parents told them they could play with them. A 5 year old understands the concept of "MINE" and "NOT MINE". This child was told the .22 Cricket was HIS. I very much doubt he would have picked up his Dad's carbine and killed his 2 year old sister with it.
I consider it Monumentally Stupid to present an actual, working firearm to a kindergartner and tell him it's HIS. Particularly a working firearm scaled to his size. Absolute dumbfuckery. Have you not heard of Mattel plastic bullet shooting guns and greenie stickem caps??
Jesus! 
1.) So you feel the 2 year old was already doomed, because something else, like Dad's unsecured carbine, or her swing set was gonna kill her anyway? Instead of what actually got her killed? Okay. Good to know. Damn...
2.) You have an interesting concept of "giving" with which I am not familiar. In my life, particularly at that age, what was given to me was MINE. If I abused it, broke it or lost it was of no consequence to my parents. It would NOT be fixed or replaced because it was MINE and MY responsibility. By the same token, I was never given something and told it was MINE with the restrictions you imply.
3.) Poor dodge. I asked a simple binary question regarding which was most likely. There was no "C" option to the likely outcomes of the binary question, so your answer is deemed "non responsive".
4.) It has been repeatedly explained to you why the "ownership" of the .22 is definitely "material" to the issue of why a two year old girl is dead. It wasn't locked up, was it? YOU contend that the 2 year old is dead because A loaded weapon was accessible to the 5 year old. I contend that the two year old is dead because the 5 year old's OWN LOADED WEAPON was accessible to the five year old. A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE. I further contend that the 5 year old would NOT have picked up his father's unsecured, full-sized carbine and pointed it at and accidentally shot his baby sister. Yes it should have been secured, but the 5 year old picked it up because it was HIS. And it's insane to give a 5 year old a .22 caliber, bolt action rifle, and tell him it's HIS.
5.) I'm a product of the late 50's early 60's myself. My father owned a pistol and a rifle which I rarely saw and never touched. But he wasn't so insane as to give me a real, live, fully functional .22 caliber bolt action rifle when I was in kindergarten. Daisy doesn't even recommend giving an under TEN year old a BB rifle, let alone a fully functional .22 caliber, bolt action rifle.
6.) Sorry you missed out on the Mattel late 50's early 60's line of "Shootin Shell" pistols and rifles. They were very cool. Basically they were rifles and pistols that had plastic bullets that were spring loaded into cartridges, and fired like a real gun. For added realism, there were peel off round green caps you could stick to the back of the cartridge to make a firing sound when you pulled the trigger. Big fun when I was 6-7 years old.
Check this out:
Finally, I do not understand why you do not assume that this family regularly locked up their guns, and this tragedy was the result of a tragic oversight. My point being, accidents like this DO happen, and their likelihood is compounded when there is a child-sized lethal weapon in the house, as this case obviously points out.
Congratulations. 
I maintain that the primary reason the two year old is dead is because the five year old saw and picked up HIS OWN, child-sized unsecured, loaded .22 caliber bolt action rifle and accidentally shot his baby sister.
I further maintain that the five year old would NOT have picked up his FATHER'S full-sized, unsecured, loaded .22 caliber bolt action rifle, and accidentally shot his baby sister.
I reject, out of hand, the notion that the five year old would have shot his baby sister with any unsecured weapon available.
I fully agree that any deadly weapon should be secured in the home from accidental misuse and discharge. I also recognize that "shit happens" and that sometimes via carelessness or oversight, this may not happen.
You are correct that our difference revolves around the idea of "gifting" a five year old with a fully functional, .22 caliber, bolt action rifle. I find it interesting that even YOU never handled a firearm before the age of 7, while your brother, 5 years your senior, had obviously handled firearms well before he went to the gun safety program you speak of. If he first handled a firearm at 7 years old as was YOUR experience, YOU were 2 years old at the time. It seems that even your parents felt that 5 years old was too young to handle a firearm.
You are correct in the assertion that there is no point in continued debate on this matter between us. I am amenable to agreeing to disagree.
Peace. 
No matter...
Actually, as previously stated, the two year old was killed because the 5 year old's gun was available to him. The 5 year old had prior experience (he got the gun when he was 4). He knew better, and would NOT have picked up his father's gun had it been the one available to him in the corner.
I can do this as long as you can Jenoch. 