Piers Morgan and Ted Nugent: Two Sides of the Same Coin

One of the most troubling aspects of the gun debate in America is the amount of misinformation and half-truths being offered by people on both sides of this contentious issue.

Two of the greatest offenders in this regard are CNN’s Piers Morgan and Ted Nugent.

With Morgan he bandies about study results pointing to declining crime rates, attributing them solely to the impact of gun control legislation.

With Nugent, who as a guest on the Glenn Beck show talked about neutralizing watermelons as a means of preparing for armed response, the impassioned rhetoric makes one wonder?

Click to Listen to Morgan - Nugent Commentary

Click to Listen to Morgan – Nugent Commentary

Even though Morgan is British, both his and Nugent’s vociferous defense of their positions make one wonder Why Do Americans Hate Each Other! rather than seek understanding and ultimately consensus on these important issues.

30

Comments
4 Responses to “Piers Morgan and Ted Nugent: Two Sides of the Same Coin”
  1. Brad says:

    Passion is essential. Unbridled passion for an issue however, entices both sides to inflate and misrepresent the facts. The actions of a handful of mentally incompetent people have inflamed the discussion and infused a level of passion that makes it difficult to hear the facts. The key is to honestly filter the passion and objectively weigh the facts, regardless of the source. When I do so a few things appears clear…1 – we do have a crime problem, but it is significantly less per capita than a decade ago; 2 – we hold parents accountable for leaving kids in cars unattended but we don’t hold them accountable for leaving kids unattended in homes with unsecured guns; 3 – laws focused on human behaviors hold people accountable, while laws focused on inanimate objects allow us to feel as though we have done something to regulate human behavior…which we have not. It is the functional equivalent of outlawing potato chips as a way to end obesity in America. Bottom line…effective measures must address human behavior, not potato chips.

  2. Perry Lee Harden says:

    I believe the problem isn’t “gun control” it’s “gun violence,” and the answer isn’t being thoroughly considered because it would violate too many of the “right” of people on both sides.

    For me, the question is: Should “all Americans” have the right to own as many weapons as they wish? and, should they be allowed to own any kind of firearm they wish to have?

    I think most people would say the answer to both questions is: No. However, the devil is in the details. Who decides who should or shouldn’t own firearms and, how do we decide which weapons, if any, an American should be allowed to own?

    Obviously, the answer is: governmental authorities should decide who can own and what they can own and, unfortunately, giving that kind of power to the government makes the masses uncomfortable to say the least. But I believe that truly is the answer.

    The “people” have to turn over their “power and authority” to the governing officials and allow them to decide and since those governing can’t even agree on the best way to save the environment, or feed the countries poor, or come up with fair tax laws, or provide medicine to the sick, I sincerely doubt they’ll be able to solve something as simple as, “should we be allowed to blow one another to bits with automatic weapons on a regular basis” either.

    • piblogger says:

      Well stated Perry. I especially agree with your assessment that “the answer isn’t being thoroughly considered because it would violate too many of the “right” of people on both sides.”

  • Books Written by Jon Hansen

%d bloggers like this: