Since everyone seemed to lack the courage in the last thread to challenge the facts of the story and just attack the source (an old and discredited liberal trick, just ask all those involved in the Lewinsky story).

Here is the story, there is a photo. If you can prove it is fake, by all means post. If you can justify Pier's blatant hypocrisy, by all means post. However, if the best you can do is attack the source, do us all a favor and STFU and move on....
 

...can someone give me a direct link to the picture, because I'm not seeing it.

hypocritical about that sign or Mr. Morgan's using an armed security firm - and made absolutely no comment about the source of the article which I agree with you is irrelevant to the hypocrisy issue raised by the OP.

      There is no hypocrisy here bc Mr. Morgan has never said that private security guards should be unarmed, because these armed security guards are in fact "veteran police officers" with proper carry permits and bonds, and they are not armed with assault rifles or machine guns but with the same handgun as that used by local LE.

       Significantly, the OP for once was so at loss for words of rebuttal that he did not attempt to rebut any pf these points other than to assert that I put too much weight on their having a license. OK fair enough but that does not rebut the bottom line that these are highly trained off-duty veteran police officers who do no more than secure the premises, detain any suspect, and call the police. This is not the rampant and dangerous gun use of which Mr. Morgan to his credit has objected.

Not fruitful to resurrect a highjacked post! Chinese saying? Well, nope! I just made that up. However, it's quite obvious that I did, and no less obvious than the statement.  

-- Modified on 4/9/2013 9:47:29 AM

Hell, not just the Huffpo; the whole "Lamestream Media."  

Let’s see if the facts –remember the facts? – will wake you and Snowman from your slumber.

        You find Mr. Morgan’s use of an armed security service hypocritical bc, in your somnolescent view, Mr. Morgan purportedly believes “no one in America should be allowed to OWN firearms either."  

       The only problem with your argument is - he’s never said that and in fact that view is contrary to his published statements.

       Mr. Morgan recently summarized his gun control positions as follows. Raise your hand when he gets to the part about “no one in America should be allowed to own firearms" (what? you say your hand is um… “busy?” please not now):

 
“My argument with guns is not based on some universal, pathological hatred of them. ..

Nor do I have a problem with those who use guns for hunting or for sport. I also understand, and respect, how there is an inherent national belief in America, based on their understanding of the 2nd Amendment, that everyone should be allowed to have a gun at home for the purposes of self-defence.

But where I have a big problem is when the unfortunately ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment is twisted to mean that anyone in America can have any firearm they want, however powerful, and in whatever quantity they want.

…
Yet I can saunter into Walmart – America’s version of Tesco – and help myself to an armful of AR-15 assault rifles and magazines that can carry up to 100 bullets at a time.

That weapon has now been used in the last four mass shootings in America – at the Aurora cinema, a shopping mall in Oregon, Sandy Hook school, and the most recent, a dreadful attack on firemen in New York.

The AR-15 looks and behaves like a military weapon and should be confined to the military and police force. No member of the public has any need for a death machine that can fire up to six rounds a second when modified and can clear a 100-bullet magazine (as used in Aurora) within a minute.

 

So Morgan does not seek a ban on gun ownership at all. He acknowledges guns can be used for sport or hunting and even in the home for purposes of self defense. It is only the assault rifles and similar powerful weapons that he would ban. I agree with him wholeheartedly, although in fact it is I who would further adopt the view that  “no one in America should be allowed to OWN firearms either."  

 

 

was one of my favorites in my pre mane days.

Yes, Laffy's right/left schtick is old and tiresome just like trannyboy's copy and paste adventures.

But Obama is the worst president in history, hands down. Even you know that. You just don't want to admit it.

I think all by itself, it also makes you a hyper partisan righty and a racist to boot, at least according to Daffy,

but Daffy's a moron, so who gives a fuck?

Oh! That's right! You must just be stating your personal opinion!

How can a President be ranked 15th when he has helped to further destroy the economy and thwarts the constitution at every turn? He is the most hated president in our time. He is a divider and liar.  

We also know how skewed and biased these polls can be when they are loaded with liberals.

Sorry, but that poll is a joke. When you get some time, look at the comments. From what I read you are in the minority if you believe that poll.

so you believe in special rights for those who can afford it...

Where the HELL do you work to get that kind of mentality, K street????

Still so bitter at the world, poor little Laffy...

Perhaps you don't get it. Let me draw it out in crayon for you.  

the problem is if your ONLY argument is to attack the source. If you want to dispute and proves someone wrong AND THEN say, btw, the source you are using not reliable, that's fine.

But if the ONLY argument you can make is to attack the source, then a big care of STFU is in order...

You know, like so many of your posts

I took GaG's advice and started to ignore the retard and he begged on each of my posts last night.
I can envision him throwing a temper tantrum at his keyboard with a nee nee required to calm himself down.

Please send him that box of crayons.

END OF MESSAGE