Density has nothing to do with violent crime at all.

I guess Morgan could have used a statistic of (social) -vs- 100,000 thousand gun issues ?

For example;

Hawaii had I think just one gun incident last year - by contrast Chicago has a gun related death every 5 to 6 days = gang related depressed areas.

Anyway,
I feel that in (social) depressed areas they would seek out to get guns to be equal - as opposed to more affluent areas that feel the need to get guns to protect themselves from the depressed area societies ?

I find it very hard to believe that population density has no connection to violence. I know for a fact that studies on rats (the link is to a very brief abstract only) indicate exactly the opposite: the denser the population, the more pathology there is among rats. This chart and map suggest that density and violence are very closely correlated. By the way, I think it's unfair to treat DC as if it were a whole state since the lower densities in the non-urban areas even in a place like NJ dilute the violence. DC is all urban all the time.

It's rather obvious why Morgan and CNN had jones on the show.


They knew he would get into one of his rants. The purpose was to associate the second amendment folks as mad men.

The reason jones wanted to be on there was to get attention for hs own show. He is an entertainer.

It's pretty normal for one entertainer to have another entertainer as guest as it garners viewers for both. In this case, being Morgans show he controlled the result. Now if Morgan went on Jones show, Jones would control the outcome.

Dave

He is an entertainer like that phony Michael Savage with his rants and crazy concepts about Obama and the government against him all the time.Credit for Piers Morgan to keep his composure.

Must have missed that part. Looked like he had no control whatsoever.
How do you control a mad man?

Yes... and also because the man had a petition to have him deported. Thankfully, the White House sees through such poo.

Right MrB, thats pretty much it.

As talked about before , where does this 2nd amendment end ? ? the right to bear arms ? ? does that include improvised bombs , RPG's , Tanks ?

Maybe there needs to be a 3rd amendment since the 2nd one does not say (what) these right to bear arms are ? ?

The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is there for a reason ...

An interesting thing about "well regulated militia" is if you put that 2nd Amendment in the context of Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Put the context in a proposition for debate: Resolved, that any citizen who uses his or her weapons against the United States commits treason.

Discuss.

I agree YoYo,

Thats the way I read it as well. Regulated militia means armed to protect their government and -not- their government enemies.

When you look at the context of why it was written in the first place.
The revolution , the Indian and the Spanish American wars were mostly (Militia)

Simply , farmers , settlers and hunters who brought their own guns and then joined a militia in times of war. That is a huge cost saving for a young Nation.

Anyway I believe the intent of the wording in the 2nd was just for that reason - sorta a cheap way to have what we call today the (Army Reserves) was certainly not meant that every citizen can arm themselves to fight their own government but rather mainly for personal protection.