Mr. Jeff Bewkes
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Time Warner Inc. (Owner of brands CNN & Piers Morgan)
I watched the Piers Morgan show on December 14, 2012 regarding
the shootings at the Sandy Hook Kindergarten – 4th Grade school
earlier that day. My big question is why does CNN have a non-American citizen
doing news about the
Morgan had two mental health experts on his show and both cautioned Piers not to jump to conclusions about the mental condition of the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza. The focus of the two mental health experts was on the mental health in the nation, not on gun control, but that is all Piers could think of the whole hour was how to turn the conversation and extract a call for a gun ban from these two experts.
Piers actually went into a fit of rage about the .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was found “outside the school on the property” that was “believed to belong” to the alleged gunman. There was no report that the gunman even used the Bushmaster in the two classrooms. It was reported that the gunman had used two pistols, a Glock and a Sig Sauer. It is strange how the rifle would get outside if the gunman killed himself in the building as reported.
Then Piers had four other guests on his show, two against the
Second Amendment and law of the land and two in support of the law of the land.
Democratic Representative Jerrald Nadler of
Piers went into another fit of rage with Mr. Lott after Lott made
the point that all these recent mass shooting occurred in areas of the nation
that already have gun bans in place. Lott said that the gunman at the
Then Nadler showed his ignorance of the law by saying that; “no one can responsibly object to a law restricting military fire arms from the public, doing background checks on everybody that buys a gun, and making sure that the mentally ill do not acquire fire arms.” or words to that effect. Then both Nadler and Piers said that these laws would not infringe upon the Second Amendment or deny a person their right of self-defense. Piers asked what the hunters needed with these kinds of military weapons. This is pure foreign ignorance! We should expect that from the British foreigner but not from a Representative of New York. However, we should not have to tolerate CNN an American Company using a foreigner to tell us we should disarm the population!
The Second Amendment is not to guarantee that men can put deer meat on the table. The whole use and sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the civilian population from the abuses of the federal government. And this was stated clearly in the Preamble to the first ten amendments or Bill of Rights: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” I don’t hunt but it is my right to have sufficient fire power to protect me and my family from government tyranny and to defend my neighbors as well. And now it has been reported that Nancy Lanza was working for DHS and DARPA in their use of video games in mind control experiments.
And since government tyranny is clearly on the rise and over
3,700 FEMA camps have been built all over the nation, it is not in the best
interest of citizens to give up the largest and most powerful firearms they
have. And, in fact, the civilian population was to possess everything that the
federal army would have in war, according to Alexander Hamilton in his
Federalist Letter # 29: “By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible
to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field
whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen
the call for military establishments, but
if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of
any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people
while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and
those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can
be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if
it should exist.” And we have had an unlawful standing federal army for
over 60 years conducting undeclared wars. This army threatens the lives,
liberties and possessions of the people of the
How would it harm
Ron Avery is a semi-retired architect, author and speaker on topics regarding Christian theology and the principles of property that regulate every aspect of lawful government. Reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org