I like Morgan, and he had some good points, but damn did he lie =Guns=

I'll start by saying I'm for universal background checks (for the most part, I'd have a clause exempting family members), but Morgan lied and spun all kinds of nonsense in that gun episode.

He seemed perfectly sane when he was around people, but whenever he did the car takes he was spouting all kinds of conspiracy crap.

1. He kept referring to the bill where one clause would have created universal background checks. Maybe he's just a complete moron, but if he knows anything about how bills work, and he had any respect for the audience, he wouldn't have pulled the crap he did.

Let's say there's a bill before Congress, and it included a clause that would magically manifest a new ice cream flavor that everyone loved, and somehow this new flavor would also cure cancer and end poverty. Let's say not 90% (as he repeated over and over about universal background checks) but 100% of Americans supported the clause. Then let's suppose that bill fails in the Senate. Well then if If I'm a liar like Morgan Spurlock I'll go on and on about the 100% approval of that clause. I'll blame Big Ice Cream for shutting it down.

But wait... A BILL CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE GOD DAMN CLAUSE. If the Bill I proposed had the magical ice cream clause, but ALSO had a clause where everyone had to jump in a blender when they turned 45, you're damn right Congress would vote it down, and no "Big Ice Cream" was necessary.

Liar Spurlock at no point mentioned everything else in the bill that might have gotten it a down vote. He entirely focused on one aspect of it to illegitimately support his insane ramblings about the NRA.

2. The entire episode he kept referring to these fears the NRA was spreading about people getting their guns confiscated, but he never once produced a shred of evidence to this effect. He went on an on about the NRA "strong arming" the government (again an ignorant and dishonest representation of our law making system) and how the NRA spread lies and fears about the government, without a single bit of citation to this effect.

The ONLY thing he had a evidence was that the NRA said the bill would be a de facto universal registration. Oh, but to this the President and Morgan counter that it says right in the bill (that apparently doesn't just create universal background check snow, now you're admitting there's more to it, when it suits you?) it would be illegal to use this information for a universal registry.

Well thank god. When we give the government personal information and they make a law preventing themselves from looking at it, well we can surely count on them to follow that right? NSA? NSA you're not nodding. Come on NSA, at least pretend you won't immediately put every name and gun in a registry as you've done with every email, text, and phone call illegally so far.

I don't even care about universal registry. I'm for that too. I'm for national ID, universal background checks, and universal registries. I don't care what data the government collects. Doesn't mean I'll let Spurlock lie to make his wildly unfounded arguments.

3. He concludes that we should ban AR rifles. After everything he said, saw, experienced, he still ended with a completely idiotic lie about ARs being "assault rifles" that are "high powered" and "high capacity". LIE LIE LIE.

An assault rifle is an automatic. An AR is not
He said the AR was high powered, the AR uses a .223 round, the AR is nearly the lowest powered weapon you can purchase, slightly above a .22.
He referred to them being high capacity: A. Every weapon that has a detachable magazine can be "high capacity" (if that term means anything) or it could be low capacity, it has nothing to do with the actual weapon. B. His ultimate argument against high capactity weapons is that it didn't allow time for the person to be tackled. OK dumbass, what if you're the home owner being invaded by a gang, now you're the one with the low capacity, thanks to Morgan, you're ripe to be tackled and gang raped.

The vast majority of legal gun use in self defense occurs at home. Most criminals have no want or desire for high capacity weapons because they want their weapon to remain unseen. Only media grabbing mass killers want high capacity weapons for offensive use. And despite Morgan's lies about the number of mass killings per year, or that they are increasing, at least he acknowledged they don't make up 1% of gun crime. If you're trying to be "reasonable" why are you whole sale banning a citizen's right to home defense to slightly discourage the extremely rare mass killer? Because the person at home waking up in the dark, having no clothing to run with, no idea if the children are safe, and no idea how many people are invading, sure as hell doesn't need just 5 rounds to make a quick escape. Tell that b.s. to any cop whose ever actually been in a shoot out.

The criminal comes prepared. They might not have a drum magazine, but they'll carry what they need, they're on alert, they're on the offensive, and often they have back up. So Morgan wants to disarm the homeowner whose only real counter to this kind of attack is that he might be able to miss a couple rounds. If it's Morgan's way, the homeowner has to be a dead shot in the dark from the moment he wakes and has to be deft enough to immediately get spare mags if the 5 or 6 shots don't magically kill everyone, as they NEVER do in real life situations.

But let's never mind all these lies he spouts inexplicably while driving around.

Apart from cosmetic features, ARs are no different than many other semi-auto rifles. By Morgan's non-existant logic, I must assume all those guns must be banned too. He starts off like every gun-grabbing politician, by claiming to own guns and be pro-guns, but then he gets the most obvious stuff wrong and supports outright lies.

4. His final wild rant was about how our forefathers clearly didn't intend for us to have weapons that could kill people.

A. Cannons and bombs were legal at the same time the Bill of Rights was written. I'm pretty sure they knew what destructive power could come from projectiles.

B. In their day a musket shot to the foot could be death. And do you have any idea how big those colonial projectiles were? You want to talk about high powered? They could blow people's heads off. They knew god damn well what guns could do.

C. <Hurr but it's all about mass killing> You mean that thing that almost never happens and the media blows way out of proportion? That thing where they do in China with even bigger body counts with knives? Read Federal No. 46, James Madison, the author of the bill of rights makes it plain as day what he meant in the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the populace, so that they could form a militia if ever the time came to over throw the US government. This isn't speculation. You probably don't even believe me because liberals like Spurlock would NEVER want you to read Federalist No. 46 which entirely destroys all anti-gun arugments about the Second Amendment. Since the reason the right was secured in the Constitution wasn't to go hunting, but to over throw a tyrannical government, the idea that we should ban the same kinds of guns the military uses for private ownership is the exact contradiction to the Second Amendment. If you don't want civilians to own ARs, then ban the military from carrying M-16s.

D. Did Morgan ever stop and think, maybe rub two brain cells together and do the math about this whole "assault weapon" and mass killing issue? The AR as was stated directly to him, is the favored weapon of the law-abiding public. Not criminals. Even if you call AR's "assault weapons" and you expand assault weapons to be as vague and arbitrary as it is in California (where it includes rifles, shotguns, pistols, and even antiques!) Assault weapons only account for about 2% of gun crime in the US.

HEY LIAR SPURLOCK, YOU CLAIM THIS IS ABOUT REDUCING THE CRIME, BUT YOUR ONLY SOLUTIONS ARE TO BAN GUNS CRIMINALS DON'T USE, AND BAN HIGH CAPACITY MAGS THAT CRIMINALS DON'T USE. All you're going for is a band-aid on an exploded heart. You're only targeting the media hyped issue of mass killings without even remotely addressing the actual 99% of crime. You ban the guns law abiding citizens use the most to stop NO CRIMINALS.