Rob Lowe: So they literally came and took them away?

Published on Jan 14, 2013
Actor Rob Lowe shares his thoughts on guns, gun control and a potential assault weapons ban.




Piers Morgan: I just don't get the assault weapon thing. I don't get why responsible gun owners in this country aren't rising up together and saying, 'you know what, they have no place in a civilized society.

Rob Lowe: Let me ask you, because I know you've really been leading the charge on this...I haven't heard anyone articulate to me what would really be the problem with an assualt weapons ban--we've had it before.

Piers Morgan: You had a kind of woolly ban. It had so many exemptions to it.

Rob Lowe: Right that's the issue..

Piers Morgan: If you leave hundreds of thousands of them still on the streets it's not a ban. In Britain, when we had our Sandy Hook at Dumblane, there was a national ban on handguns and assualt weapons, and they all got taken away. If you were found with one you were sent to jail.

A dumbfounded Rob Lowe: So they literally came and took them away?

Piers Morgan: Yeah...this word confiscation causes mass terror in America...'you're not taking my guns!'

Rob Lowe: Yeah, it's a complicated issue.

Could Piers really be this dense? The owners of assault weapons don't need that sort of firepower for hunting or protecting their homes and families from the stated threats---like criminals or madmen. They need it to stand up to the potential for tyranny, from alphabet agencies, like the DEA, FEMA, the ATF, FBI, CIA, IRS etc., being utilized as tools of corporate fascism. Some people feel we stopped being a constitutional democracy a while ago, and instead are living legally under some sort of Continuity of Government protocol. Of course, we wouldn't realize this little legal technicality until the moment our diminished rights were asserted upon us, although, during the lead up to that moment it would still have empowered the federal powers to behave in reprehensible ways.

The Dunblane school massacre, on March 13, 1996, in which the gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton, entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide, led directly to the enactment of U.K.'s Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.

His two 9 mm Browning HP pistols were only semi-automatic weapons, while the two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers used, were double action, so even slower---albeit with a "positive reputation for stopping power." Does Piers Morgan really think this case supports his argument about eliminating only the most grievous firepower from private American hands?

On the contrary, Piers reveals the hand the overlords of Merry Ole England played as they now wait for the next round for the squeeze play.

Did Piers ever consider that Thomas Hamilton may not have been an entirely "legitimate" volitional mass killer? That his actions may have been orchestrated or controlled in some fashion to serve plans and agendas of some secret ruling cabal? Otherwise, the timing would seem suspiciously non-random, and the stereotypical demonization of an errant Scout Master, morally suspect in his intentions with boys, right for that decade, if not now.

As an American devotee of non-violence who highly suspects our leaders of malfeasance and disloyalty to the Constitution, I feel much safer knowing a maximum amount of firepower is held in a diverse cross-section of hands all across our nation. We may not be able to stop acts of staged or willed terror like Sandy Hook and Columbine, but we could have already descended into tyranny, and bloodshed far greater, if Pier's proposal had prevailed. And maybe, in the meantime, we've bought ourselves some time, and a solution will present itself.