SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (26) down (26)
Piers Morgan: Should you have right to own a tank?

Piers Morgan: Should you have right to own a tank?

(17:21) Gun advocates Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes join Piers Morgan in another "questions without answers" interview on gun control.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just me wondering (2859 days ago)
what is difference of quoting the Quran vs modern world, than quoting 2nd amendment vs modern world ???? Could Cengland0 answer to this ?
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
what is difference of quoting the Quran vs modern world, than quoting 2nd amendment vs modern world ???? Could Cengland0 answer to this ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2859 days ago)
Neither is illegal to quote. In America, if someone wants to read and quote the Quran, they have that right. Both religion and speech are protected by our 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
Neither is illegal to quote. In America, if someone wants to read and quote the Quran, they have that right. Both religion and speech are protected by our 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2859 days ago)
I believe you missed 'Just me wondering's' point... which is that using an out dated philosophy to justify modern behaviour is perhaps wrong.
ReplyVote up (75)down (128)
Original comment
I believe you missed 'Just me wondering's' point... which is that using an out dated philosophy to justify modern behaviour is perhaps wrong.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2859 days ago)
It is your opinion that those are outdated philosophies. People who follow the Quran might disagree with you.
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
It is your opinion that those are outdated philosophies. People who follow the Quran might disagree with you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2859 days ago)
I'm sure they would disagree... but that was his point none-the-lesss. In the same way that many feel dogmatic loyalty to a document that once labeled some human beings of 3/5 value of other human beings and others of no value at all----as out dated.
ReplyVote up (82)down (101)
Original comment
I'm sure they would disagree... but that was his point none-the-lesss. In the same way that many feel dogmatic loyalty to a document that once labeled some human beings of 3/5 value of other human beings and others of no value at all----as out dated.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just me wondering (2858 days ago)
Yes I didnt make it clear enough. Like there the other guest pointed out. Why use out dated idealisms to justifye modern behaviour. Why is it bad for people to support Quran to modern world, but then again its Good to use 2nd amentment as absolute pure idelalism. In my point I see them both as wrong way to approach things.
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Yes I didnt make it clear enough. Like there the other guest pointed out. Why use out dated idealisms to justifye modern behaviour. Why is it bad for people to support Quran to modern world, but then again its Good to use 2nd amentment as absolute pure idelalism. In my point I see them both as wrong way to approach things.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: NotGuest (2861 days ago)
It finally dawned on me what the 2nd amendment defenders remind me of. ..the ultra-extreme Muslims who quote the Quran (their constitution?) and use it to support their vision of the modern world. There is no rational way to defend the proliferation of weapons in the US…short of quoting your “bible”, out of context, void of the current reality!
ReplyVote up (100)down (103)
Original comment
It finally dawned on me what the 2nd amendment defenders remind me of. ..the ultra-extreme Muslims who quote the Quran (their constitution?) and use it to support their vision of the modern world. There is no rational way to defend the proliferation of weapons in the US…short of quoting your “bible”, out of context, void of the current reality!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kamikaze (2860 days ago)
I fully agree...the Right to Bear Arms had a purpose -- and a reasonable one -- when it was drafted. However the sheer destructiveness of modern weapons makes it unconscionable to have those weapons in irresponsible hands. If someone asked me "does a private citizen have the right to own a nuke?" I'd answer, "I don't thinkk the GOVERNMENT should have the right to own a nuke..."
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
I fully agree...the Right to Bear Arms had a purpose -- and a reasonable one -- when it was drafted. However the sheer destructiveness of modern weapons makes it unconscionable to have those weapons in irresponsible hands. If someone asked me "does a private citizen have the right to own a nuke?" I'd answer, "I don't thinkk the GOVERNMENT should have the right to own a nuke..."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2861 days ago)
People might mistakenly call this a debate. A debate requires both sides to accept they might be wrong and is about exploring in a neutral and fair way all sides of an argument. This is just shouting loudly about what each person thinks. No opinions were changed here. Stupid Brit and Americans.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
People might mistakenly call this a debate. A debate requires both sides to accept they might be wrong and is about exploring in a neutral and fair way all sides of an argument. This is just shouting loudly about what each person thinks. No opinions were changed here. Stupid Brit and Americans.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kamikaze (2861 days ago)
The stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the general populace have the means to stand up to the "regular" army should there ever be a need. So it seems clear that the US Constitution should allow a private citizen to own a sword, a pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15, an M-16, a M1-A1 tank, an F-15 Fighter loaded with Sidewinder missiles, even tactical nukes. Unfortunately, the existence of deranged or misguided individuals who can cause incredible amounts or random carnage with such devices creates the need for reasonable limitations, even though such limits are in violation of the constitution; I think public safety in this case should supersede the constitutional right. Now if only a clear line could be drawn on what constitutes a "reasonable" limit...
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
The stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the general populace have the means to stand up to the "regular" army should there ever be a need. So it seems clear that the US Constitution should allow a private citizen to own a sword, a pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15, an M-16, a M1-A1 tank, an F-15 Fighter loaded with Sidewinder missiles, even tactical nukes. Unfortunately, the existence of deranged or misguided individuals who can cause incredible amounts or random carnage with such devices creates the need for reasonable limitations, even though such limits are in violation of the constitution; I think public safety in this case should supersede the constitutional right. Now if only a clear line could be drawn on what constitutes a "reasonable" limit...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: seriously (2860 days ago)
if I could get get mosquito's to kill each other, I'd do it, they p--s me the f--k off. I say more guns for Americans, more more more, they should all have them, it can only be good for the rest of us, think about it, twats killing twats, that a win win.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
if I could get get mosquito's to kill each other, I'd do it, they p--s me the f--k off. I say more guns for Americans, more more more, they should all have them, it can only be good for the rest of us, think about it, twats killing twats, that a win win.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: usualsuspect (2858 days ago)
i think this is a trailor for a new fim, "Bimbos withot brains." Its a comedy
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
i think this is a trailor for a new fim, "Bimbos withot brains." Its a comedy
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: caey (2861 days ago)
I don't think I've ever seen a more pathetic, inept interviewer.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
I don't think I've ever seen a more pathetic, inept interviewer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: scienceboy (2859 days ago)
Actually, the only person who could "bear" a tank would be the hulk. Bear implies carry, if you can't carry it, you can't have it under the 2nd amendment. I WANT AN ASSAULT UNICORN.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Actually, the only person who could "bear" a tank would be the hulk. Bear implies carry, if you can't carry it, you can't have it under the 2nd amendment. I WANT AN ASSAULT UNICORN.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: scienceboy (2859 days ago)
Why not just change the constitution? It's been done before.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
Why not just change the constitution? It's been done before.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Russ Beach (2767 days ago)
Latest comment: Piers, you are a remarkably stupid Brit ,aren't you?
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment: Piers, you are a remarkably stupid Brit ,aren't you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2861 days ago)
Finally I agree with Piers Morgan on one single point. I have no issues with having background checks prior to purchasing a gun from a retail shop. 10 round limit -- disagree. We should have no limit. Regarding tanks, civilians do own them already. I've watched documentaries where someone restores old ones and collects them. If you ban tanks, that could be broad enough to prevent me from putting additional armor on my car to defend against bullets coming my way.
ReplyVote up (87)down (130)
Original comment
Finally I agree with Piers Morgan on one single point. I have no issues with having background checks prior to purchasing a gun from a retail shop. 10 round limit -- disagree. We should have no limit. Regarding tanks, civilians do own them already. I've watched documentaries where someone restores old ones and collects them. If you ban tanks, that could be broad enough to prevent me from putting additional armor on my car to defend against bullets coming my way.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2861 days ago)
I believe the point is more the weapons (cannon, MG) on the tank, rather than the armour. Buying a surplus tank (sans weapons) is possible in many (most countries)... though some forbid treads on highways.
ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment
I believe the point is more the weapons (cannon, MG) on the tank, rather than the armour. Buying a surplus tank (sans weapons) is possible in many (most countries)... though some forbid treads on highways.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2861 days ago)
Piers Morgan has a habit of going to the extremes on his conversations. People own tanks today but you don't hear too many incidents where there were mass shootings involved with them in the private sector. I have seen instance with people driving tanks over parked cars and plowing over street lights; however, I do not believe anyone was killed. The normal civilian doesn't want to own a tank so he's again picking on a technology that statistically has very little crime associated with them. Generally speaking, tanks are too expensive to buy and too expensive to run due to their low MPG ratings so nobody wants them unless you're a rich collector of old war technologies.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
Piers Morgan has a habit of going to the extremes on his conversations. People own tanks today but you don't hear too many incidents where there were mass shootings involved with them in the private sector. I have seen instance with people driving tanks over parked cars and plowing over street lights; however, I do not believe anyone was killed. The normal civilian doesn't want to own a tank so he's again picking on a technology that statistically has very little crime associated with them. Generally speaking, tanks are too expensive to buy and too expensive to run due to their low MPG ratings so nobody wants them unless you're a rich collector of old war technologies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2860 days ago)
"Piers Morgan has a habit of going to the extremes on his conversations." Kettle and pot.... pot and kettle. cengland0, you made me laugh over this. Best laugh I had today. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
"Piers Morgan has a habit of going to the extremes on his conversations." Kettle and pot.... pot and kettle. cengland0, you made me laugh over this. Best laugh I had today. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
slicksps slicksps (2859 days ago)
"you don't hear too many incidents where there were mass shootings involved with them in the private sector" - That's because you can't drive an armed tank down the freeway... US law says you CAN carry a gun (in most states) with ammunition... voila, mass shootings.
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
"you don't hear too many incidents where there were mass shootings involved with them in the private sector" - That's because you can't drive an armed tank down the freeway... US law says you CAN carry a gun (in most states) with ammunition... voila, mass shootings.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No.Rifles.Allowed (2861 days ago)
Tanks are rather extreme and he's just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the discussion is. If someone started stockpiling large amounts of active and weaponized T-90's, I think the gov't would intercede. A better analogy would be, "Should we be allowed to have grenades?" A grenade has precisely the same purpose as a gun: to kill. What about explosives? Nobody has brought up the "right" to purchase explosives. Explosives have more peaceful uses than guns. Why are they so controlled? I can't buy stump remover without an explosives license. Also, they would be much better at protecting me against an "evil regime." There's a reason why we don't see battalions of rogue tanks crushing police lines, or people lobbing grenades in crowds or criminals planting C4 charges dozens of times a day: they are controlled and restricted. If you let people have guns, a portion of these guns will kill innocents. It's a matter of numbers. A law abiding gun owner is just as susceptible to theft as a non-owner (even more so if someone knows the person is a gun collector). These are the guns (legally obtained ones) that end up in criminal hands, OR in the hands of someone who legally purchased them but was able to obtain them through the loopholes. And to point out the obvious, the countries that have strict guns laws have a fraction of the firearm deaths. There are just less guns to go around (see Japan's rate per 100k).
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Tanks are rather extreme and he's just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the discussion is. If someone started stockpiling large amounts of active and weaponized T-90's, I think the gov't would intercede. A better analogy would be, "Should we be allowed to have grenades?" A grenade has precisely the same purpose as a gun: to kill. What about explosives? Nobody has brought up the "right" to purchase explosives. Explosives have more peaceful uses than guns. Why are they so controlled? I can't buy stump remover without an explosives license. Also, they would be much better at protecting me against an "evil regime." There's a reason why we don't see battalions of rogue tanks crushing police lines, or people lobbing grenades in crowds or criminals planting C4 charges dozens of times a day: they are controlled and restricted. If you let people have guns, a portion of these guns will kill innocents. It's a matter of numbers. A law abiding gun owner is just as susceptible to theft as a non-owner (even more so if someone knows the person is a gun collector). These are the guns (legally obtained ones) that end up in criminal hands, OR in the hands of someone who legally purchased them but was able to obtain them through the loopholes. And to point out the obvious, the countries that have strict guns laws have a fraction of the firearm deaths. There are just less guns to go around (see Japan's rate per 100k).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2861 days ago)
We can own explosives. Just needs special licensing. Myth busters blow things up all the time with the help of a licensed expert. People that own mines also use explosives. Public sector owns explosives all the time. Explosives serve a purpose just like guns.
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
We can own explosives. Just needs special licensing. Myth busters blow things up all the time with the help of a licensed expert. People that own mines also use explosives. Public sector owns explosives all the time. Explosives serve a purpose just like guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No.Rifles.Allowed (2861 days ago)
Exactly, you need a license and it's all tracked and limited (grenades are a better analogy to automatics). If that person started blowing stuff up or taking part in nefarious activity, they would be nabbed pretty quickly. Guns should be no different. Piers understands that cutting them off from guns isn't possible because it's so entwined in the US culture. The Swiss have a wonderful gun culture (and mercenary history) because military service is mandatory and they learn to respect fire arms. I think Americans feel they have the same thing, but the responsibility and respect of a firearm isn't a necessity for owning one. Canada allows guns, you just need a license to own them and can only carry them in certain situations. Consequently the gun deaths per capita are a fraction.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Exactly, you need a license and it's all tracked and limited (grenades are a better analogy to automatics). If that person started blowing stuff up or taking part in nefarious activity, they would be nabbed pretty quickly. Guns should be no different. Piers understands that cutting them off from guns isn't possible because it's so entwined in the US culture. The Swiss have a wonderful gun culture (and mercenary history) because military service is mandatory and they learn to respect fire arms. I think Americans feel they have the same thing, but the responsibility and respect of a firearm isn't a necessity for owning one. Canada allows guns, you just need a license to own them and can only carry them in certain situations. Consequently the gun deaths per capita are a fraction.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2861 days ago)
You mean you can LEGALLY carry a gun under certain circumstances. You can illegally carry them any time you want. It's the criminals that are murdering people illegally so why would you expect a law to say that you cannot carry a gun to stop murderers from carrying them when the punishment for getting caught with a gun is probably less than the punishment for getting caught murdering someone.
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
You mean you can LEGALLY carry a gun under certain circumstances. You can illegally carry them any time you want. It's the criminals that are murdering people illegally so why would you expect a law to say that you cannot carry a gun to stop murderers from carrying them when the punishment for getting caught with a gun is probably less than the punishment for getting caught murdering someone.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Trollbuster (2860 days ago)
By definition the people murdering people are criminals...
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
By definition the people murdering people are criminals...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2860 days ago)
Exactly my point. So when you make something illegal, you prevent the law abiding citizens from doing it while the criminals will still continue to do it. Make guns that can hold more than 10 bullets illegal will not take them away from the criminals -- just the law abiding people.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
Exactly my point. So when you make something illegal, you prevent the law abiding citizens from doing it while the criminals will still continue to do it. Make guns that can hold more than 10 bullets illegal will not take them away from the criminals -- just the law abiding people.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No.Rifles.Allowed (2860 days ago)
You missed the point. Piers isn't saying he wants ALL guns illegal, he's trying to limit the # on the street. When there are less out there, there are less to be stolen and hence used for nefarious activity. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws and they have the 2nd lowest number of gun deaths per annum. It isn't illegal to have a firearm, but you can only get air rifles and shoguns and it's a VERY long process including extensive schooling and training before you even get one. Likewise, someone can own an unarmed tank, they can't drive it anywhere, cannot have it armed and it costs a ridiculous amount of money so only a marginal few can do so, but if someone wanted to buy 20 fully armed tanks the government wouldn't allow it. Someone who owns a hunting rifle with a few dozen rounds is fine, as long as they go through extensive training and is licensed. Someone who owns a dozen semi-automatics with 10's of thousands of rounds is stockpiling for something more than killing a few squirrels. My example with the grenade is just to show that there are weapons out there that should be kept out of public hands. The morale of this is that it is too easy to get guns in the US and you have NRA fanatics defending their right to get any kind of gun without registering it or being licensed. This is why it is easy for children/the mentally unfit to get guns.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
You missed the point. Piers isn't saying he wants ALL guns illegal, he's trying to limit the # on the street. When there are less out there, there are less to be stolen and hence used for nefarious activity. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws and they have the 2nd lowest number of gun deaths per annum. It isn't illegal to have a firearm, but you can only get air rifles and shoguns and it's a VERY long process including extensive schooling and training before you even get one. Likewise, someone can own an unarmed tank, they can't drive it anywhere, cannot have it armed and it costs a ridiculous amount of money so only a marginal few can do so, but if someone wanted to buy 20 fully armed tanks the government wouldn't allow it. Someone who owns a hunting rifle with a few dozen rounds is fine, as long as they go through extensive training and is licensed. Someone who owns a dozen semi-automatics with 10's of thousands of rounds is stockpiling for something more than killing a few squirrels. My example with the grenade is just to show that there are weapons out there that should be kept out of public hands. The morale of this is that it is too easy to get guns in the US and you have NRA fanatics defending their right to get any kind of gun without registering it or being licensed. This is why it is easy for children/the mentally unfit to get guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2859 days ago)
"10's of thousands of rounds is stockpiling for something more than killing a few squirrels." You mean like to form a militia?
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
"10's of thousands of rounds is stockpiling for something more than killing a few squirrels." You mean like to form a militia?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Flint Lock (2860 days ago)
There's nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. All Americans have the right to possess a flintlock rifle or pistol in lieu with the 18th century definition of "right to bear arms"
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
There's nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. All Americans have the right to possess a flintlock rifle or pistol in lieu with the 18th century definition of "right to bear arms"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2860 days ago)
you probly dont have a gun. get one and then yul see. no one messes with me
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
you probly dont have a gun. get one and then yul see. no one messes with me
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2860 days ago)
So... by your own logic... since criminals will murder anyway, we should make murder legal for all. after all... the criminals will do it anyway.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
So... by your own logic... since criminals will murder anyway, we should make murder legal for all. after all... the criminals will do it anyway.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2859 days ago)
That's not what I'm saying. Some people think it's easy to make guns illegal and suddenly they will all go away but in reality the law abiding citizens will be unarmed while the criminals still have them.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
That's not what I'm saying. Some people think it's easy to make guns illegal and suddenly they will all go away but in reality the law abiding citizens will be unarmed while the criminals still have them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: it's ok (2860 days ago)
I'm with you on this, more guns and amo for Americans. we should all have them. Don't listen to those other idiots, get armed, shoot people, shoot them good.
ReplyVote up (79)down (110)
Original comment
I'm with you on this, more guns and amo for Americans. we should all have them. Don't listen to those other idiots, get armed, shoot people, shoot them good.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Stephen Fry | Will coronavirus keep resurging when lockdowns are lifted?
Stephen Fry | Will coronavirus keep resurging when lockdowns are lifted?
Russell Brand interview on Australian TV (Oct 16, 2015)
Russell Brand interview on Australian TV (Oct 16, 2015)
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Stephen Fry and Nigella Lawson
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Stephen Fry and Nigella Lawson
Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on The Ten Commandments
Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on The Ten Commandments
Christopher Walken performs Lady Gaga's Poker Face
Christopher Walken performs Lady Gaga's Poker Face