Piers Morgan Gets Utterly Smashed by Ben Shapiro; Called out for Bullying Guests, Replys: "YOU'RE BU - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188613]^ my point has been proven. (And you still don't realise!) (And I'm not 'some kid from the uk')[/QUOTE] What point? That you're a nationalist that has nothing to add to the argument? If that's the case, then yes, you have proven your point.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39187728]The way America is headed right now with taking away rights, tyranny is plausible in the next fifty to hundred years.[/QUOTE] In what sense of the word tyranny would that be, exactly? Drug punishments are needless and things like the PATRIOT Act and various copyright law issues are at hand, but nothing that indicates some massive slip into a dictatorship.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39188653]In what sense of the word tyranny would that be, exactly? Drug punishments are needless and things like the PATRIOT Act and various copyright law issues are at hand, but nothing that indicates some massive slip into a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] people say the same thing every time a country has been taken over in the past i just don't get why people act like there is absolute zero chance it could happen again to any country in the world

I'm certainly no nationalist. I'm neither British or Australian. I've made my point, you guys just can't see what I'm really saying. Ignorance is bliss aye? Hey, I'm not making a stab at America. I appreciate everything the country has done for me. I live within the system that it has helped to create. I just feel sorry for you (as a nation), not as individuals. A country of 300 million educated people is bound to have polar arguments with nuts on either side. It's the people stuck in the middle I feel for.

[QUOTE=JerryK;39188670]people say the same thing every time a country has been taken over in the past i just don't get why people act like there is absolute zero chance it could happen again to any country in the world[/QUOTE] Taken over? By who, China? Besides, even if that were the case, do you really think having an AR-15 is going to be the deciding factor in whether or not that could be prevented? [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188696]I'm certainly no nationalist. I'm neither British or Australian. I've made my point, you guys just can't see what I'm really saying. Ignorance is bliss aye?[/QUOTE] You really needn't be so condescending, it doesn't make you look good.

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188696]I'm certainly no nationalist. I'm neither British or Australian. [B]I've made my point, you guys just can't see what I'm really saying.[/B] Ignorance is bliss aye? Hey, I'm not making a stab at America. I appreciate everything the country has done for me. I live within the system that it has helped to create. I just feel sorry for you (as a nation), not as individuals. A country of 300 million educated people is bound to have polar arguments with nuts on either side.[/QUOTE] Seriously what the fuck are you talking about. Apparently you think you're such an intellectual you don't even need to state your opinion we are supposed to telepathically know it. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] Although I can already guess that it is some uneducated "guns kill people, are evil, should be heavily restricted" crap as per usual

This guy sounds "reasonable" but actually consider what hes saying. The odds that our government will turn tyrannical against us in the coming years, I would honestly say is relatively low. I think a lot of us could agree on this. The magnitude of it being tyrannical absent a well armed multitude is high, yet when one factors in the the "payment" in nearly 10,000 lives claimed by homicide each as as a result of fire arms a security blanket to cover the cost of preventing tyranny, it becomes tied to tons of terrible atrocities which used that same risk tactic. The Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, and the ever widening war on terror where we willingly let our personal freedoms be taken to curb the threat of "rising extremism." Are we really that afraid of a tyrannical government that we readily fight for the continuation of this senseless structural violence?

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188696]I'm certainly no nationalist. I'm neither British or Australian. I've made my point, you guys just can't see what I'm really saying. Ignorance is bliss aye? Hey, I'm not making a stab at America. I appreciate everything the country has done for me. I live within the system that it has helped to create. I just feel sorry for you (as a nation), not as individuals. A country of 300 million educated people is bound to have polar arguments with nuts on either side. It's the people stuck in the middle I feel for.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188562]You Americans are so crazy and you don't even realise it. It's sad. You're a sick nation (and by sick, I mean metaphorically ill).The rest of the world looks down upon you with heavy and saddened hearts. I feel for you guys. And you have no idea (or don't give a shit - which is even worse).[/QUOTE] Yeah [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Flameon;39188721]This guy sounds "reasonable" but actually consider what hes saying. The odds that our government will turn tyrannical against us in the coming years, I would honestly say is relatively low. I think a lot of us could agree on this. The magnitude of it being tyrannical absent a well armed multitude is high, yet when one factors in the the "payment" in nearly 10,000 lives claimed by homicide each as as a result of fire arms a security blanket to cover the cost of preventing tyranny, it becomes tied to tons of terrible atrocities which used that same risk tactic. The Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, and the ever widening war on terror where we willingly let our personal freedoms be taken to curb the threat of "rising extremism." Are we really that afraid of a tyrannical government that we readily fight for the continuation of this senseless structural violence?[/QUOTE] That's not the point. The 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all of our other rights. It puts the people in charge of the government, rather than let a small elite use force to allow us to have rights so long as it's convenient to them. I don't think there may ever be tyranny in the U.S. But that is not the reason why the 2nd Amendment is important.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39188730] That's not the point. The 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all of our other rights. It puts the people in charge of the government, rather than let a small elite use force to allow us to have rights so long as it's convenient to them. I don't think there may ever be tyranny in the U.S. But that is not the reason why the 2nd Amendment is important.[/QUOTE] Amendments sometimes need amending. If the price of continuing this amendment is 10,000 lives lost from firearms every year, then I say we do without it.

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188562]You Americans are so crazy and you don't even realise it. It's sad. You're a sick nation (and by sick, I mean metaphorically ill).The rest of the world looks down upon you with heavy and saddened hearts. I feel for you guys. And you have no idea (or don't give a shit - which is even worse).[/QUOTE] Way to be a condescending dick. It can still be very enjoyable to live here, our government just sucks.

Piers Morgan is the left wing version of Bill O'Reilly. I loved seeing him get shut down hard by Mr Shapiro.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39188778]Amendments sometimes need amending. If the price of continuing this amendment is 10,000 lives lost from firearms every year, then I say we do without it.[/QUOTE] But that's not caused by the Constitution, it's caused by poor government. We need to provide much much better social service to our urban communities if we want to see a decrease in violence overall.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39188785]Way to be a condescending dick. It can still be very enjoyable to live here, our government just sucks.[/QUOTE] I may have been condescending. But I never said anything regarding what it's like to live in America, or about your government. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;39188709]Seriously what the fuck are you talking about. Apparently you think you're such an intellectual you don't even need to state your opinion we are supposed to telepathically know it. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] Although I can already guess that it is some uneducated "guns kill people, are evil, should be heavily restricted" crap as per usual[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aman VII;39188709]Seriously what the fuck are you talking about. Apparently you think you're such an intellectual you don't even need to state your opinion we are supposed to telepathically know. Although I can already guess that it is some uneducated "guns kill people, are evil, should be heavily restricted" crap as per usual[/QUOTE] Yes, in fact, I do expect people to actually read into what I'm saying. It doesn't require telepathy. Just an open unbiased mind. And no, that's not my stance, and you jumping to your argument about the gun laws whilst slandering me as psuedo intellectual and uneducated in the same post is, again, an example of what I'm saying. I don't mean to offend anyone here so I'll leave you all to your own devices now. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone - that wasn't my intention. But try not to take some observations of mine (and the majority of people I've met - including Americans abroad) about the state of your country as a private attack on any of you, your ideals or constitution.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39188792]But that's not caused by the Constitution, it's caused by poor government. We need to provide much much better social service to our urban communities if we want to see a decrease in violence overall.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/25/us-gun-deaths-idUSTRE64O3OY20100525[/url] Deaths from gunuse are almost just as common in rural areas as urban areas.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39188778]Amendments sometimes need amending. If the price of continuing this amendment is 10,000 lives lost from firearms every year, then I say we do without it.[/QUOTE] Guns are inanimate objects, tools with no will or thought, they're harmless without a person behind the trigger. Firearms bans are nothing but a feel good solution to make it look like politicians are actually doing something about a problem instead of actually dealing with the underlying cause of those 10,000 deaths. [QUOTE=Flameon;39188855][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/25/us-gun-deaths-idUSTRE64O3OY20100525[/url] Deaths from gunuse are almost just as common in rural areas as urban areas.[/QUOTE] That's child gun deaths, not total.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39188697]Taken over? By who, China? Besides, even if that were the case, do you really think having an AR-15 is going to be the deciding factor in whether or not that could be prevented? [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] You really needn't be so condescending, it doesn't make you look good.[/QUOTE] really depends at one point or another, it would come down to infantry fighting (unless it's a nuclear war in which it doesn't even matter) are a few civilians with no military training going to fight off an army? no of course not, but i'd rather have the chance to fight back rather than be completely defenseless not all the russians during world war 2 were trained either and yet look what they managed to do

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;39188885]Guns are inanimate objects, tools with no will or thought, they're harmless without a person behind the trigger. Firearms bans are nothing but a feel good solution to make it look like politicians are actually doing something about a problem instead of actually dealing with the underlying cause of those 10,000 deaths.[/QUOTE] The problem is both material and symbolic. Symbolic in the sense that it is caused by the somewhat elusive force we call "culture", but it is also material in the sense that it requires very "real tools". I think one thing that Ben Shapiro says that I find persuasive is the idea of being ideologically consistent. Are you for the free spread of weapons of mass destruction MegaChalupa? I think this is an important foray into what I am getting at.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39188778]Amendments sometimes need amending. If the price of continuing this amendment is 10,000 lives lost from firearms every year, then I say we do without it.[/QUOTE] I love how you think that if we just do away with the second amendment, legal and illiegal firearms owners will just turn their firearms in for scrapping and we'll all join hands under a rainbow while Jimi Hendrix's ghost plays a rockin' tune and suddenly homicide in the US stops. Yeah, thats not how it works, prohibition is an excellent example of this. If you suddenly tried to take away the firearms from legal owners, they will fight back, and it will do NOTHING to stop illegal owners from owning their already illegal weapons. All you'd be doing is taking the firearms away from the 99% who use them safely and who are a harm to absolutely nobody.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39188918]The problem is both material and symbolic. Symbolic in the sense that it is caused by the somewhat elusive force we call "culture", but it is also material in the sense that it requires very "real tools". I think one thing that Ben Shapiro says that I find persuasive is the idea of being ideologically consistent. Are you for the free spread of weapons of mass destruction MegaChalupa? I think this is an important foray into what I am getting at.[/QUOTE] And those very "real tools" can be virtually anything. Take firearms out of the hands of criminals and they use knives, bats, anything they can get their hands on. Focusing on banning the tool used in a crime accomplishes nothing, if you want to see actual change in crime rates you work to reduce what actually causes the crimes as opposed to how they're committed. And no, I don't think anyone, whether it be an organized government or private citizen should have the right to own a weapon of mass destruction.

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;39188885]Guns are inanimate objects, tools with no will or thought, they're harmless without a person behind the trigger. Firearms bans are nothing but a feel good solution to make it look like politicians are actually doing something about a problem instead of actually dealing with the underlying cause of those 10,000 deaths. That's child gun deaths, not total.[/QUOTE] the issue behind these mass shootings is not just gun control it's a multitude of issues, one of the biggest of which is our terrible mental health system there's also a huge issue of bullying, teachers need to play a bigger role in stopping bullying and punishments for bullying need to be greater and of course gun control does need to be looked into as well, for instance it's absolutely insane that i can look on a website for people in my area that are selling firearms, go and meet them in a parking lot, and then buy an AKM or AR-15 for a few hundred bucks with no background checks that's downright stupid, however simply banning all assault rifles isn't going to solve anything

[QUOTE=JerryK;39188966]the issue behind these mass shootings is not just gun control it's a multitude of issues, one of the biggest of which is our terrible mental health system there's also a huge issue of bullying, teachers need to play a bigger role in stopping bullying and punishments for bullying need to be greater and of course gun control does need to be looked into as well, for instance it's absolutely insane that i can look on a website for people in my area that are selling firearms, go and meet them in a parking lot, and then buy an AKM or AR-15 for a few hundred bucks with no background checks that's downright stupid, however simply banning all assault rifles isn't going to solve anything[/QUOTE] I agree with you.

[QUOTE=JerryK;39188966]the issue behind these mass shootings is not just gun control it's a multitude of issues, one of the biggest of which is our terrible mental health system there's also a huge issue of bullying, teachers need to play a bigger role in stopping bullying and punishments for bullying need to be greater and of course gun control does need to be looked into as well, for instance it's absolutely insane that i can look on a website for people in my area that are selling firearms, go and meet them in a parking lot, and then buy an AKM or AR-15 for a few hundred bucks with no background checks that's downright stupid, however simply banning all assault rifles isn't going to solve anything[/QUOTE] banning assault rifles at all isn't going to stop anything because assault rifles are already banned. banning "assault weapons" isn't going to stop anything because nobody fucking uses them in crime

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39188951]I love how you think that if we just do away with the second amendment, legal and illiegal firearms owners will just turn their firearms in for scrapping and we'll all join hands under a rainbow while Jimi Hendrix's ghost plays a rockin' tune and suddenly homicide in the US stops. Yeah, thats not how it works, prohibition is an excellent example of this. If you suddenly tried to take away the firearms from legal owners, they will fight back, and it will do NOTHING to stop illegal owners from owning their already illegal weapons. All you'd be doing is taking the firearms away from the 99% who use them safely and who are a harm to absolutely nobody.[/QUOTE] I am sorry but I have no sympathy for this argument. The fact that there exists countries out there with stricter firearm laws, and the fact that these countries of have lower mortality rates than countries with looser firearm laws disproves the fact that modes of prohibition are ineffective. Second, the retort is simple. If your "right to own a gun" fuels the continual death of thousands a year, then that needs to go. I'm sure there were some slave owners who were kind to their slaves, but as Oscar Wilde says, those were the worst ones because they 'prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it." They legitimized a structurally fucked up system. Just because there are some gun owners who legally have their guns doesn't mean they should - if that ownership is occasionally tempered with a few deaths every now and then perhaps in a very fucked up utilitarian calculus we could allow it, but when the numbers year-in-and-out continue to be in the thousands, I think that is fucked up. The fact that we can live in a world, accept and argue to live in a world, where it is acceptable for everyday citizens to be armed with killing machines of that caliber is astounding to me.

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;39188831] Yes, in fact, I do expect people to actually read into what I'm saying. It doesn't require telepathy. Just an open unbiased mind. And no, that's not my stance, and you jumping to your argument about the gun laws whilst slandering me as psuedo intellectual and uneducated in the same post is, again, an example of what I'm saying. I don't mean to offend anyone here so I'll leave you all to your own devices now. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone - that wasn't my intention. But try not to take some observations of mine (and the majority of people I've met - including Americans abroad) about the state of your country as a private attack on any of you, your ideals or constitution.[/QUOTE] You're not really offending any of us, you are literally not stating what you're trying to get across here You're saying that America sucks because some British guy get's called out for gun control, and we're sickly for some reason. That doesn't really make sense.

All you people arguing against gun control, what is your feeling on things like the IAEA? Should we get rid of them because they don't address the more important 'ideological drives' to obtain nuclear weapons?

[QUOTE=Flameon;39189010]I am sorry but I have no sympathy for this argument. The fact that there exists countries out there with stricter firearm laws, and the fact that these countries of have lower mortality rates than countries with looser firearm laws disproves the fact that modes of prohibition are ineffective. Second, the retort is simple. If your "right to own a gun" fuels the continual death of thousands a year, then that needs to go. I'm sure there were some slave owners who were kind to their slaves, but as Oscar Wilde says, those were the worst ones because they 'prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it." They legitimized a structurally fucked up system. Just because there are some gun owners who legally have their guns doesn't mean they should - if that ownership is occasionally tempered with a few deaths every now and then perhaps in a very fucked up utilitarian calculus we could allow it, but when the numbers year-in-and-out continue to be in the thousands, I think that is fucked up. The fact that we can live in a world, accept and argue to live in a world, where it is acceptable for everyday citizens to be armed with killing machines of that caliber is astounding to me.[/QUOTE] Assuming Trunk Monkey is a gun owner hasn't murdered anyone with his firearms, then him exercising his right hasn't resulted in the death of anyone. Gun ownership isn't inherently harmful like slavery was as slavery stripped the rights of individuals by reducing them to nothing more than property. There's no reason for gun owners to have their rights restricted when them exercising their rights harms nobody.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39189031]All you people arguing against gun control, what is your feeling on things like the IAEA? Should we get rid of them because they don't address the more important 'ideological drives' to obtain nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE] there is a massive difference between a weapon that can end a life and a weapon that can end civilization. Nuclear weapons should never have been invented in the first place.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39189010]I am sorry but I have no sympathy for this argument. The fact that there exists countries out there with stricter firearm laws, and the fact that these countries of have lower mortality rates than countries with looser firearm laws disproves the fact that modes of prohibition are ineffective. [/quote] I'd just like to point out that those countries don't have over 300 million citizens, and they probably didn't have over 300 million guns in the country when they tried to enact a prohibition of firearms. It's far far far to late to try and enact a prohibition of firearms bud. [QUOTE=Flameon;39189010] Second, the retort is simple. If your "right to own a gun" fuels the continual death of thousands a year, then that needs to go. [/QUOTE] There are over 300 million guns in the US along with over 50 million households with guns, and according to your statistics 10,000 are killed a year in gun related homicides. 10,000 is a microscopic number compared to the amount guns in the US. Is our gun crime a problem, of course it is and too many are dying because of it. But removing guns isn't going to fix the problem, it's treating the symptoms and would do a poor job of it. A better solution would be to try and get people out of poverty, get more jobs available in poor urban areas, and fix our mental healthcare system. [QUOTE=Flameon;39189010] I'm sure there were some slave owners who were kind to their slaves, but as Oscar Wilde says, those were the worst ones because they 'prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it." They legitimized a structurally fucked up system. [/QUOTE] Comparing guns to slavery, great. [QUOTE=Flameon;39189010] Just because there are some gun owners who legally have their guns doesn't mean they should - if that ownership is occasionally tempered with a few deaths every now and then perhaps in a very fucked up utilitarian calculus we could allow it, but when the numbers year-in-and-out continue to be in the thousands, I think that is fucked up.[/QUOTE] Ok, so punish the 99% for the faults of the few. [QUOTE=Flameon;39189010] The fact that we can live in a world, accept and argue to live in a world, where it is acceptable for everyday citizens to be armed with killing machines of that caliber is astounding to me.[/QUOTE] A firearm is just a machine, it's the person behind it that makes it a killing machine. It's no different than a car, a knife, or a bow and arrow. I own several firearms, and I have absolutely no desire to kill a man. This will be my last post in this gun debate, I'm sick of debating firearms so have another circle jerk of ignoring facts and statistics for 15 pages.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39188697]Taken over? By who, China? Besides, even if that were the case, do you really think having an AR-15 is going to be the deciding factor in whether or not that could be prevented? [/QUOTE] Having military-grade weapons worked for the Swiss in World War 2. Switzerland's mountainous landscape combined with all men over 18 being heavily armed from previous mandatory military service helped Hitler decide he didn't really want to attempt an invasion. (Of course, some people say it's because the Swiss banking system was too useful) There's often a bogus quote that floats around about the difficulty in conquering America due to the second amendment supposedly said by Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the Commander-in-chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. The quote has never been proven, however imperial command did tell Yamamoto to invade the United States' mainland and he flatly refused. He'd gone to school at Harvard and knew for a fact that America's industrial power was pretty great compared to Japan's. He may not have said the quote, but if he had thought a similar sentiment personally I wouldn't find it hard to believe. [quote=Most likely a fake quote]"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."[/quote] Is an AR-15 going to be the deciding factor? No. Would the extra firepower help the people hypothetically defending the country? Probably. Besides, the midwest/rockies/northeast are completely saturated with hunting rifles anyway. :v:

[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;39189036]Assuming Trunk Monkey is a gun owner hasn't murdered anyone with his firearms, then him exercising his right hasn't resulted in the death of anyone. [/QUOTE] I am, and I own several weapons that would be banned or removed if an AWB passes too!