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

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39189062]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] Its too late to end segregation - people are already racist. Its too late to ban DEET - too many people already use it [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] [quote] Comparing guns to slavery, great. [/quote] Brutal structural institutions that results in massive suffering and death. If it quacks like a duck.... [quote] Ok, so punish the 99% for the faults of the few. [/quote] It isnt a punishment i you never had the right to it to begin with. [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. [/quote] A car gets you places, a knife is for cooking/everyday tool. A gun has two purposes Recreation Killing.[/quote]

[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] Are you serious? No it doesn't. Explain how less firearms means a lower mortality rate. [quote]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.[/quote] No you're looking at this completely backwards. The majority of slave owners [i]weren't[/i] nice to their slaves, and slavery was an [i]inherently evil system[/i]. A miniscule minority (something like .01%) of guns are used in crime. It's a faulty analogy. [quote]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] Why? [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39189041]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] No nuclear weapons ended large scale wars and they are a boon on the earth.

holy shit shapiro is a bit crazy as well "we need ar-15's in case of tyranny". that argument always bugged me as a bit nutty and paranoid. we don't need ar-15s because of the threat of tyranny(they honestly wouldn't help much anyways). we should be allowed ar-15s because there is no good reason to get rid of them that wouldn't also apply to handguns and hunting rifles. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] i liked how he drove home the point about handguns though. handguns are semi-automatic, are used in a ton of crime, and fit the bill of "murder weapon" much more strongly than "assault weapons".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39189261]holy shit shapiro is a bit crazy as well "we need ar-15's in case of tyranny". that argument always bugged me as a bit nutty and paranoid. we don't need ar-15s because of the threat of tyranny(they honestly wouldn't help much anyways). we should be allowed ar-15s because there is no good reason to get rid of them that wouldn't also apply to handguns and hunting rifles. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] i liked how he drove home the point about handguns though. handguns are semi-automatic, are used in a ton of crime, and fit the bill of "murder weapon" much more strongly than "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] And besides, handguns are concealable. That sounds like it poses more of a threat than "assault weapons".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39189261]holy shit shapiro is a bit crazy as well "we need ar-15's in case of tyranny". that argument always bugged me as a bit nutty and paranoid. we don't need ar-15s because of the threat of tyranny(they honestly wouldn't help much anyways). we should be allowed ar-15s because there is no good reason to get rid of them that wouldn't also apply to handguns and hunting rifles. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] i liked how he drove home the point about handguns though. handguns are semi-automatic, are used in a ton of crime, and fit the bill of "murder weapon" much more strongly than "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] Not only that but he's on favor for more military and law enforcement spending, which just doesn't make any sense if you're afraid of a "government tyranny". [quote]Shapiro has taken conservative stances on many social issues. He favors more military and law enforcement spending. He has also spoken favorably of tighter immigration restrictions and expanded government wiretapping powers of suspected terrorists.[/quote] Source: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro#cite_note-12[/URL]

He gets all offended when Piers called the constitution a little book like it was some religious object yet he thinks his own country is going to turn on him. God help america if Democrats win the next election the Republicans might start a revolution.

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39189350]He gets all offended when Piers called the constitution a little book like it was some religious object yet he thinks his own country is going to turn on him. God help america if Democrats win the next election the Republicans might start a revolution.[/QUOTE] He was simply stating that it's more than words on a page.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39189261]holy shit shapiro is a bit crazy as well "we need ar-15's in case of tyranny". that argument always bugged me as a bit nutty and paranoid. we don't need ar-15s because of the threat of tyranny(they honestly wouldn't help much anyways). we should be allowed ar-15s because there is no good reason to get rid of them that wouldn't also apply to handguns and hunting rifles. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] i liked how he drove home the point about handguns though. handguns are semi-automatic, are used in a ton of crime, and fit the bill of "murder weapon" much more strongly than "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] I both agree and disagree with you here, you are right about his point on handguns, and you do have a bit of a point about his reason for justifying assault weapons, it does sound crazy, and it does seem paranoid. But that was the reason the second amendment was written, to allow citizens, if the need should arise, to defend themselves from government tyranny or external invaders. The bill of rights was written at a time when such things were considered very real and immediate threats, and the only reason they're not serious threats anymore is purely because of things like this, because of people willing and able to stand for their freedoms. I'm by no means saying gun control is some plot to institute tyranny (although it is definitely an infringement of rights and a downright idiotic idea), but when people cannot defend their rights it's only a matter of time until someone uses that as an opportunity to take them.

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;39189347]Not only that but he's on favor for more military and law enforcement spending, which just doesn't make any sense if you're afraid of a "government tyranny". Source: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro#cite_note-12[/URL][/QUOTE] sigh, i liked him owning piers but i guess he's just another fuckwit right winger hypocrite

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;39189381]I both agree and disagree with you here, you are right about his point on handguns, and you do have a bit of a point about his reason for justifying assault weapons, it does sound crazy, and it does seem paranoid. But that was the reason the second amendment was written, to allow citizens, if the need should arise, to defend themselves from government tyranny or external invaders. The bill of rights was written at a time when such things were considered very real and immediate threats, and the only reason they're not serious threats anymore is purely because of things like this, because of people willing and able to stand for their freedoms. I'm by no means saying gun control is some plot to institute tyranny (although it is definitely an infringement of rights and a downright idiotic idea), but when people cannot defend their rights it's only a matter of time until someone uses that as an opportunity to take them.[/QUOTE] i don't think having guns really stops the government from doing what it wants. if you want to make the argument of tyranny, it will likely come through gradualism(which a lot of people believe is happening anyways). at this point an actual rebellion probably wouldn't get far anyways. rebellion nowadays seems to take the "social revolution" route through nonviolence and nonparticipation. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;39189394]sigh, i liked him owning piers but i guess he's just another fuckwit right winger hypocrite[/QUOTE] hey a right winger can still make good points and be intelligent. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] as i think shapiro was in this interview.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39189419]i don't think having guns really stops the government from doing what it wants. if you want to make the argument of tyranny, it will likely come through gradualism(which a lot of people believe is happening anyways). at this point an actual rebellion probably wouldn't get far anyways. rebellion nowadays seems to take the "social revolution" route through nonviolence and nonparticipation. hey a right winger can still make good points and be intelligent. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] as i think shapiro was in this interview.[/QUOTE] yeah i think he made some good points but he's still a hypocrite and frankly learning his position on shit like that makes me question his entire position. i feel less like he's passionate about the 2nd amendment and more like he's pushing an agenda

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39189429]yeah i think he made some good points but he's still a hypocrite and frankly learning his position on shit like that makes me question his entire position. i feel less like he's passionate about the 2nd amendment and more like he's pushing an agenda[/QUOTE] who isn't? [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] very few intellectuals these days come with no strings attached.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39187598]This guy (Ben Shapiro) seems like a fucking badass. First time I've heard of him, but he's one of the best debaters I've ever seen. Not many are able to keep their stance in front of such a strongly opinionated person as Morgan. I'm glad we have some people rationally pointing at the real problem; the lack of good mental health care, research, and background checks. Edit: Gotta love the CNN titles on the bottom. "SHAPIRO DEFENDING THE NRA." No he didn't. The NRA doesn't even believe in background checks.[/QUOTE] In this debate he was okay, but lol he's also a guy that wants to limit porn and abortion, claims that professors spreads atheism and paedophilia and so on...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39189434]who isn't? [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] very few intellectuals these days come with no strings attached.[/QUOTE] well i guess this just irks me more since those kinda issues piss me off more than others

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39189429]yeah i think he made some good points but he's still a hypocrite and frankly learning his position on shit like that makes me question his entire position. i feel less like he's passionate about the 2nd amendment and more like he's pushing an agenda[/QUOTE] Yes but since he was actually arguing a true case this time he had great points.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;39189438]In this debate he was okay, but lol he's also a guy that wants to limit porn and abortion, claims that professors spreads atheism and paedophilia and so on...[/QUOTE] haha ok with this kinda stuff i wouldn't call him an intellectual at all

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39189449]haha ok with this kinda stuff i wouldn't call him an intellectual at all[/QUOTE] i always use the word intellectual very loosely. i meant that he makes his money/fame primarily from his political or philosophical thoughts, not that he actually possesses any actual intellect :v:

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39189449]haha ok with this kinda stuff i wouldn't call him an intellectual at all[/QUOTE] He's simply smarter than Piers. Which isn't saying much.

[QUOTE=Flameon;39189118]Its too late to end segregation - people are already racist. Its too late to ban DEET - too many people already use it[/QUOTE] Hey buddy, there's no amendment to the U.S. constitution saying Slavery or DEET is a civil right.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39189444]well i guess this just irks me more since those kinda issues piss me off more than others[/QUOTE] While I disagree as well, I do think there should be more people like him. Not on views, but with abilities to argue effectively and make you actually feel there is some firm progress in the discussion. You don't see that very often nowadays, just ghost poop arguments.

[QUOTE=The First 11'er;39186770]While I dislike Shapiro's constant pointing to the "left and right," he did very well in this. Not that I agree with all his opinions, but he makes a good point.[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard to discuss broad policy without labeling groups under for their general beliefs. You can spend all day providing examples of "Well, what about Republicans who hate guns?" "What about Liberals who love guns?" but it doesn't contribute anything because it's a trivial thing to get upset about when it's not the topic at hand. Here is a good example of why being politically correct is impractical: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6xvVIAqzs4[/media] [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39189261]holy shit shapiro is a bit crazy as well "we need ar-15's in case of tyranny". that argument always bugged me as a bit nutty and paranoid. we don't need ar-15s because of the threat of tyranny(they honestly wouldn't help much anyways). we should be allowed ar-15s because there is no good reason to get rid of them that wouldn't also apply to handguns and hunting rifles. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] i liked how he drove home the point about handguns though. handguns are semi-automatic, are used in a ton of crime, and fit the bill of "murder weapon" much more strongly than "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] It bugs me how people find this such a hard concept to understand and think it's paranoid or nutty. Because someone believes that the Government may one day go tyrannical on it's own population does not make them some tinfoil hat wearing idiot. The Founding Fathers provided us the Second Amendment for the possibility and there are a lot of people that believe it could happen one day. Just because you don't or your handful of friends or family doesn't does not mean that the rest of America is content to believe the Government will always be faithful to the citizens of the United States. It's naive actually. Your "it wouldn't help much anyways" refute doesn't make any sense because we just saw a wave of revolutions in the Middle East where the populace was able to remove their own tyrannical governments with the use of rifles like the ones they want to ban here in the US. What you need to understand is yeah, the US Army, Marines, Navy, FBI, CIA, Police and every other sub-division and department of the federal government you want to list have helicopters and tanks and missiles but the fact of the matter is that with a rifle you can acquire those. With a rifle you can steal a tank, with a rifle you can board a ship and capture it, with a rifle you can secure warehouses full of missiles. It happened in the Middle East, it can happen here. One day, fifty years from now, a hundred years from now or more we may find that our Government does not serve or represent the people and the people will have to remove them. Usually those in power will want to hold onto it, so that's why we need the AR-15's so we aren't trying to storm a military instillation with lever-action .22's and bird-shot. Can you imagine what a hard time Hitler would have had trying to get the Jews into Ghettos and onto train cars if even half of them had a military rifle? Do you know how valuable military-grade rifles were to the French resistance in WWII?

Britain doesn't want him back, he's an utter knob. Jeremy Clarkson punched him in the face hahaha

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39189350]He gets all offended when Piers called the constitution a little book like it was some religious object yet he thinks his own country is going to turn on him. God help america if Democrats win the next election the Republicans might start a revolution.[/QUOTE] I'm so lost right now. The Constitution to be completely fair could have 0% to do with the United States of America if we look at it for what it is. The Constitution is a list of your basic human rights set into law as a foundation of the United States, the things you're entitled to as a human being that can not be infringed on any other person or organization. The United States uses it as a building block for Government, but in reality it is just a list of these rights, written down in plain English so no one could say "Oh, where does it say I have that right? Who told you I can't burn these books?" Not to mention saying you "Respect the Second Amendment" and than calling the Constitution a "little book" in such a manner was kind of hypocritical and if I had to describe his emotions I would say he was more shocked that he said that rather than offended. And I really, really have no idea how you can assume the Government will always be faithful. I don't think the Government we know now is ever going to be bad enough to be labelled tyrannical. But things change. I'm sure during WWII there were a whole lot of Japanese who thought the Emperor was going to be the head of Government and God on Earth and the Military would always rule Japan. Now look at it, Japan doesn't even have an Army and the Emperor is a tourist attraction. Time has the habit of changing things on us. Hell, want a example that pertains exactly to this subject? The American Civil War. We can sit here and argue who was Good and who was Bad, that's not what I want to point out. What I do want to bring to the table is that the South felt as though the Government was infringing their rights. So what did they do? They started the Civil War to force the current administration out of power using the rifles that they were able to have thanks to Second Amendment. Since than, our right to arms has been limited. Back than it was acceptable for a Militia (Not the National Guard an actual civilian militia) to own and maintain canons. In this day and age, having a tank or a artillery piece is unheard of much less an automatic weapon in most states. And if you have a hard time seeing this example without the "Good Guy/Bad Guy" haze of Slavery and what not, just pretend that the Union was the one repelling against the Confederacy forcing their unjust policies on them.

say it's impossible all you want, you can't tell the future more than anyone else on this earth

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39190905]The most that will change in 50 or 100 years in the US will be the downsizing of the US military complex. Nothing will happen that will be so dramatic and polar to the way things are right now, that would require nationwide civil wars and militias being formed. Tyrannies will never be formed in the Western world again because of a wide variety of societal and economic factors. It will never happen and assuming it will is just paranoid induced ramblings. If things take a turn for the worst, there will always be politicians, academics and intellectuals who will start comparing the US to Nazi Germany, and will start throwing around comparisons to the French revolution, liberty, democracy, etc. These arguments are virtually set in stone and no sane citizen (besides the extreme right-winged crazies) will resist those concepts. The time of tyrannies is dead in the Western world, and dying in the East. If you wish to own firearms, there are a dozen better, more logical arguments out there that I can fully get behind. But "THE U.S MAY TURN INTO A DICTATORSHIP I NEED MAH GUNS" is completely batshit insane.[/QUOTE] Good, I hope that's the case and I don't think the Government will turn on me either but it's something that we have a right to prepare for and protect ourselves against as American citizens in the event it ever happens. Also the last bit of your post really needed? It's a valid argument, you have no reason to discredit it by assuming anyone who believes in this concept is a right-wing, crazy extremist. I could turn around and say that anyone who believes your side of the debate is a "tree-hugging left-wing hippie" but there is no reason to discredit a legitimate post like yours.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39190717]I'm so lost right now. The Constitution to be completely fair could have 0% to do with the United States of America if we look at it for what it is. The Constitution is a list of your basic human rights set into law as a foundation of the United States, the things you're entitled to as a human being that can not be infringed on any other person or organization. The United States uses it as a building block for Government, but in reality it is just a list of these rights, written down in plain English so no one could say "Oh, where does it say I have that right? Who told you I can't burn these books?" Not to mention saying you "Respect the Second Amendment" and than calling the Constitution a "little book" in such a manner was kind of hypocritical and if I had to describe his emotions I would say he was more shocked that he said that rather than offended. And I really, really have no idea how you can assume the Government will always be faithful. I don't think the Government we know now is ever going to be bad enough to be labelled tyrannical. But things change. I'm sure during WWII there were a whole lot of Japanese who thought the Emperor was going to be the head of Government and God on Earth and the Military would always rule Japan. Now look at it, Japan doesn't even have an Army and the Emperor is a tourist attraction. Time has the habit of changing things on us. Hell, want a example that pertains exactly to this subject? The American Civil War. We can sit here and argue who was Good and who was Bad, that's not what I want to point out. What I do want to bring to the table is that the South felt as though the Government was infringing their rights. So what did they do? They started the Civil War to force the current administration out of power using the rifles that they were able to have thanks to Second Amendment. Since than, our right to arms has been limited. Back than it was acceptable for a Militia (Not the National Guard an actual civilian militia) to own and maintain canons. In this day and age, having a tank or a artillery piece is unheard of much less an automatic weapon in most states. And if you have a hard time seeing this example without the "Good Guy/Bad Guy" haze of Slavery and what not, just pretend that the Union was the one repelling against the Confederacy forcing their unjust policies on them.[/QUOTE] the Union in fact openly called for nullification, as opposed to the South who denounced it. ever hear of fugitive slave laws? [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;39191421]The difference between preparing for the decline of American democracy and saying it won't happen is that the latter claim has actual statistical and social evidence behind it. Take gun control for example. Take a look at what kind of an uproar the population let out at the mere [I]sign [/I]of the government [I]discussing [/I]stricter gun control. They haven't even passed any federal laws yet. Haven't even passed any policies, and the people are already panic buying ammunition and weapons, making petitions to sway the government's decision, using media outlets to voice their discontent, etc. The government can't take a step in the opposite direction of what the population has in mind without getting an earful along with protests and what have you. These are just examples off the top of my head, but feel free to just take a look at recent history. Anytime the US congress attempts or even thinks about passing a controversial law the public goes mental. Yes, nobody can tell what the future holds. But we can predict it with statistical science, reasoning, and logic. We don't know if tomorrow aliens will invade our planet, we also don't know if tomorrow Earth will spontaneously explode due to factors our geophysicists couldn't predict. But logic and our fairly limited knowledge of science tells us otherwise. Does that mean we should be 'preparing' for those things as well? According to your logic, we should. Because ultimately, "we just don't [I]really [/I]know!". It's a really lousy excuse and you know it. Present me evidence that even hints at the possibility of the U.S turning tyrannical, and then we may reach an agreement.[/QUOTE] some people are willing to give up every right they have because they believe the government can do no bad. the government has proven if not by malice, then by utter stupidity that they are unable to handle weapons, look at fast and furious. not to mention the statistics for democide over the past century. these support the fact that the government holds too much power and often abuses it, which makes the idea of tyranny realistic.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39191421]Does that mean we should be 'preparing' for those things as well? According to your logic, we should. Because ultimately, "we just don't [I]really [/I]know!". It's a really lousy excuse and you know it. Present me evidence that even hints at the possibility of the U.S turning tyrannical, and then we may reach an agreement.[/QUOTE] countries have turned tyrannical countless times before, it's happening in other countries right now, and who knows how many times it could happen in the future that should really be all the evidence you need one of the main reasons the 2nd amendment was drafted in the first place was to deter tyranny

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39191642]Give me one Western country that's turning tyrannical.[/QUOTE] i never said anything about western countries, but the fact of the matter is that there's always a remote possibility of it happening, no matter where you are or who's in charge. it will never be impossible for a tyranny to form, no matter how many statistics you pull out. the government should never be considered sacrosanct or unfalteringly trustworthy.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39191817]Eastern nations (when I say Eastern I'm using it as a blanket term for virtually any country that is not part of the cold-war definition of Western), are inherently prone to tyrannies. That is why using them as examples of the possibility of dictatorships in the West is invalid. They operate under different (and imo, outdated) value systems that do not apply in Western nations. Take Russia for example. Many still believe that lining up criminals against the wall and executing them is a better form of justice than fair, unbiased trials. Many believe that the former is a more effective way of circumventing crime. The West isn't inherently better, it's just different.[/QUOTE] that's my point, the west isn't better. it's almost as fallible as the east. and you're right about them having different ideologies, but i don't understand why you think that makes western tyranny impossible, and you haven't actually explained that particular point. [quote]And so because of this, everyone should own guns and be ready to shoot up government employees if they so much as say the wrong thing? Do you realise how psychopathic that sounds?[/quote] that is a beautiful strawman you have there i bet it took you all night to come up with it [quote]Why not use your free speech, which is a trait that's set in stone in Western nations, as a way of opposing and resisting your government? Is that not a more civilized, and reasonable alternative?[/quote] of course it's an infinitely more civilized and reasonable alternative, but like i said earlier, nobody should put too much trust in their government. just because the populace is using nonviolence and words, doesn't mean the government will play by the same rules. [quote]If the people collectively believe that words are more powerful than guns, that will be the reality. When you rely on your weapons to get a point across that only solidifies your barbarism. When you overthrow a tyrannical government using tyrannical methods you replace one tyranny with another.[/quote] well obviously that's not true, there's countless numbers of armed revolutions that have resulted in non-tyrannical governments. [quote]Just because a 300-year old constitution says so, doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. Have you considered the possibility that it may be outdated in some aspects?[/quote] of course it's outdated in some aspects. an armed populace as a deterrent against possible tyranny is not one of them.

Like a country full of people with assault rifles could defend themselves against a tyrannical government and its military...