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

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192023]Alright. Let's try another approach. Please elaborate how exactly it is you think the U.S government will devolve into a tyranny. Abstractly explain the 'stages', if you will.[/QUOTE] that's your problem; you think people are actually sitting in their basements with MREs and baby-killing bushmaster assault weapons waiting for soldiers to kick down the door in reality, nobody worth mentioning thinks the u.s. government will actually flat-out devolve into tyranny at any forseeable point in the near future, but the whole point is that it pays to be prepared in the off-chance that it happens [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Harry3;39192038]Like a country full of people with assault rifles could defend themselves against a tyrannical government and its military...[/QUOTE] if it were to happen it'd be a lot more complicated than that, bub

How? The only way a tyrannical government could even a hope of achieving the goal of most tyrannical governments (some form of total control police state or oppression) is with the support of the military. And if that happened, no number of civilian militia with a bunch of a semi-automatic rifles is gonna stop them. Outside help in the form of foreign military and firearms would be the solution. The second amendment was written when the military was basically a load of rifles and cannons, its outdated now. Which tends to happen with written constitutions.

welp, if a full-scale civilian militia uprising were to start, you can bet your ass a good chunk of the military would join them

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39186766]Holy shit Piers is a massive cunt. Every time that guy was trying to make a point, Piers would just yell over him.[/QUOTE] Following the great footsteps of Bill O'Reilly.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;39192157]welp, if a full-scale civilian militia uprising were to start, you can bet your ass a good chunk of the military would join them[/QUOTE] youd need a fucking retarded government to start a war against its people without the full support of the military............

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192167]what the fuck. so nobody 'really' believes the US will devolve into a tyranny, but they prepare for it regardless. sounds like they're just using it as an excuse to horde firearms. you practically shot your argument in the foot there. I asked you to elaborate because then I could point out the exact stages that will never happen because the population will instantly take notice that the government is turning more and more tyrannical by the day. They won't stay low and wait for the day the U.S will change its name to "United Dictatorships of America" and only then start forming their militias. The entire concept is so incredibly unlikely and fictional 'preparing' for it is really borderline insane. That is the entire concept of paranoia. Being afraid of something with no conclusive evidence.[/QUOTE] you're driving the debate in circles [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Harry3;39192189]youd need a fucking retarded government to start a war against its people without the full support of the military............[/QUOTE] it's happened loads of times before.....................

Handguns fuel the vast majority of firearms deaths in the US (something like 97% of them according to one statistic cited in this series of threads), yet no politician seems to want to do anything about them. Surely it'd do more good to focus on them first; banning the big scary assault rifles that are extremely rarely used in crime seems more like a re-election ploy.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192229]Because you're giving me literally no explanations besides "IT MIGHT HAPPEN THO"[/QUOTE] because that's literally the point, take it or leave it i could go more in-depth but that won't change your views or opinions on the subject

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192264]It might, that's why Im asking you to explain how and why. That's usually what debates are for, talking to the opposite side and learning a thing or two, and in the process perhaps shifting positions.[/QUOTE] Yea well that's also what forum categories are for, there's a whole thread for gun debates if you'd like, that probably already contain all the answers to suffice your needs for a more in-depth explanation.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192320]This is less about gun debates than it is about the possibility of the US turning into a tyranny which is the entire concept behind the 2nd amendment. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] Why does it bother you so much when people debate about gun control in a thread that is about gun control[/QUOTE] It doesn't bother me at all, I agree with the fact that it is logical to debate relevant issues in a thread whose article is relevant. I did however point you in the direction of the Gun Debate threads in Mass Debate because you were prying that one particular gentleman to continue to explain his point, and he relented, to which you pried again, so I merely offered the solution of heading to the aforementioned sections, because even though you disagree, the fact remains that the answer to your questions and desires for a more comprehensive explanation, can be found there, as again, even if you don't agree, the topic and argument of needing the right to bear arms to defend the general populace against tyrannical government has already been covered in said threads, and again the gentlemen you were trying to debate with wasn't too enthusiastic about continuing, so I again advise you to go to the proper section, as there will sure to be more individuals willing to debate you in the manner you wished in some posts of yours above. [editline]wat[/editline] Your logic also confuses me, because you say "this isn't about gun debates, but more about the US turning into a tyranny, which is the entire concept behind the 2nd amendment", well you just said "this is concerned with the 2nd amendment", to me this is automatically relevant to gun debates, as you're addressing one issue in regards to the second amendment.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192264]It might, that's why Im asking you to explain how and why. That's usually what debates are for, talking to the opposite side and learning a thing or two, and in the process perhaps shifting positions.[/QUOTE] ok the american culture is one built out of a strong feeling of independence. this came from the american revolution, and that feeling is still here today. back then we fought off a stronger country using the weapons that our militiamen owned, and people feel that if such a thing were to happen today, we would do the exact same (or try, at least). this explains america's strong attachment to guns. our country was created by what we consider a fight against tyranny, and that creates a very strong point among americans. obviously it's far-fetched that a tyranny could rise up in this day and age in america, but the thing is, you can't certifiably say that it would never happen. tyranny is always a possibility. governments have turned against their citizens countless times in the past. however, armed revolutions have been successful time and again in western countries (france, italy, greece, spain), and the founding fathers knew that there is a possibility that a tyranny might arise in america in the future, which is one of the central reasons that the 2nd amendment was drafted in the first place. so essentially, better safe than sorry

I'm glad more and more people are hating Piers Morgan every day. He is unbelievable.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192439]Makes sense, but is it not a better idea to shift the outdated mindset of owning firearms to protect from possible tyrannies with something like "We enjoy this hobby, and there are other, more effective ways of combating gun crime and violence than outright banning all guns"?[/quote] that's the majority opinion of pro-gunners, and i hold that opinion as well. however, i'm trying to explain the anti-tyranny aspect of gun ownership to you. [quote]I mean this is more likely to reach common ground with anti-gun advocates. When you rely only on outdated, several century old events as the sole legitimization of your rights it's not exactly effective, and instead only preys on peoples desperate sense of patriotism.[/quote] the thing is, successful armed revolutions happen all the time. so obviously these aren't "several century old events" [quote]I understand it's a huge part of your history and national identity, but why not leave it as just that - history. Instead of using some outdated constitutional articles to dictate your laws and regulations. Why not revise the constitution to be more applicable to this day and age?[/QUOTE] there are much more dated articles in need of changing than the 2nd amendment

I think what a lot of people forget is that the 2nd amendment is all about giving civilians a choice to fight back. It isn't guaranteeing their victory, it isn't saying, "You'll have guns so you can win," it's just providing them with a choice. Think about it on a smaller scale. If someone came barging into your workplace with an assault rifle wearing body armor, your chances of survival are slim even if you are armed. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon? What if the government went, "Well, you'd die in that situation anyways so you don't need a gun." Being armed in that situation is not about being the hero and saving the day. It isn't about guaranteeing your survival. It's about giving you the [i]choice[/i] to fight back. Because if you are not armed, you essentially put your life in another person's hands. You are giving them 100 percent control over whether you live or die. However, if you arm yourself, you are in control. Your chances of living might be slim, but at least if you choose to fight, you are maintaining control over the fate of your life. The same applies to a tyrannical government. If civilians aren't armed, they have to fall to their knees and succumb to tyranny. If they are armed, they might get their ass kicked by predator drones, but at least they are presented the option to choose what they want to do with their lives. They can choose whether they want to live in tyranny or die free men. [i]That[/i] is what the 2nd amendment is all about, giving people the choice to die on their feet or live on their knees. Not everyone will be willing to fight, but those who want to will at least have a slim chance of making a difference if they have decent armament.

[QUOTE=Harry3;39192038]Like a country full of people with assault rifles could defend themselves against a tyrannical government and its military...[/QUOTE] "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I'd rather try and get my ass ventilated by this 'tyrannical' American Government than just sit and watch everything I love about this country just get stripped away. Another thing, the American military is volunteer based, I don't think they'd go around shooting their own people who they signed up to protect.

Nobody would use their 1200 dollar rifle in a fucking crime because it's bulky and unconcealed, and a quick way to get caught. You can hide a pistol in any pocket, a rifle is a dead giveaway.

dear US, please deport piers morgan to north korea or some other country with no media coverage, we don't want him back I support gun control but morgan is a massive throbbing cunt regardless of his views [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] It hink this is less to do with the interviewee being any good particularly and more due to morgan being utterly inept. I wish people like that would stop talking about 'the left' like it's the reincarnation of the nazi party as well

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;39192811]"Give me liberty, or give me death!" I'd rather try and get my ass ventilated by this 'tyrannical' American Government than just sit and watch everything I love about this country just get stripped away. Another thing, the American military is volunteer based, I don't think they'd go around shooting their own people who they signed up to protect.[/QUOTE] One thing I have noticed about the reason you wouldn't be fighting the military is that you all seem to believe it would be as it is today. Built of volunteers who are not willing to shoot those they signed on to protect. Well, in the case of a "tyrannical" government gaining power, who's to say they won't remove these people who refuse to follow every single order? Or punish them severely for disobeying? If, as a government, you have the power to ruin the well-being of the entire population, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd also make sure your military is 100% (or at least close to that) on your side so you can crush rebellion easier.

considering the type of people that typically join the military, they'd have to remove a pretty fucking huge chunk of 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] This is the only sensible post in this thread and it's been bombarded with dumbs. Welcome to FP. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] I actually think that Piers is absolutely right in that video and the other guy is a lunatic.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39191642]Give me one Western country that's turning tyrannical.[/QUOTE] Venezuela [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Harry3;39192038]Like a country full of people with assault rifles could defend themselves against a tyrannical government and its military...[/QUOTE] Afghanistan would like to have a word with you. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Scot;39193268]This is the only sensible post in this thread and it's been bombarded with dumbs. Welcome to FP. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] I actually think that Piers is absolutely right in that video and the other guy is a lunatic.[/QUOTE] Your idea of sensible clearly differs from that of many others on here.

And the aftermath of the second Iraq war wasn't fought like any normal war. It was a prolonged urban gang war.

[QUOTE=Scot;39193268]This is the only sensible post in this thread and it's been bombarded with dumbs. Welcome to FP. [editline]12th January 2013[/editline] I actually think that Piers is absolutely right in that video and the other guy is a lunatic.[/QUOTE] Piers is a cunt but the viewpoint he's expressing (being raised in a country which isn't fucking mental) is sensible. In britain there still exist people who think that laws, taxes and any notion of government is one step away from a tyrannical dictatorship, but thankfully those people are sidelined and marginalized like they should be by any non-mental public because that kind of belief is, objectively, [b]fucking retarded[/b].

[QUOTE=Ridge;39193409]Afghanistan would like to have a word with you.[/QUOTE] They've been fighting for 12 years and haven't taken their country back yet.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39193465]Piers is a cunt but the viewpoint he's expressing (being raised in a country which isn't fucking mental) is sensible. In britain there still exist people who think that laws, taxes and any notion of government is one step away from a tyrannical dictatorship, but thankfully those people are sidelined and marginalized like they should be by any non-mental public because that kind of belief is, objectively, [b]fucking retarded[/b].[/QUOTE] Which is why Pickwickian is absolutely right.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39193534]They've been fighting for 12 years and haven't taken their country back yet.[/QUOTE] There is no "They". Terrorist groups are all autonomous and fight under a similar banner in order to spread fear.

After reading all of this, all I can think is.. ugh... this world is fucked.. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39193534]They've been fighting for 12 years and haven't taken their country back yet.[/QUOTE] That's because it is a tribe-like system which they operate, it is also the reason why the U.S. has been unsuccessful in attempting to take the country over like they did in Iraq. In Iraq the U.S. went over, took out its' leadership (which they put in place years ago) and devastated the country's economy and infrastructure via warfare. Afterwards private U.S. corporations went in and offered to rebuild the country. The devastated nation agreed (though they didn't have much else of a choice) and what happened instead was a large debt that was owed to these corporations and the U.S. To avoid this debt crippling their economy even further, the U.S. offered to privatize many of Iraq's big industries. Namely Oil. So now the U.S. has a pretty nice control over Iraq's oil supply via privatization, allowing them to buy it at reduced prices and send it back home. Afghanistan has a shit-load of resources in those hills of theirs, from platinum, to gold, and lithium. All of which the U.S. desperately needs. So they brushed up the excuse of Terrorism (like Iraq) and walked into the country, expecting an easy fight with a bunch of poppy farmers and cave dwellers. Instead, Afghanistan "compartmentalized" system of rule was too effective against the traditional ways of the West taking over. The U.S. tried taking out key figures, but when one went down all that was found was a dead man, who was quickly replaced by another nameless figure. We tried bombing them, but their mountain life style prevented us from effectively bombing and invading their key positions. Any time we tried to take out one tribe, four more stood behind them angry that we had tried to off the first. Afghanistan is pretty tribal in that sense, much like the original Native Americans. They will fight each other over land, resources, and power over their country... however they are not afraid to band together and fight for the greater common good.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpToQqYs75A[/media] dont have to watch the whole video just stick around to hear the guys opinion of the 2nd amendment

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39193566]There is no "They". Terrorist groups are all autonomous and fight under a similar banner in order to spread fear.[/QUOTE] Still a poor argument for "citizens with assault rifles can boot out the government".

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39192439]Makes sense, but is it not a better idea to shift the outdated mindset of owning firearms to protect from possible tyrannies with something like "We enjoy this hobby, and there are other, more effective ways of combating gun crime and violence than outright banning all guns"? I mean this is more likely to reach common ground with anti-gun advocates. When you rely only on outdated, several century old events as the sole legitimization of your rights it's not exactly effective, and instead only preys on peoples desperate sense of patriotism. I understand it's a huge part of your history and national identity, but why not leave it as just that - history. Instead of using some outdated constitutional articles to dictate your laws and regulations. Why not revise the constitution to be more applicable to this day and age?[/QUOTE] Why? There is no reason to other than a dime a dozen ( more like a dime a million) rare occurrence of a tragedy happening and the media being cunts and blowing it up to ridiculous proportions. You might disagree with it on an ideological level but in practice you act like it is some huge detriment destroying society, it isn't.