Piers Morgan Gets Utterly Smashed by Ben Shapiro; Called out for Bullying Guests, Replys: "YOU'RE BU
223 replies, posted
I liked the point that Mr. Shapiro made in terms of handguns being much more widely used in shootings and crimes, but I don't really buy the reasoning that Americans should be able to own "assault" weapons for the sole purpose of staving off a tyrannical government. Americans should be able to own these guns because of the second amendment, which is open to interpretation. I would put more emphasis on being well informed about what the government is doing, and being well-informed does not mean watching/reading biased news reports (in my opinion, C-SPAN is probably one of the best).
Contrary to popular belief, the government isn't wholly stupid. The government would never impose tyranny in such a straight forward manner such as sending in the army or whatever. The place where your rights are being stripped away is in the US Capitol building. Some of these bills have been widely publicized, such as the NDAA or SOPA bills, but there are others that are loosely worded, and can be interpreted in unintended ways.
The Supreme Court can also infringe on your rights in ways you could never foresee, and they aren't accountable to anybody. Plenty of people know about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but do they know about Berghuis v. Thompkins?
Going back to Mr. Shapiro, it also irked me that he subscribed to the whole "left vs right" polarized world mentality. An intelligent fellow like himself should understand that it is possible to like and hate positions from both sides. However, after looking at some of his books, it seems he only sees the world in black and white, and seems incredibly close minded. Piers Morgan I don't even have to comment on.
All of these fucknuts using goverment tyrany as a reason to own a assault rifle need to be locked up as they have mental issues, to warrant the need of an assault rifle to fight the governenment implys that the police or military would take part in the oppression.
Bunch of fucknuts.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39193727]As Shapiro said, there is definitely a history of democratic governments turning tyrannous.[/QUOTE]
Say the unlikely event in which the US gov does turn tyrannic actually happens, these days there's only two ways it can possibly go. The people can use democracy to counteract and remove the tyranny. If the people are denied sufficient democracy (very unlikely indeed) that's a violation of humans rights and in that case the UN would intervene somehow to restore democracy
In both instances civilians armed with guns are pretty pointless
Besides all that, a country whose ideals and laws are strictly follow an antiquated book is not much different to theocracy imo
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;39195044]All of these fucknuts using goverment tyrany as a reason to own a assault rifle need to be locked up as they have mental issues, to warrant the need of an assault rifle to fight the [b]governenment implys that the police or military would take part in the oppression.[/b]
Bunch of fucknuts.[/QUOTE]
It's manipulation or by force? We've seen this with history before why would it be any different now if it happened?
[QUOTE=Elspin;39194785]Ah, alright, I saw the video now. It didn't load when I first opened the transcript and messing with a transcript is not something I'd put past fox news after things like this
[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/12/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/foxunemployment.jpg?uuid=okHqbCUNEeG6UZmisn9jBQ[/img][/QUOTE]
I love that.
9.0=8.6
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39193992]That sounds like something Hitler would say.[/QUOTE]
What are your parameters?
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;39195044]All of these fucknuts using goverment tyrany as a reason to own a assault rifle need to be locked up as they have mental issues, to warrant the need of an assault rifle to fight the governenment implys that the police or military would take part in the oppression.
Bunch of fucknuts.[/QUOTE]
You mean like they did to Occupy protesters?
[QUOTE=RobbL;39195195]Say the unlikely event in which the US gov does turn tyrannic actually happens, these days there's only two ways it can possibly go. The people can use democracy to counteract and remove the tyranny. If the people are denied sufficient democracy (very unlikely indeed) that's a violation of humans rights and in that case the UN would intervene somehow to restore democracy
In both instances civilians armed with guns are pretty pointless[/QUOTE]
The purpose of the 2nd is to prevent tyranny in the first place, not fight against it when it has already taken over the country. No one is going to seize power with an armed populace.
And it is never a good idea to depend on the UN for anything especially an intervention. The idea of the UN intervening in American affairs is fantasy anyways.
[QUOTE]Besides all that, a country whose ideals and laws are strictly follow an antiquated book is not much different to theocracy imo[/QUOTE]
The Constitution can be amended.
Theocracies and constitutional republics are both by definition and in practice extremely different things. You don't know much about government do you.
[QUOTE=RobbL;39195195]Say the unlikely event in which the US gov does turn tyrannic actually happens, these days there's only two ways it can possibly go. The people can use democracy to counteract and remove the tyranny. If the people are denied sufficient democracy (very unlikely indeed) that's a violation of humans rights and in that case the UN would intervene somehow to restore democracy
In both instances civilians armed with guns are pretty pointless
Besides all that, a country whose ideals and laws are strictly follow an antiquated book is not much different to theocracy imo[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand fully what tyranny is. And the UN doesn't give two shits about Democracy, if they did they'd have intervened in the numerous dictatorships across the globe ages ago, such as China, North Korea, and Cuba. You have no human right to democracy, the right to vote is something the forefathers of the United States fought tooth and nail for from the British, and they knew full well that people needed to have the tools at hand to be able to fight tooth and nail to preserve that right in the future if they should need to. Tyranny is not something that can be voted out of office, it must be removed by force.
You realize, also, that the basis for British lawmaking, aside from the Magna Carta, is the English Bill of Rights from the 1600s, right? America isn't the only country that "reveres an old piece of paper" as the basis for its legal system and rights.
Some people like guns
Some people don't like guns
But at least we can all agree that we don't like Piers Morgan
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39195748]I don't think you understand fully what tyranny is. And the UN doesn't give two shits about Democracy, if they did they'd have intervened in the numerous dictatorships across the globe ages ago, such as China, North Korea, and Cuba[/QUOTE]
Well the USA is much closer and involved with the western world and international diplomacy as opposed to relatively isolationist states like China and North Korea, that makes a hell of a difference
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39195659]The purpose of the 2nd is to prevent tyranny in the first place, not fight against it when it has already taken over the country. No one is going to seize power with an armed populace[/QUOTE]
Like nuclear warheads are supposed to act as a deterrent to war?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39195748]You realize, also, that the basis for British lawmaking, aside from the Magna Carta, is the English Bill of Rights from the 1600s, right? America isn't the only country that "reveres an old piece of paper" as the basis for its legal system and rights[/quote]
My point really is that a right to bear arms is weirdly unique to the USA, whereas most other rights stated in constitutions and stuff around the world are basically universal, at least regarding the western world. Developing nations are generally heading the same way though anyway
I didn't like either of them, although Ben Shapiro did get to the point.
[QUOTE=RobbL;39195920]Like nuclear warheads are supposed to act as a deterrent to war?[/QUOTE]
Aren't they? Don't get me wrong, I'm against nuclear weapons as much as the next guy, but they're definitely a deterrent.
[QUOTE=RobbL;39195920]Like nuclear warheads are supposed to act as a deterrent to war?
[/QUOTE]
Prevention does not equal deterrent. Please read.
[QUOTE=OvB;39186983]Clearly because they're black and tacticool and scare the shit out of people who have no idea what they're talking about.
We live in a country where people who we elect to represent us can make laws about something they've never touched or understand. Everyone involved in attempting to make policies about an AWB should be required to take a full-on gun course so they will learn that their shitty law won't do a god damn thing except punish law-abiding citizens for the action of a few mentally unstable people.
Either that or they're just taking advantage of an atrocity to push their bullshit agendas about things that scare them.[/QUOTE]
But everytime those lovely laws like "Patriotic Act" and such that basically lets the government arrest anyone for no reason at all for forever, no-one go up in arms.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39186545]"What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, saying they don’t seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids they would agree with you on policy."
I'm glad someone finally got the balls to say it.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs[/media][/QUOTE]
Piers Morgan is a fucking idiot, how can he sit there and keep saying "WHY DO THEY NEED AN AR-15" when he keeps giving reasons why. If Piers Morgan thinks Governments cant turn bad then he shouldn't be allowed on television.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;39186509]Can't we just ship him off to the Australian outback and keep him under watch?[/QUOTE]
We don't want him.
I can't wait for him to get deported, because as soon as he steps foot in the UK he'll be arrested and charged for phone hacking.
I like Ben's points and he does a good job of explaining them in the little time he had before being repeatedly cut off, but he lost pretty much all respect from me when he started turning it into right against left. He could've argued everything he did just as well, if not better, had he brought up his reasoning and left it at that (as opposed to also turning it into red vs blue.)
This way Piers wouldn't have even been able to mention Reagan, and though I was glad to see Ben's indifferent response to the mention of being in the same party, it still comes off as a bit self-contradictory regarding all of the political affiliation comparisons.
Negative raters were brainwashed by their parents to believe parties mean something and that the one they're not a member of is satan. How can that aspect even mean anything if you have to tell the other person what they're a member of? It can't and it's a waste of time.
[QUOTE=Elspin;39194785]Ah, alright, I saw the video now. It didn't load when I first opened the transcript and messing with a transcript is not something I'd put past fox news after things like this
[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/12/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/foxunemployment.jpg?uuid=okHqbCUNEeG6UZmisn9jBQ[/img][/QUOTE]
idgi
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39199185]idgi[/QUOTE]
The numbers are edited to make it look like nothings happened, when it should be much lower.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39199441]The numbers are edited to make it look like nothings happened, when it should be much lower.[/QUOTE]
the numbers are inaccurate?
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
couldn't the bureau of labor statistics sue fox for citing them when they edited the information?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39200073]the numbers are inaccurate?
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
couldn't the bureau of labor statistics sue fox for citing them when they edited the information?[/QUOTE]
Not so much the numbers as their placement on the graph. Note that the left column is broken up in .5% increments. The line on the far right, 9.0% and 8.6% are placed at the same height, even though 8.6% should be considerably lower according to their legend.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;39192231]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]
Funny thing though, gun crime has been slowly going down. With better education, city infrastructure, gang injunction zones, social services, health care, etc it would go down even more if such care was taken for poor areas and crime infested cities. But instead we will continue with our blanket-laws that allow us to feel all warm and fuzzy and like we actually contributed and fixed something.
Then reality will kick in when gun crime in poor cities continues, people continuing to struggle and another active shooter event happens despite these big and scary guns being banned. There is some shit you just can't prevent. My example I always like to use, Drunk Driving is illegal right - shouldn't do it. But people continue to do it and die every year because of it. What is being done about it? Constant education on the subject and advertisements on the negative effects of it in hopes of lowering the rate of drunk drivings. Why can't the same idea be passed on to other issues - educating in order to prevent and reduce X problem.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39200315]Not so much the numbers as their placement on the graph. Note that the left column is broken up in .5% increments. The line on the far right, 9.0% and 8.6% are placed at the same height, even though 8.6% should be considerably lower according to their legend.[/QUOTE]
oh i see it.
[QUOTE=RobbL;39195920]
Like nuclear warheads are supposed to act as a deterrent to war?
[/QUOTE]
That is a fair comparison. Whether or not the use of firearms would be successful in an attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government they do act as a deterrence. A Democratic government should be afraid of the people as to keep itself from removing the liberties of the public and firearms do the job.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39200485]oh i see it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, basically under Obama unemployment rates were starting to go down, so Fox made it look like they were staying about even by having 8.6% show up on the same level of the graph as 9%. Typical shit for fox news, really
