Piers Morgan get owned by Ben Shapiro

  • 87 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Piers has been getting owned for weeks-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4

Apparently Piers didn't get enough, so he had Larry on again-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudA9LESQi0

#52 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

Piers has been getting owned for weeks-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4

Apparently Piers didn't get enough, so he had Larry on again-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudA9LESQi0

hartsickdiscipl

The collective belief her is that Piers Morgan is a dipsh!t, so you don't have to keep saying it. We get it and agree. That doesn't make Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones any better.

#53 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Piers has been getting owned for weeks-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4

Apparently Piers didn't get enough, so he had Larry on again-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudA9LESQi0

jimkabrhel

The collective belief her is that Piers Morgan is a dipsh!t, so you don't have to keep saying it. We get it and agree. That doesn't make Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones any better.

What was wrong with Ben Shapiro's appearance on Piers' show?

#54 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Piers has been getting owned for weeks-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4

Apparently Piers didn't get enough, so he had Larry on again-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudA9LESQi0

hartsickdiscipl

The collective belief her is that Piers Morgan is a dipsh!t, so you don't have to keep saying it. We get it and agree. That doesn't make Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones any better.

What was wrong with Ben Shapiro's appearance on Piers' show?

I wasn't just talking about their appearances on the show, I'm talking about their views. Shaprio's bookBrainwashedis a bunch of conservative nonsense, at best. Very little of it has an basis in reality, must like Alex Jones's stuff. Shaprio isn't as bombastic about it.

#55 Posted by TwistedShade (3139 posts) -

While Piers sounds like an idiot, I really don't understand Ben's point. What IS the point of anybody carrying around an Assault weapon? The whole "To protect against the evil government" sounds like a horrible horrible argument.

#56 Posted by JohnF111 (14125 posts) -

While Piers sounds like an idiot, I really don't understand Ben's point. What IS the point of anybody carrying around an Assault weapon? The whole "To protect against the evil government" sounds like a horrible horrible argument.

TwistedShade
If nukes were legal they would simply expand the argument to try to defend the rights to own a nuke as "Well in case aliens try to destroy us we need to be ready so we need nukes". I have to admit I was expecting a stronger argument against Piers but as soon as that dude let out "Defend against the government when they turn tyrannical" I almost laughed out loud at such a paranoid desperate grasp at an answer and "walking on the graves of the dead kids" truly was a dirty and hateful thing to say, I'm with Piers on this one guys sorry to say, but as much as we hate him I have to agree that assault rifles are just a tad overkill in terms of protection from ANYONE never mind a tyrannical govern.. phahaha!!! ..ment sorry it was just too much not even my fingers couldn't hold in their laughter.
#57 Posted by -Misanthropic- (3603 posts) -

The reason all Americans should support lax gun laws is because Piers Morgan now resides there.

#58 Posted by TheSacredFlame (324 posts) -

Really wasn't ownage, but I don't keep tabs on Piers so I'm not exactly sure how his usual talks/debates go.

#59 Posted by Jebus213 (8926 posts) -
[QUOTE="PinkiePirate"]

[QUOTE="PerfectCode"]

Ownage? No.

-Tish-

#60 Posted by Jebus213 (8926 posts) -
Who the fvck watches CNN anyway? I never heard of this Piers Morgan guy until this Alex Jones thing.
#61 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12017 posts) -
[QUOTE="TwistedShade"]

While Piers sounds like an idiot, I really don't understand Ben's point. What IS the point of anybody carrying around an Assault weapon? The whole "To protect against the evil government" sounds like a horrible horrible argument.

JohnF111
If nukes were legal they would simply expand the argument to try to defend the rights to own a nuke as "Well in case aliens try to destroy us we need to be ready so we need nukes". I have to admit I was expecting a stronger argument against Piers but as soon as that dude let out "Defend against the government when they turn tyrannical" I almost laughed out loud at such a paranoid desperate grasp at an answer and "walking on the graves of the dead kids" truly was a dirty and hateful thing to say, I'm with Piers on this one guys sorry to say, but as much as we hate him I have to agree that assault rifles are just a tad overkill in terms of protection from ANYONE never mind a tyrannical govern.. phahaha!!! ..ment sorry it was just too much not even my fingers couldn't hold in their laughter.

Assault rifles/weapons are already banned. How do you ban something that is already banned?
#62 Posted by Jebus213 (8926 posts) -
[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="TwistedShade"]

While Piers sounds like an idiot, I really don't understand Ben's point. What IS the point of anybody carrying around an Assault weapon? The whole "To protect against the evil government" sounds like a horrible horrible argument.

WhiteKnight77
If nukes were legal they would simply expand the argument to try to defend the rights to own a nuke as "Well in case aliens try to destroy us we need to be ready so we need nukes". I have to admit I was expecting a stronger argument against Piers but as soon as that dude let out "Defend against the government when they turn tyrannical" I almost laughed out loud at such a paranoid desperate grasp at an answer and "walking on the graves of the dead kids" truly was a dirty and hateful thing to say, I'm with Piers on this one guys sorry to say, but as much as we hate him I have to agree that assault rifles are just a tad overkill in terms of protection from ANYONE never mind a tyrannical govern.. phahaha!!! ..ment sorry it was just too much not even my fingers couldn't hold in their laughter.

Assault rifles/weapons are already banned. How do you ban something that is already banned?

You know what guns he's talking about...
#63 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12017 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] If nukes were legal they would simply expand the argument to try to defend the rights to own a nuke as "Well in case aliens try to destroy us we need to be ready so we need nukes". I have to admit I was expecting a stronger argument against Piers but as soon as that dude let out "Defend against the government when they turn tyrannical" I almost laughed out loud at such a paranoid desperate grasp at an answer and "walking on the graves of the dead kids" truly was a dirty and hateful thing to say, I'm with Piers on this one guys sorry to say, but as much as we hate him I have to agree that assault rifles are just a tad overkill in terms of protection from ANYONE never mind a tyrannical govern.. phahaha!!! ..ment sorry it was just too much not even my fingers couldn't hold in their laughter.

Assault rifles/weapons are already banned. How do you ban something that is already banned?

You know what guns he's talking about...

Want to let him answer the question?
#64 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

Morgan's a grade A political speaker.

He never answers any questions, and just redirects & speculates around them with a good helping of "when in doubt, accuse the other of attacking you".

Ben called him out on his political *****

#65 Posted by airshocker (31222 posts) -

Gun education is key to having a effective discussion about the topic of gun control dave123321

Holy sh*t. I agree with Dave.

#66 Posted by radicalcentrist (335 posts) -

Ben Shapiro is definitely a future-lawyer. He had me convinced for a second that we actually should have the ability to violently overthrow the government.

#67 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
Shapiro is a Neocon hack, but even a stopped clock...
#68 Posted by Planeforger (16387 posts) -

The gun guy just resorted to a tyrannical government.... Yeah the reason I require an assault rifle is because the government goes AWOL and turns on it's citizens... :roll:JohnF111

That also seemed a tad hypocritical of Shapiro.

His argument against Piers was "if you want to stop murders, why ban assault weapons? why not ban handguns and all other guns? that would be far more effective" - basically a 'why take half-measures?' argument, which made a lot of sense.

But then he said that people should have assault weapons to resist a tyrannical government...to which I must ask: why take half-measures?

Assault weapons aren't going to protect people against one of the world's strongest military forces. If he wants people to be armed for their own protection, shouldn't he be pushing for civillian-owned land-mines, rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, and nuclear warheads?

Protecting handguns alone is completely pointless - so if he wants to be philosophically consistent, surely 'responsible people' should be allowed any form of weaponry they desire.

#69 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5496 posts) -
I can't believe you guys think Piers was "owned". I guess all it takes to convince you guys is a well articulated argument, no matter how bull sh*t that argument may be. He's just a more controlled version of Alex Jones, at least on the issue of gun control. Piers isn't 100% right either, but his hearts in the right place and he actually has some ideas that might work in the real world.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]The gun guy just resorted to a tyrannical government.... Yeah the reason I require an assault rifle is because the government goes AWOL and turns on it's citizens... :roll:Planeforger

That also seemed a tad hypocritical of Shapiro.

His argument against Piers was "if you want to stop murders, why ban assault weapons? why not ban handguns and all other guns? that would be far more effective" - basically a 'why take half-measures?' argument, which made a lot of sense.

But then he said that people should have assault weapons to resist a tyrannical government...to which I must ask: why take half-measures?

Assault weapons aren't going to protect people against one of the world's strongest military forces. If he wants people to be armed for their own protection, shouldn't he be pushing for civillian-owned land-mines, rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, and nuclear warheads?

Protecting handguns alone is completely pointless - so if he wants to be philosophically consistent, surely 'responsible people' should be allowed any form of weaponry they desire.

You make a good point, but in Piers defense, some guns are more efficient at killing than others, it would be a big ask to ban ALL types of guns, so as part of a larger scheme to lower gun crime, certain weapons should be banned.
#70 Posted by Wasdie (50823 posts) -

Piers isn't 100% right either, but his hearts in the right place and he actually has some ideas that might work in the real world. PernicioEnigma

Piers's idea is to ban the guns that have killed about 400 people in the past decade in this country while keeping the ones that have murderd around 9,000 in the same amount of time untouched.

He doesn't give one flying crap about the greater good.

#71 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.
#72 Posted by airshocker (31222 posts) -

I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.Rhazakna

QFT.

#73 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.Rhazakna

It scares me to hear that so many people feel that we are somehow "above it." Many others use the reasoning- "Well, the people couldn't win anyways.. so fvck it!"

#74 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.hartsickdiscipl

It scares me to hear that so many people feel that we are somehow "above it." Many others use the reasoning- "Well, the people couldn't win anyways.. so fvck it!"

That's completely wrong. People who say that the citizens couldn't win a revolution haven't been paying attention to US military history in the last 50 years.
#75 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.Rhazakna

It scares me to hear that so many people feel that we are somehow "above it." Many others use the reasoning- "Well, the people couldn't win anyways.. so fvck it!"

That's completely wrong. People who say that the citizens couldn't win a revolution haven't been paying attention to US military history in the last 50 years.

So true.

#76 Posted by wis3boi (32065 posts) -

Piers Morgan would lose a debate with a rock

#77 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5496 posts) -
I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.Rhazakna
An alien invasion is beyond the realm of possibility either, maybe you should prepare for that too.
#78 Posted by Wasdie (50823 posts) -

Piers Morgan would lose a debate with a rock

wis3boi

I think people need to realize why people like Piers Morgan and Alex Jones exist. It isn't to report the news, it isn't to put up logical debates and arguments to issues, it isn't to have meaningful discussions. It's purely about entertainment.

Americans love extremes. Piers is a perfect example of an extreme. An extreme left winger by Ameircan standards of politics. Everybody on Fox News is an extreme right winger. They make their broadcasting stations a boat load of cash. That's why they exist.

#79 Posted by GreySeal9 (25462 posts) -

I can't believe you guys think Piers was "owned". I guess all it takes to convince you guys is a well articulated argument, no matter how bull sh*t that argument may be. He's just a more controlled version of Alex Jones, at least on the issue of gun control. Piers isn't 100% right either, but his hearts in the right place and he actually has some ideas that might work in the real world.PernicioEnigma

I agree that the ownage was non-existent. The reason people are talking about ownage is because they agree with Ben. Otherwise, this was just another stupid talking point-filled gun debate.

Where I don't agree with you is that Piers Morgan's heart is in the right place. I sincerely doubt that. The man is a complete cvnt.

#80 Posted by Jebus213 (8926 posts) -
I found a very good video on why the 2nd Amendment is important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
#81 Posted by Planeforger (16387 posts) -

I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.Rhazakna

While I agree that any government could potentially turn on its people, the chances of them doing so are greatly reduced by the establishment of a well-designed system of representative democracy. Ideally, the Constitution and other founding documents should contain enough checks and balances to prevent such a tyranny from ever arising.

So...hmm...just throwing this out there: To say that people are afraid of the government, and should be armed accordingly, seems to be the same as fearing that the US Constitution itself is a flawed document, incapable of fulfilling its own purpose.

The Constitution should be written in such a way that nobody in government should be able to misuse their powers without some obvious method of remedying that situation (such as through impeachment, or striking down the laws, or whatever). If it fails to do, then the Constitution is flawed, and should be amended accordingly.

So it seems bizarre to me that the same people who are worried about the flaws in the Constitution (and thus a tyrannical uprising) tend to be the same people who claim that the Constitution is sacrosanct (in regards to the Second Amendment). If the Constituion is above criticism, then there should be very little chance of a dictator rising to power; whereas if the Constitution is not designed well enough to stop that from happening, surely the Second Amendment is also open to criticism.

Anyway, just a thought.

#82 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.PernicioEnigma
An alien invasion is beyond the realm of possibility either, maybe you should prepare for that too.

Clearly you're just an idiot if you think that government tyranny and alien invasions are in the same ballpark. Go run along, junior, we're trying to have a discussion here.
#83 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]I don't know whether it's hilarious or scary that people think it's so inconceivable for the American state to become tyrannical. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US or world history would think that's beyond the realm of possibility.Planeforger

While I agree that any government could potentially turn on its people, the chances of them doing so are greatly reduced by the establishment of a well-designed system of representative democracy. Ideally, the Constitution and other founding documents should contain enough checks and balances to prevent such a tyranny from ever arising.

So...hmm...just throwing this out there: To say that people are afraid of the government, and should be armed accordingly, seems to be the same as fearing that the US Constitution itself is a flawed document, incapable of fulfilling its own purpose.

The Constitution should be written in such a way that nobody in government should be able to misuse their powers without some obvious method of remedying that situation (such as through impeachment, or striking down the laws, or whatever). If it fails to do, then the Constitution is flawed, and should be amended accordingly.

So it seems bizarre to me that the same people who are worried about the flaws in the Constitution (and thus a tyrannical uprising) tend to be the same people who claim that the Constitution is sacrosanct (in regards to the Second Amendment). If the Constituion is above criticism, then there should be very little chance of a dictator rising to power; whereas if the Constitution is not designed well enough to stop that from happening, surely the Second Amendment is also open to criticism.

Anyway, just a thought.

I absolutely believe that the Constitution is a flawed document incapable of fulfilling its own purpose. The history of the US is proof of that. Censorship, internment, mass killings, warantless arrests and the MIC itself have all happened under the Constitution. I would never claim that the Constitution is sacrosanct, that's dogmatic bullsh*t. The Constitution is not some holy document, and the opinions of a bunch of dead guys should not govern me in any way. My opinion on guns has nothing to do with the Constitution.
#84 Posted by VendettaRed07 (14012 posts) -

That was a fantastic argument. If only all republicans could be as well read an intelligent as this guy

The only part I disagree with is when people say, well only a small percentage of people are killed with the semiautomatic weapons. While that may be true, they are not statistics, they are people, and they are dying.If tomorrow doctors discovered some sort treatment to help reduce the deaths caused by breast cancer by 10% it would be called a miracle breakthrough.

We need some sort of regulation to fire arms and make it better than it is now. Maybe not even ban them but have police check once a year that they are properly stored for ****s sake. Better backround checks, or something.

But I can guarentee that the right will never support any sort of regulation. The argument will fall back to "well.. people with Mental illness history aren't allowed to defend them selves?" Or something of the sort. I just feel like well never do anything to help cut down the deaths. And help lower the possibilty of mass shootings as much as we possibly can.

#85 Posted by Jagged3dge (3895 posts) -

[QUOTE="TwistedShade"]

While Piers sounds like an idiot, I really don't understand Ben's point. What IS the point of anybody carrying around an Assault weapon? The whole "To protect against the evil government" sounds like a horrible horrible argument.

JohnF111

If nukes were legal they would simply expand the argument to try to defend the rights to own a nuke as "Well in case aliens try to destroy us we need to be ready so we need nukes". I have to admit I was expecting a stronger argument against Piers but as soon as that dude let out "Defend against the government when they turn tyrannical" I almost laughed out loud at such a paranoid desperate grasp at an answer and "walking on the graves of the dead kids" truly was a dirty and hateful thing to say, I'm with Piers on this one guys sorry to say, but as much as we hate him I have to agree that assault rifles are just a tad overkill in terms of protection from ANYONE never mind a tyrannical govern.. phahaha!!! ..ment sorry it was just too much not even my fingers couldn't hold in their laughter.

This much trust and security for any government is a bit naive.

#86 Posted by thebest31406 (3639 posts) -
Morgan, Maher and the rest of these so called "liberals" don't do the anti-gun crime movement any justice. They don't wanna ban hand guns, which helps with the majority of the gun crime in the US, but they want to ban assault rifles because due to the mass media coverage - as well as who the victims are. Although Shapiro isn't the psycho that Jones is, he's still your typical right wing a$$hole who goes around rambling about arming ones self in order to defend from state tyranny. In addition, neither Morgan nor Shapiro bothers to take the argument further by asking why mass gun crime exist in the first place. I can't support neither of the mainstream arguments because both the so called 'left' and right don't bother to address the primary motivations behind the large amount of gun crime in the US, which happen to be mostly economically related. Address and fix the economic issues that plague much of the population and there wouldn't be as much incentive to commit gun crime.
#87 Posted by thebest31406 (3639 posts) -
I don't agree with either of them.chrisrooR