Piers Morgan get owned by Ben Shapiro

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

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.

[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?

[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.

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.

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

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

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

[QUOTE="PinkiePirate"]

[QUOTE="PerfectCode"]

Ownage? No.

-Tish-

[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

[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

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 *****

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

Holy sh*t. I agree with Dave.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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!"

[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!"

[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!"

So true.

Piers Morgan would lose a debate with a rock

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

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.

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.

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.

[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

[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.

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.

[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

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

I don't agree with either of them.chrisrooR