Piers and Ben Shapiro - Gun Control

[JamesBondo]

Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro - YouTube

This is one of the better debates that I've seen on Piers Morgan show. Too bad that Ben had to start with such a hurtful claim right at the beginning of the 14 minutes, however, I think they covered alot in a very short period, and I have to give both of them credit for clearly stating how they feel about things

Rather than used the gun control thread in the Canadian politics thread, Ive placed this in the US section because I think the debate has a very US point of view to it.

What do you guys think about this? Please share your observations and opinions.

 

[damngrumpy]

Something has to be done in order to restore public confidence more than anything else;
The sad fact is the gun lobby will be on the short end due to their views and their lack of
cooperation. When you are on the short end it is better to be proactive and blunt the
opponent charge. This is not the twentieth century people have moved on and the old
conservative regiment of America is changing due to immigration and minorities now
asserting their role in American Affairs.
Will the gun control laws have a real effect? Not likely except the assault weapons will be
gone before long and clip sizes will be regulated and that might mitigate some of the
problems but gun violence will go on everywhere until all weapons are banned around the
world. There will then be a problem with too many plowshares and lions lying down with
lambs. We all know how likely that is to happen don't we.

 

[taxslave]

Something has to be done in order to restore public confidence more than anything else;
The sad fact is the gun lobby will be on the short end due to their views and their lack of
cooperation. When you are on the short end it is better to be proactive and blunt the
opponent charge. This is not the twentieth century people have moved on and the old
conservative regiment of America is changing due to immigration and minorities now
asserting their role in American Affairs.
Will the gun control laws have a real effect? Not likely except the assault weapons will be
gone before long and clip sizes will be regulated and that might mitigate some of the
problems but gun violence will go on everywhere until all weapons are banned around the
world. There will then be a problem with too many plowshares and lions lying down with
lambs. We all know how likely that is to happen don't we.

Why would the gun lobby cooperate when the stated goal of the opposition is to steal their private property?

 

[Highball]

Has anyone heard when Piers and Anderson have scheduled their nuptials?

 

[JamesBondo]

I can't understand why someone would consider me a lunatic for saying that the history of government treatment of their own unarmed citizens is a terrible history that has repeated itself too many times, and I certainly don't want to see it happen in 200 years from now.

Does that really make me a crackpot?

Can anyone explain to me what I'm missing here?

 

[#juan]

Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro - YouTube

This is one of the better debates that I've seen on Piers Morgan show. Too bad that Ben had to start with such a hurtful claim right at the beginning of the 14 minutes, however, I think they covered alot in a very short period, and I have to give both of them credit for clearly stating how they feel about things

Rather than used the gun control thread in the Canadian politics thread, Ive placed this in the US section because I think the debate has a very US point of view to it.

What do you guys think about this? Please share your observations and opinions.

Piers Morgan was hardly powned by Shapiro who's main strength was shouting down any reasonable
arguments with emotion and volume. Morgan is a debater respected all over the world. Shapiro started
off by saying that Morgan was dancing on the graves of dead children. Shapiro's arguement was mainly
emotional clap-trap.

 

[DaSleeper]

And Pier Morgan comes off as an arrogant condescending a_ss!

 

[Colpy]

Piers Morgan was hardly powned by Shapiro who's main strength was shouting down any reasonable
arguments with emotion and volume. Morgan is a debater respected all over the world. Shapiro started
off by saying that Morgan was dancing on the graves of dead children. Shapiro's arguement was mainly
emotional clap-trap.

You must be kidding.

I have watched Piers Morgan "debate" John Lott.....by not allowing Mr. Lott to get a word in edgewise while Morgan ridiculed him.

I watched him "debate" Larry Pratt....by calling him a "very stupid man"

I could not spend ten minutes across the table from him before I slapped his teeth straight down his throat.

He is an arrogant pissant.

oh, and I watched him "debate" the somewhat over the top Ted Nugent.....whom he actually treated with some respect I suspect that was because Piers feared Ted might apply the above-mentioned Colpy attidote to rudeness, ignorance and arrogance.

And Ben Shapiro made a damned fool of Morgan....

And the Bill of Rights of the constitution of the United States is NOT "emotional clap-trap". It is the supreme law of the land.

I can't understand why someone would consider me a lunatic for saying that the history of government treatment of their own unarmed citizens is a terrible history that has repeated itself too many times, and I certainly don't want to see it happen in 200 years from now.

Does that really make me a crackpot?

Can anyone explain to me what I'm missing here?

It makes you a student of history, and of the nature of power.

People don't like having their comfortable little world shaken by the facts.

 

[#juan]

You must be kidding.

I have watched Piers Morgan "debate" John Lott.....by not allowing Mr. Lott to get a word in edgewise while Morgan ridiculed him.

I watched him "debate" Larry Pratt....by calling him a "very stupid man"

I could not spend ten minutes across the table from him before I slapped his teeth straight down his throat.

He is an arrogant pissant.

oh, and I watched him "debate" the somewhat over the top Ted Nugent.....whom he actually treated with some respect I suspect that was because Piers feared Ted might apply the above-mentioned Colpy attidote to rudeness, ignorance and arrogance.

And Ben Shapiro made a damned fool of Morgan....

And the Bill of Rights of the constitution of the United States is NOT "emotional clap-trap". It is the supreme law of the land.




It makes you a student of history, and of the nature of power.

People don't like having their comfortable little world shaken by the facts.

Ted Nugent is hardly a debater. Loud voice and big, stupid hat

(quoting Colpy)
I could not spend ten minutes across the table from him before I slapped his teeth straight down his throat. (unquote)


Great debating skill Colpy. That will get big debating points.

 

[Colpy]

Ted Nugent is hardly a debater. Loud voice and big, stupid hat

(quoting Colpy)
I could not spend ten minutes across the table from him before I slapped his teeth straight down his throat. (unquote)


Great debating skill Colpy. That will get big debating points.

Correct on all points.

 

[JamesBondo]

I don't think Ted wants to be a big debater. I think he likes to be a shock rocker and a shock talker. When he says something, he is looking for ****s, giggles, and groans. Personally, I think he does what he does very well.

I haven't seen Piers debate Lott.

I seen the second visit of Larry Pratt, and I would give the win to Larry.

I will note that Piers seemed like he was just about in tears at the end of debate with Newt. Newt owned him.

I would score Ted and Piers at a tie. Piers tends not to get too agressive with Ted. It is as if he thinks no one is listening to Ted. I think Ted makes some good point. Others show that Ted does not know his statistics.

Larry whats his name was a sensationalist ******* that does a very poor two bit wrestling bit. Piers didn't even need to open his mouth to win that one. Larry's infowars website seems just as trashy.

I liked the Navy Seal/movie consult guy. I think he handled himself very well. And, Piers was unable to get the upper hand with his debate.

I wonder wtf Anthony Robbins was doing on Piers. He didn't seem to come out for or against gun control, he more or less talked about the need for everyone to get along.

 

[JamesBondo]

I can't understand why someone would consider me a lunatic for saying that the history of government treatment of their own unarmed citizens is a terrible history that has repeated itself too many times, and I certainly don't want to see it happen in 200 years from now.

Does that really make me a crackpot?

Can anyone explain to me what I'm missing here?

bump!

anyone that doesn't agree with me want to take a stab at this one?

 

[Colpy]

bump!

anyone that doesn't agree with me want to take a stab at this one?

Don't hold your breath.........beyond huffery and puffery and insult, they got nothin'.

If ya can't beat 'em with the facts, treat 'em with scorn is the anti-gunners credo.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

bump!

anyone that doesn't agree with me want to take a stab at this one?

Neither you nor I will see that, or anything else for that matter, in 200 years, (unless you're immortal :lol. Problem is, we'll probably see it much sooner. The US has major problems, and it ain't guns. That is the symptom; banning certain, or all guns for that matter, to try to fix the problems is like taking away cigarettes from a coal miner so he'll stop coughing up that black goo.

The problems in the States date back to their formation of a Republic, because they messed that up in short order and never really formed a functional Republic. Today's rot still starts at the top; they are over governed, (in all but the places they should be), over lawyered, over litigious, over protectionist, (statist). Their legal immigration of talented and motivated folks has slowed to a crawl because it is no longer a most desired destination. As Conrad Black put it, "...The United States' own institutions have largely calcified".

Most judges and legislators are former prosecutors, the justice system in the US "is agigantic legal cartel". At over a million, the US has half of all the lawyers in the world, "where legal bills consume over $1 trillion a year". 47 million Americans have criminal records. Their so called justice system is so terribly corrupt, procecutors get away with shenanigans that would not only get a Canadian or British Crown Counsel disbarred, they would also serve custodial sentences.

Anyone who thinks I'm just fixated on the criminal justice system because I don't like it has to realize that it is the main thing that, in an otherwise free country, can unjustly take away all freedom, legally. It is a leviathan we mere mortals are ill equipped to fight. It isn't the only enemy of the state, but a major one, and taking away peoples' guns isn't going to fix that, and will probablhy only exacerbate the disconnect between the electorate and their overlords even further, along with the misdirected angst and violence we've come to see all too often.

It's getting late, that's my rant, for now.

 

[EagleSmack]

Why aren't they going after the criminal element and instead are choosing to go after the NRA and people who follow the laws?

 

[taxslave]

Why aren't they going after the criminal element and instead are choosing to go after the NRA and people who follow the laws?

Too dangerous.

 

[Highball]

I wonder when CNN will realize that with Piers they have a real loser? If BS were Brass he'd own an full Symphonic Orchestra. Play on Piers.

 

[EagleSmack]

"How dare you....... how dare you."

What a limp wristed chump.