Ben Shapiro Kicks Pear Morgans But just now

[Dan 177]

Shapiro used the argument that I have been using with anti friends. How handguns are involved in 14K murders per year, and ALL rifles including so-called "assault rifles" are involved in 400-500. How it would make more sense to go for a ban on HG's, and why aren't they doing that now? They aren't because they know it would fail.

 

I then get into how HG's are just as dangerous to defenseless targets as SA rilfes are, and how the "AR" has been used lately by these crazy people due to media sensationalism. How the gun ban crowd is going after EBR type guns because they look scary, and to apathetic people or non-gun knowledgeable people it is easy to form a cloud of misinformation around them due to how they look. It is part of a larger plan to slowly whittle away at the rights of all Americans over a long period of time. Today it is EBR's, tomorrow it will be HG's, then shotguns, etc etc....

[Handyman 5,682]

I'm with you in a tinfoil hat.

 

Our government is definately probing around to see what they can get away with. First example is Obamacare and forcing people to pay for things they find morally objectionable.

 

Our Founding Fathers would have been shooting already.

[Zeke 5,504]

Semi automatic rifle.

 

An assault weapon is used by the military.....

 

Ffs!

[voyager9 3,441]

Semi automatic rifle.

 

An assault weapon is used by the military.....

 

Ffs!

 

Quick clarification needed. I thought it was the other way around.

An Assault Rifle is used by the military (defined loosely as allowing select fire).

An Assault Weapon is a media/political term for Scary Black Rifles.

[ruger9 0]

People should know that the "esteemed" Mr Morgan was fired from his position as Editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper in the UK for publishing photographs fabricated to show UK troops abusing detainees in Iraq. Hw is also suspected of unauthorised phone tapping.

 

Go CNN!!!

 

http://www.infowars....ent-journalism/

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/3716151.stm

 

Wow... didn't think it was possible that he could be a bigger scumbag than previously thought.

[bulpup 98]

 

Quick clarification needed. I thought it was the other way around.

An Assault Rifle is used by the military (defined loosely as allowing select fire).

An Assault Weapon is a media/political term for Scary Black Rifles.

 

 

That's how I see it. However the term assault weapon may have been coined so that they could include things like Uzi's in the ban.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Soju 153]

As I said before. He didn't argue that (the term 'assault weapon') because it would be detrimental to his overall point. It wasn't worth it. He picked his battle.

 

And no tin foil hat required. Not a single one of the first ten amendments is beneficial for those in the federal government. None of them are were written with the governments interest in mind. All of them were written for the peoples best interest. A government eroding our rights is not a new concept. It is actually the oldest idea and type of governing there is. That is really what makes the US Constitution so interesting. It is also the reason the government either doesn't, or only selectively follows it.

[quikz 34]

That 'kid' did not 'win' in that debate if you asked me. Not 'lose' either, but Ole POS Morgan is one self centered UK tabloid tactic FCUK.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I know many of you may disagree... but when "they" say "assault weapon" I don't even correct them because I find the point totally moot... they are using that terminology to insight an emotional response... giving one just takes away from the more important points, and wastes time... I had a very liberal friend on facebook use that terminology on several occasions during a discussion and I did nothing to correct it.. instead I just focused on the FACTS... and the single most important fact is this...

 

"mass shootings" represent a very small fraction of "violent crime"... and of that very small sampling only another small portion are committed with rifles at all... and of that small group an even smaller amount would be considered "assault weapons".. the majority of the violent gun crime is handguns... so why are you focused on "assault rifles"

 

there is NO MORE important point than that.. that SINGLE point illustrates it is an agenda.. and not an actual response to the problem..

[TK421 2]

This is the speech I give to some of my pathetically naive friends about the media bias and liberal diatribe regarding “Assault Weapons”.

 

An "assault rifle" is a select-fire rifle (selectable fire options between semi-automatic and burst and/or full automatic rates of fire) that fires an intermediate rifle cartridge and is fed via a detachable magazine. The Nazis developed the first true assault rifle in 1944 called the MP44/StG 44, also known as the Sturmgewehr 44 translated from German to be storm (assault) rifle of 1944. All current, modern infantry combat weapons can be traced back to this weapon's design in one form or another. These weapons are classified as machine guns which have been severely restricted since the 1934 National Firearms Act was signed into law by FDR (note this was a full 10 years before they were even designed!). In 1986 an amendment to the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act called the Hughes Amendment banned any additional civilian transferable machine guns from being registered in the NFA database after May 19, 1986.

 

The intermediate rifle cartridges designed for these weapons were a result of some battlefield lessons.

 

1) The average high powered rifle cartridges (.30-06 US, .303 UK and 8mm GER) on the battlefield up until that point were capable hitting a target as far as 1,100 yards away.

2) The average large caliber infantry rifle on the battlefield of the period was long (40+ inches), heavy (8+ lbs) and was seldomly used to engage the enemy at the maximum ranges for which its cartridges were designed to be effective.

3) Lighter and cheaper sub-machine guns that fired pistol caliber cartridges such as the US Thompson, the British STEN and the German MP40 were perfect for laying down a tremendous amount of firepower at close ranges but were incapable of accurately or effectively engaging targets much beyond 100-150 yards.

4) The average battlefield engagement was between 160- 330 yards and rarely ever exceeded 550 yards.

 

The summation of these observations was that a smaller, lighter weapon firing a smaller, lighter, lower powered cartridge capable of effectively hitting a target at 600 yards at a higher cyclic rate when needed was what was required. The reduction in weight could also translate into the ability of the average infantry soldier to be able to carry a substantially increased number of rounds of ammunition.

 

Both the Germans and the Americans came to similar conclusions however they found two uniquely different solutions to the problem. Where the Americans developed the M1 Carbine which fired what was effectively a larger pistol cartridge (.30 carbine), the Germans decided to develop what was effectively a shortened 8mm rifle cartridge (7.92×33mm Kurz). History has shown it was the Germans that got it right.

 

The deceitfully bastardized term “assault weapon” was coined in 1988 by the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center Josh Sugarmann in blatant attempt to blur the difference between true assault rifles and the civilian legal semi-automatic look-a-likes. No true universally clear definition of an assault weapon exists as many different legislative bodies have defined and redefined them differently over the years leaving little doubt that the term is nothing more than a branding of a certain class of weapons by some people that find them scary because of their military appearance. Assault weapons are not simply rifles or carbines or shotguns or pistols but weapons identified with different sets of cosmetic characteristics within those various types of weapons.

 

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

 

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

TK421, you certainly make some good points. I find it incredibly frustrating when people in the media and others toss around the term "assault weapons" because it gets an emotional response, even though most of them have no idea what it means. But at what point during your diatribe do your non-gun owning friends' eyes glaze over, as you watch them mentally drift away?

[bulpup 98]

I know many of you may disagree... but when "they" say "assault weapon" I don't even correct them because I find the point totally moot... they are using that terminology to insight an emotional response... giving one just takes away from the more important points, and wastes time... I had a very liberal friend on facebook use that terminology on several occasions during a discussion and I did nothing to correct it.. instead I just focused on the FACTS... and the single most important fact is this...

 

"mass shootings" represent a very small fraction of "violent crime"... and of that very small sampling only another small portion are committed with rifles at all... and of that small group an even smaller amount would be considered "assault weapons".. the majority of the violent gun crime is handguns... so why are you focused on "assault rifles"

 

there is NO MORE important point than that.. that SINGLE point illustrates it is an agenda.. and not an actual response to the problem..

 

One of my anti gun friends said it best. "Aren't all weapons assault weapons?"

 

He asked me because he was genuinely confused. I use that line now for just the same reasons you outline above. Not much more need to add to it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GlassFanta 0]

What's sad is how many people watching heard Shapiro talk about democracies going tyranical in the worlds history and the people thinking "whatever, that's total bs" More useful history lessons in schools would be a good step forward...

 

I think the problem with gun rights advocates using the Nazi example is that it is largely bs.

 

Adolf Hitler and his policies were very, very popular amongst the German people. Devastated by WW1 and the banks, the economy was in the toilet and the Jews, largely seen as bankers, were a very easy and very popular target. The whole "Hitler was the boogey man who forcibly took control of Germany" is the real twisting of history. People wanted Hitler.

 

There were also permit systems in Germany, and a way for citizens who wished to own a gun to obtain a permit. The law only kept guns from "bad people". You know, just like you see gun owners in the USA always advocate gun ownership, except for "criminals and gang bangers," of course!

 

So, you're right, more history lessons would be a good thing.

[TK421 2]

TK421, you certainly make some good points. I find it incredibly frustrating when people in the media and others toss around the term "assault weapons" because it gets an emotional response, even though most of them have no idea what it means. But at what point during your diatribe do your non-gun owning friends' eyes glaze over, as you watch them mentally drift away?

 

I'm not one to let it go so usually it ends when they start liberal reasoning 101 and start with the "if it saves the life of just one child..." BS to which I inevitably start with the fatality numbers and reasoning to ban things like cars, pools, baseball bats, etc. Then we start on global warming. LOL

[jackandjill 683]

I have seen Mr. Morgan (and others like him) bring up issue of Govt Tyranny. They lead the person into answering if the arms (and 2nd amendment) was for Tyranny and if 2nd amendment advocates are concerned about our own Govt turning against us.

 

I think that's not an innocent question. They are hoping that the answer is going to sound like a 2nd amendment advocate is a nut-job for imagining our own elected Govt turning tyranny.

 

But I have not see any one bring up Due Process or 5th amendment as as response to this ridicule. I see that the Due Process is another tool in the chest of Individual's self defense against getting wrongly accused and hanged (a form of tyranny).

 

If the argument is NOT to suspect our elected Govt, then we wouldn't need Due Process, correct ? If our very own, elected Prosecutor charges someone with something, then it must be right and the individual must be punished without Due Process. Why the anti-2nd amendment crowd wants Due Process, and in turn do not trust their Govt ?

 

I have not seen this counter argument being highlighted by Pro 2A individuals in debate. Am I missing something here ?

[Spartiati 63]

I have seen Mr. Morgan (and others like him) bring up issue of Govt Tyranny. They lead the person into answering if the arms (and 2nd amendment) was for Tyranny and if 2nd amendment advocates are concerned about our own Govt turning against us.

 

I think that's not an innocent question. They are hoping that the answer is going to sound like a 2nd amendment advocate is a nut-job for imagining our own elected Govt turning tyranny.

 

But I have not see any one bring up Due Process or 5th amendment as as response to this ridicule. I see that the Due Process is another tool in the chest of Individual's self defense against getting wrongly accused and hanged (a form of tyranny).

 

If the argument is NOT to suspect our elected Govt, then we wouldn't need Due Process, correct ? If our very own, elected Prosecutor charges someone with something, then it must be right and the individual must be punished without Due Process. Why the anti-2nd amendment crowd wants Due Process, and in turn do not trust their Govt ?

 

I have not seen this counter argument being highlighted by Pro 2A individuals in debate. Am I missing something here ?

 

I feel it is, as Morgan would say, a "facile" argument to say pro-gun rights people are nuts for thinking the US government could become tyrannical. This is something that has happened a number of times in the 20th century in industrialized countries as well as third would countries.

 

I argue these things don't always start out with the intent of becoming tyrannical. They start out with the promotion of safety. Then once disarmed, down the road at some point, there is a triggering event.

[jackandjill 683]

I feel it is, as Morgan would say, a "facile" argument to say pro-gun rights people are nuts for thinking the US government could become tyrannical. This is something that has happened a number of times in the 20th century in industrialized countries as well as third would countries.

 

I argue these things don't always start out with the intent of becoming tyrannical. They start out with the promotion of safety. Then once disarmed, down the road at some point, there is a triggering event.

Right, but I asking why none of the pro-2A brings up Due Process at that point. If its nuts to assume Govt can become tyrannical, that means sane person (supposedly the anti-2A) assumption is that Govt can never become tyrannical. Conversely we dont need Due Process if we were to trust the Govt.

 

So my question is, why none of Pro-2A used this counter argument before (not that I have seen) ?