Larry Pratt v Piers Morgan (Round 2)

lukep said:
It all comes down to this: Our guns would ensure the Military has a say.

As long as we have guns, even just handguns with 5 bullets in the clip, we'll fight when the next emperor palpatine becomes the POTUS and does away with congress and the ballot box. (If not sooner.)

At this point, the US military, his enforcers, will be told to go and kill their friends and families, who are resisting his will. As brainwashed as they are, they will still face a serious moral dillemma... And the military would be split if not fully siding with us.

If we didn't have the guns though, we couldn't fight at all, and the military wouldn't be needed to go out and stop us.
Click to expand...

The trouble is it will happen slowly. You send the men to different distracts to enforce control. When you "arrest" men 1 at a time, people will consider the victim as an extremists or a nut job. It will be no different than it was when neighbors, and brothers turned people in as "communists" 1 person at a time.
 


BenPOF said:
@wickedjoe, didn't the Vietnamese "win" because the American public demanded the war to end? So I wouldn't consider this example a good one.
Click to expand...
Holding off Western forces for about 30 years is no trivial task. This includes France who was there for 11 yrs before us and who we supported financially before we went in there ourselves. According to wikipedia, it was fought for 11 years against France between 1946-1957 and 18 years against the U.S. between 1957-1975. Exact dates are sketchy.

Also, the US public is part of the whole equation of beating the US in general. You can't subtract it from the US and say 'well if it weren't for the US public the military would have won'. The US public only retracts support for war if the war personally effects them.. the war did end up effecting them so in a way the Vietnamese did in fact win that war against the US military and the US people in every measurable way. They held out against our military for 18 yrs and demoralized our civilians until we quit.

BenPOF said:
hallucinogenics in the water supply or something else that gov't is capable of in mass scale.

My point is, I think Americans should be able to own guns but the fear of gov't turning on you is irrational if you think about how futile the weapons you're allowed to own are.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but disagree with it. All weapons can help support a resistance. But the bigger point is that to some of us it's better to die free than live as a slave. No, it doesnt make complete sense rationally if your only goal is to live as long as possible no matter what the conditions are.
 
WickedJoe said:
Holding off Western forces for about 30 years is no trivial task. This includes France who was there for 11 yrs before us and who we supported financially before we went in there ourselves. According to wikipedia, it was fought for 11 years against France between 1946-1957 and 18 years against the U.S. between 1957-1975. Exact dates are sketchy.

Also, the US public is part of the whole equation of beating the US in general. You can't subtract it from the US and say 'well if it weren't for the US public the military would have won'. The US public only retracts support for war if the war personally effects them.. the war did end up effecting them so in a way the Vietnamese did in fact win that war against the US military and the US people in every measurable way. They held out against our military for 18 yrs and demoralized our civilians until we quit.
Click to expand...

Right but this isn't a good example to use on the bad weapons vs. good weapons topic though, in this particular case, superior tactics and willingness to endure won out which doesn't quite equate to inferior weaponry winning.

I'm sure there are examples of inferior weaponry winning but I'm pretty sure there's more of superior weaponry winning. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on superior.


WickedJoe said:
I understand your point but disagree with it. All weapons can help support a resistance. But the bigger point is that to some of us it's better to die free than live as a slave. No, it doesnt make complete sense rationally if your only goal is to live as long as possible no matter what the conditions are.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the "go down fighting" mentality comes w/ the cost of innocent civilian lives. Plus, IF that fight goes down one day, I don't think the pistols/sub-auto's would win so it's almost in vain. But like you said, doesn't make complete sense rationally.
 
BenPOF said:
I'm sure there are examples of inferior weaponry winning but I'm pretty sure there's more of superior weaponry winning. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on superior.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time, a bunch of farmers got together and defeated the most powerful nation on earth.

When they were finished with that, they drafted some documents outlining their ideas about government, and how best to ensure liberty for future generations.

One of these documents came to be known as "the bill of rights".

The 2nd article of the "bill of rights" directly addresses the need for the common man to preserve his ability to defend against tyranny by securing his right to bear arms.

I've never defended myself against tyranny, but these guys did, and one of the first fucking things they did when they were done with that was to sit down and draft a document preserving the rights of their descendants to do the same, should the need ever arise.


Here's a wiki article about these guys, it's totally crazy.



dpjsE.png
 
BenPOF said:
2. If citizens are limited to pistols and semi's... aren't you already heavily outgunned should the gov't turn on you?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how accurate this video is, but it illustrates how precious the relationship between the people and government is. In other words, if the government fucks up bad enough for the 'people' to turn against them - they don't stand a chance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs]TheTinyDot - YouTube[/ame]
 
Example #1 Ishlawanda

British regular force of regulars armed with the best rifles of the time versus Zulu Impi armed with clubs and spears.

1.jpg


Example #2 - The Winter War
Approx 350,000 Finnish with no tanks, no aircraft (Any noted were ones that were captured & reused against the Russians) against a force of nearly a million that expanded to over two million. The result was that Russia lost anywhere from 200k to 1 million depending on who you ask with a comparable Finnish loss of 70k.

2.jpg



Also , the Russian revolution, Cuban revolution, The Rhodesian Brush war, and others were wars against huge odds and the smaller, *weaker* force won.
 
eVandals said:
He got owned again tonight
Click to expand...

Is this like a nightly thing he does now? He's not stupid, he made a tweet bragging about being the most watched show on CNN this week. It's like ESPN with Skip Bayless and the like. The execs have told the producers they want more "controversy" and less analysis.

A lot of people complained about Larry King, but I always liked him because of his old fashioned style.




BenPOF said:
2. If citizens are limited to pistols and semi's... aren't you already heavily outgunned should the gov't turn on you?
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZC1ZQDOtyM]Guerrilla warfare tactics - YouTube[/ame]

didn't the Vietnamese "win" because the American public demanded the war to end?
Click to expand...

Time. A key factor in guerrilla strategy is a drawn-out, protracted conflict that wears down the will of the opposing counter-insurgent forces. Democracies are especially vulnerable to the factor of time. The counter-insurgent force must allow enough time to get the job done. Impatient demands for victory centered around short-term electoral cycles play into the hands of the guerrillas, though it is equally important to recognize when a cause is lost and the guerrillas have won.

Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm sure there are examples of inferior weaponry winning but I'm pretty sure there's more of superior weaponry winning.
Click to expand...

Of course, but most wars have been between different countries and were fought when the concern for civilian life wasn't like it is now. In theory, the US government would care more about their own civilians than those in Afghanistan. Russia was there for ten years and now the US has been there over ten. If the US wanted, they could bomb the hell out the place and "win" easily.


The relationship between locals and guerrilla troops is the most important point in Mao’s entire essay, and indeed the most important thing you need to know about guerrilla warfare, occupations, terrorism and insurgency. If the movement has the support of the population, they cannot be destroyed. Period. No matter how many you manage to kill, there will always be more. Now support doesn’t mean answering affirmatively to “do you prefer the guerrilla movement” in a poll, it means practical support: are locals willing to feed guerrrillas, hide them, and act as their ears and eyes? The general estimate is that if a guerrilla movement has between 10% to 20% of the population of an area behind it, until you can break that support of the population for the guerrillas, any victories over them will be purely temporary.

Guerrilla Warfare: The Way of the Weak | Ian Welsh
 
cassius said:
Wow, Ben Shapiro killed it. KILLED it.
Click to expand...

I wish I could think and talk that fast, on my feet, Jesus Christ.

I have probably watched that video 3 or 4 times now. I can't wrap my head around it. I would love to see him in some other debates, but there is not much available of him on the internet. I think he is pretty new.
 
babylonian said:
Thank you for this video. Shapiro explained it for me.

Aslo, who have Piers fucked to get this gig?
Click to expand...

The fact that they have a British dude in there debating US issues, attacking US citizens over our US liberties, which he knows nothing of, infuriates me. I never really knew much about him, but had seen him on America's Got Talent a few times. I had heard he was taking over Larry King's job and had heard he wasn't doing well with poor ratings.. but now after watching him for the first time, and seeing all of this I would prefer he leave the country. It's sickening.

It would be different if he could concede points and stay philosophically on track with his arguments, but he doesn't, and it's all political bullshit. And he shouldn't be allowed to have the center stage with this, especially not even being a citizen.
 
infoslob said:
I don't doubt you live in fear of being mugged.



Rule, Britannia!
Click to expand...

Where did you get this picture? It's the most disgusting thing I've seen in a while. I feel bad for these kids who would rather humiliate themselves and give up all dignity than fight back against these sociopaths. Imagine what that does to someone's psyche.

Btw, how did Breitbart get all these people? Remember when Pollak destroyed Soledad? Another Breitbart alum annihilating a CNN propagandist.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkU-VzL-3Vk"]Soledad O'Brien v. Joel Pollak - YouTube[/ame]

Pollak and Shapiro, both Harvard grads representing the truth. Long live Breitbart.
 
scottspfd82 said:
I have a problem with this in general, because IMHO even the most advanced understanding of psychology is pseudo-science.

I'm well aware that there are REAL mental health issues, no doubt.

And I agree that psychotic/violent criminals shouldn't have weapons.

But then there's the problem of "who decides who's crazy?"

Everyone's "crazy" at some point. A relative dies, yeah I get depressed. Sometimes I get nervous or stressed out. Sometimes I have problems focusing.

Everyone does.

That's my problem with using mental health to regulate, any doc can diagnose anyone as "crazy".

The reality is, no matter what happens with the laws, the people who want to use guns for crime/violence will do so, despite the law.

Any further restrictions simply impose on the personal liberty of individuals.
Click to expand...

You do realize you are

1. Spouting absolute nonsense
2. Talking to a psychologist?

LOL at this ->
IMHO even the most advanced understanding of psychology is pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

And NONE of these will ever be classified as mental illness
Everyone's "crazy" at some point. A relative dies, yeah I get depressed. Sometimes I get nervous or stressed out. Sometimes I have problems focusing.
Click to expand...

When you grieve because a relative died, you are not depressed.

Mental illnesses are classified according to the DSM-IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

You can read up on the exact qualifications for any mental illness there.
This thing is also no bible, as in - it is updated, amended and disputed among scientists.

The DSM V is scheduled for March 2013, btw.

::emp::
 
Last edited:
I wasn't planning on raining on anyone's parade, but might as well now that he has been outed as a member of Team Hellblazer. :)


Ben Shapiro is a big supporter of the Patriot Act and thinks it should be strengthened in terms of giving the government more wiretapping powers and such.

Ben Shapiro has suggested that Americans who oppose US wars should be prosecuted.

Ben Shapiro says that the 80% of American Jews who voted for Obama are not real Jews. (Something tells me he wouldn't like it if Jesse Jackson said that black Romney voters were no longer black.)

Ben Shapiro apparently believes that butt sex should be illegal and thinks its a "silly view" that people have a right to do things that don't harm others.


"...they believe that policing pornography violates fundamental rights. This has become the dominant view in our society: As long as what I do doesn't harm you personally, I have a right to do it. It's a silly view and a view rejected by law enforcement policies all over the country. Were we to truly recognize such a philosophy, we would have to legalize prostitution, drugs and suicide..."

The case for policing pornography - Ben Shapiro - Page 2
 
Moxie said:
I wasn't planning on raining on anyone's parade, but might as well now that he has been outed as a member of Team Hellblazer. :)


Ben Shapiro is a big supporter of the Patriot Act and thinks it should be strengthened in terms of giving the government more wiretapping powers and such.

Ben Shapiro has suggested that Americans who oppose US wars should be prosecuted.

Ben Shapiro says that the 80% of American Jews who voted for Obama are not real Jews. (Something tells me he wouldn't like it if Jesse Jackson said that black Romney voters were no longer black.)

Ben Shapiro apparently believes that butt sex should be illegal and thinks its a "silly view" that people have a right to do things that don't harm others.


"...they believe that policing pornography violates fundamental rights. This has become the dominant view in our society: As long as what I do doesn't harm you personally, I have a right to do it. It's a silly view and a view rejected by law enforcement policies all over the country. Were we to truly recognize such a philosophy, we would have to legalize prostitution, drugs and suicide..."

The case for policing pornography - Ben Shapiro - Page 2
Click to expand...

It's funny, because I really liked the way he wouldn't let Piers get away with his regular bullshit. Shapiro seemed really smart, and fierce, and for a minute I was excited...that minute lasted until I went to Amazon and read some parts of his books. Disappointed severely.
 
el toddler said:
I wish I could think and talk that fast, on my feet, Jesus Christ.

I have probably watched that video 3 or 4 times now. I can't wrap my head around it. I would love to see him in some other debates, but there is not much available of him on the internet. I think he is pretty new.
Click to expand...

It's not about being able to think on your feet, it's about knowing your position thoroughly. If you have come to a position after careful analysis rather than taking a position and trying to justify it, you have already argued and debunked counterpoints internally. He argued his points clearly and concisely, however I wish he would have refrained from bullying, accusing Morgan of standing on the graves of dead children, as he hypocritically accused Piers of such. Regardless of anyone's feelings, such accusations are unnecessary and dampen the credibility of his argument. After watching network news for years with varying levels of interest (trading makes up most of my income so it is a necessary evil) I have come to the conclusion that nobody of particularly impressive intelligence is allowed on these shows unless they are trying to sell a book based on extreme bias.
 
thunderlips said:
Ok. Joking and messing around aside, why do we have to live in a Country where if you disagree about anything (in this case guns) then you're automatically wrong and an extremist? I'm talking to both Maniac Gun Owners and Hippie Commies who dont have guns.

I personally do not own a gun nor do i ever plan on it, but if someone wants to, then fine. Go through the proper channels, and buy one. You really need an assault rifle to protect your penthouse apartment (mother's basement) ? Cool, but you should have to pay for it.

Samesies for abortions, drugs, etc.

/thread
Click to expand...

It's all about winning elections. They use these kinds of issues to push people away from the center, and have been doing it as long as we have been voting.

At the Federal level, if you take the government out of these issues, politicians would be out of a job, so they try to stay away from the question of whether or not a particular issue is the responsibility of the government to address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom