Jan 11 - Piers Morgan gets Owned on CNN from Harvard Law student

im !!ing dead.

[pic] I wouldnt say dude owned him...and Piers had dude stumbling and backtracking a whole lot in this interview

where? Yea because Piers kept interrupting him every 5 seconds.

He completely owned Piers. Piers kept resorting to same dumb[..] tactics/questions throughout the interview. He was dumbfounded when the guy brought up why the 2nd amendment even exists, then shrugged it off as unthinkable, as if governments have never turned tyrannical in the past.

When he asked him about defining "good" and "bad" people...then he broke it down like....

was the mom a good person...dude was like yes...then he said so when did she become a bad person...and dude was like ummm...ummm...well...ummm...

its all senseless bull!! tho...people talkin cryin about !! but not doing anything..to me if you aint about fixing problems then you aint about !!...

all people wanna do now is point the finger and blame people...!! sux to me [pic]

damn piers is annoying....my first stance on all of this was that i WISH they could ban guns but i knew it would be impossible because no matter what...if people want to own guns..they'll get them legally or illegally...

but after hearing more arguments on people who approve of gun ownership, even[..]ault rifle ownership, im starting to agree and become more open minded about it....i def agree with shapiro's argument of why[..]ault rifles should only be in the right hands of citizens...the whole reason for the constitution was to affirm a valid democracy totally different from the one in britain...

we essentially took away the freedom of speech in the first amendment, looks like the second amendment could be going soon....eventually history could just repeat itself....its crazy....so yeah im starting to come around on the arguments of why people would want the guns...but question is..how do you actually enforce people keeping their guns locked up and safe?

Why is it a big deal tho.. Wouldn't u rather have a show where the host can be wrong and its shown and not cut around to benefit the host and show...

Morgan refuses to acknowledge his own inconsistencies and tries to talk over the person or quickly change the subject, he's done this in every debate I've seen on gun control. We finally get someone in Ben Shapiro who brings rational debate and facts to the table, without going off the wall screaming and yeling his points (cough cough).



!! Piers Morgan and everybody that love em.

Even though I side with Piers on most of the points of this particular debate, He's really bad at debating on his feet.

He'll have the right questions and points ready from his prior research as well as the follow-up questions for the typical rebuttal.

but when it strays from what's expected he kinda has trouble thinking quickly on his feet on certain topics.

There were plenty of times where I could think of good rebuttals to Shapiro's answers but Piers wasn't effectively able to.

I think the only part where this kid disagreed with Piers was that he didn't want Semi-automatic guns banned because of a tyrannical government.

Though there's so much historical knowledge out there that would show that arming citizens with semi-automatics would really do nothing in a tyranny against the U.S. government in 2012. When you look at it from the larger scope, it really is a ridiculous justification.

It's better off to try the " Well what if multiple armed burglars break into my house" excuse.

Not sure where he got "owned". Neither side really had that strong of an argument. Both looked weak.

Ben Shapiro made a perfectly good argument. Maybe you should watch it again.[pic]

oh you mean Ben Shaprio? one of biggov douche bag writers? [pic] this guy believes we should have more gov wire tapping w/o warrants, a higher military budget and tighter immigration standards but believes no other gun laws should be permitted [pic] prob because he didnt get laid until he was married.

not really, if you think about it because a total gun ban is not that far behind a ban on[..]ault weapons. ben made an extremely valid point in saying that most crimes come from handguns. if they start with those[..]ault weapons then handguns can't be too far behind. citizens armed period would posed a problem to a government so, like i said, it would start with the bigger guns then they would go to the smaller ones.

[pic][pic]

he really did. piers is a terrible debater. he can't really say !! to this dude. this dude was calm, cool, educated, patient, he listened, didn't raise his voice, spoke very intelligently and piers neglected to address some of dudes questions. he's very biased and ignorant if you ask me and then resorts to name calling on some jhs !!. dude definitely owned him.

Didn't they ban[..]ault weapons during the Clinton Administration ??

Where was the hand gun ban after that ??

You mean the[..]ault weapons ban that included firearms accounting for less than 2% of violent crime? The ban the National Institute of Justice found hadn't reduced gun crime or crime involving "high capacity" magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were "likely to be a small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement"? Is that the same ban people are shooting for now? Smh

Yet we talk about how every time something like this happens, we do nothing and it blows over.

Ugh, his only argument was "most gun violence is perpetuated with hand guns". Then, he went on to name calling and being an !!.

There was no need to offer him the constitution or throw out the non-sense about the "left".

He kept trying to use some history repeats itself/democracies have turned into dictatorships in the past bull!! excuse. It is bull!! because he never accounted in the socio-economical factors of places such as Nazi Germany. He never considered the devastating economy, the German anger of the Versailles Treaty and the fact that Hitler was voted into power. By the time he was in charge, an[..]ault rifle would not have changed much of anything.

Instead, for some odd reason, he believes that an[..]ault rifle would have eliminated men like Hitler.

This guy seems to be one of those who would argue that violence would occur if we took away handguns. One of those, "if he wanted to k!ll people with a hammer he would have". Which doesn't make sense to me because someone with a hammer can be tackled. Someone with an[..]ault rifle, cannot.

His "good person/responsible person vs bad person/irresponsible person" was !!ing retarded. If my mom owned a gun and locked it up, I am sure I would know the code. He also never figured out how we would know if people were following his "rules" (of which he never laid any out).

------------------------------------------------------------

On the flip side, Piers Morgan really did not have much of an argument either. He never addressed the handgun violence that this guy kept bringing up.

He also never tried to call him out when he said that we would eventually need[..]ault rifles for protection against the government.

He never mentioned answered his "well he had handguns on him too" question and never discussed how the lack of guns in England is handled.

His only argument seemed to be we have to ban[..]ault rifles because these massacres happened with those types of guns and that would stop them from happening. Seemed shallow.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Again, neither side was really that strong but I would guess that someone was for banning guns or against banning guns would believe one side "won" and the other "lost". Instead, neither side was really that impressive.

Piers won, !! the haters [pic]

yes, and columbine still happened


What does that tell you?

that they need a real ban & make them illegal to even own

not some "you just can't buy any made after this date " bullshyt

all of our gun control laws are seriously flawed and/or have loopholes out the[..] , then people wonder why they never work.

but like I said before, everyone clings to the second amendment like it was written by god himself so shyt just gets harder and harder as time passes.

either way if that ban actually did stop more massacres from happening with less easier access then we wouldn't really know would we ??

or there might've been a case somewhere of someone who couldn't get their hands on an[..]ault weapon during that ban so they went out and k!lled 20 people with a butter knife, I mean that's what the pro gun advocates want us to think anyway right ??

dude it is absolutely impossible to ban semi autos and get them off the street. There are MILLIONS circulating. So even then a ban would be totally pointless. If you want to stop mass murks then you NEED to actually combat the problem instead of out right banning[..]ault rifles. Its such a dumb idea.

1. find a way to put guns in the hands of good people and not in the hands of criminals. Why are you demonizing a group of individuals who obey the law? Not everyone goes out and k!lls innocent people in mass murks. Your chances of dieing in a "mass murk" by a semi automatic[..]ault weapon is slim to none. It aint going to happen. Why are you against well trained individuals with these weapons? Many are former law enforcement and military individuals.
2. There needs to be tougher laws and tougher action against people who do not keep their guns secured or locked up. This is what happened in the Adam Lanza shooting. His mother was irresponsible and he got a hold of the gun. There needs to be tougher penalties on individuals and the mentally ill. I am for a ban on individuals who do not pass a background check.
3. Once again the majority of gun crime rate in the united states is committed with hand guns. Semi autos are like 1 percent of that. That is a fact. Why are they or you not going after hand guns? Instead you are going after semi autos and wasting your time with it. This just proves that CNN and other media outlets have an Agenda to rid people of their guns slowly but surely and they are starting from the top. Lets not forget that Adam Lanza was carrying 2 pistols with him. Once again, why are they ignoring pistols if they really care about the "crime rate" in America when it comes to guns..
4. Why is no one in congress talking about the mental health and the drugs these kids were put on when they went haywire? Nobody is going after them. Nobody is talking about them. Instead they are talking about the tools used. These kinds of shootings could of easily been prevented if these kids were not on !!ing meds that turn you into a complete zombie. Just read up on Prozac and other drugs and all the !! it does to you. There are plenty of people telling their story how these drugs have destroyed there life and made them suicidal. These kids that ALWAYS shoot up the shools are LOONEY TOON. They have many tapes and !! proving it. If there were tougher background checks on purchasing these weapons, this kind of thing could of been prevented easily! All mass shootings could of easily been prevented if the therapist these kids were seeing would of spoken up. They all had therapist and they REFUSED to report any danger to the police or mental health officials. Their friends REFUSED to report to the school about the threats they made. A background check could EASILY help prevent these things. A record of their past with drugs, criminal records could easily determine if the individual should own a firearm.
4. If you know anything about banning things, you would know that the Gov tried to do away with Alcohol and im sure you already know how that turned out.
5. With millions of[..]ault rifles in circulation and only 1 percent of that attributing to the crime rate it does it make ANY sense to ban these weapons? No, mass shootings do not happen everyday. Piers says united states has 11,000 gun crime murks, yet most of those are done with hand guns...not[..]ault rifles. Makes no sense to go after[..]ault rifles.
6. Crime has actually dropped in the last 20 years. But since a couple mass shootings pop up, people are so quick to ask for a ban on the tool, yet ignore the mental health issue this country has.
7. [rip] is starting to turn into the #1 cause of [rip] in America since 2008. Surpassing gun [rip]s () With millions of Americans on mind altering drugs today for depression/anxiety I think you can draw the connection that these drugs do more harm than good. I cant obviously prove that 100% but most people who commit mass murks are on some form of medication and seeing some therapist. A background check could prevent such individuals of owning these kinds of firearms.

In my opinion, make tougher background checks. Makes no sense to ban the semis. All the media does is scare the living !! out of people .