Piers Morgan smoked by Ben Shapiro

[score]

Originally Posted by 6.5x47 lapua

that is a complete fantasy.as long as eastern block countries manufacture pistols...aka norincos etc all the restricting and banning in the world will not stop the flow of handguns into canada.if you think it this all you have to do is ask how the flow of drugs into this country is going. criminals dont mind paying for expensive drop guns.many criminals dont get caught ever but will not get a restricted pal and register a handgun.they will buy drop guns with no link to them.gun laws are worthless.putting more law enforcement on the ground is.

And once these guys are caught some liberal judge lets them walk. This is what should be looked at hard. For example, that guy in Georgia that the Mother shot during a home invasion, was a repeat offender with multiple violent crime arrests from 06. And no, as I have said. Guns are not hard to get on the street (for us sure) and are not expensive in most cases. As said before, I know this for fact.

[Cyclops]

Wait a minute, I changed my mind. Bans might work in some instances. Banning liberals and liberal thought would make the world a much better place without a doubt! Not that I would advocate that though, I'm one of those gullible right wingers who believes in freedom, including freedom of speech and thought.

[score]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Wait a minute, I changed my mind. Bans might work in some instances. Banning liberals and liberal thought would make the world a much better place without a doubt! Not that I would advocate that though, I'm one of those gullible right wingers who believes in freedom, including freedom of speech and thought.

Yep, as the saying goes, 'it's not perfect but it's the best there is.'

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Wait a minute, I changed my mind. Bans might work in some instances. Banning liberals and liberal thought would make the world a much better place without a doubt! Not that I would advocate that though, I'm one of those gullible right wingers who believes in freedom, including freedom of speech and thought.

Originally Posted by score

Yep, as the saying goes, 'it's not perfect but it's the best there is.'

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Significant restrictions on automatic weapons lets the goods guys have them and the bad guys not have them. Thanks for making this point and thanks to the other side for agreeing with you.

You don't get to point to a rabbit hole any say that is where the rabbit is. There all lots of rabbit holes and they are all joined. Who's to say that any given evil do'er with a penchant for violence won't take whatever he can get to kill people with. It's just too obvious isn't it. Maybe the fact that whatssisname had access to an AR-15 and handguns, that maybe that actually saved some people? Maybe if he didn't have access to those firearms maybe would have made a bomb? You don't have all the answers Mr Sundance. Focus on the gun all you want but you won't ever understand the real problem. Gun violence is only a subset of violence. You never attack a problem from the result........you tackle the root. The difference between your good guy and your bad guy is only one is carrying out what both are thinking.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Wait a minute, I changed my mind. Bans might work in some instances. Banning liberals and liberal thought would make the world a much better place without a doubt! Not that I would advocate that though, I'm one of those gullible right wingers who believes in freedom, including freedom of speech and thought.

Someone posted on another thread that the liberal controlling agenda was like the Nazi precursor. How as a society we had to protect from past mistakes. Funny how they were a right wing party and not liberal party.

Now in the name of the right wing Republcan party posts like this advocate dismantling of opinion and the 1st amendment that lets everyone have an opinion.

If Rocky the resident fear historian wants to check...it is right wing fanatics that have caused a lot of the past atrocities. Moderation has not been a precursor.

Fanatics using catch phrases to lure in the gullible is the real danger.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by ehntr

You don't get to point to a rabbit hole any say that is where the rabbit is. There all lots of rabbit holes and they are all joined. Who's to say that any given evil do'er with a penchant for violence won't take whatever he can get to kill people with. It's just too obvious isn't it. Maybe the fact that whatssisname had access to an AR-15 and handguns, that maybe that actually saved some people? Maybe if he didn't have access to those firearms maybe would have made a bomb? You don't have all the answers Mr Sundance. Focus on the gun all you want but you won't ever understand the real problem. Gun violence is only a subset of violence. You never attack a problem from the result........you tackle the root. The difference between your good guy and your bad guy is only one is carrying out what both are thinking.

Tackling the root has been one of my points. Poverty is the biggest contributor to crime and one the Republicans care the least about.

Mental health is important also.

Again. Just to clue you in...this is an AOF discussion forum. I am not Obama. I am pointing out my observations. Unfortunately for you it appears my opinion lines up with 75% of Americans. It is called common sense.

[rugatika]

Republicans care more about eliminating poverty than the democrats

[rem338win]

The retard is strong in this thread.
No one here can correlate magazine restrictions and gun bans to crime prevention. If the clear statistics were there the anti gun zombies would use it. The permits required to own fully automatic firearms is not all that difficult to get and not many persue it. They are damn expensive to run and that is the preventative measure.
Anyway, let the sheep bleat; I personally see no reason to restrict the law abiding and licensed citizens.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Republicans care more about eliminating poverty than the democrats

How do you figure?

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Wait a minute, I changed my mind. Bans might work in some instances. Banning liberals and liberal thought would make the world a much better place without a doubt! Not that I would advocate that though, I'm one of those gullible right wingers who believes in freedom, including freedom of speech and thought.

Freedom like this

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...he-patriot-act

Freedom of speech like this

The hog incident and the FCCOn February 27, 2001, while on the air at WXTB in Tampa, Florida, Clem slaughtered and barbecued a wild Florida boar that had been captured by a professional hunter. Sound effects of hogs feeding were broadcast to lead listeners to believe the hog was being harassed and aggravated. Based on the incident Clem, his Executive Producer Brent Hatley, and two other people were charged with animal cruelty. The trial received coverage outside Florida including Court TV. All four defendants were acquitted by the jury.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (a precursor to a fine) of $755,000 against four stations owned by Clear Channel Communications (including its parent station, WXTB) on January 27, 2004 for objectionable segments of "Bubba the Love Sponge" . The fine consisted of the maximum of $27,500 for each of 26 airings of a segment plus $40,000 for record-keeping violations. The segments included graphic discussions about sex and drugs and according to the FCC were "designed to pander to, titillate and shock listeners". One segment featured the cartoon characters Alvin the Chipmunks, George Jetson and Scooby-Doo discussing sexual activities.

Clear Channel Communications discontinued Clem's show on February 23, 2004 and two days later, Clear Channel CEO John Hogan testified in front of Congress, stating that the "Bubba the Love Sponge" show would no longer be broadcast on Clear Channel.[citation needed]

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rem338win

The retard is strong in this thread.
No one here can correlate magazine restrictions and gun bans to crime prevention. If the clear statistics were there the anti gun zombies would use it. The permits required to own fully automatic firearms is not all that difficult to get and not many persue it. They are damn expensive to run and that is the preventative measure.
Anyway, let the sheep bleat; I personally see no reason to restrict the law abiding and licensed citizens.

Statistic.

Canada bans larger capacity magazines 5 or 10 rounds depending. Result 0 mass shooting with high capacity magazines or drums.

US does not ban them. Result multiple mass murders using higher capacity magazines or drums.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Republicans care more about eliminating poverty than the democrats

Cared so much that poverty shot up under George Bush sr... Went down under Clinton then shot up under George Bush jr.

Under Reagan it shot up then came back down...to end up relatively neutral.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Tackling the root has been one of my points. Poverty is the biggest contributor to crime and one the Republicans care the least about.

Mental health is important also.

Again. Just to clue you in...this is an AOF discussion forum. I am not Obama. I am pointing out my observations. Unfortunately for you it appears my opinion lines up with 75% of Americans. It is called common sense.

How many points do you have? Who said you were Obama? You're opinion lines up with 75% of Americans? I didn't see that poll. So let's day that is bull chit.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Statistic.

Canada bans larger capacity magazines 5 or 10 rounds depending. Result 0 mass shooting with high capacity magazines or drums.

US does not ban them. Result multiple mass murders using higher capacity magazines or drums.

That is a conclusion? How about the randomness of going across the border and buying high cap magazines like some of the guys who support the ban say that can be done. Or undoing the modification to mags or fabricating your own high cap mags. You didn't factor any of that into your conclusion that banning high cap mags in Canada = 0 shooting with high cap mags. Oh right, banning them makes them go away. How about 50 round drum magazines that you can buy in Canada for 10/22's? Your conclusion is off by an infinite magnitude.

[Cyclops]

Here's a thought experiment for you. You have a choice. A psycho goes into a building with 30 people in it and he has a rifle with one 30 round clip. You are one of the thirty people in the building.

1) Would you rather the guy's rifle is semi-automatic or fully automatic? Which rifle would he be likely to kill more people with?

2) Would you rather have a gun on you in that situation or would you rather have a cell phone on you to call the police with?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Cared so much that poverty shot up under George Bush sr... Went down under Clinton then shot up under George Bush jr.

Under Reagan it shot up then came back down...to end up relatively neutral.

Why is it that people believe that Presidents and Prime Ministers are responsible for giving them jobs?

Can't people get their own jobs?

Poverty went down under Clinton? Credit due to Reagonomics and Bush magic taking hold from the previous administrations. The only thing that went down under Clinton was.........well you know

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Cared so much that poverty shot up under George Bush sr... Went down under Clinton then shot up under George Bush jr.

Under Reagan it shot up then came back down...to end up relatively neutral.

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/a...section-7.html

Dems controlled congress from the 70's until 1994. Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 (two years after Clinton was elected), Poverty rate continued declining until 2000 when it increased about 1.5% and then started declining again from 2004 to 2006 when the Dems took back the Congress and a sharp increase in poverty rate occurred.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Q...00/poverty.jpg

Furthermore, most welfare bills, etc that trap people in poverty originate from dems who have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on gov as that is a signifcant source of vote farming for the dems.

Republicans tend to have policies that grow the economy, and dems tend to have policies that hinder the economy as we are seeing now. Economic growth is the only real way to fight poverty. Not gov handouts.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If Rocky the resident fear historian wants to check...it is right wing fanatics that have caused a lot of the past atrocities.

I have, actually.

You are wrong.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

I have, actually.

You are wrong.

No... You are wrong.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by ehntr

How many points do you have? Who said you were Obama? You're opinion lines up with 75% of Americans? I didn't see that poll. .

It was all over the news and freaking out the NRA. surprised you are not up on current info.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/a...section-7.html

Dems controlled congress from the 70's until 1994. Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 (two years after Clinton was elected), Poverty rate continued declining until 2000 when it increased about 1.5% and then started declining again from 2004 to 2006 when the Dems took back the Congress and a sharp increase in poverty rate occurred.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Q...00/poverty.jpg

Furthermore, most welfare bills, etc that trap people in poverty originate from dems who have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on gov as that is a signifcant source of vote farming for the dems.

Republicans tend to have policies that grow the economy, and dems tend to have policies that hinder the economy as we are seeing now. Economic growth is the only real way to fight poverty. Not gov handouts.

The President drives the ship. Under the the Republican Presidency the number of people on welfare shot up. Under Democrat Presidents it went down.

You can not argue with facts.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The President drives the ship. Under the the Republican Presidency the number of people on welfare shot up. Under Democrat Presidents it went down.

You can not argue with facts.

Nope, you're wrong again. Read the constitution. That "little book" that Piers doesn't understand either.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Canada bans larger capacity magazines 5 or 10 rounds depending. Result 0 mass shooting with high capacity magazines or drums.

We haven't had any mass murders with the Montefeltro Super 90 Turkey, either.

Thank heavens those are banned. Can you imagine!

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Here's a thought experiment for you. You have a choice. A psycho goes into a building with 30 people in it and he has a rifle with one 30 round clip. You are one of the thirty people in the building.

1) Would you rather the guy's rifle is semi-automatic or fully automatic? Which rifle would he be likely to kill more people with?

2) Would you rather have a gun on you in that situation or would you rather have a cell phone on you to call the police with?

Hmmmm

The guy must be a real psycho or a mental midget to go in there with only one 30 round mag, with all the 30 round mags laying around just waiting to be taken

Is the psycho, white or black, or is he democrat or replublican? Does he live with his mom?

I think I will wait and see how AO studies the issue after a few Piers Morgan interviews on CNN.

But wait... What if the guy with the carry permit pulls out his glock and takes a shot and in the frenzie, other guys not sure of who is psycho or a righteous defeneder pull out their carry weapons and everyone starts shooting. and then when the cops finally leave dunkin dognuts and arrive to gun smoke and blood and victims all over the place, how do they tell who is psyhcho other than he is probably the guy with the empty 30 round mag or maybe he was the guy who was just carrying his ar in the building just to prove that it was legal

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Nope, you're wrong again. Read the constitution. That "little book" that Piers doesn't understand either.

What does the constitution have to do with this argument, The constitution don't make up facts 220 years later, I think you may be a little lost.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You can not argue with facts.

You must be new here!

Welcome to AO.

It's a party!

[neznam]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Lmfao