Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

HOLY FLYING F(nac)CK

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:10:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have not seen an anal raping this hard in a gun rights television interview. This dude is an excellent debater.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:04:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Top Comments:

Mr. Morgan, you are a gentleman and a scholar sir. Your argument could not have been presented more professionally and rationally. You presented facts that could not be refuted and called the host out when he lied. Excellent job sir.

For people wanting to know what court case Keith was talking about, it was Warren v. DC. The court ruled it is not the obligation of the police to protect you.

Facts vs Opinion. Why do gun grabbers always talk about how they can't see why, can't see the need, just don' understand, and when presented why, a need, and logical breakdown that leads to a conclusion, circle back around where they started?

Wow, it was pretty pathetic to see the interviewer grasping at straws the whole time and then try to cut Keith off after obviously lying.

hyp"o"crite
Left wants to disarm the public with the same guns they want to get rid of...

I wonder if that host absorbed one point that guy made, I bet not. How many more people have to die before we quit making cars that go 80 mph, nobody needs to go 80mph.

Same anti gun arguments over and over. When you start putting facts on the table, they move to the next talking point. The government did an amazing job at prohibition of alcohol, so well in fact that they failed immediately. How is that war on drugs going? Drugs have been illegal for what 60+ years and yet over 60% of those arrested are for drug charges. A gun ban is just another law, in case you havn't noticed, criminals don't care what laws we put on the books.

Host- "You're armed?"
Keith- "You're not?"
I almost pissed myself laughing just now

We need that guy for the head of the NRA

As a veteran I have more detailed and extensive weapons training than most police. I don't know any police officers who are trained in the use of shoulder fired anti-armor weapons, grenade launchers, and medium and heavy machineguns. Claiming that the 'police' need these weapons and I don't is laughable.

(response) I can't help but notice you anti gunners live in a sunshine happy land where the police will always get there before the criminal has killed you. You've been burgled before, I'm sure. If you were home at the time, what then? I think just like was said, you're projecting. You don't trust yourself with that power so you think others would misuse it. You're the sick one here, buddy.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 6:41:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This morgan guy truly did "Rape" his opponent in every sense of the word haha. Loved watching this.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 6:49:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 6:41:16 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
This morgan guy truly did "Rape" his opponent in every sense of the word haha. Loved watching this.

"i want to know why you're talking about grenade launchers. Did we have some attacks with grenade launchers while i wasnt looking?"

Rofl
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:27:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 6:49:49 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 1/14/2013 6:41:16 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
This morgan guy truly did "Rape" his opponent in every sense of the word haha. Loved watching this.

"i want to know why you're talking about grenade launchers. Did we have some attacks with grenade launchers while i wasnt looking?"

Rofl

He was talking about grenade launchers because the guy said the individual has the right to any weapon the military has, whe asked about nuclear weapons he back off to any weapon a ground soldier can have, that would include grenade launchers.

All I saw was a zealot refusing to have a rational discussion about his position, he obfuscated, back peddaled, and misrepresented every attempt to make a point by the interviewer. He talked about projection incorrectly, what he did was project his extremism onto anyone that disagrees with him. Shouting down the interviewer isn't debating and it certainly isn't rational discussion.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:40:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When he gets to Federalist #46, what he fails to mention is that Madison mocked the idea that the Federal Government would EVER be able to assemble a standing army, because the numbers in that army would be too small to stand up to an armed citizenry of a size so large as to render that fighting force completely ineffective.

Also, it's clear from Federalist #41 that Madison wrote Article 1 of the US Constitution, because in F41, he describes the safeguards he put in put in place to assure a standing army couldn't be assembled by the federal government ("appropriate", in context, in Article 1, means "for an occasion", that occasion being a DECLARED war.

Once war is declared, Congress can raise AN army. If, in the middle of that war, another war is DECLARED, congress can raise ANOTHER army.

The purpose for each army, their respective wars, as then supposed to be reviewed NO LESS than every two years, and if it was still APPROPRIATE (the war was still going on), money was to be set aside for THAT army.

Once the war is over, congress cannot appropriate funds for a given army, because, by definition, that is misappropriation.

Why all that long-winded sh!t?

Because this is where Madison thought the armed citizenry would act - we have a standing army, one of two things Madison believed anathema to Liberty (the other - being beholden to a large financial institution), and we constantly wage war without declaring war, often times to the detriment of our domestic welfare. Moreover, we're allowing our Liberties to be taken away in the names of these "Wars" (Patriot Act, among other things).

We're at the point where Madison believed there was no way possible an armed citizenry would sit idly by and allow this to happen. In fact, the idea of SO MANY people SO APATHETIC that they would not offer adequate resistance in such a situation, was utterly ridiculous to him.

Um...I didn't watch the news last night. What time did the revolution start?

Because individual gun owners do not, in any way, use their weapons to fight in the cause of liberty, they have no constitutional purpose, and therefore should have no constitutional protection.

In case ya ain't heard, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to die for your rights, they are forfeit. You gotta fight for your right to party.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 4:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:04:55 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Top Comments:

Mr. Morgan, you are a gentleman and a scholar sir. Your argument could not have been presented more professionally and rationally. You presented facts that could not be refuted and called the host out when he lied. Excellent job sir.
Yessir!

Facts vs Opinion. Why do gun grabbers always talk about how they can't see why, can't see the need, just don' understand, and when presented why, a need, and logical breakdown that leads to a conclusion, circle back around where they started?
Because their arguments are based on emotional pleas and not reason.

Wow, it was pretty pathetic to see the interviewer grasping at straws the whole time and then try to cut Keith off after obviously lying.

hyp"o"crite
Agreed.

I wonder if that host absorbed one point that guy made, I bet not. How many more people have to die before we quit making cars that go 80 mph, nobody needs to go 80mph.
Brilliant!

Same anti gun arguments over and over. When you start putting facts on the table, they move to the next talking point. The government did an amazing job at prohibition of alcohol, so well in fact that they failed immediately. How is that war on drugs going? Drugs have been illegal for what 60+ years and yet over 60% of those arrested are for drug charges. A gun ban is just another law, in case you havn't noticed, criminals don't care what laws we put on the books.
You realize though that they want to ban these from manufacture in the US and import, right? It's not as easy for people to make assault riffles as it is to make moonshine. However, this does not address (A) the millions of assault riffles that are already out there, (B) the Constitutionality of banning manufacture, (C) how's the military or law enforcement going to have these if they're not manufactured?

We need that guy for the head of the NRA
Yep!

As a veteran I have more detailed and extensive weapons training than most police. I don't know any police officers who are trained in the use of shoulder fired anti-armor weapons, grenade launchers, and medium and heavy machineguns. Claiming that the 'police' need these weapons and I don't is laughable.
Well, many officers are trained with assault riffles but not all. Of course these are not heavy machine guns like an M-60, Browning 50 cal, etc.

(response) I can't help but notice you anti gunners live in a sunshine happy land where the police will always get there before the criminal has killed you. You've been burgled before, I'm sure.
I've been lucky never to have been burglarized before, though I have been "relieved" of my wheel covers before!

If you were home at the time, what then?
If I were home and someone broke in and was burglarizing my home, I would not hesitate to acquaint them with my 40 cal 15-round Glock!

I think just like was said, you're projecting. You don't trust yourself with that power so you think others would misuse it. You're the sick one here, buddy.
That's right: if YOU don't trust yourself then YOU shouldn't have it but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 4:50:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I still haven't seen anyone calling for an assault weapon ban who can actually define an assault weapon.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:15:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 4:50:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I still haven't seen anyone calling for an assault weapon ban who can actually define an assault weapon.

Your ignorance feels like one most times.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 6:43:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:15:50 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/14/2013 4:50:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I still haven't seen anyone calling for an assault weapon ban who can actually define an assault weapon.

Your ignorance feels like one most times.

Makes sense
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 8:18:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 7:40:32 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
In case ya ain't heard, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to die for your rights, they are forfeit. You gotta fight for your right to party.

So if I'm not willing to die for my right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my home, I forfeit it? That doesn't seem like an intelligent manner to deal with it. I agree with your previous conclusions that most Americans I understand what you're saying, it's just that violence isn't the preferable method for ending the tyranny of the state. The most effective method is for people to divorce themselves from the state by ceasing to grant it illusory authority over their lives: that means ceasing to obey arbitrary laws, pay taxes, or believing that government is anything better than an effective criminal organization. Using violence is a good method if the enforcers of the state start to get extremely tyrannical. Here's a good article on when you should shoot a cop [http://www.copblock.org...].
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 10:43:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 8:18:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:40:32 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
In case ya ain't heard, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to die for your rights, they are forfeit. You gotta fight for your right to party.

So if I'm not willing to die for my right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my home, I forfeit it? That doesn't seem like an intelligent manner to deal with it. I agree with your previous conclusions that most Americans I understand what you're saying, it's just that violence isn't the preferable method for ending the tyranny of the state.

Preferred or not, it's the only one that works.

You know what really sparked the Civil Rights Movement? It was the women (which makes sense...Rev. Dr. King was a total pimp). They stood on the front lines and slapped the police officers who were there to work as crowd control.

Now, ya gotta understand that this was 1960(ish) and getting slapped (something still uber-insulting today) by not only a woman, but a black woman?!?!

It's a wonder the cops were able to keep it together as long as they did.

All protest is violent, at least on one side. So yeah. If you're a burner and you want the right to be a legal burner, you need to be willing to sacrifice for that. If not, I don't wanna hear how great Dark Side of the Moon sounds after you spark up your Blueberry Indo'.

With guns, when someone states to me that their purpose is to fight tyranny (and then has the balls to say that that their presence alone stops that tyranny in the face of so many examples where it hasn't and the whole, "guns don't kill people..." bullsh!t), my response is, and always will be - put up or shut up. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk, you hypocritical p*ssy. If I gotta put up with ALL the negative side effects of gun ownership, I better get some positive out of it.

No more lip service or you're gonna get called on it every time (I'm a gun owner, but I'd give it up in a heartbeat if there was a plan to eradicate guns that was half as effective as the one I laid out elsewhere).

The most effective method is for people to divorce themselves from the state by ceasing to grant it illusory authority over their lives: that means ceasing to obey arbitrary laws, pay taxes, or believing that government is anything better than an effective criminal organization.

" And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."


-Thomas Jefferson (entire speech in link below)
http://www.monticello.org...

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."


-TJ
http://www.monticello.org...

Good or bad, TJ's just as right now as he was then.

Using violence is a good method if the enforcers of the state start to get extremely tyrannical. Here's a good article on when you should shoot a cop [http://www.copblock.org...].

Cops are doing a job. Most of them just wanna make it home at the end of the day like anyone else.

It's OK to shoot a cop when your life is being threatened by that cop, and that's the only time.

I shoot with cops, as well, and here's your biggest problem with the idea of shooting a cop - they're better than you. You're gonna come out on the dead side of that equation, almost without fail.

You don't practice with your weapon as often as they do, and certainly not under the tactical simulations that they do. Your only chance to kill a cop is in the back, and I ain't down with that.

My fight against tyranny goes a little higher up.

Look at who we support in the Middle East - our allies consist of monarchs, emirs, dictators and Turkey (a country that kills Kurds at a rate equal to anything Saddam ever did).

When Egypt began their recent revolution, how long did it take for the US to offer support? Basically, it got to the point where we couldn't even do lip service to the "defenders of freedom" BS without dropping sidewinders all up in that b!tch, so we did, but we didn't want to.

The US supports totalitarianism around the world, because totalitarian rule makes it easier to get what we want.

We're a warmongering empire on the cusp of a neuvo-monarchy. THIS is what your guns are for, so use 'em or lose 'em.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:39:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dang that was nice. The host was just trying to desperately pull a rabbit out of his hat at the end there.

Pwned.
kfc
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This debate is still happening huh? Ok.

Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys? Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?
#BlackLivesMatter
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:59:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
This debate is still happening huh? Ok.

Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys? Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?

<chants> Kill the gays! Kill the gays! Kill the gays! </chants>
kfc
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:13:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
This debate is still happening huh? Ok.

No, this debate ended around 40 hours ago.

Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys?

The two choices are not mutually exclusive.

Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?

When it's a zero-sum game that involves your life or an attackers, which seems like the better option? Most instances of guns preventing and/or stopping an attacker/thief/home invader result in no deaths; the scare alone causes inexperienced criminals to flee. Obviously the preferable choice would be less-than-lethal weapons; FREEDO talks about this a lot.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:03:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 10:13:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
This debate is still happening huh? Ok.

No, this debate ended around 40 hours ago.

Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys?

The two choices are not mutually exclusive.

Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?

When it's a zero-sum game that involves your life or an attackers, which seems like the better option? Most instances of guns preventing and/or stopping an attacker/thief/home invader result in no deaths; the scare alone causes inexperienced criminals to flee. Obviously the preferable choice would be less-than-lethal weapons; FREEDO talks about this a lot.

I didn't know that. I've been looking into less than lethal weaponry as well. Do you think making less-than-lethal weapons more widely available could possibly reduce crime rates? Both by firearms and without? Or would we just run into trouble with people confusing less-than-lethal with non-lethal?

I'm not presenting any argument here. I might not agree with everything you people say but there's no denying the extremely high levels of intellectuals on this site. Just asking some questions.
#BlackLivesMatter
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:23:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys? Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?

"Incapacitate" means to remove the ability to make a further attack. Shooting someone in the leg doesn't stop him from shooting at your. The woman in the news recently who shot a home invader five times with a hand gun didn't incapacitate him. He ran off. If he had a gun he could have killed her. It takes a relatively long time to bleed out, during which time the attacker is still a threat.

For that reason, even trained police officers are taught to shoot to kill. For the same reason a shotgun is the best home defense weapon, because it genuinely incapacitates by killing. An assault weapon is a 0.22, without much stopping power. It's effective mainly because it scares people off with lots of rounds fired. In military use, the objective is to get the enemy to stay down so they can be overrun, that's what the military means by "assault."

The debate was good. The anti-gun response is always endlessly changing topics and arguments.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 1:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
This debate is still happening huh? Ok.

Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys? Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?

You aren't taught necessarily to shoot to kill. You aren't taught to aim for the head, you are taught to shoot center mass, both because that's most likely to stop the attacker and you're most likely to hit the target.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 1:56:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:50:08 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
This debate is still happening huh? Ok.

Do you guy's want to protect yourselves or kill bad guys?
Not necessarily different ESPECIALLY when it comes a time to use DEADLY force.

Why do we shoot to kill instead of incapacitate?
(1) If someone is dead, they are definitely incapacitated.
(2) Lawyers.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.