Pierce Morgan OWNED by Ted Nugent

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

I'm going to guess you are liberal and never have listened to any of the Ted stuff before he became crazy Ted.

Why do I have to be labeled to a specific party?

Nugent is a moron and always has been. You don't need to be a liberal or a conservative to tell that.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Nugent actually attempts to provide evidence. That part should be verifiable given that he even provides sources for it. He said that 97.5% of the people killed by firearms are ex-convicts let out of jail by liberal judges.

Okay. Let's run the numbers ...

Pierce Morgan cited 31,000 Americans killed by firearms, so he is including suicides. According to Nugent, that would mean that only 775 of out of those 31,000 did not involve ex-convicts.

But let's say that Nugent is only talking about murders.

In 2010 there were 11,078 firearm-related murders in the U.S.

Ted Nugent believes that only 277 of those 11,078 homicides did not involve ex-convicts.

The man is grievously misinformed or certifiably insane.

And maybe both.

Then show numbers that proves he is wrong. Usually his numbers, although slanted, are usually very well researched. A "convict" in his mind could mean someone was in jail for something like shoplifting.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

I'm going to guess you are liberal and never have listened to any of the Ted stuff before he became crazy Ted.

That must have been before I was born.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Then show numbers that proves he is wrong.

He never provided adequate proof to prove he was right.

He just rattled off a bunch of crap.

I'm surprised Morgan didn't stop him right there and demand specifics.

Do you believe him, Muddy?

[yg17]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

I'm going to guess you are liberal and never have listened to any of the Ted stuff before he became crazy Ted.

Like the song about having sex with an underage girl?

Yeah, real intelligent.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by yg17

Like the song about having sex with an underage girl?

Yeah, real intelligent.

And all the songs making millions of dollars talking about drugs and killing cops? All those singers are out killing cops too right?

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

He never provided adequate proof to prove he was right.

He just rattled off a bunch of crap.

I'm surprised Morgan didn't stop him right there and demand specifics.

Do you believe him, Muddy?

Doesn't matter what I believe. Like I said, I would bet money his numbers are correct but well slanted, as most "facts" to support an argument are.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Doesn't matter what I believe. Like I said, I would bet money his numbers are correct but well slanted, as most "facts" to support an argument are.

Sure it matters what you believe. You're the one here and now debating the issue. Your belief in what is true and what is false is vital to the argument.

You'll need to explain what you mean by "correct but well slanted".

If the numbers are well slanted, then I don't see how they could be correct.

If the numbers are correct, then there's nothing to slant.

You can slant meaning behind the numbers, but you can't slant numbers quite as easily.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Sure it matters what you believe. You're the one here and now debating the issue. Your belief in what is true and what is false is vital to the argument.

You'll need to explain what you mean by "correct but well slanted".

If the numbers are well slanted, then I don't see how they could be correct.

If the numbers are correct, then there's nothing to slant.

You can slant meaning behind the numbers, but you can't slant numbers quite as easily.

My belief doesn't matter. It's what can be proven with sources. You are the one that said that. So prove his info is wrong.

I already explained what I meant by slanted.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

My belief doesn't matter. It's what can be proven with sources. You are the one that said that. So prove his info is wrong.

I already explained what I meant by slanted.

If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me.

I'll let someone else—to whom it matters more—do the digging.

[yawn]

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

I'm going to guess you are liberal and never have listened to any of the Ted stuff before he became crazy Ted.

I understand that you may have a different opinion on the gun situation than a lot on this board...but defending Ted Nugent? C'mon man!

I guess you believe that the mentally ill should be allowed to own guns...He's also a scumbag who only believes in freedom for those who share his antiquated, delusional beliefs.

You really want that guy as your cheerleader?

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Did not see this covered here....Refreshing to see the blowhard spanked and sent packing...Hopefully back across the pond...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfWW2bl01Q

And how exactly did he get owned?

Nugent's so-called statistics are dead wrong.

For example: NYC has almost as tough gun laws as Chicago. NYC is now one of the safest cities.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

And how exactly did he get owned?

This I think explains it ...

Originally Posted by hulugu

Ah yes, a debate "colored" by who you want to win, rather than who's actually making a reasoned intelligent argument.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

And all the songs making millions of dollars talking about drugs and killing cops? All those singers are out killing cops too right?

I'm reminded of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT2YYLkIFZ4

[Peterkro]

Not that I don't think he's an odious creep but to be fair his name is Piers Morgan not Pierce and no we don't want him back.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

And how exactly did he get owned?

Nugent's so-called statistics are dead wrong.

For example: NYC has almost as tough gun laws as Chicago. NYC is now one of the safest cities.

New York only seems safer because other cities, most cities, are off the scale disgusting. Everywhere is glistening compared to Detroit, Chicago, or St. Louis.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I'm going to guess you're using some alternate definition for intelligence here.

I think the comparison is Lex Luther or The Joker.
Intelligent, but evil.

[Technarchy]

Piers Morgan is a knob.

Most amusing was his firearms assessment after a couple of mag dumps.

The 2nd Amendment exists for one reason, and that's a means of resistance against oppression. The answer is not fashionable with big city dandies but it is what it is. It's no accident that its the 2nd Amendment. Clearly the founders thought being armed was important...

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Piers Morgan is a knob.

Most amusing was his firearms assessment after a couple of mag dumps.

The 2nd Amendment exists for one reason, and that's a means of resistance against oppression. The answer is not fashionable with big city dandies but it is what it is. It's no accident that its the 2nd Amendment. Clearly the founders thought being armed was important...

They also thought having slaves was important....

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

They also thought having slaves was important....

Not close to being the same...it's also one of the most intellectually weak responses to the 2nd Amendment.

There's a reason slavery was abolished and the 2nd remains intact.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Not close to being the same

Not much of a jump, to be honest..

Keep in mind they also believed that slaves and coloured people were 3/5ths of a person, and would consider it oppressive to think otherwise (as in, get off my lawn, they are my slaves).

Also, if the 2nd Amendment is so important, you really have to wonder when the last time anyone of our administrations quartered troops in your home..

Wait.. you're military. Wouldn't you be violating that amendment yourself?

BL.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Not much of a jump, to be honest..

Keep in mind they also believed that slaves and coloured people were 3/5ths of a person, and would consider it oppressive to think otherwise (as in, get off my lawn, they are my slaves).

Also, if the 2nd Amendment is so important, you really have to wonder when the last time anyone of our administrations quartered troops in your home..

Wait.. you're military. Wouldn't you be violating that amendment yourself?

BL.

The first part of what you said is no longer the case because there was a paradox that logically could not stand if all men are created equal. And it's a straw man to try and compare white people owning black people and all Americans having the right to be armed.

The 2nd part of whatever you were on about was non-sensical.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Not close to being the same...it's also one of the most intellectually weak responses to the 2nd Amendment.

There's a reason slavery was abolished and the 2nd remains intact.

It's also an intellectually weak response to say that the "founders thought being armed was important". There was a lot of things they found important 300 years ago that wouldn't be considered important today. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it untrue.

To dismiss one and not another because it's inconvenient for you is typical. And does nothing for the debate.

I, for one, don't believe the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. But it's clear that some of us can look at it objectively and some can't.

----------

Originally Posted by Technarchy

The first part of what you said is no longer the case because there was a paradox that logically could not stand if all men are created equal. And it's a straw man to try and compare white people owning black people and all Americans having the right to be armed.

The 2nd part of whatever you were on about was non-sensical.

It's not a straw man if your argument for the 2nd Amendement is that the "founders thought being armed was important". You brought them into the debate. As I said, you can't pick and choose what they found important because it's inconvenient.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

It's also an intellectually weak response to say that the "founders thought being armed was important". There was a lot of things they found important 300 years ago that wouldn't be considered important today. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it untrue.

To dismiss one and not another because it's inconvenient for you is typical. And does nothing for the debate.

I, for one, don't believe the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. But it's clear that some of us can look at it objectively and some can't.

Slavery has been abolished for a long time. With that acumen, lets debate the merits of big dinosaurs eating little dinosaurs or the Volstead Act. Neither are relevant to the 2nd Amendment, why it exists and why there has never been a subsequent amendment to nullify the 2nd.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery has been abolished for a long time. With that acumen, lets debate the merits of big dinosaurs eating little dinosaurs or the Volstead Act. Neither are relevant to the 2nd Amendment, why it exists and why there has never been a subsequent amendment to nullify the 2nd.

You seem to be missing the point.....One of which is that you should choose your words wisely during a debate.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

The first part of what you said is no longer the case because there was a paradox that logically could not stand if all men are created equal. And it's a straw man to try and compare white people owning black people and all Americans having the right to be armed.

Bold for emphasis. No longer the case, thanks to the Abolition Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th). Note that none of those were enacted during the lifetime of the founders of this country. Case in point: Thomas Jefferson. That that equality didn't occur until at least 20 years after the last Founder died speaks more volumes than your justification.

The 2nd part of whatever you were on about was non-sensical.

But you can't debate it. I'll throw you another bone. Internment camps in WW2.

BL.