Pierce Morgan OWNED by Ted Nugent

[palmerc2]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Sorry, I was off defending your right to misuse the first....

That was money. Thank you for your service!

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Again, you completely miss the point.

No-one is arguing if slavery was in the Constitution. You're trying to inject something into this debate that never was there to begin with. That makes your side of the argument look absolutely foolish.

The founders did not make slavery a right. However, they did condone it, or more so, didn't do much to eliminate it, if they did anything at all. If anything, Jefferson (himself a founding father) exacerbated it by having relations with Sally Hemmings! Something you would indeed know if you studied your history. From your comments, it is shamefully apparent you have not.

Again. Slavery is not in the Constitution; why you are trying to insinuate that we are saying that it is is asinine. Search this thread, and you will see nothing of the sort. So stop it.

What we are saying is that the founding fathers of this country, who wrote and shaped this country by the Constitution, whose words, in my opinion, you appear to take as infallible, are the same founding fathers that condoned slavery, and did nothing to eliminate it for almost 100 years, and none of them did anything to stop it in their lifetime. In fact, the last Founding father died roughly 17 years before slavery was abolished.

What does slavery have to do with the 2nd? Or we to infer the lack of slavery in the constitution makes all other parts of the Bill of Rights suddenly suspect.

Interesting logic. Is that what you're proposing? I never thought we needed to re-evaluate freedom of speech or unreasonable searches and seizures, but the lack of slavery in the constitution has convinced me of otherwise.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

What does slavery have to do with the 2nd? Or we to infer the lack of slavery in the constitution makes all other parts of the Bill of Rights suddenly suspect.

Interesting logic. Is that what you're proposing? I never thought we needed to re-evaluate freedom of speech or unreasonable searches and seizures, but the lack of slavery in the constitution has convinced me of otherwise.

Bloody hell.. let me spell it out for you bluntly..

You are injecting slavery into the Constitution, not us. Quit trying to infer that or put that into our mouths.

Moyank and I have spent the better of two days telling you that the Founding Fathers are not infallible, especially in drawing up your precious 2nd Amendment, and used Slavery and condoning it as an example.

You are trying to put imply that our argument is that it is in the Constitution.
You are trying to infer that we re-evaluate the entire Constitution and its Amendments.
You are trying to imply that everything else in the Bill of Rights is suspect.

In all 4 instances, you are flat wrong.

If you can't see that, and if that isn't blunt enough for you, then I guess it is easier to clap with one hand.

BL.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Bloody hell.. let me spell it out for you bluntly..

You are injecting slavery into the Constitution, not us. Quit trying to infer that or put that into our mouths.

Moyank and I have spent the better of two days telling you that the Founding Fathers are not infallible, especially in drawing up your precious 2nd Amendment, and used Slavery and condoning it as an example.

You are trying to put imply that our argument is that it is in the Constitution.
You are trying to infer that we re-evaluate the entire Constitution and its Amendments.
You are trying to imply that everything else in the Bill of Rights is suspect.

In all 4 instances, you are flat wrong.

If you can't see that, and if that isn't blunt enough for you, then I guess it is easier to clap with one hand.

BL.

You can't have it both ways. If one thing is the Bill of rights is suspect because the founders were not "infallible" than all things in the bill of rights are suspect.

And as for...
You are injecting slavery into the Constitution, not us. Quit trying to infer that or put that into our mouths.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

They also thought having slaves was important...

Slavery has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and since slavery was never directly addressed as a right in the constitution, which you are saying makes the entire bill of rights suspect for some bizarre reason, then I vote we overturn the Third Amendment so I can go to your house, and take your computer and put an end to this circular argument you're presenting.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Sorry, I was off defending your right to misuse the first....

Oh? Someone is trying to take our first amendment rights? Hmmm...must be a pretty small conflict. Where is it? Haven't heard anything about it.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

You can't have it both ways. If one thing is the Bill of rights is suspect because the founders were not "infallible" than all things in the bill of rights are suspect.

And as for...
You are injecting slavery into the Constitution, not us. Quit trying to infer that or put that into our mouths.



Slavery has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and since slavery was never directly addressed as a right in the constitution, which you are saying makes the entire bill of rights suspect for some bizarre reason, then I vote we overturn the Third Amendment so I can go to your house, and take your computer and put an end to this circular argument you're presenting.

Listen man, I'm not sure why this has gone the way it has.

You said, in defense of the 2nd Amendment that our founding fathers thought it was "important" - my response was that because they thought something was important 300 years ago, doesn't exactly make it relevant today.

For instance, if someone believed that women don't deserve the right to vote, would a good argument be, "well the founding fathers didn't believe women should vote", so we shouldn't either?

There are plenty of rational defenses (and irrational) for the 2nd Amendment. Yours wasn't a very good one, considering a lot has changed since it was written. I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or if you're just ignoring the obvious. Anyway, bradl showed much more patience with you than I would have.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Listen man, I'm not sure why this has gone the way it has.

Why bother?

He'll never acknowledge it.

It is, however, quite evident to others like myself.

Thanks for trying ... I guess.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Listen man, I'm not sure why this has gone the way it has.

You said, in defense of the 2nd Amendment that our founding fathers thought it was "important" - my response was that because they thought something was important 300 years ago, doesn't exactly make it relevant today.

There are plenty of rational defenses (and irrational) for the 2nd Amendment. Yours wasn't a very good one, considering a lot has changed since it was written. I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or if you're just ignoring the obvious. Anyway, bradl showed much more patience with you than I would have.

Slavery was a matter of dispute, hence the lack of slavery language in the Constitution. If slavery was important, it would have been covered without ambiguity. At best you have words you think might pertain to slavery, but could equally be applied to white Americas that were contracted apprentices, debtors, or indentured servants. Why? Because the language makes no reference to Slaves.

Contrast this with the 2nd, which has no ambiguity. Same for free speech, religion, quartering, etc etc etc.

And if we are to believe elements of the bill of rights may not be valid today, why aren't the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th less valid.

No, the issue of government oppression, insurrection, war and self-defense are present today, as it was in the 1700’s making the 2nd no less vital.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery was a matter of dispute, hence the lack of slavery language in the Constitution. If slavery was important, it would have been covered without ambiguity. At best you have words you think might pertain to slavery, but could equally be applied to white Americas that were contracted apprentices, debtors, or indentured servants. Why? Because the language makes no reference to Slaves.

What? Just because the word "slave" doesn't appear in the Constitution doesn't mean that the institution of slavery wasn't protected by the compromise.

...Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons...

Slaves were "bound to Service" through kidnapping and cruel force. This was written to protect slavery and the structure of indentured servitude that made up the labor force in the colonies.

The language didn't make specific reference to slaves, preferring to support the various structures of slavery and indentured servitude, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't supported as an institution because of the compromise. That's why the 13th Amendment is so specific:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

...Contrast this with the 2nd, which has no ambiguity. Same for free speech, religion, quartering, etc etc etc.

And if we are to believe elements of the bill of rights may not be valid today, why aren't the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th less valid.

No, the issue of government oppression, insurrection, war and self-defense are present today, as it was in the 1700’s making the 2nd no less vital.

Well, each of the enumerated Bill of Rights has been reinterpreted by courts since the inception of the nation.

I'm not saying that the 2nd isn't valuable, but that it deserves interpretation under the modern scope. So, while the founders said militia that doesn't reflect the modern reality of combat, where a squad has access to firepower equal to Washington's army. And, that's before we talk about nuclear weapons.

Understanding how the First Amendment operates on the Internet can only be illuminated by interpretation, not literal understanding and firearms should follow a similar trajectory.

As for the 2nd Amendment's ability to defeat tyranny. It's like talking about the flame resistant qualities of a fireman's coats. By the time it matters, a whole raft of things have gone terribly wrong.

We need to protect the other amendments, our ability to talk to each other, our need for open, expedient trials, our right to privacy. If we give those up, the quiet and effective police state will turn gun owners into brown shirts and fodder for open graves.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by hulugu

So, while the founders said militia that doesn't reflect the modern reality of combat, where a squad has access to firepower equal to Washington's army.

Battle of Wanat? Siege of FOB Salerno?

There is always a bigger and more powerful entity, but those two instances are clear examples that bigger weapons don't nullify the ability to fight of those with smaller weapons.

This is not an exercise in moral equivalence, just an illustration that resistance, even if you are staring down a much larger barrel, is the historical norm, and modern weaponry changes nothing.

I had JTAC's putting in work nightly at one point, that never seemed to diminsh the amount of motar rounds and kalashnikov fire. That's a hell of a disparity, and we certainly dished out more hurt, but there we were, every night again and again. Next year we withdraw with a dubious victory at best, despite our incredible combat abilities and their massive losses.

The size of the weapons is only part of the story.

[Merkava_4]

The Pierce Morgan / Rob Lowe interview is way better:

LINK

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Battle of Wanat? Siege of FOB Salerno?

There is always a bigger and more powerful entity, but those two instances are clear examples that bigger weapons don't nullify the ability to fight of those with smaller weapons.

This is not an exercise in moral equivalence, just an illustration that resistance, even if you are staring down a much larger barrel, is the historical norm, and modern weaponry changes nothing.

I had JTAC's putting in work nightly at one point, that never seemed to diminsh the amount of motar rounds and kalashnikov fire. That's a hell of a disparity, and we certainly dished out more hurt, but there we were, every night again and again. Next year we withdraw with a dubious victory at best, despite our incredible combat abilities and their massive losses.

The size of the weapons is only part of the story.

There are plenty of unarguable reasons to own a gun, like hunting, killing vermin and for sport.

Then there is self defence which is more arguable, but in some circumstances is probably reasonable.

Then there is "rising up" against the US government, which is, frankly, ridiculous.
If you rise up against the US government with an armed rebellion you'll just be labelled a terrorist.

[725032]

Its 'Piers' morgan.

If you're going to use the guy in an argument at least get his name right.

Seems that some people are pretty desperate to win an argument if they think him getting owned is anything new.

Enjoy your guns, while you still can.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by ohbrilliance

What's depressing is that gun proponents see this as a win for Ted Nugent and their cause. Stupidity knows no bounds.

Nor leftism elitism...

----------

Originally Posted by samiwas

Oh? Someone is trying to take our first amendment rights? Hmmm...must be a pretty small conflict. Where is it? Haven't heard anything about it.

Its constant...Grow a set and join us...on second thought, we really dont want you...

----------

Originally Posted by SiPi

Its 'Piers' morgan.

If you're going to use the guy in an argument at least get his name right.

Seems that some people are pretty desperate to win an argument if they think him getting owned is anything new.

Enjoy your guns, while you still can.

The only thing I want to use the guy for is cannon fodder....

I dont think you have the proper equipment to take them away...Malon Labe

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Sorry, I was off defending your right to misuse the first....

Are you on the Supreme Court? Because they've defended our right to use it more than our military have, wouldn't you say?

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Are you on the Supreme Court? Because they've defended our right to use it more than our military have, wouldn't you say?

I would say there are 1st Amend. & 5th Amend rights being decided in all courts all day long...I would say however, national security is real, not a tag line, not a Lib/Conserv issue or an ad hominem attack from someone...It is the military and an armed society that the Supreme Court is able to continue...Although this whole thread is tongue and cheek, you know my statement (here) is true....

Here is an interesting blog/article you may find interesting...It does have a slight pro gun slant. but interesting none the less...

http://bradyreports.com/americas-unseen-army/

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Slavery was a matter of dispute, hence the lack of slavery language in the Constitution. If slavery was important, it would have been covered without ambiguity. At best you have words you think might pertain to slavery, but could equally be applied to white Americas that were contracted apprentices, debtors, or indentured servants. Why? Because the language makes no reference to Slaves.

Your statement in bold just makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Equating slavery to apprenticeship is about as ridiculous as it comes.

Also, last I checked, slavery is most definitely referenced in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by 13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proof that we can and will amend the constitution to update it to modern times and that the founders beliefs aren't carved in stone.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

And if we are to believe elements of the bill of rights may not be valid today, why aren't the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th less valid.

This argument is full of fallacies right here. If you can't see that then there is no point even wasting time debating with you, because it's not going to go anywhere.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

No, the issue of government oppression, insurrection, war and self-defense are present today, as it was in the 1700’s making the 2nd no less vital.

Put away the tinfoil hat. The government isn't oppressing you any time soon. And if they do, a few citizen cowboys with their AR-15s aren't going to be much of a match for our military with our F-22s, nukes, and special ops forces.

What the hell is it with gun owners and paranoia?

Originally Posted by Technarchy

They also created a process for handling matters that relate to the constitution. It just so happens the gun grabbers don't have the votes, so until then, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The militia is organized which in the modern terms is the National Guard, and unorganized which are the people.

Keep telling yourself whatever you want. The fact remains that gun owners are a small minority in this country. One poll I saw (I think on CNN) had nearly 75% of the country wanting more restrictions and eliminating some types of guns.

There's also a good chance a couple Supreme Court justices will be retiring in the next few years. If Obama appoints two more liberal judges to replace them, there's a good chance the amendment could be reinterpreted.

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by zioxide

The fact remains that gun owners are a small minority in this country. One poll I saw (I think on CNN) had nearly 75% of the country wanting more restrictions and eliminating some types of guns.

Is 35-40% of households, really a small minority?

A lot of responsible gun owners are in favor of tighter restrictions on who can own a gun. You can't say that it's only people who don't want any change, who are the only gun owners.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by zioxide

...The fact remains that gun owners are a small minority in this country. ...

Gun owners might be a small minority on this forum, but they are certainly not a small minority in the U.S.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

Is 35-40% of households, really a small minority?

A lot of responsible gun owners are in favor of tighter restrictions on who can own a gun. You can't say that it's only people who don't want any change, who are the only gun owners.

If around 40% of households do own a gun and around 75% of people do favor increased regulations and restrictions on some types of guns then there are two things we can say:

There are a good amount of gun owners who favor increasing regulations and restrictions.

And the gun owners who aren't in favor of any more regulations are the minority.

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Gun owners might be a small minority on this forum, but they are certainly not a small minority in the U.S.

They certainly aren't the majority.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by zioxide

If around 40% of households do own a gun and around 75% of people do favor increased regulations and restrictions on some types of guns then there are two things we can say:

There are a good amount of gun owners who favor increasing regulations and restrictions.

And the gun owners who aren't in favor of any more regulations are the minority...

Wow! You got one right (two, actually, to be precise).

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by zioxide

If around 40% of households do own a gun and around 75% of people do favor increased regulations and restrictions on some types of guns then there are two things we can say:

There are a good amount of gun owners who favor increasing regulations and restrictions.

And the gun owners who aren't in favor of any more regulations are the minority.



They certainly aren't the majority.

You said:

Originally Posted by zioxide

The fact remains that gun owners are a small minority in this country.

I was simply questioning the validity of that "fact", and it appears to be untrue.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

You said:


I was simply questioning the validity of that "fact", and it appears to be untrue.

Do you guys ever do anything besides arguing semantics?

Seriously, the last 6 posts were because I put the word "small" in a sentence.

No wonder this country will never get anything done or fix any of its problems. You clearly knew what the **** I was talking about but instead of actually caring about having a legitimate debate, you jump on and waste everyone's time over one word.

I'm done wasting my time with this ****ing garbage "discussion".


I guess if I was Ted Nugent this post would be considered an OWNING right?

[vastoholic]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Then there is "rising up" against the US government, which is, frankly, ridiculous.
If you rise up against the US government with an armed rebellion you'll just be labelled a terrorist.

I don't see a problem with this. If it came to the point where we decided it was necessary to rebel against our own government, labels aren't going to mean a thing to the rebels. *insert Star Wars pun here*

You could say the American militia were terrorists against the British during the revolution.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by vastoholic

I don't see a problem with this. If it came to the point where we decided it was necessary to rebel against our own government, labels aren't going to mean a thing to the rebels. *insert Star Wars pun here*

You could say the American militia were terrorists against the British during the revolution.

Trying to apply a term in today's meaning to something that happened almost 300 years ago is a straw hat argument, and is useless.

If you are now going to equate anything like a militia to terrorism, 9/11 really has screwed with your heads, which is just what the true terrorist groups want.

Also, if you are worried about 'rebelling' against our own government, you may first want to look up the treason laws, which part is also listed in the Constitution, as well as take a look at yourselves as what is truly causing your fear and paranoia. Rebelling isn't going to solve that, as you'd become the very thing that you'd be rebelling against; Very Orwellian indeed.

You want to help? come to the table and talk it out. Fearing that someone is going to take away your guns isn't going to help things, and would cause it to be made worse.

BL.