schoooooooled.

The question needs to be asked "How can an AR15 defend against tyranny?"

Mmm, circular arguments, you don't get anyone anywhere.

As for guns. I'm Canadian, I think guns should be tools. There are people in the North and in the bush who can't survive without them or have a limited life style if they don't have them.

I don't see the point of Assault weapons and hand guns to the public. Why would people need hand guns and assault weapons? What do you need to assault?

Pair of dickheads

Agreed. I'm no fan of Morgan, but it is fun to see him school these right wing clowns.

Well, I'm no fan of bullshit- Morgan got schooled in proper semantics and courtesy. The winner of the proper use of the fucking English language with a view to transmission of information and "How to answer a fucking question when asked goes to the guy who just shit down Piers throat and asked him how the kak-burger tasted.

Really think Breitbart died of natural causes?

It's a rifle. "Assault" added to agitate people who just recently surprised themselves having learned how to use simple hand tools.

Breitbart died of natural causes, probably due a mix of poor diet, lack of exercise and high levels of stress. I'm surprised you would buy into his nonsense, considering the amount of time you spend railing on dishonest and frivolous media. Breitbart was as dishonest and frivolous as they come.

Ham is correct, that Brietbart lackey got his ass handed to him on a silver platter.

Moving this video to chingalera's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by pumkinandstorm.

There's no difference between this:
http://www.capitanhipower.com/Photos/M1Rifle.jpg

and this:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/M1A96819/m1-3.gif

Other than ergonomics...
Same action, same rifle (M1 Garand)

Something tells me that this guy (the guest) truly IS an expert on bullies - how they give one wedgies, relieve one of one's lunch money and stuff one in the nearest trash can.

Oh yes. An EXPERT.

"don't lump me in with Alex Jones"

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHA!

So if our government magically becomes tyrannical, they would obviously remove the 2nd amendment correct?

So if there is no second amendment and guns have been confiscated does this magically stop you from stealing/hiding/stockpiling guns and revolting anyway? Or do you just sit on your thumbs and accept the tyranny cursing "damnit! they revoked the 2nd amendment, we were so close to revolting too!"

And if our gov't becomes tyrannical in the right wing fanatic's fantasy world, how does your AR-15 plan on dealing with Apache helicopters? and F-22s? and laser guided munitions, and bunker busters...or SEAL teams?.

When has the lack of a 2nd amendment stopped anyone from revolting against an oppressive gov't?

If you're going to successfully revolt against a tyrannical 21st century America, you;re going to need at the very least"

1) popular support: in other words, if the guy you voted for doesn't win the election, that's not tyranny. Call me when we stop having elections, then you might have a stronger case for tyrannical govt. paying higher taxes isn't tyranny. Sorry.

2) military support: sorry, your cache of small arms, shotguns, and rifles (assault or otherwise) aren't going to cut it. you're going to need many military units to defect and oppose the government. And guess what, the commander of these units that defect will in all likelihood be leading said revolt, not the right wing pundits and chicken hawks (they'll be too busy cowering in the bomb shelters) and it won't be your "patriotic" militia wannabe survival nut.

3) lots of computer nerds and cyber warfare. Sorry son, the era of the jock is over. The world is digital now bitches. bits can be more powerful than bullets in today's world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. the 2nd Amendment is largely symbolic and nothing more. It basically says that yes, the populace has the right to be armed (something both sides agree with, the degree of which is debatable but I'll get to that in a moment) and that *IF* the government gets tyrannical you aught to revolt

As for what kind of weapons should be allowed. If you acknowledge that its reasonable to keep nuclear arms, and military vehicles and planes and other heavy weapons and firearms out of civilian hands, then you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendments DOES have it's limits. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment. Muskets were the pinnacle of weapons technology. Everyone was allowed to have them. So if you acknowledge that in TODAY'S world, that there are certain firearms that civvies shouldn't have, then you acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't think of everything and times do, in fact, change

Note that it was Shapiro who talked about taking handguns away.

No negotiation, make it all or nothing, whispers versus consensus.

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War

Then why do people, in the general public, need assault rifles?

Why does the general public need high fructose corn syrup? Why does the general public need anything but for which you have allotted them? Is now need to be the only measure of what right should be allowed? I can't make a good argument for why many things that exist, do, and if that is to be the measure of the law, I doubt videosift would exist at all.

(edit, arg, 2am grammar)

I should point out that I agree with the thrust of this statement, just not the aim. People don't need unhealthy food either, but I would rather convince them rather than dictate it, if that makes any sense. 'Don't need' and 'shouldn't be allowed to possess' are 2 different arguments.

I would be interested in your argument for the non-possession of assault rifles. How will you justify it versus other things that are legal and demonstrably more lethal? Would the argument be consistent with the prohibition of drugs or alcohol, if not, how does it differ?

"As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States."

We've seen 4 mass shooting using these type of guns, that equates to 0.0001081081%.

It's a wasted energy trying to ban these type of guns. Just make it difficult to own these type of guns and ban gun show sales.

Lets be rational about this, it doesn't matter what type of guns people use, unless we control the type of people that are allowed to own guns.

Ugh... Piers is such a prick. I may usually side with the left on social issues, but dude... Shapiro completely owned Piers in both logic and in being reasonable.

CATO. That is, Complete and Total Ownage of the prissy Brit.

When was the last time someone walked into a food court and killed a bunch of people with a hoagie and a large coke? Booze is allowed and can be dangerous, but it is also illegal to drink and drive, also being drunk isn't a legit court defence.

Don't ban guns, like I said, they are tools for a lot of people where I live. Things like shotguns, hunting rifles are things that are needed to survive. Maybe it's the difference between Canada and the US. I trust my police services to defend me when I call.

I still don't see the point of hand guns for the public. Why does anyone need one? Again, it could be a difference of culture. Why would anyone need an assault weapon? Call the cops.

*edit: I also hate that Piers is using this to make himself like a hero. To me, him doing this is the same as when Fox News brings on the Phelps family to boost ratings.

This is just "Gun Theater." It's merely a distraction to those people upset about guns. Nobody answers any questions, nobody says anything new, both sides present their rhetoric in a new and even more passionate way.
No one learns anything but instead we are even more hardened to our original viewpoints. THIS IS NOT GOOD TV. and we pay to watch it and there are ads... good god... millions of dollars in production costs, state of the art live television, full orchestra accompaniment... fills our hearts with bile and venom.

Yeah, I would agree that it's rather skeezy of Piers to invite this stream of mouth-breathers, conspiracy theorists, and tinfoil-hat wearers so that he doesn't really have to say anything. He just sits back and lets these guys sabotage their own cause. There's plenty of republicans that have broken ranks and have come out in favor of some form of increased safety measure so he really should be interviewing one of them.

America always had cool shit for sale. When I was a kid it was firecrackers. Doesn't really surprise me they have assault weapons for sale.
Some nut job took the weapon to a school and shot kids. Well shits that's fucked up.

A lot better than a pea shooter.

I think if you had an AR15 or a pea shooter, if you're facing down a tank, I'm pretty sure you're screwed.

It's rare that there's a video where people adamantly think each person clearly schooled the other. Intersting stuff.

So Piers is convinced banning assault rifles will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Making possession of them illegal is something he thinks will improve things.

A quick google search suggests he also believes the EXACT OPPOSITE effect is to be expected with illicit drugs...

Really wish honest debate still existed somewhere and not just political point scoring contests.