Ben Shapiro's 2A analysis

Thread starter #8

ambush80

Senior Member
"It depends on the definition of arms."
13:04 Pakman: "Where do we limit...RPG's nuclear arms, those are arms, right?"

Shapiro: "No, they're not actually. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own a warship".
 

Big7

Senior Member
Heard of Shapiro not the other guy. Never read any writings.
 
Pakman doesn't seem to ever say anything that's untrue.
But he signaled up front he's a gun grabber. He actually carried on a civil discussion with Shapiro so he's a well disciplined gun grabber.
 

Patriot44

Senior Member
Looking for 15 more minutes. Everyone needs to let their elected officials know, come for my guns and Inwill kill you. No compromise. NONE?
 

ryanh487

Senior Member
13:04 Pakman: "Where do we limit...RPG's nuclear arms, those are arms, right?"

Shapiro: "No, they're not actually. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own a warship".
It does, actually.

And you can own an RPG, through the unconstitutional NFA.

Technically you could own a nuclear weapon. And there are no laws at all against owning a non-explosive cruise missile, like a SCUD with no warhead attached.

The early American navy was composed of private merchant ships armed with cannons.
 
Thread starter #14

ambush80

Senior Member
But he signaled up front he's a gun grabber. He actually carried on a civil discussion with Shapiro so he's a well disciplined gun grabber.
Pakman is the best representative for Progressive ideas I've seen. He's calm, cool, full of facts and civility.
 

PopPop

Senior Member
Pakman is the best representative for Progressive ideas I've seen. He's calm, cool, full of facts and civility.
That's nice, a hug before the shackles makes the day so much easier. Doris Day could even sing a song about it.
 
Pakman is the best representative for Progressive ideas I've seen. He's calm, cool, full of facts and civility.
Which makes him dangerous. He made a few concessions re: the 2A but he's still a gun grabber.
 
13:04 Pakman: "Where do we limit...RPG's nuclear arms, those are arms, right?"

Shapiro: "No, they're not actually. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own a warship".
That's a negative, ghost rider. Check out Steven Crowder's Masterclass on the 2nd Amendment, from this past July, and you'll see that private citizens were endowed with the right to put cannon on their ships, i.e. turning them into warships.
 
Thread starter #18

ambush80

Senior Member
Which makes him dangerous. He made a few concessions re: the 2A but he's still a gun grabber.
One might say that Shapiro is a gun grabber if he doesn't think anyone should own a warship.

My whole point of posting this video was to show that people who support the 2A do so with varying ideas of what that means. I don't think anyone would consider Shapiro a Liberal or doubt that he's a Conservative, but he has a different interpretation of the 2A than 2A Fundamentalists. Also that Pakman, an avowed Progressive can be for gun ownership. It takes all kinds. I would say that 2A Fundamentalists (I think I made up that term) are a minority. That's OK. It takes all kinds.
 
Last edited:

PopPop

Senior Member
One might say that Shapiro is a gun grabber if he doesn't think anyone should own a warship.

My whole point of posting this video was to show that people who support the 2A do so with varying ideas of what that means. I don't think anyone would consider Shapiro a Liberal or doubt that he's a Conservative, but he has a different interpretation of the 2A than 2A Fundamentalists. Also that Pakman, an avowed Progressive can be for gun ownership. It takes all kinds. I would say that 2A Fundamentalists (I think I made up that term) are a minority. That's OK. It takes all kinds.
"The Right of The People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Neither Shapiro nor Parkman support these clearly and expressly written words. Those words are the 2nd Amendment. Excepting or promoting some personally held misreading of those words is not support for, it is support against. The only variable is to what degree. Butchering the language, the very meaning of words, to conclude or infer something more comfortable to suit your opinion is not the act of the intellectual nor the honest. Using data to support what data does not show is intellectually dishonest.
I would prefer that these people be honest, they do not support the 2nd Amendment, some will tolerate private ownership of some arms and some will not. All prefer that this Right be a regulated privilege, and everyone of them and those who agree with them should declare that.
 
Top