He made this same argument on Joe Rogan talking about the need for increased in law enforcement in the same communities with high rates of single motherhood. Well if more law enforcement is going to mean more young men in jail, leaving more single mothers who raise boys that become more likely to commit crimes due to adverse child experiences than the vicious cycle continues. Not a great solution by Ben in my eyes.
Yeah, we need to allow these people in bad situations to commit crimes and get away with it. Don't put criminals in jail, its counter productive. If we let people with worse backgrounds get away with whatever they want it'll really help society.
@@adamtolbert6766 Reducing incarcerations as a way to deal with single parenthood is unlikely to have a significant impact. These issues are especially noticeable in Black communities. Roughly 10% of Black children have an incarcerated parent at some point, and of those, not all are incarcerated during their childrens whole upbringing. But the number of Black children growing up with a single parent is around 60%. It's legitimate to argue that reducing incarceration is not a proportionate method of reducing single parenthood even if you admit that it plays a role in it.
You can't find many leftist being polite or being open to talking to people with different views. While a guy like Gavin McInnes isn't technically polite all the time at least he has humor and is open to talking to all kinds of people.
@@okyouknowwhatever what are you talking about? there are plenty of polite leftists. Gavin Mcinnes is not funny and super rude. so, your point makes zero sense
The thing is everyone thinks the other person has some evil idea behind owning or taking away guns. I believe everyone is looking for good and of ur mind gets changed let it happen don’t be stubborn America. 👍
Pocket Panther Look at you being just vague enough to not have to back up your assertion, while also avoiding backlash. Why comment something so uselessly abstract?
Carlos V I think my views line up 99% with Pakman. He is the voice of reason on the left. He can find the balance when Ilhan Omar says the wrong thing. Or when AOC makes a mistake he’s not afraid to call it like it is. That’s the kind of leftist I am. One who unflinchingly follows evidence wherever it leads. Even though it puts me at odds with the Kulinski, Dore, TYT, etc crowds. They don’t have the mental fortitude Pakman has.
Although I disagree with Ben on most things, I gotta say I love how this interview went. During polarizing times it’s nice to see calm and handled debate.
@@jesui. The point is he used to be more reasonable, but now he's contributing to all the vitriolic divisiveness that plagues current political discourse. Given how you qualified your original statement by saying 'polarising times' I understand why the response was to point out that this was a good while ago, because it would place it before the polarisation you see today.
@@richarddavis3157 yup on both. Why tf do y’all care so much about what people choose to do to themselves? And don’t talk about no kids either 😂 it’s clear this country doesn’t care about those, even less if they’re poor or have melanin.
@@coldmexican288 Aaawwwe... It's ok, a lot of people with diminished mental capacity aren't able to understand and recognize sarcasm. We know it's not your fault.
@@bradpointer6134 a lot of dudes with diminished penis size share the characteristics that you show. Being aggressive towards others to compensate that void in your personality. It's okay buddy, just learn to accept your reality and stop projecting your traumas in the form of exterior aggression. Seek help Brad. Your family can still take you back, just learn to control yourself.
Kyïv stuff He doesn't seem to understand guerrilla warfare tho. He made the "whatcha gonna do bout the tanks" argument, to which one should always respond "ever heard of Vietnam?"
Sumguy who jerks it to Waifus No we don't live in Vietnam, thanks for pointing out the obvious. We live where people have more training and weapons than the Vietcong or Vietnim ever did. The whole war is a case study on how the most powerful military in the world can be taken down by starving, shoeless, and under supplied people. The Taliban never had tanks either, damn sure survived and thrived. Did you have a rebuttal or something to add that's meaningful? The wording is fine if you understand English, implementation is the fight.
no way the UK got 5 times higher numbers of violent crime than the US; you are just throwing out big numbers to try and make an empty point. facts are that nowhere in the civilized world do we have anywhere near the number of people getting killed by guns, in most civilized nations we almost NEVER see anyone getting shot; it happens a few times in your lifetime NOT everyday. facts are that in every civilized nation on the planet guns are heavily restricted to the point of unobtainable for civilians. there is, therefore, a clear knowledge that banning guns completely for any other purpose than hunting, which is heavily regulated for that purpose specifically, WORKS and SAFES LIVES and No one should be ok with people dying just so you can test out unfounded theories of BS All so you can have a little more fun doing frankly really stupid stuff.
It’s because when you pile people into cities like rats living on top of each other with jobs that barely cover bills and wage slavery you have anger and you have dissent
Part of that is true, but it starts at home, a lot of the young men who commit murders usually the father isn’t around, by the time system gets to these kids the damage is already done
Guns are a necessary evil just like government. When are the conditions right to give up guns, when checks and balance in government can deteriorate by republican or democratic majorities overriding them.
@@vedantpatel6379 well some republicans function as democrats, that is marxists, theres nothing funny here russia and germany wanted to kill everyone and their kids it could happen in america
@@erik878 Hitler wasn't a Marxist, but an extreme right fascist. In fact a way to get into a CC was being a commie. I know in the USA You don't get proper educated, but You really should stop with the communist fear bullshit, they had it 100 years ago and because of it we end up with people like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, and because no one wanted to talk about communism (remember russian workers tried to negotiate with the zar before the revolution) we ended up with Stalin instead of Tolstoy. Plz stop, it's been 100 years, we now know both systems suck ¿Can we stop acting like one of them is good?
@@emiliohoms6491 I think it’s in fact you who’s not proper educated on this. Fascism is essentially a nationalist version of socialism. You need a powerful state in order to have fascism. If you look up where fascism stems from, Giovanni Gentile was the founder of fascism and got his inspiration from socialism. Marxism and fascism have a common origin. A strong, totalitarian state there to guide the people and work for the «common good» is a trait in both socialism and fascism. The only difference is who they favor. Socialism is supposed to favor the weak, while fascism an ethnic group or a country. The end result is the same however, a tyrannical government claiming more and more power and abandoning people’s freedoms. This is the opposite of right-wing politics, where the power is handed to the people, and where people have to provide for each other in order to accumulate wealth. You can’t become powerful through coercion.
Ben doesn't seem to give his own opinions anymore. He just seems to be an echo chamber for Trump and the Republican party. It's a shame really because he used to be refreshing to listen to and now his arguments are awful because I think he's defending what he doesn't believe.
Agreed. It's likely because David's an adult (no matter how young he was at the time), and because this was likely *before* the Trump era (rather, 'error').
Fine, but it doesn't actually accomplish or solve anything. At the end of the day, if these were two lawmakers, their genial discussion of the issue would still not lead to a bill.
I would love to see a part 2 to this. This was honestly the most productive and mature conversation i’ve seen on gun control between the left and right. Ben should extend the invitation to David Pakman since David Pakman invited him the first time.
Nobody's stopping you from having these conversations, it shouldn't be up to some host on the internet to debate for you. Every single person can have these conversations if they choose to.
@@missburn Exactly. People need to stop being so afraid and reluctant to have an open honest non-judgmental conversation. Most people are willing to have conversations, and are absolutely not like those lunatics you see on the internet who scream and throw slurs around.
You haven't seen much of Shapiro past the highlights then. As is true with a lot of personalities in the modern era, you need sample size to get through all of the soundbytes.
Exactly. Apparently David would be one of those "bad jews" Shapiro is a spineless coward out of touch with reality. Big funding and sensationalism sells. Unfortunately, his concern is not unity but divide and conquer. Weasel shit. Schmuck.
I feel like COVID 2020 is a good response to a lot of opinions that David holds here. He mocks that the 2nd isn't important and that time restrictions are no big deal, however here in California there were lines wrapped around every single gun store for months because people were realizing how important being able to defend yourself is. We generally live during a safe time and safe country so we are very privileged to mock the 2nd amendment
His comments about the UK rates are just false. The US has about 4 times the intentional homicide rate than the UK. This figure has been relatively steady for 20 years.
I'm also not a fan of Shapiro, but anyone who gets distracted or loses respect for such a small thing has their brain more tangled than his earbuds. Listen to what someone says because that's what matters, don't pay attention to the frivolous stuff.
Good freaken interview. It's awesome that you're actually asking questions to clarify Ben's points and bring out where other's may see the disagreement. Gj.
MOST OF THE GUNS USED IN GUN CRIMES IN CHICAGO ARE DONE WITH GUNS BOUGHT LEGALLY IN INDIANA AND SOLD ILLEGALLY IN CHICAGO. YOU CAN THANK INDIANA'S LACK OF GUN LAWS FOR CHICAGO'S GUN CRIMES!! Sorry for using caps but I'm so sick and tired of seeing this numerously debunked talking point resurface every 5 days lol like WTF. Gun laws have to be made FEDERAL cause unlike our national borders there's no fucking CUSTOMS checkpoints between our own states!!
@@tcg4111 okay but guns are legal in indiana and they have way less crime then Chicago. The issue isnt the guns its the human behind them if u wanna kill someone you can use many things to kill people. Also gun violence because of gangs doesnt bother me because if those idiots wanna murder eachother go ahead. We do neet to do something about mass shootings though
@@matthewmiller8758 I don't think you understood my comment at all here. They have less crime cause they have 1/10th the population! The guns used in Chicago are obtained legally from Indiana, therefore INDIANA'S lenient gun laws where anyone can buy as many guns as they want at a gun show, is the REASON behind CHICAGO'S gun violence.
@@joffermann nah, just annoyed by all the cop outs people use to write ideas off these days. Grifter and dog whistle just seem to be the most trendy ones today.
@Cools DOODS 1. it isn't me it gets directed at. 2. people saying something in the youtube comment sections doesn't make it true unless it can be supplemented with explaination or evidence. otherwise it's just trendy name calling.
@Cools DOODS "they"? who is they? you're assuming that anybody who gets called a grifter on the internet is either actually a grifter or has room temp IQ? am I following you correctly? or are you talking about the ones making the accusations?
Baffling levels of hypocrisy. He'll argue for small government until it doesn't fit his narrative anymore, then the US might as well become a police state as far as he's concerned.
We need heavier police presence so that more can be done, but you still need to be prepared should the help that you expect doesn’t arrive. If you’re prepared, you’ll be less sorry then if you weren’t.
You know, the first USA millionaire made a lot of his fortune from owning privateers, which were converted warships with cannon. Also, a machine gun was patented in London before the Boston Massacre, so they existed, as well. Nuclear weapons, not so much, so anti-gun people at least have an argument, there.
@@Egilhelmson also the first American millionaire was a fur trading company owner John Jacob Arstur (The American Fur Company) and lobbyist, not a privateer "owner". So you're just wrong on all counts, can't say I'm surprised.
@@sgtjohnson49 you are thinking of something like a Gatling gun which did come out of the 1860's, but there are much older versions of fast firing guns. The puckle gun came out in the 1720's which had a revolving cylinder but a very early version. Still could fire 3 times faster than a musket but failed to be properly reliable. All this is to say, the technology is older than you think. Old level actions rifles which did come out in the 1830's can get to ridiculous speeds, not even being semi.
@@jmbrook a single action revolver that wasn't very reliable isn't comparable to a fully automatic weapon. A lever action rifle with an internal magazine which takes at least 20 seconds to reload is not comparable to a fully automatic belt felt Gatling gun. That is what a machine gun is. To say that there were fully automatic weapons during the 1700s is just blatantly false. Primitive revolving weapons? Absolutely, there were revolving cannons and arrow weapons before machine guns that as well. That doesn't make them a machine gun. There were even a belt fed revolvers, though idk actually used more than as a prototype (though you can buy modern ones nowadays) but they were still a single action revolver, not a machine gun.
MOST OF THE GUNS USED IN GUN CRIMES IN CHICAGO ARE DONE WITH GUNS BOUGHT LEGALLY IN INDIANA AND SOLD ILLEGALLY IN CHICAGO. YOU CAN THANK INDIANA'S LACK OF GUN LAWS FOR CHICAGO'S GUN CRIMES!! Sorry for using caps but I'm so sick and tired of seeing this numerously debunked talking point resurface every 5 days lol like WTF. Gun laws have to be made FEDERAL cause unlike our national borders there's no fucking CUSTOMS checkpoints between our own states!!
@@tcg4111 So what you're saying is criminals don't follow laws and find ways around them. At the same time we have a huge illegal immigration problem at the border of Mexico. So if those criminals can figure out how to bypass customs you don't think other criminals can. If all the guns are taken away from citizens how would they defend themselves from those criminals? Just rely on police? Lol.
@@tcg4111 That's clearly not what I was saying. You're the one saying let's get rid of all the guns. Im saying if you get rid of all the guns, and criminals still don't follow laws, then all you have to protect yourself and your loved ones is the police force your kind hates so much. Funny how you call me the dumbass for an idea held by you though.
Wow. I'm a big supporter of the second amendment and I've been listening to Ben for years. I've never actually heard this specific argument against it and I don't know how to think about it. I appreciate the way you presented that and I really think you stumped Ben as well as me. Much respect, I will be tuning in to see more of your content and political opinions in the future!
@@jeramysteve3394 I've seen content from his show. He plays off people's fear and outage to stay relevant. When he speaks he shows how narrow his mind is. I don't avoid his perspective but I don't actively seek it either. I don't think we agree on much and that's why I don't mind hearing what he has to say. Being deaf to a different view is unhealthy.
Not to mention, he wants to imprison even more people than we already do. Gee I wonder why 🤔 could it be because these people with the "cultural issues" in Ben's eyes are voters too??
@@extremecentrism9796 he definitely cited "culture" as being the primary issue. He went on to talk at length about the differences between New Hampshire and Chicago, etc, which on the face of it could be a legislative or pop density issue, but he places the context in "culture." @Extreme Centrism 16:16 Pakman: what is the problem? Shapiro: It's culture
Could that be the way you wanna think of what he said and so spin it that way?... And lets be honest because the truth will set us free. There is a gun culture problem in a certain demographic which he mentions here 4:26. He never mentions color but the truth is the truth.
David, for future reference when someone brings up this nonsensical talking point that the UK has a higher crime rate compared to the US, you need to push back on this deceitful statement. USA categorizes violent crime into 4 broad categories. This is how it's recorded: “In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” In the UK however, lot of minor offenses are recorded as violent crime because of the way they define it. “Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” So in the US for it to be considered a violent crime, you need to actually injure someone whereas in the UK even if you attempt to injure someone it's recorded as a violent crime. In the UK minor sexual advances are also considered assault. So it's pretty fucking obvious, UK's violent crime rate will be higher than the US. However if the US followed UK methodology then our crime rate would go through the roof! Please don't let right wingers peddle this lie anymore on your show.
whoa did not know about this MASSIVE difference... and none of the bloody mainstream news have shed the light on this?? what kind of rubbish news allows this disinformation to continue...
@@TheItachiRulez data points? Lol Are you pretending to actually know what you're talking about? Stop being lazy. It's not very hard to look it up. "lol" It's so easy to actually educate yourself but more and more people are turning into lazy assholes
If you recently take it severe violent crimes in proportion this year so far for the first time ever London has overtaken New York. Also, since the ban on the handguns in the UK during the 90s looking across the decade afterwards (not just a statistical outliner year), there has actually been an increase in homicide by firearms.
that one time Ben contradicted his stance on gun control similar to how the NRA did back when the black panther party operated in arms in the late 60s.
not really. what's Pakman's opinion on this? nobody knows because his debate tactic is to try to trap and then end the show. pretty disingenuous. btw Arms are not weapons, arms are firearms and small arms. that's not tanks, boats, grenade launchers.... it's a very dishonest tactic.
@@nettlegettle3534 really that's the argument that you want to make arms aren't weapons? Do you know what a weapon is? A gun is a weapon it's also a right but doesn't change the fact that it is a weapon. A car can be a weapon, a shoe could be a weapon, a gun/Arm is innately a weapon.... You are an idiot. To say an armament (arm/gun) isn't a weapon 😂
@@nettlegettle3534 'Arms' is short for 'armaments', which is a synonym for 'weapons'. Dictionaries agree on that. One can be armed with things ranging from words to nuclear bombs.
@jeremy Miers, I agree a little, but it’s his show. I don’t feel like he was dishonest, but he certainly wanted to direct the conversation in a specific direction. I love watching Joe Rogan for that reason. For the most part Joe takes the time to listen to his guests and allow them the opportunity to explore their ideas in a much deeper way than most. Problem is, Joe’s shows take 2-3 hours. Lol.
@@paulaw3399 it must trigger you when someone isn't a partisan hack like you and makes a wholesome comment like enjoying the conversation that you have to reply how the other side is this bad person
@L Cincinnatus The alpha chud speaketh, oh yes, the right definitely has lots to be proud of, what with the electing of a reality show tv star, caging of children, white genocide paranoia, and the bootlicking of criminal politicians and all. Yes, so much to be proud of.
@Steve Austin 'Tax cuts' I think you mean 'the biggest tax increase in history'. That's a 'loss'. Economic growth: The gross domestic product has grown by more than 3% for multiple quarters. He's decreased it by about 1% on average, while obama increased it by 6%. Another loss. 'Coal: Trump stopped Obama’s war on coal.' I don't think you understand what 'coal' is. That's a loss. Going backwards is a loss. 'Unemployment: the number of people collecting unemployment benefits has continued to fall to a near 44-year low. ' A lie of omission that can be seen from space. 'Deregulation:' Since when is surrendering winning? That's a loss. 'Consumer confidence: consumer confidence rose to the highest level in 17 years, according to the New York-based Conference Board.' It was rising at the same rate before him. Not a win, let alone for him. That's it? A bunch of things he didn't do, or are directly detrimental to the people are 'wins'? I don't think you understand what a 'win' is. These are 'wins' in the same way WW2 wasn't a 'Win' for the Jews.
David, I’m a longtime subscriber to the Daily Wire and a huge fan of Ben Shapiro. This discussion was intelligent, civil, and supremely demonstrated both of your points. To be honest, this is the first time I’m ever hearing about you, but I would love to see you have more discussions of this kind with Ben and other conservative pundits.
Hopefully you listen to more of David and others like Sam Seder to broaden your perspective. Shapiro has solid takes in a lot of cases but has huge blindspots and inconsistencies. He repeatedly claims absolute drivel like 'the west did it best when it comes to science' and tries to conflate religion with science/reason/civilization. www.juancole.com/2019/05/shapiro-science-white.html
@@kenshin1368 No! It comes to whether you have a LEFTIST or RIGHT world view. It has nothing to do with logic. You filter facts according to how you see the world.
@@jaimearviso4771 that's a pretty dumb take lol. People's perspectives aren't fixed. People aren't left or right inherently; it's relatively easy to change someone's perspective with a little time.
16:36 This is where David "DESTROYS" Ben Shapiro. Ben says it's simple; the 2nd amendment protects the right to arms "necessary" to prevent tyranny then goes on to stutter and draw a hard line in the sand that semi-automatic rifles is all that's necessary to prevent tyranny, even against tanks. And supposedly he spoke to veterans that attended war college who did "studies" and concluded that the army cannot handle insurrectionists armed with semi-automatic rifles. The fact that he thinks insurrectionists armed with SEMI-automatic rifles can defeat trained soldiers with AUTOMATIC rifles, bazookas, tanks, APCs, A10 Warthogs, Apache helicopters, strike drones, and on and on is just laughable. Like a tyrannical government wouldn't be above using those options. It's obvious David wanted to have an adult conversation and bobbed and weaved through Ben Shapiro eloquently and I thank him for that. I still can't believe David got Ben Shapiro to say that he's not against background checks and mandatory training.
That’s not how it works anyways . If there were a civil war military bases would be taken over and used just like in the first civil war. It would be tanks v tank, jet v jet. Majority of military bases are in NC. A red state. Also majority of guns, gun owners and military personnel live in red states.
I think there is too much anti-government rhetoric with little to no understanding that the Government is a crucial part of how America functions and is made up of citizens, friends, and neighbors. The beauty of the Constitution is that it requires elections and reexamination of representatives and policies on a regular basis. Additionally, every citizen has access to the Courts, free speech, and the media to bring forward their complaints of injustice. The idea that violence, revolution, and killing represents a viable solution is ludicrous and dangerous--particularly for those at the fringes of society.
So your worried about people that commit crimes, often violent crimes, and that they might be jailed too long? Do the crime do the time. Worry about the people that were robbed or brutalized and not criminals who made the decision to steal and hurt people. The facts is that most criminals get out of jail and commit more crimes- and the crimes they get convicted of almost surely is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the crimes they have committed. They finally got caught … Daddy did not play catch with me is hardly a reason to commit crimes nor a mitigating reason for less time. The time is not for punishment but to protect other people from becoming this person’s victim.
@@atlasrex that's a digusting twisting of what we pretend the prison system is designed for. Rehabilitation. The fact so many people go back in after getting out, shows the prison system doesnt work. at all. It's a strategy to vilify people when you throw around blanket statements about crimes committed. Espeiclaly when so many of these crimes are victimless, AND weed based.
You are delusional. Spend a day in a prison and you will discover that vast majority of the people are not kindly pot smokers but dangerous people with little regard for the welfare of other humans and they deserve to be in jail and the reason they need to be locked up is too protect the decent people who they prey on if allowed free will and access to other people. They repeat crimes even after being jailed often for years. The only change comes from age - over 45 criminals tend to reduce their criminal behavior. A rational prison system for violent prone criminals is to keep them locked up until they are over 50 as then their violent tendencies typically decline. The prisons are full of very dangerous people. The reason Dems want criminals released is simply that they want to turn them all into democratic voters.
@@swagstyle33 of course all black people have the same culture. it would be ridiculous to say they do. im not racist, and im not really pushing logic, im speculating my beliefs. i think ben shapiro is more concerned with black gang violence in chicago than he is poor white violence in the south. he gets to use very convenient wording, but weve gotten almost a decade of listening to him explain his views, hes a classic republican.
@@swagstyle33 People who can see the stereotypes and hear the dog whistles aren't necessarily the racist ones. It's the people who pretend it's not what it is...those are the racist ones.
Ben is a smart guy but has a fragile ego. In my opinion David is seeking a solution to the problem above all else, and makes better points in the discussion. A very fine interview.
It us a good interview. David does well here by continually stopping Shapiro from entering into an endless speel of lies and archaic phrases. But Shapiro is not smart. Sadly, people need to really fact check each and every claim he makes. Selective use of data to construct a false narrative is deceitful, not clever.
David simply agreed with Ben on everything until it came to owning tanks and then David said it was muddled and that he didn't understand Ben's argument. What better point do you think David made?
Jacob Craven great points. And we ignore the fact that rural states like Oklahoma have as many suicides (committed mostly by firearm) as very large cities have murders.
@@victorbergman9169 "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Ehrlichman, Assistant to President on Domestic Affairs
@@sirius1696 More people need to be aware of that quote...we need to legalize drugs like cocaine and heroin so that we can take the violence out of the sales of those drugs, as well as ensure that those drugs aren’t laced with even worse stuff like fentanyl...we can also label the packaging like we do with tobacco with info letting people know how harmful the drugs are
Funny how some people are stuck in a medieval shallow concept about skin color differences. Let's be biologicaly precise: there is one race and that is human race. Ethnics are not that different to consider there are different human races; there are different ethnics. So, the mere concept of racism grows from an error. One more thing: colors don't really exist; they are perceptions from different electromagnetic waves and not everyone sees colors the same. And finally, white people are not really white. They are more or less pink, sometimes yellow or red and even there are orange people. None of them are white, not even albinos are really white. And so it goes for the other colors. "Black ones' are not really black. It is funny how science have taken us this far and ignorance keep people and their leaders in XII century... oh the humanity, if Thanos had the chance to know us, he would have swipe away all and each one of us...
@@jacintocuellar945 medieval? Haha i agree with u bro but this dumb concept of race isn't even that old tho bro .but yea really stupid crap .skin color got nothing to do with psychology, dont even make sense. Its culture and environment and up bringing
One thing. Ben Shapiro mentioned how we needed guns as a protection against a tyrannical government...but then he listed tyrannical things our government did despite the fact that people owned guns. He kinda destroyed his own point
I don't think you thought that through carefully enough. Something that seems like a reasonable thing to say at first, but breaks down when examined further. Try substituting the variables and see if your reasoning still holds. Here, I'll start it for you. Ben Shapiro mentioned how we needed (x) as a protection against (y)...but then he listed (y happened) despite the fact that (x existed). He kinda destroyed his own point. So here's the question you need to ask yourself: If (x) doesn't completely protect against (y), is it worth having (x)? Answer carefully.
@@FilterExel, based on Shapiro's example, every instance of tyranny by the US government has not been defeated by a well regulated militia in possession of guns and the divide in firepower between US citizens and the US military, which Shapiro supports, is greater now than it ever has been. On that basis, it's hard to take the threat of government tyranny as a genuine reason for allowing access to guns, especially when that's not what the vast majority of gun owners are most concerned about. A lot of people basically use the second amendment as a shield against having to defend their actual reason for wanting to own guns. That's not to say that those actual reasons are necessarily bad but those are the reasons that they should be defending. I also find it a little amusing that there's a large amount of overlap between those who claim that they need access to guns themselves to protect against a tyrannical government and those who want the government to spend even more money on the military. They are so worried about the government turning tyrannical that they want that government to have even more firepower to use against them?
@@wunnell Again, not good enough. To your credit, you do a much better job at explaining yourself than OP, but your scope is way too narrow to accurately reflect reality. First, the mistake you and the OP make is that you don't mention or recognize one simple fact. Most prevented tragedies go unrecorded. The simple fact is that the presence of firearms in the general public make it less likely for the US government (or any other government, for that matter) from tyrannizing the people. This is what my previous exercise should have revealed to anyone who took the challenge seriously. Another example: Just because we have enforced speed limits and not all people follow them, and subsequently wreck their cars, doesn't mean that enforced speed limits are ineffective. Under OP's logic, enforced speed limits are useless because they're violated sometimes, despite the police's best efforts. On the other hand, I can point to plenty of times persecuted groups are deprived or strictly limited of their right to arms, then subsequently persecuted further. The Jews and other "undesirables" during the 1930's in Germany, the people of the Soviet Union, some Warsaw pact countries, Venezuelans now. It's a lot harder to field infantry against your opponent if your opponent shoots at you, and infantry is critical for tyranny. So I reiterate, the 2nd Amendment acts in part as a preventative measure. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to work well enough. And all we have are indirect measurements to gauge its effectiveness. "every instance of tyranny by the US government has not been defeated" But not every instance of tyranny by governments within the US. Specifically, local governments. Look up the Battle of Athens (Tennessee). This was considered a proper use of the 2nd Amendment retroactively. This also adds another dimension to the 2nd that you didn't mention or recognize: It's not just for use against the federal government. State and local governments may not tyrannize the people so easily if the people can physically remove bad actors from power. "I also find it a little amusing that there's a large amount of overlap between those who claim that they need access to guns themselves to protect against a tyrannical government and those who want the government to spend even more money on the military." Source? Nearly all libertarians I have talked to are pro 2a but against military spending - they think it's a waste of taxpayer money. I'm not saying there is no overlap (there are stupid people out there, after all), but I think you're exaggerating it. "They are so worried about the government turning tyrannical that they want that government to have even more firepower to use against them?" Even if the overlap you pointed out is true in abstract (maybe you're using extremely broad categories), I don't think you will find many specific cases that hold this position.
It's a pity that you didn't call him out more, for an example his dog whistling. When he says he wants to take guns away from young men from single mother households, he's clearly talking about African Americans
Wow. Shapiro got really tongue- tied at the end there. His brain had to catch up to his mouth, I think. But good talk, on both sides overall. A few false dichotomies on Ben's side, but better than he is these days.
Wow Stewart had to make MULTIPLE posts about how much he hates Shapiro...He must really need the attention or really just needs to release his 'hate conspiracies' somewhere. Does Pakman really cater to an audience like this? It's a shame I really enjoy listening to him too...
I think David's pace help make this a good back and forth as perhaps he slows Ben a bit. I would like to hear more from Ben, but typically he sounds manic or at least with too many shots of espresso. This is nice.
"right to bear arms to prevent tyranny. We've had tyranny in this country. [Lists examples of tyranny not stopped by armed citizens]" Way to argue against your own point there, intellectual heavy weight.
He likes to have simple answers to complex problems.Which doesn't allow for any nuance. And from what I've seen of him, he's unwilling to concede any point even to s superior argument. He's so convinced that he's always right that he comes off as stubborn and obstinate.
David: If you gave people guns, the government would just overpower them with tanks Ben: That wouldn’t work because...I’ve talked to some people who said that it would be too hard David:....ok fascinating discussion
Look at how well the Vietnamese and the Afghans resisted the American tanks and helicopters with mainly gunpowder arms. The point of small guns isn't to kill the entire tyrant army but to make their tyranny miserable and costly. A stable police state can only be established amidst a population with no violent recourse.
sterlingveil sure, I get that, but guerrilla warfare works in Vietnam, and Afghanistan’s own government was and still is ruled by terrorists, so those are tough examples to say they would be consistent with how Americans would behave in a government takeover, especially when in this situation the troops would already be domestically stationed and the citizens contained without as much effort as it takes overseas. Government takeover is never easy and always messy. Venezuelans are still protesting their government right now without arms and there is a whole issue with proxy leaders in Guaido and Maduro representing other interests
You don't need to overpower a tank to defeat it. You can go after fuel, ammo,food, and various other supply routes. It is also a possibility that their will be a large number of soldiers (our own citizens) who are unwilling to follow the orders that would have them violate their own countrymen. A soldier may decide to be willfully ignorant in the event of actual government tyranny the way German soldiers did in wwii, but if and when they actually have to fight a well armed opposition this will likely not be the case.
craig halpin you kinda make the point FOR the government here. Food and supplies without external allies would be government owned or embargoed to weaken the uprising. Food and fuel rationing would be tougher for the rebel forces, not the government
@@stevejones5075 citizens are the ones who farm and rais cattle, so I really don't see your point. The army could possibly try to take farms, or more likely food and fuel storage facilities but the citizens already hold those locations. This type of operation would also spread the military thin if they had to guard all of the various food and fuel storage facilities.
But that's because the word "debate" has been subverted. A debate can be a civil discussion - but nowadays people want debates to be shitshows with "winners" and "losers"
Conservative here, thought it was a great interview. Fair, honest arguments from both sides. I'd love to see you on the Sunday Special, hopefully it happens 👍
Well I was a liberal my whole life from a liberal family. Parents voted for every Democrat from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama both terms. Have one gay sister who was married last year, gave a speech at her wedding. Other sister is trans and now identifies as male. Couldn't love him more, he's never really been a girl. It took me about a year to really admit that I had changed my mind about politics. Hadn't ever been interested in it, but I knew how I felt about social issues. After college, I started looking into it more just to keep my mind learning and not going to mush. Started with the left wing guys. Pakman, Seder, Rational National, etc. I noticed they all critiqued alot of the same people, and I figured it was responsible to look at an argument from both sides. So now I was watching both sides of the aisle, as well as guys like Dave Rubin (before he flipped sides) and Joe Rogan interview people on both the right and left. I got to the point that I secretly liked the right's arguments for basically every issue better but wouldn't admit it to myself. Then I watched Larry Elder on Dave Rubin's show. I watched him tell how he was criticized for being a black conservative. I watched as he told Rubin to take the most racist thing he could think of and give an example, and proceed to lay into him for 10 minutes with every fact in the book about black crime rates and arrest/murder rates by police, all of which I fact checked. A week from that day I switched policital parties at the DMV. You're right, there is a abundance of information out there. Maybe consider that if half of a country can think one way, there might be more to it than just a bunch of racist, boomer generation white people stuck in their ways.
@@undertaker66687 The police are part of the government. Giving them more powerful weapons is expanding the power they have over average citizens. That's literally making the government more powerful. How can you not see the contradiction?
@@GabbertEvergreen Smaller government and powerful government are different things. Conservatives believe in a small, powerful government that's effective in a reduced number of areas. Giving the police better weapons does not increase their power but it may make them more effective. What makes them more or less powerful is the law. There's no contradiction between arguing for smaller government and better armed police forces at the same time.
Ben never got called on his bs in this discussion. He was projecting white privilege and (maybe unrecognized) espousing racist tropes. He has no idea what growing up a poor inner city black child is like. He’s never been thrown to the ground, groped, and accused of being a gang member just because he was walking home from work. He didn’t have to make a choice between working fast food for $7.25 per hour or holding a bit of rock to make $300 in an hour.
I love it when we have an actual conversation between right wing and left wing were we can all learn something about both sides without yelling accusing , outright lying . When you Discuss a subject with an open mind that's the moment you can start to agree and come together to create solutions that serves us all
The argument of "guns to prevent tyranny" is absurd. Either the entire population is against the government and the soldiers are the first to take actions against it or, as it always do, some people support tyranny, most lower their heads and a very small minority take actions.
Yes, very true. When he brought up slavery and internment camps as a justification and example of the sort of tyranny the second amendment is there to address, to me, he (excuse the pun), shot himself in the foot. The second amendment didn't help the victims of either as neither had rights at the time. One group never had rights and the other had those rights taken away. What do you think would have happened to the people of Japanese heritage if they had tried to exercise their second amendment rights at that time?
In my opinion the Police and Army are the last resort against Tyrany. If the constitution actually allows itself to be voided, then it's a bad constitution... And if the common folk chooses tyrany, it's their fault doing so! Then YOU shouldn't start a rebelion, you are in an elected nation, your vote mattered and the only thing you need to do is shut up and wait until you can vote again, to make a difference in the ballotbox. People shouldn't bear arms in order to "Defend the Nation". Again, a trained army needs to have a purpose and that is not going into foreign nations and crack shit up. It is to defend your intrests, by defending your intrests you defend your nation against foreign powers. Well... Political plays aside... I live in a nation where the only people who have firearms is the police and people who want to harm you. What do you do against that you say? Well... Physical training, so you can try and weather the storm until people who are actually trained with firearms to take the other person, who is in open hostility to take him out. But being that there are less people overall with guns, the only times people get shot is when there is a death in the criminal circuit or otherwise criminally related "accident". And if someone pulls a knife on you, take one for the team and start screaming, there are always enough people around to help.
@@kezkezooie8595 : If they didn't have rights, then that was just an abuse of the second amendment and in theory, the population would have been better off if the amnedment had been respected. I don't agree with the second amendment. I just don't buy your argument as it stands. I don't think Ben shot himself in the foot in this instance.
He's developed the fast speaking style to avoid being spoken over by emotionally posturing leftists... And honestly, the more actual facts you give them the sooner they mentally short circuit and either wander off or emotionally screech and devolve into toddler mode....
@@matthewdegliobizzi5681 until the military uses the weapons theyve spent decades developing. Theres no competition as to who would come out on top. And its definitely not the pudgy boys with penis extensions.
Funny...Ben has only gotten more vile and racist, speaks faster and spews more bullshit, him and Tucker ffs........ the concern for David is hilarious!!
“When you put criminals in jail, they aren’t on the streets committing crimes.” This is such an idiotic answer to what David was talking about. David was pointing to the fact that once you are thrown in jail and in many cases labelled a felon, it becomes almost impossible to go back to normalcy afterwards. This cycle of jail is often racially motivated as well. It is beyond stupid for Ben to say we should just throw more people in jail and think that will solve the underlying problems. Most people do not commit crimes for fun believe it or not. They do it because of the position they have been forced into or fall into. We need to provide pathways for people to climb up the socioeconomic ladder in a more balanced way. It is a trickle up solution not a top down.
We should start by calling Bill Clinton out for the three strikes law he passed in 1994 leading to mass incarceration, huh?! Oh wait he's a liberal we can't do that. If only he were a republican...
Like you could pull off a cute bedhead hair look with a vintage cut suit. He actually looks great here. And people have gone overboard with those slim fit suits, they're so common at this point. Designers are going the opposite direction into a vintage shoulder pad look which does look chic.
Even though, Ben Shapiro always claims how he wants to have a civil discussion, he's never polite and charismatic in them (imo). It has become more about destroying people with another POV, he's rarely straight up insulting, however he frames his opponents as immoral and vile (Pro-Life, Israel, Guns, etc.). Back here he seems much more likeable even though I still cant agree with him. Greetings from Germany David!
no way the UK got 5 times higher numbers of violent crime than the US; you are just throwing out big numbers to try and make an empty point. facts are that nowhere in the civilized world do we have anywhere near the number of people getting killed by guns, in most civilized nations we almost NEVER see anyone getting shot; it happens a few times in your lifetime NOT everyday. facts are that in every civilized nation on the planet guns are heavily restricted to the point of unobtainable for civilians. there is, therefore, a clear knowledge that banning guns completely for any other purpose than hunting, which is heavily regulated for that purpose specifically, WORKS and SAFES LIVES and No one should be ok with people dying just so you can test out unfounded theories of BS All so you can have a little more fun doing frankly really stupid stuff.
and the idea an armed militia in any way shape or form could even remotely hope to beat the US military is utterly laughable and anyone making that argument might as well be saying that GOD WILL SMIIIIITE YOOOOU!!!! which is less retarded of a belief to have... FFS if a bunch of random torsos with x-military background could take down even 10% of your military you wouldn't exist at this point as there are other countries like CH and RU at least which would utterly steamroll you no probs...
@@Erebus2075 American revolutionaries stood up to the most powerful nation in the world and made it unsustainable effort for the British. . .In more modern times, the Vietnamese did it to America. . . Also consider that most US troops would be adverse to shooting US citizens. An armed population would be a nightmare for a tyrannical govt.
@@elenacabrera3438 I would say I’d agree but that’s your opinion yes it’s cool that they had a conversation but that’s your opinion this same clip is even on the video of the right getting owned on this channel a few days ago.
@@gintokithetrollgod im not sure I understand. You said you would you agree, but "that's your opinion" what about it being my opinion prevents you from agreeing? You are still free to agree with my opinion, then it would just become *our opinion...
@@elenacabrera3438 the part I agreed with was the point where you said that you appreciate them having a civil discussion but it’s also not wrong to like a bit of a debate type atmosphere as well. I do disagree with the first part of your statement there’s nothing wrong with someone winning on there points rhetorically nor is there nothing wrong with having a debate if you don’t like that fine that’s your opinion but there is nothing wrong about stating someone was rhetorically better than the other person it was funny seeing someone cocky like Ben getting put in his place.
@@gintokithetrollgod lol, yea I feel you he is a bit of a weasel. The political tension is just so high currently, I feel we need to start getting away from this owning our opponents mentality and move more towards a "discussing complex topics with my peer" kind of mentality. This our team vs their team stuff needs to be outgrown asap. Otherwise the human race is going to end up just being a bunch of dust particles by 2030.
Reminds me of Metal Gear Solid, that whole bit about Snake taking out a tank with nothing but grenades. They re-address it in Metal gear Solid 4 where a character says he's spoken with veterans all over the world and they all agree "Thats impossible what on Earth are you on about"
@Mike Peenus You know alot of the military would be against that and it will be dense too bomb their own country and cripple the economy and create places unlivable just go take a few guns away.
This was an EXCELLENT discussion. I am VERY pro 2A, but I must admit, where to draw the line with regards to what falls under "arms" is indeed a difficult question to answer. Good work!
Old Ben Shapiro is so much more coherent than modern Ben Shapiro. I wish he'd articulate his arguments now in the way he did on this show - clear, fair, and to the point. Thanks David for bringing this back, I'd almost forgotten why I followed him in the first place.
Ben Shapiro is good when debating with people on the left. Ben Shapiro is bad when he's in an echo chamber. I like Ben Shapiro when he's seated across from Pakman or Bill Maher or whomever, but when he's on his own on his own radio show, he can be intolerable.
That's what I'm saying. His arguments were pretty bad even back then, but now that he's become popular he doesn't even try to make good arguments; he just resorts to straw-mans and stupid talking points.
Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Without capabilities to take out armour or drones/helicopters/airplanes? A modern army of 10.000 could pacify a country with only guns.
@@fulcrumthebrave5715 Tianamen Square started as a peaceful protest. The protesters had no intention to call for arms. Oh and there's the fact that they legally couldn't own guns.
You must be high, there are 350 million purple with 300 million guns the military would not stand a chance in gueriilla warfare. Military institutions have debated this and positively came to the conclusion that the citizens could overthrow the government
@5:13 Ben is 100% wrong when he said the 2nd amendment hadn't been applied to the states. The Supreme Court held the 2nd amendment applied to the states in 2010 (three years before this interview was filmed) in City of Chicago v. McDonald, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Ben must have stopped keeping up with changes in the law when he graduated law school.
Its funny how this proposal has nothing to do with the argument beforehand concerning countries like switzerland that have less gun violence. They do not jail more people or even have more police presence
Then we should just put violent criminals that are convicted of one of these crimes they should be put up against a wall and shot or hang them.. I'm positive that violent crimes will drop very quickly. If we do not allow criminals another opportunity to commit more crimes and so that there will be the severe punishment.
And notice he wants them in the lower quarters instead of Wall Street. The cop on the beat there is virtually non-existent. Plus those in the lower quarter wouldn't address mass shootings. Most of them are angry, middle class white men who love the 2nd amendment
"Why can't we have more conversations like this? It is really horrible where national discourse has gone." The discourse, both polite and otherwise, has been occurring for decades. The only thing that matters is, what are we going to DO when Dems try to FORCIBLY impose their preferences on the rest of us? Talk?
Probably because this was a different Ben Shapiro than the one that exists today. Today, Ben deals almost entirely in bad-faith arguments, and it almost seems like he's aware of it to some degree. The fact that he consistently aligns himself with increasingly indefensible positions & arguments may indicate that he no longer actually believes in what he's saying/peddling, so any attempt at an honest debate with him would be pointless.
@@Vinciini83 Yeah, 2016 kinda changed Shapiro. Up until the election he was intellectually honest about what Trump was, now he is spitting populist propaganda all over.
@@Vinciini83 it’s because there are few right wing media groups and given that there’s a high demand for right wing commentators. He’s just tryna actor to the market and make as much money as possible in my opinion not factual but it makes sense.
Well, no. The first clause states the purpose, but it does not limit the scope. More simply, the second amendment is saying "because we need a free state, we need an armed populace." The term "militia" also does not only mean the National Guard. The armed people represent a militia themselves. Lastly, if you look at state constitutions ratified at that time that used similar language, it included home defense, both in practice and sometimes in writing. At that time, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, and that's why states would include those clauses. Interestingly, Ben in this video says the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to states, but that's just wrong lol. That was true until the 14th amendment. It was officially decided in McDonald vs. Chicago.
6 min in and despite the fact that you asked him to clear up what he said about it being a "cultural problem", all he did was change it from cultural problem to essentially just describing black people as the problem lol
steven wolbrueck Can you clarify your statement-are you saying 30 years ago, Black people COULD BE considered the problem? If so, what was different then as opposed to now?
Did u listen to the interview? All he talked about was weed & drug dealers never said a single thing about race....YOU assumed he was talkin about black ppl...my question is why do u assume that?
I don't think he means just black people. Granted he was vague. During some phases in Middle school I was the quiet kid and alot of people unfairly judged me as the school shooter. It's aggrivating and ridiculous, but it's a common stereotype forced on quiet white kids to that they are some edgy, depressed kid with inner anger issues. I got bullied and ostracized for years because of it add on top and my story is not unique. People very often see what they want to see. And being bullied doesn't make you become a shooter. But it's worthwhile to see where alot of these types pop up from. They are often unsupported and not listened to by the culture around them. In that way I can understand where he is coming from that it's not a problem singular to race.
If 'we have seen tyrany when the Japanese were imprisoned and under Jim Crow laws' then where were all the armed citizens taking up their weapons against the government? That was a very poor point on Ben's end.
It was the reason the 2nd amendment was written. He’s not making it up. You can go look for yourself. Obviously armed citizens would have no chance against a tyrannical government nowadays. But that seems like a poor argument to take guns from citizens. Why? To make it easier for a tyrannical government?
I support minorities rights to bare arms and exercising their second amendment rights, also if you did a little bit of research youd realize gun control is racist.
Honestly, Shapiro's example is ridiculous. In the middle of WWII, imagine if large groups of Japanese-Americans who are being rounded up resorted to "resisting tyranny" with firearms. What would the US government have done? Does anyone imagine that sufficiently large portions of other Americans would have raised their own firearms and joined those in a rebellion against tyranny?
@@taejaskudva2543 I agree it would be futile. But it was the reason for the second amendment in the first place. What’s the alternative? Make it even easier for a tyrannical government?
Ben Shapiro: The problem is young men growing up with single mothers.
Also Ben Shapiro: We should throw more men in jail.
He made this same argument on Joe Rogan talking about the need for increased in law enforcement in the same communities with high rates of single motherhood. Well if more law enforcement is going to mean more young men in jail, leaving more single mothers who raise boys that become more likely to commit crimes due to adverse child experiences than the vicious cycle continues. Not a great solution by Ben in my eyes.
He does not see the correlation.
Yeah, we need to allow these people in bad situations to commit crimes and get away with it. Don't put criminals in jail, its counter productive. If we let people with worse backgrounds get away with whatever they want it'll really help society.
Now do you see how stupid what you're arguing sounds?
@@adamtolbert6766 Reducing incarcerations as a way to deal with single parenthood is unlikely to have a significant impact. These issues are especially noticeable in Black communities. Roughly 10% of Black children have an incarcerated parent at some point, and of those, not all are incarcerated during their childrens whole upbringing. But the number of Black children growing up with a single parent is around 60%. It's legitimate to argue that reducing incarceration is not a proportionate method of reducing single parenthood even if you admit that it plays a role in it.
If only liberals and conservatives could have discussions like this then maybe we wouldn't be more polarized than ever.
We used to.... The Media does not allow for such things any longer.
You can't find many leftist being polite or being open to talking to people with different views. While a guy like Gavin McInnes isn't technically polite all the time at least he has humor and is open to talking to all kinds of people.
@@okyouknowwhatever what are you talking about? there are plenty of polite leftists. Gavin Mcinnes is not funny and super rude. so, your point makes zero sense
The thing is everyone thinks the other person has some evil idea behind owning or taking away guns. I believe everyone is looking for good and of ur mind gets changed let it happen don’t be stubborn America. 👍
@@okyouknowwhatever you should stop watching sjw compilations its rotting your brain and is making you lose touch with reality
I’m a conservative and I’m happy I followed pakman, I know this man is smart, well spoken and humble. I would love to see him on Ben’s show.
Agreed...when conservatives get asked who they respect on the left I wished they'd mention him
Terry Hopp it would only take an interview on a major right wing platform
Lost all respect after seeing him on Joe Rogan. He denied obvious reality to avoid backlash from his fan base.
Pocket Panther Look at you being just vague enough to not have to back up your assertion, while also avoiding backlash. Why comment something so uselessly abstract?
Carlos V I think my views line up 99% with Pakman. He is the voice of reason on the left.
He can find the balance when Ilhan Omar says the wrong thing.
Or when AOC makes a mistake he’s not afraid to call it like it is.
That’s the kind of leftist I am.
One who unflinchingly follows evidence wherever it leads. Even though it puts me at odds with the Kulinski, Dore, TYT, etc crowds. They don’t have the mental fortitude Pakman has.
Although I disagree with Ben on most things, I gotta say I love how this interview went. During polarizing times it’s nice to see calm and handled debate.
@@sunritroykarmakar4406 did the way the interview went change?
@@jesui. The point is he used to be more reasonable, but now he's contributing to all the vitriolic divisiveness that plagues current political discourse.
Given how you qualified your original statement by saying 'polarising times' I understand why the response was to point out that this was a good while ago, because it would place it before the polarisation you see today.
Do You disagree that abortion is bad? Do You disagree that prostitution is bad?
If you know anything about Shapiro beyond out of context soundbites, that's how he always is. 👍
@@richarddavis3157 yup on both. Why tf do y’all care so much about what people choose to do to themselves? And don’t talk about no kids either 😂 it’s clear this country doesn’t care about those, even less if they’re poor or have melanin.
This discussion is an exact model of what should be happening on a more broad scale.
Exactly.
Well unfortunately the left has become so radical that they'd probably label Pakman as Alt Right or some stupid thing like that.
@@23pyromaniac Which is why he has a show with a stable leftist fan base?
An informed leftist telling a buffoonishly misinformed conservative how to think already happens on a broad scale.
When Ben goes into the 2nd Amendment, my God, what a fucking weasly moron...
"this is the last time I had him on"
*cuts to footage from 1998*
Right!!!
🤣🤣🤣
Is that sarcasm? I can't tell but I believe this is from 2013
@@coldmexican288 Aaawwwe... It's ok, a lot of people with diminished mental capacity aren't able to understand and recognize sarcasm. We know it's not your fault.
@@bradpointer6134 a lot of dudes with diminished penis size share the characteristics that you show. Being aggressive towards others to compensate that void in your personality. It's okay buddy, just learn to accept your reality and stop projecting your traumas in the form of exterior aggression. Seek help Brad. Your family can still take you back, just learn to control yourself.
Wow, David was always brilliantly disciplined and eloquent.
Kyïv stuff He doesn't seem to understand guerrilla warfare tho. He made the "whatcha gonna do bout the tanks" argument, to which one should always respond "ever heard of Vietnam?"
Sumguy who jerks it to Waifus No we don't live in Vietnam, thanks for pointing out the obvious. We live where people have more training and weapons than the Vietcong or Vietnim ever did. The whole war is a case study on how the most powerful military in the world can be taken down by starving, shoeless, and under supplied people. The Taliban never had tanks either, damn sure survived and thrived.
Did you have a rebuttal or something to add that's meaningful? The wording is fine if you understand English, implementation is the fight.
no way the UK got 5 times higher numbers of violent crime than the US; you are just throwing out big numbers to try and make an empty point.
facts are that nowhere in the civilized world do we have anywhere near the number of people getting killed by guns, in most civilized nations we almost NEVER see anyone getting shot; it happens a few times in your lifetime NOT everyday.
facts are that in every civilized nation on the planet guns are heavily restricted to the point of unobtainable for civilians. there is, therefore, a clear knowledge that banning guns completely for any other purpose than hunting, which is heavily regulated for that purpose specifically, WORKS and SAFES LIVES and No one should be ok with people dying just so you can test out unfounded theories of BS All so you can have a little more fun doing frankly really stupid stuff.
If stupid cons understood what the 2nd A really means, we wouldn't have this problem.
Erebus2075 Is China considered civilized? They have a fuck ton of knife attacks and deaths
It’s because when you pile people into cities like rats living on top of each other with jobs that barely cover bills and wage slavery you have anger and you have dissent
Part of that is true, but it starts at home, a lot of the young men who commit murders usually the father isn’t around, by the time system gets to these kids the damage is already done
Are you okay
@The voice of... there's no such thing as wage slavery
👍👍
So that means go out and commit violence? Majority do not commit crimes and do well.
I’m no fan of Shapiro but “It was a blast” is the most hilariously concise way this discussion could’ve ended
Guns are a necessary evil just like government. When are the conditions right to give up guns, when checks and balance in government can deteriorate by republican or democratic majorities overriding them.
The line plus the delivery had me laughing 😂
@@vedantpatel6379 well some republicans function as democrats, that is marxists, theres nothing funny here russia and germany wanted to kill everyone and their kids it could happen in america
@@erik878 Hitler wasn't a Marxist, but an extreme right fascist. In fact a way to get into a CC was being a commie. I know in the USA You don't get proper educated, but You really should stop with the communist fear bullshit, they had it 100 years ago and because of it we end up with people like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, and because no one wanted to talk about communism (remember russian workers tried to negotiate with the zar before the revolution) we ended up with Stalin instead of Tolstoy. Plz stop, it's been 100 years, we now know both systems suck ¿Can we stop acting like one of them is good?
@@emiliohoms6491 I think it’s in fact you who’s not proper educated on this. Fascism is essentially a nationalist version of socialism. You need a powerful state in order to have fascism. If you look up where fascism stems from, Giovanni Gentile was the founder of fascism and got his inspiration from socialism. Marxism and fascism have a common origin. A strong, totalitarian state there to guide the people and work for the «common good» is a trait in both socialism and fascism.
The only difference is who they favor.
Socialism is supposed to favor the weak, while fascism an ethnic group or a country. The end result is the same however, a tyrannical government claiming more and more power and abandoning people’s freedoms. This is the opposite of right-wing politics, where the power is handed to the people, and where people have to provide for each other in order to accumulate wealth. You can’t become powerful through coercion.
The Ben Shapiro of today would call the Ben Shapiro of then a far left liberal.
Just ask Andrew Neil
Red that was an interview
@@thought-provoking795 my point was he called a conservative a leftist
What happens when your channel is built on a base as radical as Trumpists and you don't want to disappoint the base.
Ben doesn't seem to give his own opinions anymore. He just seems to be an echo chamber for Trump and the Republican party. It's a shame really because he used to be refreshing to listen to and now his arguments are awful because I think he's defending what he doesn't believe.
Great interview. No name calling, no personal insults, just a very smart and well thought out discussion about the issues. Loved it!
agree,it is refreshing
David is an amazing interviewer.
No, more insults!!!!!! I WANT MORE!!!
Agreed. It's likely because David's an adult (no matter how young he was at the time), and because this was likely *before* the Trump era (rather, 'error').
Fine, but it doesn't actually accomplish or solve anything. At the end of the day, if these were two lawmakers, their genial discussion of the issue would still not lead to a bill.
I would love to see a part 2 to this. This was honestly the most productive and mature conversation i’ve seen on gun control between the left and right.
Ben should extend the invitation to David Pakman since David Pakman invited him the first time.
I could see a Sunday Conversation episode with him.
@@notoriouseagle1074 Definitely 💯
Ben would never lol, he'd get destroyed. He feels comfortable debating only college students.
Now ?
@@Zer0-0 Like Piers Morgan, or like Rev. Sharpton?
Ben Shapiro said that background check and training should be required in order to own a gun and I agree!!
it is
Brian Cheng background check are already the law and mandatory training to own a gun is unconstitutional
Waseem Amin there already are background checks and wait times
Waseem Amin do you own a gun? I’m gonna go with no because if you did you would know it is very intense
Waseem Amin even for a father giving a gun to his son? The problem isnt the blanket check its the precident it sets a dangerous one
And this is how we are supposed to have discussions. Take notes CNN and Fox News!!!!
You forgot another news show
@BEASTMODE 2020 Wolf News!!!!!!
@BEASTMODE 2020 It's because you need to....believe---
That is true. No matter which political orientation, let's be civil and nice. Logical and fact-driven.
For real
David Pakman looks like he's straight out of some 1980s sitcom in this video.
Very Kirk Cameron
Looks pretty good though, right?
@neal thailand ben shapiro was 29
@@cadaudioguitars2898 If Kirk Cameron had a brain.
Lmao facts
I wish conservatives and liberals could have more conversations like this. No labeling or name calling. We need to keep dialogue open.
Day...it used to be that way but changed under Obama. Social media and smartphones are a lot of it.
Nobody's stopping you from having these conversations, it shouldn't be up to some host on the internet to debate for you. Every single person can have these conversations if they choose to.
@@missburn Exactly. People need to stop being so afraid and reluctant to have an open honest non-judgmental conversation. Most people are willing to have conversations, and are absolutely not like those lunatics you see on the internet who scream and throw slurs around.
Dpaks a progressive, not a liberal. I know that distinction is lost when it comes to US politics, but yeah.
This was the most reasonable I’ve seen Shapiro lol
people have a way of acting reasonable around david lest they look foolish
context matters when you’re gonna make that claim
and you call yourself the logical citizen. That was embarrassing.
You haven't seen much of Shapiro past the highlights then. As is true with a lot of personalities in the modern era, you need sample size to get through all of the soundbytes.
being reasonable doesn't get clicks
It’s only fair Ben Shapiro has David Pakman on his show.
Agree didn't know shapiro have had clever opinions before
Vassili75 Shapiro is smart af most media distorts his words.
Exactly. Apparently David would be one of those "bad jews" Shapiro is a spineless coward out of touch with reality. Big funding and sensationalism sells. Unfortunately, his concern is not unity but divide and conquer. Weasel shit. Schmuck.
@@whatster8753 lol okay
@@Bookish1995 honkahonkaa
Ben Shapiro: Having guns ensures we don't see tyranny on American soil.
Also ben Shapiro: Here are a bunch of examples of tyranny on American soil.
I wonder if he feels the same since the Capitol Hill insurrection.
@@sweiland75 Nah I saw one of his recent videos on it. He has mutated into a disgusting piece of a human being over the years.
No it means to stop it not prevent it
I think you missed the point there
I feel like COVID 2020 is a good response to a lot of opinions that David holds here. He mocks that the 2nd isn't important and that time restrictions are no big deal, however here in California there were lines wrapped around every single gun store for months because people were realizing how important being able to defend yourself is. We generally live during a safe time and safe country so we are very privileged to mock the 2nd amendment
His comments about the UK rates are just false. The US has about 4 times the intentional homicide rate than the UK. This figure has been relatively steady for 20 years.
Hm, could you provide a source for that? It'd be interesting to have a look.
@@ceciliaxx you can just search "violent crime rate by country" and see where the US is about 4-5 x's higher than the UK
You are conflating intentionally homicide and violently crime.
Dang Shapiro, untangle your earbuds. It's distracting
Clearly this took place before Shapiro was sponsored by Raycon lol
lost some respect for him after i noticed that, he can't even keep his earbuds straight.
That’s not the only thing that was tangled in this video. 😂
I’m not a fan of Shapiro but he approaches headphones like I do...fuck it I don’t have time
I'm also not a fan of Shapiro, but anyone who gets distracted or loses respect for such a small thing has their brain more tangled than his earbuds. Listen to what someone says because that's what matters, don't pay attention to the frivolous stuff.
Good freaken interview. It's awesome that you're actually asking questions to clarify Ben's points and bring out where other's may see the disagreement. Gj.
MOST OF THE GUNS USED IN GUN CRIMES IN CHICAGO ARE DONE WITH GUNS BOUGHT LEGALLY IN INDIANA AND SOLD ILLEGALLY IN CHICAGO. YOU CAN THANK INDIANA'S LACK OF GUN LAWS FOR CHICAGO'S GUN CRIMES!!
Sorry for using caps but I'm so sick and tired of seeing this numerously debunked talking point resurface every 5 days lol like WTF. Gun laws have to be made FEDERAL cause unlike our national borders there's no fucking CUSTOMS checkpoints between our own states!!
@@tcg4111 okay but guns are legal in indiana and they have way less crime then Chicago. The issue isnt the guns its the human behind them if u wanna kill someone you can use many things to kill people. Also gun violence because of gangs doesnt bother me because if those idiots wanna murder eachother go ahead. We do neet to do something about mass shootings though
@@matthewmiller8758 I don't think you understood my comment at all here. They have less crime cause they have 1/10th the population! The guns used in Chicago are obtained legally from Indiana, therefore INDIANA'S lenient gun laws where anyone can buy as many guns as they want at a gun show, is the REASON behind CHICAGO'S gun violence.
@@matthewmiller8758 Bingo. Hit the nail on the head.
Also this guy is copy pasting this on every comment. Lol, what a loon.
Good interview, respectfull on both sides.
“Assuming that we’re arguing in good faith.”
*A WILD GRIFTER APPEARS*
What a trendy word you used there.
@@azurezerox8392 there are simpler ways of saying you got grifted and feel bad
@@joffermann nah, just annoyed by all the cop outs people use to write ideas off these days. Grifter and dog whistle just seem to be the most trendy ones today.
@Cools DOODS 1. it isn't me it gets directed at.
2. people saying something in the youtube comment sections doesn't make it true unless it can be supplemented with explaination or evidence. otherwise it's just trendy name calling.
@Cools DOODS "they"? who is they? you're assuming that anybody who gets called a grifter on the internet is either actually a grifter or has room temp IQ? am I following you correctly? or are you talking about the ones making the accusations?
Ben "I don't think law enforcement can do everything though, but we need heavier police presence to suppress gun violence" Shapiro
Baffling levels of hypocrisy. He'll argue for small government until it doesn't fit his narrative anymore, then the US might as well become a police state as far as he's concerned.
Yes I caught that too. Both points contradict each other.
We need heavier police presence so that more can be done, but you still need to be prepared should the help that you expect doesn’t arrive. If you’re prepared, you’ll be less sorry then if you weren’t.
The Kozmonaut I agree that poverty and lack of education create crime, but inequality? What do you mean by that?
@@rrgz7717 I honestly read your first comment as being sarcastic. FTP if you were bring serious 😂
What I learned from this is that I seriously need to look into getting myself a warship and some cannons.
You know, the first USA millionaire made a lot of his fortune from owning privateers, which were converted warships with cannon.
Also, a machine gun was patented in London before the Boston Massacre, so they existed, as well.
Nuclear weapons, not so much, so anti-gun people at least have an argument, there.
@@Egilhelmson you're a hundred years off you dolt. There were no machine guns until the middle of the 1800s, there were none in the 18th century.
@@Egilhelmson also the first American millionaire was a fur trading company owner John Jacob Arstur (The American Fur Company) and lobbyist, not a privateer "owner". So you're just wrong on all counts, can't say I'm surprised.
@@sgtjohnson49 you are thinking of something like a Gatling gun which did come out of the 1860's, but there are much older versions of fast firing guns. The puckle gun came out in the 1720's which had a revolving cylinder but a very early version. Still could fire 3 times faster than a musket but failed to be properly reliable. All this is to say, the technology is older than you think. Old level actions rifles which did come out in the 1830's can get to ridiculous speeds, not even being semi.
@@jmbrook a single action revolver that wasn't very reliable isn't comparable to a fully automatic weapon. A lever action rifle with an internal magazine which takes at least 20 seconds to reload is not comparable to a fully automatic belt felt Gatling gun. That is what a machine gun is. To say that there were fully automatic weapons during the 1700s is just blatantly false. Primitive revolving weapons? Absolutely, there were revolving cannons and arrow weapons before machine guns that as well. That doesn't make them a machine gun. There were even a belt fed revolvers, though idk actually used more than as a prototype (though you can buy modern ones nowadays) but they were still a single action revolver, not a machine gun.
thank you for being respectful to ben and having him on.
MOST OF THE GUNS USED IN GUN CRIMES IN CHICAGO ARE DONE WITH GUNS BOUGHT LEGALLY IN INDIANA AND SOLD ILLEGALLY IN CHICAGO. YOU CAN THANK INDIANA'S LACK OF GUN LAWS FOR CHICAGO'S GUN CRIMES!!
Sorry for using caps but I'm so sick and tired of seeing this numerously debunked talking point resurface every 5 days lol like WTF. Gun laws have to be made FEDERAL cause unlike our national borders there's no fucking CUSTOMS checkpoints between our own states!!
@@tcg4111 So what you're saying is criminals don't follow laws and find ways around them. At the same time we have a huge illegal immigration problem at the border of Mexico. So if those criminals can figure out how to bypass customs you don't think other criminals can. If all the guns are taken away from citizens how would they defend themselves from those criminals? Just rely on police? Lol.
@@Cosmlc1022 Yea, you're right, we should get rid of ALL laws! I mean why have ANY laws if criminals are just going to break them anyway?!
Dumbass.
@@tcg4111 That's clearly not what I was saying. You're the one saying let's get rid of all the guns. Im saying if you get rid of all the guns, and criminals still don't follow laws, then all you have to protect yourself and your loved ones is the police force your kind hates so much. Funny how you call me the dumbass for an idea held by you though.
@@tcg4111 You have been watching Destiny lol
Wow. I'm a big supporter of the second amendment and I've been listening to Ben for years. I've never actually heard this specific argument against it and I don't know how to think about it. I appreciate the way you presented that and I really think you stumped Ben as well as me. Much respect, I will be tuning in to see more of your content and political opinions in the future!
I don't like Ben Shapiro but he seemed like a mostly reasonable person here.
@@actualteddybear891 he is. Just watch his content before you let others poison your mind with their biases
@@jeramysteve3394 I've seen content from his show. He plays off people's fear and outage to stay relevant. When he speaks he shows how narrow his mind is. I don't avoid his perspective but I don't actively seek it either. I don't think we agree on much and that's why I don't mind hearing what he has to say. Being deaf to a different view is unhealthy.
ben: "arms" doesn't include RPGs or nuclear weapons
(what was the Cold War "arms" race about then?)
conservatives never think it through
It's so obvious to me that when Ben says it's a "culture" issue, he means black people
Not to mention, he wants to imprison even more people than we already do. Gee I wonder why 🤔 could it be because these people with the "cultural issues" in Ben's eyes are voters too??
Actually he said big cities were the issue.
@@extremecentrism9796 he definitely cited "culture" as being the primary issue. He went on to talk at length about the differences between New Hampshire and Chicago, etc, which on the face of it could be a legislative or pop density issue, but he places the context in "culture."
@Extreme Centrism 16:16
Pakman: what is the problem?
Shapiro: It's culture
Literally!!!! You can hear how bad he just wants to say black people 😭🤣😭🤣
Could that be the way you wanna think of what he said and so spin it that way?... And lets be honest because the truth will set us free. There is a gun culture problem in a certain demographic which he mentions here 4:26. He never mentions color but the truth is the truth.
David, for future reference when someone brings up this nonsensical talking point that the UK has a higher crime rate compared to the US, you need to push back on this deceitful statement.
USA categorizes violent crime into 4 broad categories. This is how it's recorded:
“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.”
In the UK however, lot of minor offenses are recorded as violent crime because of the way they define it.
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.”
So in the US for it to be considered a violent crime, you need to actually injure someone whereas in the UK even if you attempt to injure someone it's recorded as a violent crime. In the UK minor sexual advances are also considered assault.
So it's pretty fucking obvious, UK's violent crime rate will be higher than the US. However if the US followed UK methodology then our crime rate would go through the roof! Please don't let right wingers peddle this lie anymore on your show.
whoa did not know about this MASSIVE difference... and none of the bloody mainstream news have shed the light on this?? what kind of rubbish news allows this disinformation to continue...
you didn't even provide any data points just quotes and you got likes for it. LOL
@@TheItachiRulez data points? Lol Are you pretending to actually know what you're talking about? Stop being lazy. It's not very hard to look it up. "lol" It's so easy to actually educate yourself but more and more people are turning into lazy assholes
@@TheItachiRulez
Shapiro provided no data either. One of the two was just bullshitting. Wanna place a little wager on who that was?
If you recently take it severe violent crimes in proportion this year so far for the first time ever London has overtaken New York.
Also, since the ban on the handguns in the UK during the 90s looking across the decade afterwards (not just a statistical outliner year), there has actually been an increase in homicide by firearms.
that one time Ben contradicted his stance on gun control similar to how the NRA did back when the black panther party operated in arms in the late 60s.
Good point!
Loool, yep. White conservatives love firearms until they see an armed black socialist militia.
People’s views change over time. I’ve noticed he has become more libertarian over the years.
@@danny_chestnut253 Yeah that's why he supports heartbeat bills. Cause he loves liberty.
and freedom
Daniel Stephens
That's because he consumes too much helium
For some reason. When Ben started talking about who does all the murders my dog just started barking
Good conversation where two men engage in a controversial topic with civility.
not really. what's Pakman's opinion on this? nobody knows because his debate tactic is to try to trap and then end the show. pretty disingenuous. btw Arms are not weapons, arms are firearms and small arms. that's not tanks, boats, grenade launchers.... it's a very dishonest tactic.
@@nettlegettle3534 So what's the difference between an arms dealer and a weapons dealer?
@@nettlegettle3534 really that's the argument that you want to make arms aren't weapons? Do you know what a weapon is? A gun is a weapon it's also a right but doesn't change the fact that it is a weapon. A car can be a weapon, a shoe could be a weapon, a gun/Arm is innately a weapon.... You are an idiot. To say an armament (arm/gun) isn't a weapon 😂
@@nettlegettle3534 'Arms' is short for 'armaments', which is a synonym for 'weapons'. Dictionaries agree on that. One can be armed with things ranging from words to nuclear bombs.
@jeremy Miers, I agree a little, but it’s his show. I don’t feel like he was dishonest, but he certainly wanted to direct the conversation in a specific direction.
I love watching Joe Rogan for that reason. For the most part Joe takes the time to listen to his guests and allow them the opportunity to explore their ideas in a much deeper way than most.
Problem is, Joe’s shows take 2-3 hours. Lol.
Ben Shapiro always sound like when you play RUclips videos at 2x speed lol
Chris of STARS he looks and sounds like Isaac from children of the corn
He sounds like Daffy Duck to me.
He's in debate mode where time is limited to get a point across... and his pitch and slight stutter is more like porky than daffy.
DUDE play this shit at half speed, it's HILARIOUS hahaha
Are we sure he's not sucking on helium!?! Could explain the shortage!!
Hey Pakman sorry for trolling your channel in the past. Truth is I'm a loser and have no life.
He challenged your perception of the world and felt the need to defend it. It's a good thing that you realized that David isn't your ennemy.
C'mon guys you're that stupid, he's obviously leftist trying to be conservative...
Only libtards could've fell for that.
@@shner6742 , no true Scotsman much?
You are also ugly and smelly
@Colin Cleveland ah yes but have you read Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings? Truly horrible ;)
Ben has just gotten more fim and radical with age. David has stayed true to being genuine
What a great debate, I would love to listen to more of you two debating! Great quality by both!
Ben Shapiro had gotten more extreme. David has stayed mostly the same.
@@paulaw3399 it must trigger you when someone isn't a partisan hack like you and makes a wholesome comment like enjoying the conversation that you have to reply how the other side is this bad person
@@lights473 I am not a hack ding dong.
1:03 "I think you did way better than Alex Jones did..."
Nice underhand there David.
I noticed that too :) But honestly I think everyone knows Ben killed Piers. Thats actually how he became famous.
I heard that too. Left a confused look on Ben's face. LOL!
Jael Sonnen
LOL Yea it's like saying that he is better then a rabid dog.
@L Cincinnatus The alpha chud speaketh, oh yes, the right definitely has lots to be proud of, what with the electing of a reality show tv star, caging of children, white genocide paranoia, and the bootlicking of criminal politicians and all. Yes, so much to be proud of.
L Cincinnatus You do know that the beta and alpha concept isnt true for humans right?
Ben sounds like a robot malfunctioning... Lmao
He sounds like a south park character doing a parody of himself.
He is a robot.
Ello Owu
He is a south park character that take himself too seriously (despite of his helium voice)
Or Max Headroom.
@Steve Austin 'Tax cuts'
I think you mean 'the biggest tax increase in history'. That's a 'loss'.
Economic growth: The gross domestic product has grown by more than 3% for multiple quarters.
He's decreased it by about 1% on average, while obama increased it by 6%. Another loss.
'Coal: Trump stopped Obama’s war on coal.'
I don't think you understand what 'coal' is. That's a loss. Going backwards is a loss.
'Unemployment:
the number of people collecting unemployment benefits has continued to fall to a near 44-year low. '
A lie of omission that can be seen from space.
'Deregulation:'
Since when is surrendering winning? That's a loss.
'Consumer confidence:
consumer confidence rose to the highest level in 17 years, according to the New York-based Conference Board.'
It was rising at the same rate before him. Not a win, let alone for him.
That's it? A bunch of things he didn't do, or are directly detrimental to the people are 'wins'? I don't think you understand what a 'win' is.
These are 'wins' in the same way WW2 wasn't a 'Win' for the Jews.
David, I’m a longtime subscriber to the Daily Wire and a huge fan of Ben
Shapiro. This discussion was intelligent, civil, and supremely demonstrated both of your points. To be honest, this is the first time I’m ever hearing about you, but I would love to see you have more discussions of this kind with Ben and other conservative pundits.
Hopefully you listen to more of David and others like Sam Seder to broaden your perspective. Shapiro has solid takes in a lot of cases but has huge blindspots and inconsistencies. He repeatedly claims absolute drivel like 'the west did it best when it comes to science' and tries to conflate religion with science/reason/civilization. www.juancole.com/2019/05/shapiro-science-white.html
@@kenshin1368 No! It comes to whether you have a LEFTIST or RIGHT world view. It has nothing to do with logic. You filter facts according to how you see the world.
Hol' up. How? These two hold mutually incompatible political indeals
@@jaimearviso4771 that's a pretty dumb take lol. People's perspectives aren't fixed. People aren't left or right inherently; it's relatively easy to change someone's perspective with a little time.
Eh? Ben is full of shit and literally failed to make his point.
16:36 This is where David "DESTROYS" Ben Shapiro. Ben says it's simple; the 2nd amendment protects the right to arms "necessary" to prevent tyranny then goes on to stutter and draw a hard line in the sand that semi-automatic rifles is all that's necessary to prevent tyranny, even against tanks. And supposedly he spoke to veterans that attended war college who did "studies" and concluded that the army cannot handle insurrectionists armed with semi-automatic rifles. The fact that he thinks insurrectionists armed with SEMI-automatic rifles can defeat trained soldiers with AUTOMATIC rifles, bazookas, tanks, APCs, A10 Warthogs, Apache helicopters, strike drones, and on and on is just laughable. Like a tyrannical government wouldn't be above using those options. It's obvious David wanted to have an adult conversation and bobbed and weaved through Ben Shapiro eloquently and I thank him for that. I still can't believe David got Ben Shapiro to say that he's not against background checks and mandatory training.
That’s not how it works anyways . If there were a civil war military bases would be taken over and used just like in the first civil war. It would be tanks v tank, jet v jet. Majority of military bases are in NC. A red state. Also majority of guns, gun owners and military personnel live in red states.
I think there is too much anti-government rhetoric with little to no understanding that the Government is a crucial part of how America functions and is made up of citizens, friends, and neighbors. The beauty of the Constitution is that it requires elections and reexamination of representatives and policies on a regular basis. Additionally, every citizen has access to the Courts, free speech, and the media to bring forward their complaints of injustice. The idea that violence, revolution, and killing represents a viable solution is ludicrous and dangerous--particularly for those at the fringes of society.
@@yanstev not anti government. Anti federal government.. big difference there
Very good interview
Ok I did not expect to see you here
Jesse Mathew Me neither Lmao
Oh shit what's up Mark!
ITS MARK
Mark being POLITICAL. Almost a YEAR AGO
kind of silly how he said kids not having fathers is the cause of crime but putting people in jail for longer would solve crime seems hypocritical
I would think a criminal role model would be worse than no role model. Young men need positive role models.
@@olicc and mothers can be positive role models.
So your worried about people that commit crimes, often violent crimes, and that they might be jailed too long? Do the crime do the time. Worry about the people that were robbed or brutalized and not criminals who made the decision to steal and hurt people. The facts is that most criminals get out of jail and commit more crimes- and the crimes they get convicted of almost surely is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the crimes they have committed. They finally got caught …
Daddy did not play catch with me is hardly a reason to commit crimes nor a mitigating reason for less time. The time is not for punishment but to protect other people from becoming this person’s victim.
@@atlasrex that's a digusting twisting of what we pretend the prison system is designed for. Rehabilitation. The fact so many people go back in after getting out, shows the prison system doesnt work. at all.
It's a strategy to vilify people when you throw around blanket statements about crimes committed. Espeiclaly when so many of these crimes are victimless, AND weed based.
You are delusional. Spend a day in a prison and you will discover that vast majority of the people are not kindly pot smokers but dangerous people with little regard for the welfare of other humans and they deserve to be in jail and the reason they need to be locked up is too protect the decent people who they prey on if allowed free will and access to other people. They repeat crimes even after being jailed often for years. The only change comes from age - over 45 criminals tend to reduce their criminal behavior. A rational prison system for violent prone criminals is to keep them locked up until they are over 50 as then their violent tendencies typically decline. The prisons are full of very dangerous people. The reason Dems want criminals released is simply that they want to turn them all into democratic voters.
If you think Ben Shapiro isn’t talking about black people when he talks about how to police guns....then I have a castle to sell you in wonderland.
Gaslight much?
Do all black people have the same culture? Your logic is committing suicide. And your racism is leaking.
@@swagstyle33 of course all black people have the same culture. it would be ridiculous to say they do. im not racist, and im not really pushing logic, im speculating my beliefs. i think ben shapiro is more concerned with black gang violence in chicago than he is poor white violence in the south. he gets to use very convenient wording, but weve gotten almost a decade of listening to him explain his views, hes a classic republican.
@@swagstyle33 People who can see the stereotypes and hear the dog whistles aren't necessarily the racist ones.
It's the people who pretend it's not what it is...those are the racist ones.
@@swagstyle33 your random defensive backlash to his logical input is what sounds racist.
Ben is a smart guy but has a fragile ego. In my opinion David is seeking a solution to the problem above all else, and makes better points in the discussion. A very fine interview.
he's not smart. He uses gish gallops often to overwhelm in a debate to attempt to appear smart.
Ben Shapiro is not smart
It us a good interview. David does well here by continually stopping Shapiro from entering into an endless speel of lies and archaic phrases.
But Shapiro is not smart. Sadly, people need to really fact check each and every claim he makes. Selective use of data to construct a false narrative is deceitful, not clever.
David simply agreed with Ben on everything until it came to owning tanks and then David said it was muddled and that he didn't understand Ben's argument. What better point do you think David made?
Jacob Craven great points.
And we ignore the fact that rural states like Oklahoma have as many suicides (committed mostly by firearm) as very large cities have murders.
Legalize marijuana! There will be less "criminals" housed in the prison system so that you can house the real thugs!
stop saying "criminals" they are criminals
@@victorbergman9169 "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
- John Ehrlichman, Assistant to President on Domestic Affairs
@@sirius1696
More people need to be aware of that quote...we need to legalize drugs like cocaine and heroin so that we can take the violence out of the sales of those drugs, as well as ensure that those drugs aren’t laced with even worse stuff like fentanyl...we can also label the packaging like we do with tobacco with info letting people know how harmful the drugs are
@@vietnamd0820 well put together I agree. Drug addicts aren’t all criminals people can get them hookes
You mean the crooked police and their helpers?
Hi Ben, I am from the UK, we will take our crime problems over yours everyday of the week. Thanks
England defines "violent crime" differently by encompassing more actions so that rates will be artificially higher.
Alternatively, the USA could catch-up with the Motherland and include more crimes?
Yeah in Britain fist fight is violent crime
@@joshuafleming249 Wait. That's not considered a violent crime in the US?
@@sebastianlavallee706 battery is a violent crime in the US
Ben The long way around saying the N word Shapiro
🎯
Funny how some people are stuck in a medieval shallow concept about skin color differences. Let's be biologicaly precise: there is one race and that is human race. Ethnics are not that different to consider there are different human races; there are different ethnics. So, the mere concept of racism grows from an error. One more thing: colors don't really exist; they are perceptions from different electromagnetic waves and not everyone sees colors the same. And finally, white people are not really white. They are more or less pink, sometimes yellow or red and even there are orange people. None of them are white, not even albinos are really white. And so it goes for the other colors. "Black ones' are not really black. It is funny how science have taken us this far and ignorance keep people and their leaders in XII century... oh the humanity, if Thanos had the chance to know us, he would have swipe away all and each one of us...
Lol dang. Really tho lol.just say it .
@@jacintocuellar945 medieval? Haha i agree with u bro but this dumb concept of race isn't even that old tho bro .but yea really stupid crap .skin color got nothing to do with psychology, dont even make sense. Its culture and environment and up bringing
@Tom Jones please use science not anecdotal nonsense. You know nothing about the history of Africa honestly lol long story short
One thing. Ben Shapiro mentioned how we needed guns as a protection against a tyrannical government...but then he listed tyrannical things our government did despite the fact that people owned guns. He kinda destroyed his own point
Protection against a tyrannical government was a valid argument before the government got weapons like drones. I doubt a hand gun will do much there.
I don't think you thought that through carefully enough. Something that seems like a reasonable thing to say at first, but breaks down when examined further. Try substituting the variables and see if your reasoning still holds. Here, I'll start it for you.
Ben Shapiro mentioned how we needed (x) as a protection against (y)...but then he listed (y happened) despite the fact that (x existed). He kinda destroyed his own point.
So here's the question you need to ask yourself: If (x) doesn't completely protect against (y), is it worth having (x)? Answer carefully.
Daniel Tobin I see what you you mean, but you’re still better off with more to defend yourself with, assuming you’re a responsible person.
@@FilterExel, based on Shapiro's example, every instance of tyranny by the US government has not been defeated by a well regulated militia in possession of guns and the divide in firepower between US citizens and the US military, which Shapiro supports, is greater now than it ever has been. On that basis, it's hard to take the threat of government tyranny as a genuine reason for allowing access to guns, especially when that's not what the vast majority of gun owners are most concerned about. A lot of people basically use the second amendment as a shield against having to defend their actual reason for wanting to own guns. That's not to say that those actual reasons are necessarily bad but those are the reasons that they should be defending. I also find it a little amusing that there's a large amount of overlap between those who claim that they need access to guns themselves to protect against a tyrannical government and those who want the government to spend even more money on the military. They are so worried about the government turning tyrannical that they want that government to have even more firepower to use against them?
@@wunnell Again, not good enough. To your credit, you do a much better job at explaining yourself than OP, but your scope is way too narrow to accurately reflect reality.
First, the mistake you and the OP make is that you don't mention or recognize one simple fact. Most prevented tragedies go unrecorded. The simple fact is that the presence of firearms in the general public make it less likely for the US government (or any other government, for that matter) from tyrannizing the people. This is what my previous exercise should have revealed to anyone who took the challenge seriously. Another example: Just because we have enforced speed limits and not all people follow them, and subsequently wreck their cars, doesn't mean that enforced speed limits are ineffective. Under OP's logic, enforced speed limits are useless because they're violated sometimes, despite the police's best efforts.
On the other hand, I can point to plenty of times persecuted groups are deprived or strictly limited of their right to arms, then subsequently persecuted further. The Jews and other "undesirables" during the 1930's in Germany, the people of the Soviet Union, some Warsaw pact countries, Venezuelans now. It's a lot harder to field infantry against your opponent if your opponent shoots at you, and infantry is critical for tyranny. So I reiterate, the 2nd Amendment acts in part as a preventative measure. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to work well enough. And all we have are indirect measurements to gauge its effectiveness.
"every instance of tyranny by the US government has not been defeated"
But not every instance of tyranny by governments within the US. Specifically, local governments. Look up the Battle of Athens (Tennessee). This was considered a proper use of the 2nd Amendment retroactively. This also adds another dimension to the 2nd that you didn't mention or recognize: It's not just for use against the federal government. State and local governments may not tyrannize the people so easily if the people can physically remove bad actors from power.
"I also find it a little amusing that there's a large amount of overlap between those who claim that they need access to guns themselves to protect against a tyrannical government and those who want the government to spend even more money on the military."
Source? Nearly all libertarians I have talked to are pro 2a but against military spending - they think it's a waste of taxpayer money. I'm not saying there is no overlap (there are stupid people out there, after all), but I think you're exaggerating it.
"They are so worried about the government turning tyrannical that they want that government to have even more firepower to use against them?"
Even if the overlap you pointed out is true in abstract (maybe you're using extremely broad categories), I don't think you will find many specific cases that hold this position.
It's a pity that you didn't call him out more, for an example his dog whistling. When he says he wants to take guns away from young men from single mother households, he's clearly talking about African Americans
Theres a correlation between single parent households and crime u should go look for yourself then make an opinion
Wow. Shapiro got really tongue- tied at the end there. His brain had to catch up to his mouth, I think.
But good talk, on both sides overall. A few false dichotomies on Ben's side, but better than he is these days.
He had a prepared answer and he failed at reading it. Notice his eyes when this malfunction occurs.
Stewart Howell I agree. David is fantastic as always and Ben was much more reasonable than he is now.
Wow Stewart had to make MULTIPLE posts about how much he hates Shapiro...He must really need the attention or really just needs to release his 'hate conspiracies' somewhere. Does Pakman really cater to an audience like this? It's a shame I really enjoy listening to him too...
@@brandonr9754 Yeah. Two comments. So excessive. 🙄
I think David's pace help make this a good back and forth as perhaps he slows Ben a bit. I would like to hear more from Ben, but typically he sounds manic or at least with too many shots of espresso. This is nice.
"right to bear arms to prevent tyranny. We've had tyranny in this country. [Lists examples of tyranny not stopped by armed citizens]"
Way to argue against your own point there, intellectual heavy weight.
He likes to have simple answers to complex problems.Which doesn't allow for any nuance. And from what I've seen of him, he's unwilling to concede any point even to s superior argument. He's so convinced that he's always right that he comes off as stubborn and obstinate.
I was actually kinda frustrated that Pakman didn't call him out on that.
Actually slavery was ended by force of (government) arms and the rebellion of some "Free States" was aimed at maintaining that tyranny.
Lmao he makes this point as he advocates for massively increasing police presence in black neighborhoods
@Michael Brook That's actually an excellent point.
David: If you gave people guns, the government would just overpower them with tanks
Ben: That wouldn’t work because...I’ve talked to some people who said that it would be too hard
David:....ok fascinating discussion
Look at how well the Vietnamese and the Afghans resisted the American tanks and helicopters with mainly gunpowder arms. The point of small guns isn't to kill the entire tyrant army but to make their tyranny miserable and costly. A stable police state can only be established amidst a population with no violent recourse.
sterlingveil sure, I get that, but guerrilla warfare works in Vietnam, and Afghanistan’s own government was and still is ruled by terrorists, so those are tough examples to say they would be consistent with how Americans would behave in a government takeover, especially when in this situation the troops would already be domestically stationed and the citizens contained without as much effort as it takes overseas.
Government takeover is never easy and always messy. Venezuelans are still protesting their government right now without arms and there is a whole issue with proxy leaders in Guaido and Maduro representing other interests
You don't need to overpower a tank to defeat it. You can go after fuel, ammo,food, and various other supply routes. It is also a possibility that their will be a large number of soldiers
(our own citizens) who are unwilling to follow the orders that would have them violate their own countrymen.
A soldier may decide to be willfully ignorant in the event of actual government tyranny the way German soldiers did in wwii, but if and when they actually have to fight a well armed opposition this will likely not be the case.
craig halpin you kinda make the point FOR the government here. Food and supplies without external allies would be government owned or embargoed to weaken the uprising. Food and fuel rationing would be tougher for the rebel forces, not the government
@@stevejones5075 citizens are the ones who farm and rais cattle, so I really don't see your point. The army could possibly try to take farms, or more likely food and fuel storage facilities but the citizens already hold those locations. This type of operation would also spread the military thin if they had to guard all of the various food and fuel storage facilities.
I like the discussion but don't call this "debate". This is a discussion.
But that's because the word "debate" has been subverted. A debate can be a civil discussion - but nowadays people want debates to be shitshows with "winners" and "losers"
Conservative here, thought it was a great interview. Fair, honest arguments from both sides. I'd love to see you on the Sunday Special, hopefully it happens 👍
Fact check Ben's statements some time, you might be surprised.
Well I was a liberal my whole life from a liberal family. Parents voted for every Democrat from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama both terms. Have one gay sister who was married last year, gave a speech at her wedding. Other sister is trans and now identifies as male. Couldn't love him more, he's never really been a girl. It took me about a year to really admit that I had changed my mind about politics. Hadn't ever been interested in it, but I knew how I felt about social issues. After college, I started looking into it more just to keep my mind learning and not going to mush. Started with the left wing guys. Pakman, Seder, Rational National, etc. I noticed they all critiqued alot of the same people, and I figured it was responsible to look at an argument from both sides. So now I was watching both sides of the aisle, as well as guys like Dave Rubin (before he flipped sides) and Joe Rogan interview people on both the right and left. I got to the point that I secretly liked the right's arguments for basically every issue better but wouldn't admit it to myself. Then I watched Larry Elder on Dave Rubin's show. I watched him tell how he was criticized for being a black conservative. I watched as he told Rubin to take the most racist thing he could think of and give an example, and proceed to lay into him for 10 minutes with every fact in the book about black crime rates and arrest/murder rates by police, all of which I fact checked. A week from that day I switched policital parties at the DMV. You're right, there is a abundance of information out there. Maybe consider that if half of a country can think one way, there might be more to it than just a bunch of racist, boomer generation white people stuck in their ways.
@@LonnyH Not a conservative but that was well said. Hopefully others will take the time to read and reflect rather than be reactionary.
@@siksaw Thank you, I appreciate it
@@siksaw
Shapiro is a lying toad. Check his 'facts' before getting excited. They may have come directly from a place that smells rather bad.
oh wow 2013 was a magical time
why isnt there more stuff like this, literally so hard to find!
Audience capture especially on the right these days
That and Ben and Daily wire sold out to big oil tycoons who own their company.
Why's he talking like a normal person and not like a livestock auctioneer?
Is he usually that bad? lol. I think he has more respect for David Pakman than he does SJWs and Piers Morgan.
@@Reel___ Dear god yes he's that bad. Just watch a clip of him from this year.
"I'm for smaller government" "we should have a heavier armed police force"
Where's the contradiction?
@DrgnFlys You're!
@@undertaker66687 The police are part of the government. Giving them more powerful weapons is expanding the power they have over average citizens. That's literally making the government more powerful. How can you not see the contradiction?
@@GabbertEvergreen Lol don't bother. If ya gotta point to the obvious......
@@GabbertEvergreen Smaller government and powerful government are different things.
Conservatives believe in a small, powerful government that's effective in a reduced number of areas.
Giving the police better weapons does not increase their power but it may make them more effective. What makes them more or less powerful is the law.
There's no contradiction between arguing for smaller government and better armed police forces at the same time.
I love how respectful they both were while discussing a VERY divisive issue
Agreed that is how differences should be handled! Not bullying each other!
Ben never got called on his bs in this discussion. He was projecting white privilege and (maybe unrecognized) espousing racist tropes. He has no idea what growing up a poor inner city black child is like. He’s never been thrown to the ground, groped, and accused of being a gang member just because he was walking home from work. He didn’t have to make a choice between working fast food for $7.25 per hour or holding a bit of rock to make $300 in an hour.
@@johnhiggs325 and so?
Respectful was a take. Ben got trounced but respectfully.
I love it when we have an actual conversation between right wing and left wing were we can all learn something about both sides without yelling accusing , outright lying . When you Discuss a subject with an open mind that's the moment you can start to agree and come together to create solutions that serves us all
What do you agree with Ben Shapiro on?
The argument of "guns to prevent tyranny" is absurd.
Either the entire population is against the government and the soldiers are the first to take actions against it or, as it always do, some people support tyranny, most lower their heads and a very small minority take actions.
Yes, very true. When he brought up slavery and internment camps as a justification and example of the sort of tyranny the second amendment is there to address, to me, he (excuse the pun), shot himself in the foot. The second amendment didn't help the victims of either as neither had rights at the time. One group never had rights and the other had those rights taken away. What do you think would have happened to the people of Japanese heritage if they had tried to exercise their second amendment rights at that time?
In my opinion the Police and Army are the last resort against Tyrany.
If the constitution actually allows itself to be voided, then it's a bad constitution...
And if the common folk chooses tyrany, it's their fault doing so! Then YOU shouldn't start a rebelion, you are in an elected nation, your vote mattered and the only thing you need to do is shut up and wait until you can vote again, to make a difference in the ballotbox.
People shouldn't bear arms in order to "Defend the Nation". Again, a trained army needs to have a purpose and that is not going into foreign nations and crack shit up.
It is to defend your intrests, by defending your intrests you defend your nation against foreign powers. Well... Political plays aside...
I live in a nation where the only people who have firearms is the police and people who want to harm you. What do you do against that you say? Well... Physical training, so you can try and weather the storm until people who are actually trained with firearms to take the other person, who is in open hostility to take him out. But being that there are less people overall with guns, the only times people get shot is when there is a death in the criminal circuit or otherwise criminally related "accident".
And if someone pulls a knife on you, take one for the team and start screaming, there are always enough people around to help.
@@kezkezooie8595 : If they didn't have rights, then that was just an abuse of the second amendment and in theory, the population would have been better off if the amnedment had been respected. I don't agree with the second amendment. I just don't buy your argument as it stands. I don't think Ben shot himself in the foot in this instance.
Ben speaking at a normal human pace, weird.
Fax he seems likes hes off a xan compared to normal
He learned to speak faster to have fewer of his points actually discussed.
He normally sounds like hes huffing helium.
He's developed the fast speaking style to avoid being spoken over by emotionally posturing leftists...
And honestly, the more actual facts you give them the sooner they mentally short circuit and either wander off or emotionally screech and devolve into toddler mode....
@@naughtynaughtyJay bullshit
This is why I get my information. David actually does a great job in interviews and gives the correct information
His argument really 'tanked' at the end there.
A group of people. With AR15s... Could take out a modern day tank... A US military tank.. A US military tank.. Wooooooow
@@dante9620 the US lost wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Never underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare
@@matthewdegliobizzi5681 until the military uses the weapons theyve spent decades developing.
Theres no competition as to who would come out on top. And its definitely not the pudgy boys with penis extensions.
@@matthewdegliobizzi5681 we lost in Afghanistan?? Did I miss something pretty sure we won that!!
@@addarrelstokes1000 you still think the US won something in Afghanistan? If you do, please explain what they won exactly…
David is one of the most level headed people I’ve come across
You need to get out more.
It would be nice to hear that debate continue for another half hour, to allow both sides to bring in more detail.
David seems much less jaded in his overall presentation and style on here. He's gotten beaten down over the years just like the rest of us lol
Lmao it's been rough.
David is a moron to put it mildly.
He seems happier.
Funny...Ben has only gotten more vile and racist, speaks faster and spews more bullshit, him and Tucker ffs........ the concern for David is hilarious!!
@@troyterry6919 funny, when looking for a description of moron your face came up.
So, since this video came out there have been almost 2000 mass shootings.
He’s saying thousands of guns can beat a a few tanks 😂😂😂
Yeah
I have never heard Shapiro stutter this much. Well done David!
David got him on this one.
The Vapologist this was before he was trained as a speaker.
He was just a writer back then
The Vapologist yes Ben is a s..st...s..stuttering mess sometimes...
Glad to see people getting into the nuance of the issue rather than just screaming and thrashing about like children.
David is my favorite public intellectual.
“When you put criminals in jail, they aren’t on the streets committing crimes.”
This is such an idiotic answer to what David was talking about. David was pointing to the fact that once you are thrown in jail and in many cases labelled a felon, it becomes almost impossible to go back to normalcy afterwards. This cycle of jail is often racially motivated as well. It is beyond stupid for Ben to say we should just throw more people in jail and think that will solve the underlying problems.
Most people do not commit crimes for fun believe it or not. They do it because of the position they have been forced into or fall into. We need to provide pathways for people to climb up the socioeconomic ladder in a more balanced way. It is a trickle up solution not a top down.
We should start by calling Bill Clinton out for the three strikes law he passed in 1994 leading to mass incarceration, huh?! Oh wait he's a liberal we can't do that. If only he were a republican...
B. Reich next to no one likes Bill Clinton lol
Now David has learned to comb his hair and wear a suit that fits.
Like you could pull off a cute bedhead hair look with a vintage cut suit. He actually looks great here. And people have gone overboard with those slim fit suits, they're so common at this point. Designers are going the opposite direction into a vintage shoulder pad look which does look chic.
I think he looks more lefty back then. Much more Bernie hehe :)
I like his old haircut better, it looked very handsome while still looking professional.
hnljojoilbvtgfyvgub I agree, I think he looks very handsome and the suit is charming.
David looks great and all but there's something about this clip that feels much more dated than a few years. It has a mid to late 2000s vibe.
Even though, Ben Shapiro always claims how he wants to have a civil discussion, he's never polite and charismatic in them (imo).
It has become more about destroying people with another POV, he's rarely straight up insulting, however he frames his opponents as immoral and vile (Pro-Life, Israel, Guns, etc.). Back here he seems much more likeable even though I still cant agree with him.
Greetings from Germany David!
no way the UK got 5 times higher numbers of violent crime than the US; you are just throwing out big numbers to try and make an empty point.
facts are that nowhere in the civilized world do we have anywhere near the number of people getting killed by guns, in most civilized nations we almost NEVER see anyone getting shot; it happens a few times in your lifetime NOT everyday.
facts are that in every civilized nation on the planet guns are heavily restricted to the point of unobtainable for civilians. there is, therefore, a clear knowledge that banning guns completely for any other purpose than hunting, which is heavily regulated for that purpose specifically, WORKS and SAFES LIVES and No one should be ok with people dying just so you can test out unfounded theories of BS All so you can have a little more fun doing frankly really stupid stuff.
and the idea an armed militia in any way shape or form could even remotely hope to beat the US military is utterly laughable and anyone making that argument might as well be saying that GOD WILL SMIIIIITE YOOOOU!!!! which is less retarded of a belief to have...
FFS if a bunch of random torsos with x-military background could take down even 10% of your military you wouldn't exist at this point as there are other countries like CH and RU at least which would utterly steamroll you no probs...
@@Erebus2075 American revolutionaries stood up to the most powerful nation in the world and made it unsustainable effort for the British. . .In more modern times, the Vietnamese did it to America. . . Also consider that most US troops would be adverse to shooting US citizens. An armed population would be a nightmare for a tyrannical govt.
I’m pretty sure that’s only because David muted him while he was speaking.
That really doesn't seem to apply to this interview?
Damn it’s nice to see Ben getting owned to the point he starts stuttering.
Ugh, this is the energy we don't need anymore dude. I enjoyed this because they spoke like civil adults, not because anyone was owning anyone.
@@elenacabrera3438 I would say I’d agree but that’s your opinion yes it’s cool that they had a conversation but that’s your opinion this same clip is even on the video of the right getting owned on this channel a few days ago.
@@gintokithetrollgod im not sure I understand. You said you would you agree, but "that's your opinion" what about it being my opinion prevents you from agreeing? You are still free to agree with my opinion, then it would just become *our opinion...
@@elenacabrera3438 the part I agreed with was the point where you said that you appreciate them having a civil discussion but it’s also not wrong to like a bit of a debate type atmosphere as well. I do disagree with the first part of your statement there’s nothing wrong with someone winning on there points rhetorically nor is there nothing wrong with having a debate if you don’t like that fine that’s your opinion but there is nothing wrong about stating someone was rhetorically better than the other person it was funny seeing someone cocky like Ben getting put in his place.
@@gintokithetrollgod lol, yea I feel you he is a bit of a weasel. The political tension is just so high currently, I feel we need to start getting away from this owning our opponents mentality and move more towards a "discussing complex topics with my peer" kind of mentality. This our team vs their team stuff needs to be outgrown asap. Otherwise the human race is going to end up just being a bunch of dust particles by 2030.
Love old school David. Wearing his dad's first professors jacket for the big interview.
Watching this interview for the first time in 2020, I think David demolished Ben Shapiro's arguments in a very elocuent way.
Your comment proves to me that your IQ is not that high.
An equal army of tanks vs an equal army of AK47s, the tanks will lose out according to Shapiro and war historians (whatever that means).
Standing Rock... body armor, snipers, MRAPs, and a MISSILE LAUNCHER for christ's sake... against unarmed protesters.
Reminds me of Metal Gear Solid, that whole bit about Snake taking out a tank with nothing but grenades. They re-address it in Metal gear Solid 4 where a character says he's spoken with veterans all over the world and they all agree "Thats impossible what on Earth are you on about"
@Mike Peenus You know alot of the military would be against that and it will be dense too bomb their own country and cripple the economy and create places unlivable just go take a few guns away.
Vietcong? Afghanis against the Soviet Union and the US?
Mike Peenus that type of thinking clearly worked in Vietnam and Iraq
This was an EXCELLENT discussion. I am VERY pro 2A, but I must admit, where to draw the line with regards to what falls under "arms" is indeed a difficult question to answer. Good work!
Tyrant piece of sh** rot in hell. 2a or no 2a don’t alter. Look what’s happening now, fixed mag ars… bullshit.
Old Ben Shapiro is so much more coherent than modern Ben Shapiro. I wish he'd articulate his arguments now in the way he did on this show - clear, fair, and to the point. Thanks David for bringing this back, I'd almost forgotten why I followed him in the first place.
Ben Shapiro is good when debating with people on the left. Ben Shapiro is bad when he's in an echo chamber. I like Ben Shapiro when he's seated across from Pakman or Bill Maher or whomever, but when he's on his own on his own radio show, he can be intolerable.
That's what I'm saying. His arguments were pretty bad even back then, but now that he's become popular he doesn't even try to make good arguments; he just resorts to straw-mans and stupid talking points.
Aww young Pakman is so cute
Excuse me but Pakman is cute in general
Jack Wood I never said he wasn’t cute in general, but young Pakman was even more cute, like pretty much everyone else on Earth c:
@@LegendaryMel It is true
Yea the video looks 10 years old lol
this is a great interview, thanks for sharing!
This is not a debate, it's a simple interview.
This guy just said that rifles can beat tanks... Wtf? In what world is that true?
you shoot out their tires ;-) then you can stick a rock in their gun barrel and they give up.
@@phiksit Yeah, that's exactly what happens.
Its almost as if you've never heard of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan
I'd contest the point that the US population with semi auto weapons can handle the US Military forces.
Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Without capabilities to take out armour or drones/helicopters/airplanes?
A modern army of 10.000 could pacify a country with only guns.
Ever hear about Iraq?
@@MegaRobo25 ya ever heard of Tiananmen Square? Smashing uprisings/revolutions are different than invading foreign countries.
@@fulcrumthebrave5715 Tianamen Square started as a peaceful protest. The protesters had no intention to call for arms. Oh and there's the fact that they legally couldn't own guns.
You must be high, there are 350 million purple with 300 million guns the military would not stand a chance in gueriilla warfare. Military institutions have debated this and positively came to the conclusion that the citizens could overthrow the government
@5:13 Ben is 100% wrong when he said the 2nd amendment hadn't been applied to the states. The Supreme Court held the 2nd amendment applied to the states in 2010 (three years before this interview was filmed) in City of Chicago v. McDonald, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Ben must have stopped keeping up with changes in the law when he graduated law school.
He probably just disagreed with that ruling. He also thinks abortion should be illegal, but I'm guessing he's aware of Roe v Wade.
@@mattmcgowan7491 There's a difference between "I don't think x should happen" and "X cannot happen"
You hate to see a man who doesn't have the moral wherewithal to untangle his damn headphone cable.
you did great david. And respectful as ever. Im becoming a bigger fan of yours
"we need to jail more people" ????? hasnt the US already the highest incarceration rate in the world?
Its funny how this proposal has nothing to do with the argument beforehand concerning countries like switzerland that have less gun violence. They do not jail more people or even have more police presence
Then we should just put violent criminals that are convicted of one of these crimes they should be put up against a wall and shot or hang them.. I'm positive that violent crimes will drop very quickly. If we do not allow criminals another opportunity to commit more crimes and so that there will be the severe punishment.
And notice he wants them in the lower quarters instead of Wall Street. The cop on the beat there is virtually non-existent. Plus those in the lower quarter wouldn't address mass shootings. Most of them are angry, middle class white men who love the 2nd amendment
So don’t jail people for violent gun crimes?
Marcello Switzerland just has less shitheads
Everything Ben says is code for, "Blame it on african americans" -- Poverty and ubiquitous gun ownership is the issue.
👏👏👏👏👏
Or is it your racist subconsciousness attributing black people to violent culture?
No.
Chris Burke the state doesn’t decide when you are allowed to own firearms unless your a felon/criminal. It’s a right not a privilege
@@bonda_racing3579 Yes they do buddy. You can't go buy a howitzer or a tank or an RPG, it's a question of where you draw the line.
Why can't we have more conversations like this? It is really horrible where national discourse has gone.
"Why can't we have more conversations like this? It is really horrible where national discourse has gone."
The discourse, both polite and otherwise, has been occurring for decades. The only thing that matters is, what are we going to DO when Dems try to FORCIBLY impose their preferences on the rest of us? Talk?
Who is stopping you though?
@aqvws
Lets be clear....
IF YOU GET TO WHINE ABOUT IT YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO DO NOTHING.
Drop the lying victim routine already. 😂
@@DavidBarrett-gz3ihConservatives not being victims? That’s impossible, their whole worldview is their persecution complex and ignorance.
@@aqvwsIf you don’t like it how about you just leave LOL
This seemed like a pretty good discussion. Not sure why you guys wouldn't want to go on each other's shows.
Probably because this was a different Ben Shapiro than the one that exists today. Today, Ben deals almost entirely in bad-faith arguments, and it almost seems like he's aware of it to some degree. The fact that he consistently aligns himself with increasingly indefensible positions & arguments may indicate that he no longer actually believes in what he's saying/peddling, so any attempt at an honest debate with him would be pointless.
@@Vinciini83 Well put. Ben went off the deep end.
@@Vinciini83 Yeah, 2016 kinda changed Shapiro. Up until the election he was intellectually honest about what Trump was, now he is spitting populist propaganda all over.
@@Vinciini83 it’s because there are few right wing media groups and given that there’s a high demand for right wing commentators. He’s just tryna actor to the market and make as much money as possible in my opinion not factual but it makes sense.
David says pretty explicitly that he’d debate Ben on either of their shows. It’s Ben who has no interest in David.
Ben used to seem way more reasonable then than now
Ben literally makes the liberal argument...the 2A is about militias, not home defense...
Well, no. The first clause states the purpose, but it does not limit the scope. More simply, the second amendment is saying "because we need a free state, we need an armed populace." The term "militia" also does not only mean the National Guard. The armed people represent a militia themselves. Lastly, if you look at state constitutions ratified at that time that used similar language, it included home defense, both in practice and sometimes in writing. At that time, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, and that's why states would include those clauses. Interestingly, Ben in this video says the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to states, but that's just wrong lol. That was true until the 14th amendment. It was officially decided in McDonald vs. Chicago.
@@michaelbeltran7511 "The first clause states the purpose." Exactly...
Ah the good old days of civil debate, where both parties actually try to understand each other's positions without misrepresenting their ideas
6 min in and despite the fact that you asked him to clear up what he said about it being a "cultural problem", all he did was change it from cultural problem to essentially just describing black people as the problem lol
That could have been true 30 years ago, not so much now.
steven wolbrueck Can you clarify your statement-are you saying 30 years ago, Black people COULD BE considered the problem? If so, what was different then as opposed to now?
Did u listen to the interview? All he talked about was weed & drug dealers never said a single thing about race....YOU assumed he was talkin about black ppl...my question is why do u assume that?
@@javiercervantes7873 He's racist and can't admit that he subconsciously attaches race to negative stereotypes.
I don't think he means just black people. Granted he was vague. During some phases in Middle school I was the quiet kid and alot of people unfairly judged me as the school shooter. It's aggrivating and ridiculous, but it's a common stereotype forced on quiet white kids to that they are some edgy, depressed kid with inner anger issues. I got bullied and ostracized for years because of it add on top and my story is not unique. People very often see what they want to see.
And being bullied doesn't make you become a shooter. But it's worthwhile to see where alot of these types pop up from. They are often unsupported and not listened to by the culture around them. In that way I can understand where he is coming from that it's not a problem singular to race.
If 'we have seen tyrany when the Japanese were imprisoned and under Jim Crow laws' then where were all the armed citizens taking up their weapons against the government? That was a very poor point on Ben's end.
It was the reason the 2nd amendment was written. He’s not making it up. You can go look for yourself. Obviously armed citizens would have no chance against a tyrannical government nowadays. But that seems like a poor argument to take guns from citizens. Why? To make it easier for a tyrannical government?
I support minorities rights to bare arms and exercising their second amendment rights, also if you did a little bit of research youd realize gun control is racist.
Honestly, Shapiro's example is ridiculous. In the middle of WWII, imagine if large groups of Japanese-Americans who are being rounded up resorted to "resisting tyranny" with firearms. What would the US government have done? Does anyone imagine that sufficiently large portions of other Americans would have raised their own firearms and joined those in a rebellion against tyranny?
@@taejaskudva2543 I agree it would be futile. But it was the reason for the second amendment in the first place. What’s the alternative? Make it even easier for a tyrannical government?