Posted on 01/11/2013 2:08:36 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
I wonder if Pierce ever heard of Waco.
I wonder if he knows how many people have been injured or killed by various levels of policing when they have not been convicted of a capital offense.
Well, looks like all conservatives that appear on his show now have something to mock him about...
Well, Piers, it turns out that my little book says...
bttt
Good grief, imagine listening to Shapiro with audio sped up. Somebody coach him, please.
I think Ruby ridge is the best example to use.
The government sets up weaver. Weaver does not want to play their game.
They raid his house knowing that the gun they sold him was in a technical violation of law.
They botch the raid - an agent gets killed after shooting weavers dog. Then agents kill weaver’s wife with a scoped rifle. I am pretty sure the shooter, a federal agent, treats the kill like a trophy. (Was this Lon Horuchi?)
Weaver goes to court and wins a 6 million dollar settlement against his attackers and tormentors - the federal government.
Nothing to fear? - ha
I like Shapiro, but he gives up way too much ground on this issue. His comment that a database is OK as long as it isn’t made public is just nuts. Allowing a national gun registry or database would be the most dangerous and destructive thing we could do.
The problem is progressives have zero support for the first amendment rights of Ben Shapiro. Or any of us, for that matter.
Make it a crime to not have a full gun safe? Keep full auto "infringed" by the Fed? He kept allowing Prince Moron to corner him on "assault weapons" and kept letting him get away with blatant stupidity.
Put Uncle Ted on with Piers. He'd have him in tears by the time he was done...
Ben did a decent job, but he missed an opportunity at the end. When Piers started asking him about why a citizen would “need” an AR-15 assault rifle, Ben should have hammered two points:
1. We do not have a bill of NEEDS in the Constitution; we have a bill of RIGHTS. Legislation and/or restrictions based on the premise that we are allowed to have only the things that the government thinks we NEED is the epitomy of tyranny.
2. In the LA riots after the Rodney King trial verdict, the Korean shop owners — who would otherwise have been killed and had their homes, businesses, and families burned to the ground — defended themselves with semi-automatic “assault” rifles. They ABSOLUTELY NEEDED those weapons. Handguns would not have been sufficient; shotguns would not have been sufficient.
That is true, but anybody who goes on any of these shows should be prepared to FORCEFULLY HAMMER certain strawmen that the left has erected:
1. The "why does anybody NEED an assault weapon" BS question. -- Our rights are not dependent upon what the government thinks we need. There is a reason that it is called the Bill of RIGHTS, and not the Bill of NEEDS.
2. The "hunting and sporting uses" nonsense. -- I love hunting and target shooting, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with either. The right OF THE PEOPLE is NECESSARY TO A FREE STATE.
Already been done. Probably won't happen again.
For me, the first person who tells Piers Morgan on-air that “Redcoats like you are the type of people who made the American Revolution necessary” gets a standing ovation.
I loves me some Uncle Ted...
SOME OBSERVATIONS REGARDING BEN SHAPIRO, PIERS MORGAN AND MORGAN’s PREVIOUS GUEST — ALEX JONES....
Shapiro states correctly that the Second Amendment is written specifically for the American people to be well armed. They are to form a militia in times of crisis and will be used to protect the people of these united States. Folks this is about your property rights. It is also to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical.
It is not to be infringed.
Piers Morgan weaves a familiar script where he insisted on Shapiro to answer his question. If you noticed, the trap is set when Morgan doesn’t allow the guest to answer. He will intentionally interrupt the guest with another question or allegation. He will continue stacking the questions and allegations.
Indeed, Piers Morgan’s strategy is to paint a tapestry of the guest being “insensitive and absurd”.
In legal circles, such tactics would be a form of “leading the witness”, which would not be allowed in a court of law. Granted, the Piers Morgan show is not a court of law. Nevertheless, in any public debate there are rules of engagement. Each side is allowed to respond without constant interruption. Piers Morgan has an annoying habit of not letting his guest finish his point.
Alex Jones was adept in recognizing that the Piers Morgan Show is not a stage for a “fair” debate. Jones did not allow Piers Morgan to weave a web of questions and allegations. Each time Alex Jones fired back with a library of published statistics and facts.
In this regard, Alex Jones took Piers Morgan to the wood shed.
Unfortunately, Jones came off as a ranting, raving loon and his insistence that the US government had something to do with the destruction of the NY twin towers did him no favors.
It is also important noting that Piers Morgan and other anti-gun pundits ask repeatedly:
“Why does anyone need a military assault rifle like that of a AR-15?”
How many times was this question answered by the guests in those interviews?
Ben Shapiro answered it TWICE. It is to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical. Our government might not be tyrannical like Stalin or the Nazis now, but there is no guarantee that it won’t slowly evolve that way. THAT is why we need a means of protecting ourselves and DETERRING Tyranny.
Piers Morgan was given this answer and never responded to it.
Piers Morgan was given this answer and never responded to it.
Morgan did respond by asking “ do you feel you need protection from the government”, after shapiros response, Morgan asked him if he knew how absurd he sounded.
RE: “ do you feel you need protection from the government”
And THAT my friend is the BOTTOM LINE when it comes to the second amendment.
Liberals do not feel threatened by an ever growing, all encompassing government bureaucracy that is slowly controlling most aspects of our lives. They think it is a GOOD thing, that is why they think that distrusting the power of the government is absurd (Morgan’s words).
The best answer to that is to POINT OUT historical evidence of what happens to people when ONLY THE GOVERNMENT has arms and the people are disarmed.
Shapiro gave examples of that from his own family’s history ( he, being a Jew ). Piers Morgan never responded to that one either ( that’s what you get when you keep interrupting someone without addressing his point ).
He is still a nauseating limey and Tory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.