Posted on 01/11/2013 7:58:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
bump
Ed Morrissey of Hotair made the following observation on the exchange:
SHAPIRO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?
MORGAN: No, that’s not what I’m asking for.
SHAPIRO: Why not? Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?
That’s the exact kind of argument that Morgan uses on his guests, but can’t handle when used back on him. Morgan seemed completely unprepared for his own tactics to be used on himself, and for Shapiro’s preparation:
Where Jones proved needy of a background screening, Shapiro was rational and on point. Where Jones failed to directly address Morgan’s points, Shapiro went right at them. Where Jones monologued, Shapiro got through his points quickly and shut up.
All those skills came in handy as Morgan tried to trap Shapiro by noting that Ronald Reagan had supported curbs on assault weapons:
MORGAN: One of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me.
Shapiro’s priceless retort: “So?”
It’s what happens in a battle of wits when one side is only half-armed. In truth, it doesn’t take “extreme polemical agility” to beat a poorly-informed journalistic bully like Morgan … but it certainly helps.
People tend to forget the original PURPOSE of the second amendment. The Second Amendment is about self defense on every level from protecting one’s self and family from criminals to the greater threat of a tyrannical government.
Ben Shapiro scored some quick points by calling Piers Morgan a bully that pontificates on the graves of the Sandy Hook children.
Absolutely, true.
The tactic used by Piers Morgan is an easy one to fall for and quite effective. It is one where he asks a question and then doesn’t allow a response. Note, how often Piers Morgan interrupts with another question and another issue. In legal circles, this is called “leading the witness”.
In his interview with Piers Morgan, Alex Jones was adept to this tactic and didn’t allow it to happen. Piers Morgan was unable to spin a scripted web to snare Jones. Unfortunately, Alex Jones came off in the interview as a ranting loon who refuses to engage in conversation.
When Piers Morgan tried to compare Shapiro with Jones, Shapiro blew publicly disassociated himself from Alex Jones. “Don’t compare me to Alex Jones.”
Looking back, I thought Shapiro could have said- “Look, Alex Jones has every right to disagree with you and to even condemn you for your bully pulpit views that are clearly unconstitutional. I agree with him on that. However, I am here to talk about my views alone.”
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.
Shapiro, being a Jew, effectively informs Piers of how his ancestors were affected in Europe under the Nazis because they had no means of protecting themselves.
Piers Morgan was given this answer and never responded to it.
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.