Posted on 01/11/2013 12:12:12 PM PST by RoosterRedux
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
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.
The Bill of Rights is not the bill of needs. Who is this arrogant Piers Morgan to determine what our wants and needs should be? By this reasoning, why should we have any property rights at all. Does a person need to own a house? No, one can rent. Does a person need to own food or water? No, it can be rationed and provided by the government for example.
Does anyone need to own a gun or more specifically a semi-auto rifle? Well, sometimes yes and sometimes not, maybe never, but that should not matter if you live in a free country. Sadly, our country is no longer as free because our masters must determine our needs now.
Watch the video again...
Shapiro made that very point and described the difference between full auto and semi auto.
I totally disagree. I think he did quite well.
We must stop plying the Leftist game that they are the ones in the right. They are not. Their arguments are vacuous and silly. Shapiro does a very good job of punching back twice as hard.
He should calm himself just a little bit when he talks. go a little slower and that would make all the difference.
On all three counts, Morgan would have had three more boot shaped bruises on his fat limey arse.
He was picking his battle carefully and didn’t want to get sidetracked into another valid but slightly off center (to his strategy) argument.
Excellent!
Ben did a great job. He speaks well and knows his facts except the what is a semi-auto. One thing is true. You can talk all you want. Piers is going to not change his mind. Obama is going to try is take our guns. The sun will come up tomorrow.
I think Shapiro may have been way off the mark in his estimate that it could take 50 to 100 years for the US government to go tyrannical.
Other than that, he did fine.
See the tag line!;-)
Would've enjoyed seeing that Brit poof trot out his statist bullshite to Allen West .. esp. the 'your little book' schtick.
Lol, are you still celebrating New Years? The kid was excellent and made Morgan appear the buffoon he is.
Do you actually believe that guns are for shooting paper targets and the occasional squirrel?
No. What exactly did I say that made you think that is what I meant, please?
He was the one who appeared to be a buffoon. And he is exactly the type we do not want acting as though he is a spokesperson for the second amendment or the Republican party. The mainstream Republicans will be completely turned off by this kind of behaviour. He appeared to be completely insane. We need someone articulate and who makes sense so people will listen and consider our side of the debate. Not a lunatic.
He did not shoot Piers on anything. He was incoherent and appeared to be unbalanced. He represents the fringe which is exactly the kind of people we need to stay away from. The last election said that loud and clear. We have excellent arguments against anyone trying to limit our second amendment rights. We do not need to scream incoherently and appearing to be one of the kooks and nuts of the fringe. He had no substance or credibility and he does not speak for our party.
You were not complimentary of Shapiro or his thesis. Shapiro’s entire thesis is that modern weaponry is necessary to resist a tyrannical government and thus a real need exists for weapons that can do just that in the hands of the populace. He’s right so what’s to hate?
If we have nothing to fear from the Government WHY is FEMA,
Homeland Security, and even NOAA purchasing 450 milliom hollow point bullets Target practice???
By the way, those bullets are prohibited by the Geneva Convention
I don’t think he screamed at all. I think he was completely coherent and his idea, like that of Andrew Breitbart himself is to expose the Left for what they are: Liars, crooks and cronies who are little more than O’Bumbler throne sniffers.
He let Morgan have it and took him right off his game from the get go by calling him out for using the death of children to advance a political argument. A tragedy that he uses to bully those who would dare to oppose his political point of view.
As for speaking for the party, I think he portends to speak for himself as a Conservative. That he did quite well. He wasn’t yelling finger pointing or frothing at the mouth.
I am also relatively certain that those that HAVE and DO speak for the party are doing a piss poor job of it. As a matter of fact that has been proved by their continued success, or lack there of, at the ballot box.
You and I will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your replies.
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.