Ben Shapiro beats Piers Morgan in gun control debate, but sells out on gun rights

[compromise]

Unlike Larry Pratt and Joshua Boston, Ben Shapiro supports some gun control, which is of course not a good thing. However Morgan, who holds extreme views on this issue acts confrontational and rude.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If you be nice and polite, you are entering into Piers Morgan's territory and he will take you to the wood shed and eat your lunch.

I'm just hoping morgan wears this issue out. Has he talked about anything other than gun control on his shows since Sandy Hook?

 

[Slutter McGee]

If you be nice and polite, you are entering into Piers Morgan's territory and he will take you to the wood shed and eat your lunch.

I'm just hoping morgan wears this issue out. Has he talked about anything other than gun control on his shows since Sandy Hook?

Watch the video. Piers is the one who got taken to the woodshead. I may not have liked everything Shapiro said, but he kicked Morgan's ass. And he made the point regarding the real reason for the second amendment.

Well done.

Slutter McGee

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

It is depressing that this little neo-con twerp is the best voice we have in the mainstream media.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

If you be nice and polite, you are entering into Piers Morgan's territory and he will take you to the wood shed and eat your lunch.

Not true at all. If you are polite and make good points the way Larry Pratt did, Piers gets frustrated and resorts to cheap school-yard ad hominems. That exposes him to anyone with half a brain as having the weaker argument.

If name calling is all it takes to win, it's only in the eyes of people incapable of rational thought themselves.

Taken a step further, someone could also win the debate by pulling out a gun and shooting the other guy.

This is why the "deport Piers Morgan" idea was idiotic as well. Sure, we can't beat him in a civilized discussion, so we'll call in the government thugs to kidnap him.

 

[Giuliani was there on 911]

It is depressing that this little neo-con twerp is the best voice we have in the mainstream media.

I wouldn't say it's depressing. It's expected. Neocon liberals control the media so of course they're going to try and control both sides of the debate as well. The only people on "our" side they'll bring in are psychopaths like Alex Jones

 

[TheTexan]

Not true at all. If you are polite and make good points the way Larry Pratt did, Piers gets frustrated and resorts to cheap school-yard ad hominems. That exposes him to anyone with half a brain as having the weaker argument.

If name calling is all it takes to win, it's only in the eyes of people incapable of rational thought themselves.

Taken a step further, someone could also win the debate by pulling out a gun and shooting the other guy.

This is why the "deport Piers Morgan" idea was idiotic as well. Sure, we can't beat him in a civilized discussion, so we'll call in the government thugs to kidnap him.

Rational debate, no matter how well it is done, will not change enough minds to prevent gun control from happening.

It won't, because each person views the debate from one of two lenses: individual rights, or collective rights. While you, as an individualist, believe Shapiro mopped the floor with Morgan, collectivists see it as the other way around. In their twisted collectivist world view, Morgan's asinine idiotic arguments make sense. A lot of sense.

A debate can't fix that.

The bottom line is, if you want to prevent any more gun control, or for that matter any other incremental assault on liberty, the only way to do that is to speak their language: force. As long as they don't fear your retaliation, they will keep wanting more, and more, and more.

None of us want a civil war. Which is why it's so extremely critical that we make our intentions to defend the 2nd amendment clear.

There's only a few ways this situation can go:
1) They don't think we're serious and they try to take our guns. They succeed, and heralds a new nation of oppression and tyranny.
2) They don't think we're serious and they try to take our guns. Civil war.
3) They know we're serious and they go no further. We succeed.
4) They know we're serious and press it anyway. Civil war.

If you study Just War Doctrine, you'll recognize an obligation to warn your enemy that if they encroach upon your liberties, there will be consequences. If this civil war is to happen, and it very well might, we will need to retain the moral high ground for any victory to be worth having.

We do that by being honest, and upfront, about both our rights, and our intent to defend those rights.

We will resist.

 

[TheTexan]

If you need further evidence that rational debate does not work, take into account that our country is the last industrialized country in the world with more than a semblance of gun rights. They had similar debates to what we're having now, and it's quite obvious who "won" the "debate" in those countries.

There's nowhere to go folks. Just here. If you want to keep your rights, you'll have to be willing to fight for them.

 

[dbill27]

People here are going to take issue with shapiro because he supported some gun regulation and the status quo but I don't see it as that big of a deal. It's not our stance but we aren't really debating those issues right now, we're debating why we have a 2nd amendment. The only thing I wish we could see more of in the media is pro gun people pointing out that tyranny is already happening, has happened in this country, and will continue to get worse. Alex had a chance to make rational points about the TSA, NDAA, and a host of other things but he had to start ranting and make an ass out of himself instead.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If you be nice and polite, you are entering into Piers Morgan's territory and he will take you to the wood shed and eat your lunch.

I'm just hoping morgan wears this issue out. Has he talked about anything other than gun control on his shows since Sandy Hook?

He always says the same shit.

Guest: insert logical argument here
Morgan: Heeerp deeerp Heeeeeeerp Do you know what weapon was used in the Aurora shooting? heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Not true at all. If you are polite and make good points the way Larry Pratt did, Piers gets frustrated and resorts to cheap school-yard ad hominems. That exposes him to anyone with half a brain as having the weaker argument.

If name calling is all it takes to win, it's only in the eyes of people incapable of rational thought themselves.

Taken a step further, someone could also win the debate by pulling out a gun and shooting the other guy.

This is why the "deport Piers Morgan" idea was idiotic as well. Sure, we can't beat him in a civilized discussion, so we'll call in the government thugs to kidnap him.

Here's the problem: most people in this country aren't rational. Most are idiots. Some pay a little attention, but get their information from the "mainstream media". A few more are politically aware and perhaps even active, but get their information from the likes of Rush, Beck, etc., or Jon Stewart, Ed Schultz, etc.

None of these people are going to hear out a calm, reasoned argument on behalf of gun ownership.

They're either going to pass more laws, or they are not. But there isn't going to be a debate about it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I was flipping through the channels yesterday afternoon while being laid out sick and caught a segment on CNN during which this seemingly intelligent fellow made the comment that "handguns are responsible for more deaths in this country than assault rifles..." etc., etc., the implication being, of course, that "we" must "do something" about handguns.

What kind of discussion would you expect to be able to have with an otherwise intelligent adult who would make such a comment, and all the implications which go along with it?

 

[KingNothing]

If you be nice and polite, you are entering into Piers Morgan's territory and he will take you to the wood shed and eat your lunch.

I'm just hoping morgan wears this issue out. Has he talked about anything other than gun control on his shows since Sandy Hook?

That's not what happened in that video. Shapiro destroyed him. Morgan was embarrassed.

 

[KingNothing]

“I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in the country in the next fifty to a hundred years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn’t fear that is why they’re now ashes in Europe. So this kind of leftist revisionist history where there’s never any fear of democracy going usurpatious or tyrannical, is just that. It’s fictitious." - Ben Shapiro, owning Piers.

That is complete destruction.

 

[fisharmor]

“I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in the country in the next fifty to a hundred years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn’t fear that is why they’re now ashes in Europe. So this kind of leftist revisionist history where there’s never any fear of democracy going usurpatious or tyrannical, is just that. It’s fictitious." - Ben Shapiro, owning Piers.

That is complete destruction.

Oh, come on now, that's not fair. They had a fatherland. We have a homeland.
It's totally different.

 

[BnXmkpfrME]

What I like about what Shapiro said was the true about the 2Amendment, 30 round mags etc, is about protection (personal and from a tyranical Govt.) I love how Morgan was shocked by this. And asked how stupid this sounds. It is clear that Morgan has no clue about Govts going bad......gee Morgan.....lets look at Europe that basket of peace and love...for the past 2000 years. Maybe, maybe europe takes a generational break before the next war. Europe is full of examples of Govt's killing their own people.

I wish Shapiro at that time would have said how stupid it sounds to disarm a people given the european example of war and killing by their own Govt's. History teaches Morgan.

But Morgan knows this...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I just don't care how crazy they think we are, or how many names they call us. We are entitled as a consequence of our humanity to defend ourselves... especially against those who wish to dictate to us.

They can dream up all of the faulty arguments they want. They may not have my firearms. And if there are any non-slaves left on this planet, they should hold the same line.

 

[KingNothing]

I just don't care how crazy they think we are, or how many names they call us. We are entitled as a consequence of our humanity to defend ourselves... especially against those who wish to dictate to us.

They can dream up all of the faulty arguments they want. They may not have my firearms. And if there are any non-slaves left on this planet, they should hold the same line.

There's a lot of irony involved in all of this.

Take free speech and whistleblowers, for instance. They leak damning evidence against a government that has worked hard to conceal it precisely because it is damning and paints government in a negative, dictatorial, light. Government responds in a negative, dictatorial manner by imprisoning the whistleblowers and working harder to conceal information.

With guns, the "gun nuts" say they need guns to protect themselves from an aggressive, dictatorial government that wants to usurp the rights of the people. The government responds by telling these "gun nuts" that they are just paranoid. And then government demands that these "paranoid" people either fork over their guns or allow themselves to be registered and tracked.

It would be funny if it weren't all so sad and frightening.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Piers avoids taking about Virginia Tech because that was done with a handgun. He also avoids talking about Mexico's gun ban allowing the cartels to run rampant.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Here's the problem: most people in this country aren't rational. Most are idiots. Some pay a little attention, but get their information from the "mainstream media". A few more are politically aware and perhaps even active, but get their information from the likes of Rush, Beck, etc., or Jon Stewart, Ed Schultz, etc.

None of these people are going to hear out a calm, reasoned argument on behalf of gun ownership.

They're either going to pass more laws, or they are not. But there isn't going to be a debate about it.

Bingo.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. — It is force." G. Washington