Breitbart's Ben Shapiro Torches Piers Morgan!

[Odessa78]

This is absolutely a MUST WATCH. Ben Shapiro takes on a very smug Piers Morgan and decimates him. He starts out by pointing out how Morgan bullies his interviewers by standing on the graves of the little children that died in Newtown which quickly draws Morgan’s ire. But it’s absolutely true. Even last night with Larry Pratt Morgan accused him of having no empathy for the children. Of course Morgan’s response to Shapiro is “how dare you!”



COMPLETE: Ben Shapiro CUTS Piers Morgan DOWN - YouTube!

[GURPS (Premo)]

Morgan is a SMUG Bully standing atop the bodies of Children ..........

[SamSpade]

It does prove a point made by Ann Coulter years ago, however. Liberals famously trot out sympathy-evoking persons in a way such that, anyone who takes an opposing stand appears to be a monster, whether they are a mother who lost a son in Iraq or widows who lost husbands on 9/11.

Mark Steyn, one of my favorite pundits, and Mark Levin have also observed that liberals make primary appeals to emotion. Thus we get the "we gotta do something" kind of response that doesn't solve the problem, but makes us feel good about having done something.

Piers responds - "how dare you!". How dare he - what? Tell him he's using the deaths of children to promote his agenda? Isn't he doing exactly that? If my child had been killed, I wouldn't hesitate to tell that to his face.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Odessa78

This is absolutely a MUST WATCH. Ben Shapiro takes on a very smug Piers Morgan and decimates him. He starts out by pointing out how Morgan bullies his interviewers by standing on the graves of the little children that died in Newtown which quickly draws Morgan’s ire. But it’s absolutely true. Even last night with Larry Pratt Morgan accused him of having no empathy for the children. Of course Morgan’s response to Shapiro is “how dare you!”



COMPLETE: Ben Shapiro CUTS Piers Morgan DOWN - YouTube!

I can't STAND these yapping Jack Russel types. Shapiro has a solid argument and he should recognize that and focus on the quality of your argument and not this quantity thing where it is an endless stream of rapid fire comments. Piers used a measured, conversational tone and sounded better making vapid points than Shapiro because of the delivery.

I only made it part way through.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

It does prove a point made by Ann Coulter years ago, however. Liberals famously trot out sympathy-evoking persons in a way such that, anyone who takes an opposing stand appears to be a monster, whether they are a mother who lost a son in Iraq or widows who lost husbands on 9/11.

Mark Steyn, one of my favorite pundits, and Mark Levin have also observed that liberals make primary appeals to emotion. Thus we get the "we gotta do something" kind of response that doesn't solve the problem, but makes us feel good about having done something.

Piers responds - "how dare you!". How dare he - what? Tell him he's using the deaths of children to promote his agenda? Isn't he doing exactly that? If my child had been killed, I wouldn't hesitate to tell that to his face.

To which Shapiro merely needed to calmly, deliberately point out that the emotional response of NO GUNS is why these kids were murdered. That the emotional response makes things worse and explain why.

Wayne LaPierre is correct; the ONLY thing that could have stopped this is a good guy with a gun. That is a SIMPLE argument to make in the face of the emotional plea to 'DO SOMETHING!"

"You are correct, Piers. Let's do something that would work, that has a solid chance of working. If we treated abortion emotionally, the death of the unborn, women would not have the right to choose. If we treated voting rights emotionally, poor people would not have the right to vote. If we treated health care emotionally, we would have an unwieldy, bloated, massively expensive system that people can't afford..."

And let that hang out there.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Pierce is STUPID! He asked a question, got the correct answer then asked the same question again. YOU LIBERALS ARE SOO STUPID! Too stupid to vote, breed or make good decisions! Please get out of America; you're ruining it!

[Chris0nllyn]

A breakdown of Piers' stats.....

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

To which Shapiro merely needed to calmly, deliberately point out that the emotional response of NO GUNS is why these kids were murdered. That the emotional response makes things worse and explain why.

Well, I'd wish him luck with that. I've never, ever had success trying to explain something calmly and rationally with someone who is bent on emotional responses to an issue. My limited experience is that they completely ignore your logical explanation and reiterate the emotional argument. They're not interested in solutions, because they're looking for blame.

It's the guns! Get rid of the guns, get rid of the killing!
Tried it. Doesn't work. Never has.
You're lying! Why do you need something that's only for killing people?
To defend myself from people who have guns and want to kill me.
If we didn't have guns, there'd be no crimes with guns.
But we do have millions of them, so that ship has sailed.
You're just a stupid person, aren't you?

[Chris0nllyn]

I think it's shame that so many people put so much faith in their government, and people are now being made out to be crazy for thinking otherwise, or pointing out that, THAT is the reason for the 2A.

What SHOULD be said to Piers is:

Guns don’t just magically disappear, and laws do not make guns magically disappear. Some words written down on a piece of paper are not an equal match to a paper shredder or knife, much less firearms. Any form of gun control necessarily requires use of violence, with guns. If people don’t want to voluntarily register their guns, a police officer must force them to do so at the barrel of a gun. If people don’t voluntarily want to turn in their assault rifles, a police officer must force them to do so at the barrel of a gun. The use of a gun by a police officer may not be the first step – it may first start with a warning, a fine, or some type of detention, but if people seriously resist whatever form of gun control it is the government seeks to impose, police ultimately must enforce it – at the barrel of a gun.

So then, it seems you don’t want a restriction on guns. That’s not what you meant at all. You just want firearms restricted to the elite classes of the enforcers of the law. You want to completely disarm the classes of people who traditionally, historically, and statistically have hurt and killed minimal numbers of people, while you want to fully arm the military and police – allegedly to protect us all from the grave danger of firearms.

You want to give all firearm power to the enforcers of the law, who were first in line to capture slaves and return them to their masters, who were first in line to round up innocent Japanese citizens and drag them off to internment camps, who were first in line to let their dogs and batons loose upon black people trying to gain equal rights, and who will always be first in line to execute whatever sick atrocity the government wants executed.

So don’t say you want to restrict or get rid of guns. You do want guns, and you only want the most organized and depraved groups of people in the country to have them. Say what you mean, and know that it is your impossible burden to explain how this makes the rest of us safe.

[DipStick]

Piers Morgan is a fool. I don't even watch CNN and I'm tired of his ####.