Well I must say that CNN’s Piers Morgan is a glutton for punishment; either that or he is just trying to get controversy to up the failing ratings of CNN. He has been schooled by Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt, told to suck on Ted Nugent’s machine gun, blasted by Infowars’ Alex Jones, and now he is clearly outclassed and out-schooled by a young man, half his age. Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro took to Morgan’s show and said that there could be a rational discussion without Morgan “standing on the graves of the children in Newtown” and demonizing anyone who disagrees with him politically over his views on gun legislation and accused them of not caring for the murdered students.
Morgan was not going to sit there and just take it. In fact, he looked down his nose at Shapiro and said, “How dare you!” as though that really answered anything that Shapiro said.
Shapiro accused him of being a “bully” and “standing on the bodies of the children who died at Sandy Hook.”
Ben was even thoughtful enough to bring Piers Morgan a copy of the Constitution, which he summarily pushed aside to continue putting forth the tired argument he has been corrected on over and over, but Shapiro, like others before him shut Morgan’s illogical arguments down. Here’s what took place in just the first three minutes!
Morgan introduced Shapiro saying, “My next guest has strong words for me. He says I’m off the rails on guns in America. Ben Shapiro is editor-at-large at Breitbart.com and the author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans.” So, why am I off the rails, Mr. Shapiro?”
“You know, honestly Piers, you have kind of been a bully on this issue, because what you do, and I’ve seen it repeatedly on your show,” Shapiro aswered. “I watch your show. And I’ve seen it repeatedly. What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook saying they don’t seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids, they would agree with you on policy. I think we can have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don’t think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at Sandy Hook.”
“How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there,” retorted Morgan. “How dare you.”
“I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers,” responded Shapiro.
“Like I say, how dare you,” said Morgan, apparently believing he had not made his point the first two times he said it. He had absolutely no legitimate response to what he stood accused of.
“Well, I mean, you can keep saying that, but you’ve done it repeatedly,” Shapiro continued. “What you do, and I’ve seen you do it on your program, is you keep saying to folks if they disagree with you politically, then somehow this is a violation of what happened in Sandy Hook. And you, I would really like to hear your policy prescriptions for what we should do about guns because you say you respect the second amendment. You know, I brought this here for you so you can read it. It’s the Constitution. And I would really like for you to explain to me what you would do about guns that would have prevented what happened in Sandy Hook. If you want to do what you did in the U.K., right, which is ban virtually all guns, that is at least a fair argument and we can have a discussion about whether that’s something that we ought to do or not.”
Morgan said, “Well, I made it clear what I want to do which is exactly what Mark Kelly wants to do. And in fact…” Shapiro cut him off saying, “Ok, let’s talk about that.”
Morgan continued in spite of Shapiro’s interjection, “Rather than address your comments to me about standing on the graves of children at Sandy Hook, you can address them to Mark Kelly because he agrees with everything I have been saying because he feels the same way, as does his wife. They’re gun owners. They both respect the Second Amendment of the Constitution. They dont want to take away anyone’s right to defend themselves with guns…”
Shapiro quickly corrected his assertion, “Well, they want to take away certain types of guns, obviously.”
“They want to take away assault weapons,” said Morgan, “which are capable with magazines that we saw in Aurora and Sandy hook, of unleashing a ridiculous amount of…”
Shapiro seeing the vulnerability of Morgan’s argument chimed in, “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?”
“No, that’s not what I’m asking for,” said Morgan.
“Why not?” Shapiro shot back. “Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?”
“Yes, I do,” said Morgan.
“Then why don’t you care about banning the handguns in Chicago?” asked Shapiro.
Boom! That was merely round 1 friends. This was before the 3:00 mark. Shapiro had utterly destroy Morgan’s line of thinking with regards to what he was getting at and that is that banning semi-automatic rifles is not going to solve or even help the problem. By the way, neither will banning handguns solve the problems of violent crime. As long as we live in a fallen world there will be people who do evil things and are intent on hurting others. Therefore, it is imperative that people protect themselves and their loved ones and the Constitution secures that duty they have with respect to both keeping and bearing firearms, and yes that includes semi-automatic rifles.
The major problem that I see in Shapiro’s argument later on is this entire line that we are hearing about “mental health.” I agree that many are mentally unstable, but do we really want the federal government determining who is and is not mentally healthy? I thought that was something that should be “between the doctor and the patient,” not big government. Furthermore, this goes well beyond that as we have seen secular psychologists and psychiatrists who want to pump kids, who are not disciplined to sit still and behave, with all sorts of chemicals. Then they claim later on they have a “chemical imbalance.” My Dad use to say that can be cured with a good swat on the backside, no chemicals required. Sadly, many don’t show proper love for their children by disciplining them.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.