129 votes

Piers Owned Again by Ben Shapiro: Thursday, 1-10-13

In another loss chalked up for Piers Morgan, Ben Shapiro of Breitbart hands him a Constitution and crushes him in a debate. Way to go Ben! Links thanks to No sheeple/sharpsteve

Part I:


Part II below

Part 2:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More like Shapiro agrees with

More like Shapiro agrees with Morgan. Both are full of unconstitutional rhetoric.


More like Ben Shapiro owns alex jones

This was 1000 times better than alex jones on piers, much better way to communicate

Unlawful Killing

I try extremely hard not to get involved in side issues that distract me from the real events unfolding before our very eyes, (i.e. "Financial Repression" and "Capital Controls") look it up.

However, in cases such as this interview, what I truly find disturbing is the fact that Piers Morgan himself was questioning the official report of Lady Diana when she died, he was interviewed in the documentary "Unlawful Killing" which has been pulled off the shelves so know one has a chance to see the real death of Lady Diana and now, this man has been paid off and shut down and told to fall in line. This is why you are seeing a total ignorance on his part.

Do not, I repeat! Do not be distracted from the economic storm that is growing each and every passing day, Globally!
The 2nd Amendment is what it is and will once again prove to be in a true patriots favor!!

what weapon was used ?

When Morgan ask's his guests do they know what weapon was used ?

Why do they not say YES , Zoloft, Luvox, Prozac, Paxil !

That is what needs to be addressed !

Tin Pan

Selfish gun-rights activist content to shout from the sidelines

Innocent people should not die at the hands of aggressors.
Moral people are outraged by the deaths of innocent people dying at the hands of aggressors. The more numerous and more innocent the victims, the greater the degree of outrage provoked.

This is why comparative stats about the number of innocents who die from, say, adverse drug reactions or car accidents do not provoke an equal (or even greater) sense of outrage. Driving and taking drugs are actions a victim takes that have inherent risks. Going to school has not, thus far, been a risky behavior. Thus children -- and adults -- attending school are "more innocent" and provoke more outrage.

Outrage provokes an action response. We don't like -- won't stand for -- moral outrages. We must do something; we must act. At least that's our innate desire. A righteous desire, in my opinion. Much of the time, we don't know what to do. But the folks with a lurking agenda do. All the classic sayings apply: Go with the tide; go with a fair wind. You wait until something catches with the popular mindset and ride the momentum. The momentum -- the outrage -- didn't pick gun control or preaching about the 2nd Amendment. The outrage is visceral and wants to act to do its moral part.

This is why folks like Morgan can keep beating the where's-the-sympathy-for-the-victims drum. And keep getting duckets for it. Because in the aftermath of a tragedy against numerous innocents, society is outraged toward action. This mob outrage is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It can be harnessed and wielded by anyone who gives it direction and justification. It is not interested in principles. Nor the discussions of historical documents. Nor toward sterile statistics. It is outraged. It wants action. It wants it now.

You can call it stupid and reactionary and evil-mob consciousness or any name you wish. But it is part of the moral fiber of humanity, and it won't go away because you don't like it. The folks who use it well don't care if it's built upon logical suppositions and leads to best-case-scenario government policies. They call it the high tide upon which they launch their agenda. They call it the fair wind behind which they position their goals.

All I've seen from the clips posted here (and I've only done a bit of searching outside the DP links), is defensiveness from the pro-gun folks. Sure there are plenty of Pratts and Shapiros, and Jones telling the mob-outrage to calm down and think. But where is the intellect that recognizes this first-flush of response from a morally outraged populous is not seeking appeals to statistics or old documents or principles? Where are the leading intellects in tune with directing the outrage?

I admire much of what Pratt and Shapiro tried to do in their interviews with Morgan. But they seem to be stubbornly refusing to deal with the actual act of communicating with their audiences. It is messy and difficult to make it your main criteria to meet people where they are and come beside them to encourage them toward a rational course of action. So much easier to only engage where you are at -- spouting stats and principles. But that's only earning them duckets with their inner circle, the already-converted. Such intellectual parochialism is fine and dandy if you just want to look good to your self-designated peers. It means nothing if you wish to engage the tide and wind of populous angst.

I've heard none of these speakers ride this tide or go with this wind. We should be morally outraged by the mass slaughter of innocent children. When leaders such as Pratt, Shapiro, and Jones fail to grieve and outrage, they fail to become part of the tide or the wind; they fail to identify and fail to lead the mob. I suspect that they feel the very act of public utterance of grief and outrage would slice away at their arguments. They set themselves on their heels, off balance, from the start. They, apparently, are more comfortable being the guy at the side of the mob shouting about logical fallacies and hanging onto the notion that, when they get done and get home, all their peers will slap them on the back and call them heroes despite their stubborn refusal to engage real people -- the mob (tide, wind) gripped by real outrage.

In short, they do not make a real difference because they are unable or unwilling to meet the mass of people where they are at -- full of moral outrage and hungering for action.

To all of you who may be in a position to speak to the public, no matter how small your segment, please think about diving to the front of the mob and directing it. Understand the outrage; identify with it. Understand the instinct toward action -- revel in it -- this is humanity at it's finest. Use it; don't run from it.

I do not believe that people are sheep. I cringe every time I reach a post with the phrase. I'm quite certain that the folks who use it most frequently are folks who've come to believe quite recently that they don't have to be sheep. A pot calling he kettle back sort of thing. If you go around calling others sheep, it's most likely because you think yourself a sheep and have just caught a whiff of what it means to be unsheep.

Not that anyone will even read to the bottom of this -- I understand that my thoughts are limited and largely for my own entertainment and discernment of my own thought process -- but... But if anyone who does and is actually engaged with media outlets, I wish to encourage you to be fully human. To fully allow yourself to engage in the impulse of outrage and desire for action. Don't waste your time denying such admirable human qualities. Don't presume your arguments are based outside such impulses. Don't be defensive; don't shout from the sidelines. Move to the front; lead. Leading means understanding the force at your backside and flanks. It means subjugating what YOU (and your pond of peers admires) to what the mob needs and deciding that you can actually understand and get in front front it of.

Warmth and emotion is the

Warmth and emotion is the majority and us as technical is considered cold. So there is a disconnect.

I have been trying to warm my Liberty message and sorta wrap in a progressive lingo format. Working my way into gaining a foothold in the emotion packed majority.

Kudos on your attempts.

I kind of think that "gaining a foothold in the emotion packed majority" is simply to be able experience an event without being on the defensive.

If we sidestep our normal human reaction to tragedy, we step out of the normal human response to tragedy -- and out of the leadership position we could have taken. The outraged will look askance at us -- as they should -- because we've displayed a defensive modality, expecting attack. And those who expect attack, we're pretty convinced, deserve an attack. Kudos on your attempts.

Thank you

You just gave me the best education I've ever received.

NO MORE LIES. Ron Paul 2012.

Very well said,

and I agree. All this arguing does not ever seem to convince people to change their views.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

Awesome.... Piers Morgan is

Awesome.... Piers Morgan is now starting to act and appear like a commonplace jackass. Surely CNN can bring in better talking hosts than this foreigner.

If we ban access to assault

If we ban access to assault rifles to those who have a "mental disorder", then what happens if the desire for an assault rifle IS a "mental disorder"?

Labels reign.

What's to debate about the 2nd amendment

contained in the "little book"? It's easily read and understood, not unlike the first amendment.

Somehow, Morgan's disbelief of the possibilities of tyrants is disingenuous, coming from a person whose loyalties have been laden with royalties. Bow down and kiss the feet that have nurtured you to what you have become, Morgan, and hail "long live the queen", the devoted subject of the monarchy that you are.

Sudafed regulation

I've posted this argument before and I'll happily do it again.

Regulating Sudafed, to the point where it's now practically unavailable, only served to prohibit public access to a very good decongestant medication (with no really adequate substitute). Meth-making then switched from the few local cooks in America to the Mexican drug cartels, whom now import tons of the stuff.

As with anything, if you ban something in great demand, it becomes a valuable black market item. Then, like with the Drug War, only criminals will be in charge of the enterprise.

There're two people I cannot

There're two people I cannot stand listening too: 0bama and Pee More'gan. Everything they say it total bologna.

Heard a great retort (on the

Heard a great retort (on the David Webb show, I think) to Piers' characterization of the constitution as "your little book":

"If the Constitution is a 'little book' than the Magna Carta is toilet paper."

(Of course Piers would probably want to repeal the Magna Carta, too.)

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

ron paul supporter mark willis running for chair of rnc

ron paul supporter mark willis is running for chair of rnc and needs help. currently 2 states that have been willing to stand up and nominate Mark Willis for RNC Chair. Maine and Nevada.This means 2 more RNC members from 1 more state is needed to satisfy the nomination requirements. Have you reached out to your states RNC members yet? If you are not sure who they are in your state here is a great starting point: http://www.gop.com/members/ The RNC Election of Officers takes place Jan. 25th from 11-6pm (tentative). mark willis must have the support of 3 states with at least 2 RNC members (State Chair, National Committeeman/woman) written support in order to satisfy the nomination requirements: http://stepdownnow.com/mark-willis-for-rnc-chair/


Piers Morgan is a tool and

Piers Morgan is a tool and should be removed from CNN and this country.

an analogy.

When asked why does anyone need an "assault rifle" and the answer is to defend against a tyrannical government. Mr. Morgan implies that idea is paranoid or crazy.
Ask this question: Why does anyone need a guard dog? The answer is to defend against burglars. Has anyone ever burgled your home? No, because burglars know I have a guard dog.
The issue is not only the need defend against tyranny, it is also the knowledge that any attempt at it will be costly to the would-be tyrant due to the fact the citizenry is armed.
In any case, it is not up to the likes of P.M. to decide what other people need whether it is an SUV, a hot tub, or 200 varieties of breakfast cereal. Obviously there is a market for these rifles and that should be enough.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson


Great point, and one I keep wishing this point would come out more often in these mass media discussion. Bullies pick on weak people; governments (foreign and domestic) pick on unarmed people.

ONE MISTAKE Ben Shapiro made was...

that he opened a can of worms, as soon as he stated that he would be for getting the weapons out of the hands of mentally ill. The only exception I would make would be a proven drug addict. That would be it, and he/she would have to have a history of using. It could not include legally prescribed medications. But, herein lies some of the problems---the abuse of drugs. How do you know about that?

The point is---WHO would define who is "mentally ill"? This opens up the government getting involved in yet one more program, you see, and in them making that determination. And, if any of their political enemies ever, and I mean EVER, took one prescription for depression, even though it may have been a low dose and a few weeks, they could target all those political enemies and take their guns away.

We CANNOT afford this to happen. If a person has a felony on their record, they automatically cannot have a weapon. Otherwise, anybody can. And, we all know any criminal, ex-con, or crazy can get access to a gun illegally.

This whole thing is about upping the ante on control of the masses, as the elite rulers over Washington D.C. step up their fascist authoritarian dictatorship rule!

If all mentally ill people

If all mentally ill people cannot have guns, than any criminal that knows where a mentally ill patient lives can consider that person to be unarmed and can take advantage of this knowledge. Whenever a law is created there will be a criminal ready to take advantage of it.

It is better to look dumb and not be, than to look smart and not be.

I wish I could

upvote what you said times 1,000. EXCELLENT POINT that I wish Shapiro had said in response to the "paranoia" argument. The 2nd Amendment isn't only to defend IN CASE of complete tyranny it's a DETERRENT to it even getting that far.


Great interview. Great seeing logic and reason make King George III here shut up. Hopefully Alex Jones watched : /

My disappointment in Alex's interview was .................

My initial disappointment in Alex's interview was that he didn't debate like Ben just did, but I soon realized that it might have been a genius move on his part b/c of the publicity he and Infowars received afterwards.

I fear the "compromise."

We all should know by now that they're pushing extreme positions so that their incremental "compromise" (which was their goal from day 1) will seem more "reasonable" in comparison.

"Oh, you mean you're NOT going to sign an executive order that bans all guns? You're just going to make mental health screening more rigorous and require people to lock their guns up? And I guess I don't really need 30-round mags. Okay, that seems reasonable."

I'm guessing that the repetition of the "mental illness" phrase means that the compromise will involve either redefining "mental illness" so that it's easier to label people as unlikables who shouldn't have guns, or to make it harder for people who have someone with "mental illness" in their family (everybody's got at least one weak-link family member) to either get guns, or mandate inspections for them regarding locking devices and all that nonsense.

Liberals all denied ownership

Liberalism is a mental disorder so they'll all have to be placed on the ban list. That pretty much settles it for me if they want to have any list at all and seek to remove the guns from all the "bad" guys.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Sooo...Mr. Morgan...

...if you truly support the 2nd Ammendment as you say you do, why not publicly advocate something similar for your own countrymen? Why not criticize your own government for its draconian gun restrictions?

Like will Ben Quote "Ashes In

Like will Ben Quote "Ashes In Europe" Kick Him Dead In The Brits Balls. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Morgan's cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.....

It's breathtaking (in a twisted, "holy crap" sort of way) to see the cognitive dissonance of Piers Morgan--how he could get up there and accuse Ben of being some sort of glue-sniffing weirdo for even THINKING that his "gov't" might "turn tyrannical" on its own people. Wow. Does he not even realize the history of his own freaking continent? Wow ....

I mean regardless of whether you believe there is a coordinated "shadow gov't within gov't" whose sole purpose is to destroy liberty and bring everyone into subjection or not, it is clear that "this gov't" has already shown signs that it has no problem being "at war" with its own citizens.

Oh yeah, Ben, the "timeline" you quote is vastly wrong. I give it 10-20 years, TOPS ......

20 children at Sandy Hook

are more tragic than 50 children killed with handguns???
Also, I think that when Pee Morgan starts with one of his diatribes the guest should just prop his feet on the desk, lean back and take a nap! When Morgan starts demanding an answer or response the guest can just say "When you finish your diatribe (or monologue) and can shut up and let me respond then I will" then if Morgan open his mouth put the feet back on the desk! (maybe look out at the camera crew and say "someone please wake me when I can talk or when this circus is over")