Replies

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.

Shapiro, being a Jew, effectively informs Piers of how his ancestors were affected in Europe under the Nazis because they had no means of protecting themselves.

Piers Morgan was given this answer and never responded to it.

“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.

It's like the old schoolchild's joke:

"Why are you waving your arms like that?"
"To keep the elephants away!"
"I don't seen any elephants."
"Then it's working!"

The "need" for assault rifles is in its presence.

The simple fact that people keep and bear them is enough to keep the government from descending into tyranny.

It's a red-herring to suggest that we don't need them because the government has never turned on us in 236 years. The truth is that the government has been successfully deterred from turning on us all this time because we are armed.

-PJ