Morgan should stick to mouth frothers like Alex Jones

Watch as Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of, beclowns CNN’s insufferable prig, Piers Morgan.

Wow. Morgan stepped into one self-mad trap after another and lost every single debate point. Morgan has been waving the bloody shirt of demagoguery for weeks and now wants to pretend that he is innocent of what he has been doing on a daily basis. Is lack of self awareness is fascinating.

If Morgan weren’t such an detestable swine, I’d almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Morgan should stick to mouth frothers like Alex Jones

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    Shapiro’s response to Morgan’s question as to why any ordinary American “needs” and AR-15 was that an armed citizenry is able to defend against tyranny. That is a good and correct response. He is exactly right.

    That said, I prefer a different tack. I usually respond by asking, in turn, where in the Bill of Rights does it state that the rights and powers enumerated there are only valid to the extend that media talking heads agree their is a “need” for their existence?

    What other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are contingent on “need”? If we determine that a particular group doesn’t have the need to associate or assemble, can we ban such gatherings? Why does anyone “need” to engage in provocative art? Can we agree that no ordinary citizen “needs” art and, therefore, it isn’t subject to the 1st Amendment?

    Or maybe, perhaps, arbitrary opinions as to what is needed don’t have anything to do with whether or not a citizen is is allowed to exercise his rights.

    • notamobster says:

      No one “needs” to come to America on a work visa and bully Americans about our 2nd Amendment. That should definitely be banned.

  2. RUDE JUDE says:

    This young man is remarkable. Never flinched. I wish I could think that fast on my feet like that with such grace. Morgan needs to leave the USA if he doesn’t like it here. Oh, isn’t he the one that the UK does NOT want back?

  3. Jim22 says:

    “The fact that my grandparents and great-grandparents didn’t fear tyranny is the reason they are now ashes in Europe.”

    Best line in the debate. I also applaud Shapiro for calling Morgan on his bully tactics.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      That was good. I also like Shapiro’s response to Morgan’s comment that Reagan supported an assault weapons ban…


      That appeal to authority argument is pathetic and “so?” is the best response to it.

      • Jim22 says:

        Breitbart started that. When an opponent tried what Morgan tried he would say the same thing – “So?” It’s devastating. Of course Shapiro, being a Breitbart protege’, learned at the feet of the master.

  4. Matt says:

    Would’ve loved to have seen Breitbart himself face Morgan, but Shapiro acquitted himself very well.

    I also would like for someone to ask Piers Morgan why he “needs” a car that exceeds the speed limit ( We all have a lot of things that we don’t “need”. That however is not a reason to outlaw those things.

  5. R.D. Walker says:

    The other thing I like is when Shapiro questioned Morgan about his focus on banning rifles when the vast majority of firearm murders are with handguns. Morgan doesn’t want to ban handguns, however? Whats the deal with that Piers?


    • Uke says:

      Incrementalism. Pick the low hanging fruit (assault weapons), and then someday the next lowest fruit (handguns) grows heavy and easy to pick. After that, it’s kind of a tossup whether they’d ban “evil, high-powered sniper rifles” (a.k.a. hunting rifles) or “high-powered hand cannons” (a.k.a. shotguns).

  6. DocO says:

    Why does anyone NEED TWO HANDS. Two hands are only needed to choke somebody. I call for compulsory amputation for everyone but Law Enforcement Officers and Politicians and their friends.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      There is something just very, very offensive about some busy-body asking why you “need” something. The strong implication is that, if you cannot produce an answer that is satisfactory to the questioner, you have to surrender the item in question. It is pure tyranny at its core!

  7. R.D. Walker says:

    Morgan slammed down the constitution and called it “your little book”. Nice, huh?

    • Jim22 says:

      Everyone has been all over that. It’s a tactic designed to make someone on the right froth at the mouth. Shapiro handled that well too.

  8. Z says:

    But at the end, what it came down to was that Morgan either does not believe that a government can turn on its citizens, and take away the the very freedoms that currently allow him to make such a handsome living, or that if a government does, he either assumes he won’t be affected, or he’d rather just obey his master than go down fighting. I think that’s the end of this debate for these two (or two like them). Eventually it comes down to one’s personal constitution and their understanding of human nature and history.

    • Z says:

      this is a comment about the video on another site: “As always, Piers is trying to have a polite discussion, the opposite side (doesnt matter what his political views are) chooses to interrupt and shut him down. The total outcome is, that semi-automatic assault riffles can be modified obviously easily, so why the hell not banning this type of weapons? Okay, have your sidearms suchs as revolvers or 9mm semi-automatic handguns, why the hell you want to have AR-15 riffles? Where is the point, the reason to have those kind of weapons??? I still don´t get it!”


      “And all this tyranny bullshit??? When did that happen in the US? I want to have an a-bomb, because the tyrannic state of blablabla could come and invade my little home, I have to fight them back. Totally absurd!”

      • Uke says:

        “And all this tyranny bullshit??? When did that happen in the US?”

        … we were birthed of that “tyranny bullshit.”

        I cannot even fathom how a person can even dare suppose that the US has never had experience in the nature of tyranny.

        • DocO says:

          Yes, anytime anyone argues that a rag tag militia would stand no chance against the world’s greatest military, I shake my head that we’ve so badly educated our children, that they don’t know how their very own country was founded, i.e., by a rag tag force of militia men, fighting against the greatest military power of the day.

        • notamobster says:

          They don’t understand history (or care to).

      • Rugerman says:

        It happened at Wounded Knee.

  9. whosebone says:

    Lets see if we can get piers(who in the hell names their kid piers?) to invite Mark Levin to discuss “assault weapons” and the 2nd amendment. 🙂

  10. TN-Cat says:

    I bet Piers stopped and bought some baby powder on the way home. His ass must be a little chaffed after that spanking.

  11. James says:

    Let’s see.
    Native Americans had treaties with the U.S. government breached, their land taken, and murdered.

    Ruby Ridge murders.

    Waco murders.

    No knock warrant wrong address deaths of citizens.

    Nope. Never has happened here.

  12. sortahwitte says:

    Way back at the very top, ‘prick’ was misspelled. Sorry.

    • notamobster says:

      How nice of you to point it out again that you were calling him a prick. 🙂 (I like the way you think, my brother.)

  13. messup says:

    It’s always been “message vs mesenger!”
    Never was more pronounced (or evident)than in 2012 Presidential election cycle. Remember? the “47%?”
    Breitbart himself uncovered this underbelly soft spot of the Progressive New Left Activist Movement, honing in on it like a laser beam and literally knocking home runs out of the park.

    Thank heavens Ben Shapiro et al have studied Breitbarts traits and methodology, able to replicate them in any scenario (read:MSM dominated scenarios) in We The Elite People’s culture of corruption in Washington DC. This is the Elite Washington DC cabal…largest criminal enterprise on earth.

    Oh! by the way, anybody hear about the “Democratic Initiative?” Yeah! They’re also designing this and other “initiatives!!!”
    Michael Brune, Phil Radford, Larry Cohen, Ben Jealous, Barack Obama -These guys have pull:
    1)Brune is the executive director of the Sierra Club and former executive director of the more radical Rainforest Action Network. 2)Radford runs Greenpeace.
    3)Cohen is the president of the 700,000-member communications Workers of America, “the largest telecommunications union in the world.”
    4)Jealous is the president and chief executive officer of the NAACP (reporter Matthew Continetti -Washington Free Beacon) 1/11/2013.
    Not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, but isn’t this a government within a government????Just asking!! Pray. Amen.
    Addendum: word-on-the-street DHS (Dept of homeland security) has an ongoing program (Open-Purchase-Order) for hollow point ammunition. It is estimated it has an arsenal of more than 1 billion (yes, with a “B”) rounds already on hand with more arriving every day. Question: what would an american government agency tasked with “homeland security,” be purchasing for possible use on american soil such “outlawed” ammo for???HUH??? A coming Civil WAR??? Just asking!!!

  14. Rich says:

    I’m sorry, but there is another huge Shapiro gaff.

    Around 4.30 in the video he says that Adam Lanza’a mother was an irresponsible gun owner because she did not lock up her guns.

    Number 1 – maybe she did so, and Adam Lanza knew the combo because they had shot together before -.e.: Mom, “Hey Adam, go get the guns for me will you, I’m on the phone, the safe combination is 55679.”

    Number 2 – It is irresponsible to have locked guns because in a true emergency where a gun may save a life, the seconds lost to open a gun safe may kill.

    Number 3 – It is even more irresponsible to have gun laws forcing ammunition to be locked seperately from the gun because that is just more seconds passed wherein you may die for lack of a loaded weapon.

  15. Rich says:

    A Shapiro quote, “She [Adam Lanza’s mom] was irresponsible person, she didn’t keep her guns locked up. And and that should be against the law. If you have a mentally ill person in your house … .”

    Dear Lord, again crap!

    First, it is not irresponsible to keep guns unlocked. In fact, to keep guns locked is irresponsible

    Second, Adam Lanza had mental issues, but from all I have read, there was nothing to indicate a severity of mental issues as to predict his role in a school shooting.

    Third, I am sure Adam’s mom knew him as well as anyone. I have no doubt that if she had an inkling of Adam doing a school shooting, that she would have acted to prevent such.

    Fourth, is it reasonable to think that your son will kill you to get your guns to commit a school massacre? I would think that such intuition or fore knowledge would be pressing on you such as to prompt a call to law enforcement and/or refuse entry to your son.

    Last, if the standard in gun control now is to be able to predict that a loved one in your immediate family will kill you to get to your guns, then we may as well add mind reading to the requirements to things needed to get a gun permit.

    Adam Lanza moved from his mother’s home and had lived in his own place two years. He was on his own, independent from his mom. Why on earth would his mom think that on a visit from her son that he would kill her to obtain and use her guns for a mass murder. The answer is that she would not do so.

    And for this insanity the leftists want more gun control?

    Bullshit, pure rancid bullshit.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Sometimes we use rhetorical strategies to keep from being herded into debate corners. I do it all the time. For example, with Randal, I denied religious reasons for opposing abortion and stuck strictly to secular foundations in my defense of my pro-life position. In reality, I actually have deeply held religious objections to abortion, but using them just allows people like Randal to corner me.

    • Uke says:

      Much as RD indicated, you’re right in a purist sense, but given his opposition, Ben Shapiro couldn’t allow that particular issue to bog down the multitude of other, far more important issues that needed to be addressed in that interview.

      The issue of locking up one’s weapons when you have a mentally ill family member is a tiny pinprick of an issue compared to the far larger issue of gun rights. There’s no harm in rhetorically “giving” on that issue in a debate just so the 15 minute debate doesn’t dwell on that one issue for 5-10 minutes.

  16. Notamobster says:

    Spot on, Rich!