Piers Morgan Calls the Constitution your "Little Book," Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro - Breitbart

I just love the way that arrogant prick asks a question, then gets a response he doesn't like, and proceeds to talk all over the answer. What a rude and arrogant host for a major network. It's is an embarrassment to our world of journalism what this person does. Who asks a question without letting someone respond? Someone pushing an agenda that's who.

What Piers is really saying.

How dare you figure out my best defense against logic and reason...

Never seen this Pierce bloke before. He makes some good points.

That Shapiro fellow had his arse handed to him. He was ambushed into saying that people need AR-15 rifles to protect themselves against tyrannical government. Regardless of how true the statement is or what was the intent behind the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, he's just made all owners of "assault rifles" out to be potential armed rebels who will shoot people from the government if they pass a law these folks don't like.

Pro-gunners in the US need some better spokespeople. With dickheads like Bullhorn Jones and now this little Shapiro fella doing the talking, you're gonna wake up one day soon and see an assault weapon ban which far surpasses the 1994 one.

Is there ANYONE out there who's eloquent enough to challenge the CNN fuck-knuckle at his own game?

Fuck off!! you fucking shill

That eloquent enough for ya

The defense against a Tyranical Government(gone wrong & oppressing the Citizens) is PRECISELY why OUR Founding Fathers wrote it, moran!

he kept saying a tyrannical government,

STOP SAYING THAT ITS NOT NECESSARILY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD TURN ON US YOU IDIOTS.

ITS ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD THAT MAY OPPOSE THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Not really and if you're a gun owner then people like you are gonna lose the propaganda war and you won't even realise it.

Communist tyrants win again. Too bad. So sad. You let it happen.

Not that familiar with the guy, but yeah, you're right; seems to explain why Austin Bullhorn went rant mode.

I don't know who that James Yeager guy has in mind if the gov does go Full Retard, but I wouldn't feel very safe if I was this crumpet-eating puss.

No shit, fuckstick. I agree with you for what it's worth.

It's the media. Facts don't matter - perception does and your little man Shapiro got fucking owned on national TV. The pommy cunt made him out to be an anti-government type - not all blustering like the Bullhorn, but the more dangerous type - the quiet ones... Next thing you know he'll be bleating about how the gun owners are stockpiling weapons for a new revolution. THAT'S why the sales of firearms and ammunition exploded after Sandy Hook he'll say. Then he'll continue on about how important it is to get these guns out of the hands of potential terrorists NOW, before we have another shooting. And on it goes until the public are scared shitless and the authorities "are forced to" act. It's a fucking simple script which has been played out a hundred different ways in a hundred different countries. It happened here and it'll happen there.

You need an eloquent spokesperson who can beat this English cockhead at his own game. You DON'T need someone who is so wet behind the ears they don't even know they've walked into an ambush. And it's not just Pierce Fucking Morgan, any of your current self-appointed spokespeople end up dragged into a Congressional hearing and they'll get torn apart. The enemy is ruthless, he is vicious and he thinks he's the smartest motherfucker on the planet. That's a weakness which can be exploited, but if you keep putting dumb cunts up there you won't get the chance.

I THINK ALL US LIBERALS SHOULD TURN IN OUR GUNS, THEY'RE IN THE WRONG HANDS.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO SAYS:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior—like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy—immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don't need the government's permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government—whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force—is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John's forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty—the personal dominion over self—by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else's natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn't. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government's whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson's thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one's home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century—from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad—have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king's soldiers because they didn't know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone's rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history's tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

5* and

Tyranny might arrive in 100 years?

100 years in the wrong direction.

Well said mah boy!

Click here..

Look!

VVV




IMAGE ( [link to i49.tinypic.com] )