Boom!… Ben Shapiro POUNDS Piers Morgan On Gun Grabbing and Bully Tactics (Video)

Piers Morgan may want to ban knives, too. Cuz Ben Shapiro cut him to shreds tonight on CNN.

This was textbook material– Ben Shapiro was on with Piers Morgan tonight to discuss his new book “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” and talk gun control. Right from the start of the interview Ben took it to the anti-gun bully – calling him a bully. And, it was all downhill for Piers for the next 13 minutes. For some reason Piers would not answer Ben’s questions,

“If you are so concerned about gun deaths then why won’t you ban handguns? Don’t you care about the children in Chicago?”

Then Piers went on to call the US Constitution, “Your little book!” Disgusting.

This was great. Sit back and enjoy.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Gravelyvoice Jim

    With friends like Ben Shapiro why do we need enemies like Piers the “Slimy Limey” Morgan?

    We need to be careful when praising people like Shapiro who seem to be standing up for our 2nd Amendment rights, but at the same time advocate for broader background checks and “mental health” screening. These are both 4th Amendment issues, so are we willing to trade away the 4th to preserve the 2nd, when we should be trading NEITHER?

    If Shapiro would think for more than a nano-second about the PROCESS he is advocating, it would be very similar to what his grandparents, who are “now in ashes” as a result of a tyrannical government went through:

    The Hitler model:
    1. Broaden the background check requirement to include private gun sales.
    2. The government will then eventually know who all the gun owners are.
    3. At some point this will be demagogued and we will all be asked to register all of our guns. for “the safety of the children” (Both Hitler and Stalon just LOVED the little children)
    4. Of course, at that point the confiscation program of the left will commence, based on
    5. Mental health screenings and provisions under the now enshrined into law Obama Care.

    Which will bring us to:

    The Stalin/Soviet Model:
    At some point we will be denied our rights to own a gun, without due process (4th Amendment) based on mental health assessments conducted by working either directly for or as agents for the government.

    We need to step out, and step out fast, from the echo-chambers of some on the right! ANY of these “conservative” politicians, authors, bloggers, and talk show hosts now advocating expanded background checks and better “mental health” screenings as a requirement for gun ownership are leading us down the same slippery path that the left is, just a little slower.

    The federal government doing anything more than NOTHING about this issue will be an infringement on our rights under either the 1st (movies and video games), 2nd, or 4th Amendments. For years we have been asking the left “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”. It’s now time to ask ourselves this very same question.

  • lol

    love ben shapiro, love joel pollak too. andrew would be proud!

  • onbe


    We don’t need to broaden mental health screenings however we do need to enforce the
    laws we currently have to bar those with serious mental health issues from obtaining firearms.So often these nut jobs slip through the cracks. Had the shooter in Aurora or in the
    Giffords case been through the Adjudication process they would have been disqualified from legally purchasing firearms.How many more time bombs are walking around out there that are slipping through the cracks because no one will intervene on the person ?

  • Gravelyvoice Jim


    Here are the issues we need to address with mental health screenings:

    1. If someone has broken no laws, should the government be allowed to infringe on his/her rights without due process? Courts should be determining guilt or innocence under the law, not whether someone MIGHT break the law (I suggest you watch the movie “Minorty Report”).

    2. Which government bureaucrat, group of bureaucrats, or politicians will we entrust to define the standards for being “nut job” for us, then deny our 2nd Amendment rights? I’ll suggest the Stalinist solution – Since most people writing on this blog are considered “right-wing nut-jobs” by those in power in the federal government today, should we start there?

    Liberty, at times, can be very messy. I do agree that a good place to start is to enforce existing laws, not make new ones; like I said earlier.

  • All_IS_LOST

    No law has ever protected a citizen from a bad/evil person willing to do harm. Only the citizen with equal or greater power/firepower can protect himself.

    No one cares about history. So we will always be doomed to repeat it.

    Eventually we will be a one world government. It is inevitable. It will happen in changes so small no one will see or understand, and then it will be.

    The bigger the government the small the individual freedom.

  • Sam Stone

    With all that is going on, firearms talks, the fiscal cliff over, the debt ceiling coming up etc etc. I am happy as hell to see that the “3 letter word J O B S” is no longer an issue!

  • Sasja

    Perhaps we need to look at medications. How many of these shooters were, or had been on, any type of drug? Especially those that treat HDD, or whatever the hell it’s called these days. Why are so many of our children supposedly autistic? Are they really or is this just the malady de jour? What meds are they prescribed and what are the side effects? Or maybe these shooters are just evil and are creating death and chaos because it’s their want.


    Yesterday, Rush had a caller; a Navy SEAL. Let us not forget those who sacrifice so much for us and show them honor by not letting the would-be dictators in DC destroy what is still the best country on earth.

  • Roger

    Assault weapons have been ban for years in America and the semi-automatic look-alike rifles are not “assault weapons”! LOOK IT UP!!

  • Sparky

    Good on Ben for calling out Piers for the Left-Wing bully he is.

    It is also glaringly obvious that Ben Shapiro has more intellectual horsepower than Piers Morgan.

    Ben Shapiro is logical, factual and debates within the context of the argument.

    Piers Morgan is more interested in bullying, gossip, factual inaccuracies and ratings.

  • Espresso Logic – The 6th Sense

    Ben did a piss poor job. His point about being comfortable with ex-military owning AR-15s was ridiculous.

  • Repubtallygirl

    Why does anyone need an AR-15, because I want one and last time I looked this is still America and I can BUY one.

    I purchased my Bushmaster .225 this week.

  • Hugh

    Ben Shapiro is my new hero! Piers Morgan clearly is not interested in discussing the realities around the argument. No substantive come backs – rather little gotcha’s trying to trap Ben in hypocrisy–how utterly lame! The comment about the “little book” pretty much removes the premise that one could ever engage in a meaningful discussion with this man. He is a typical, myopic, agenda driven lefty burping out his lefty bromides.

  • debiesam

    Bravo, Ben! We need more debaters like you. You can think on your feet, and you know how to pin down the opposition. Keep up the good work.

  • nate

    2nd Ammendment: The government has assault rifles = the people must also have assault rifles.

  • nate

    Do you really think your government will turn tyranical on you?! Said Hitler in 1936. Said Piers in 2013. Answer: yes and has and is.

  • JoyO

    Ben Shapiro is right on target. We must make it clear to every political elite that WE THE PEOPLE consider implementing gun control provisions via Executive Order are grounds for immediate impeachment and passing gun controls through Congress will be fought through in our courts, in our voting booths, and wherever else the need arises.

    As well, Americans need to become as concerned about the other sections of our Constitution that this Administration and the Progressives are continually breaking.

  • Elizabeth

    Notice these anti Second Amendment CONtrol freaks continual usage of demonizing a gun magazine larger than 10 rounds. This is one of their propoganda strategies. They say “Why do you need a “large capacity” magazine?”
    My response is, WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I NEED?
    Why has 10 rounds become the limit to which YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO HAVE? That’s sounds very dictatorial to me.
    At some point in time when they’ve been successful in incrementally destroying the 2nd Amendment, they will drive the number of allowable rounds down even more and 10 rounds will be the demonized “large capacity” magazine.

  • Gravelyvoice Jim

    Shapiro is leading us down a slippery slope, just a little slower than Morgan wants to go.

    Hugh #52, debiesam #53, and JoyO #56 – please seem my #41 comments then answer this question:

    Which federal bureaucrat will you trust in the future to define acceptable levels of “mental health” to qualify an individual for gun ownership?

  • theBuckWheat

    “I don’t think it’s smart to accept the left’s language of “assault rifle.”

    Warning, he who controls the meaning of the terms, controls the outcome of the debate.

    The left defines “assault rifle” as any rifle that is sufficiently icky.

    I have a Ruger Mini-14. It has a nice wood and looks friendly, like some old farmer might own to shoot varmints with from time to time.

    I have a AR-15. It looks evil.

    Both shoot the same exact bullet and have the same exact lethality. Putting aside how easy it was to make an AR-15 “compliant”, under the old AWB, one was an “assault rifle” the other not.

    But consider the following report from a 1862 report by the commanding officer of the Washington Navy Yard on the Henry rifle:

    “187 shots were fired in three minutes and thirty seconds and one full fifteen shot magazine was fired in only 10.8 seconds. A total of 1,040 shots were fired and hits were made from as far away as 348 feet at an 18 inch square target with a .44 caliber 216 grain bullet”

    cite: Rifles: An Illustrated History of their Impact, by David Westwood, page 74.

    So, the AR-15 is only the current fixation of the liberal madness. Futher, this is a matter of deep ideological belief, because to liberals, government is their god and the armed citizen who is determined to resist a tyrant is a direct threat to that concept.

  • Kissmygrits

    Would ol’ Piers mind if we called the Magna Carta his little piece of paper? Probably not, since the left wants to rewrite every important document giving people their rights to ones that limit or take away rights.