I did doubt all the talk of how well Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro did on Piers Morgans show as he promoted his book “Bullies” and took Morgan on regarding the specious gun control debate. I didn’t doubt Ben personally, but it’s just been so long since a conservative has done this well. Normally the MSM chooses moonbats like Alex Jones to showcase as a “conservative,” or conservatives sometimes seem unsure of their message or are too eager to please. But Ben never backed down and offered his argument in a confident, clear way. What a pleasure to watch, a fantastic job all around and a lesson about the importance of not backing down and not worrying about the nature of your message.


Get Ben’s Book: Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans

Breitbart: Shapiro’s performance on CNN marks turning point in gun debate

Nolte: Ben Shapiro shows the right how to beat the media

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
18 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Shifra says:

    Well, Tammy, Ben is a Harvard Law School graduate, so we expect great things. Oh wait. Barack Hussein Obama and Jack Lew are also Harvard Law grads. Never mind… 🙂

    Here’s Ben at twelve years old:


    • marleed says:

      Yes, Shifra, Ben was a real child progeny … er proctologist … ummmm prodigy? Oh, you know what I mean … he’s REALLY SMART!

      What I can’t figure out is why Piers ever allowed him on the show in the first place. If he had read any of Ben’s articles on Breitbart he would have known that he was getting in WAY over his head! Well, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving moron!

    • Kitten says:

      Wow! Saw the video. Pretty special. So, what is he now, 15? He hasn’t changed much, just saying 🙂

  2. Maynard says:

    Interesting. Setting aside the heated rhetoric, Morgan’s final point is that the government can be trusted with greater power over the people, against Shapiro’s concern that powerful governments are at real risk of metastasizing into tyrannies.

    I find this sort of exchange frustrating in that the personal attacks tend to overwhelm the hard facts. But Shapiro’s hard facts struck me as the trump cards: First, the numerical irrelevancy of the “assault weapon” attacks; these incidents are high-profile, but that’s not the way most shooting victims get shot. And second, the long history of government abuse of power. As the man said, power corrupts.

    What facts did Morgan cite? Did he cite anything that was a fact? All I’m recalling is demagoguery.

    When Morgan accused Shapiro of being “absurd” in his concern about the rise of American tyranny, that quote by Jefferson came to mind.

    God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

    Dangerous man, that Jefferson. But not absurd. Seems to me the absurdity lies in the transition from the 1960’s where the up-and-coming generation held massive protests against the government; is this the same generation that now demands an all-powerful government, and that dissidents be beaten into submission? Strange days indeed.

    • larrygeary says:

      Yes, it is the same group that rioted against the government in the 1960’s that now wants to shut down all dissent. The difference is, THEY are now in control. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  3. strider says:

    Like the way Ben jumped in Pierce’s face immediately and just continued to lay down fact and reason – a good example. Thought the design of the AR-15 was to minimize recoil and deflection after a round is fired making it more controllable thus safer.

  4. Kitten says:

    It’s called conviction. When you believe in what you’re saying; the passion, charisma, and thoughtfulness is clear and evident. Ben’s delivery of the factual, conservative message regarding gun control was a pleasure to watch. I only wish more people could have seen it. I mean, how many people are watching his show…20, maybe? Thank God for social media 🙂

    The Libs took a solid “right” hook on the chiny-chin-chin, courtesy of Ben. Tammy knows what that’s like. She’s always kicking the Lib arse!

  5. IslandLibertarian says:

    Piers and Liberals pontificate and use the “little book” to protect their right to kill 300,000+ unborn children just this year, demand the rights for homosexual marriage, remove God from public venues……….but I’m a fringe radical for seeking the right to protect myself from tyrants, which is guaranteed in the “little book”.

    “Four legs, good. Two legs, O-baaaaaa-ma!” ………..Piers the sheeple……

  6. radargeek says:

    Piers reminds me of the type of people who move out of California, Washington, and Oregon because of those state’s libprog regressive taxes, horrible mismanagement, waste, and cumulative social “throw money at the problem” solutions and they move into a well managed, prosperous state; then immediately try to change the new state into the crap-state they came from. In Pier’s case; its the “United Kingdom.” That’s it Piers, just throw a deluge of questions to your quest when your quest asks you to answer a question. Piers is a Milly-mouth pompous ass!

  7. Piratin says:

    If there was a breakdown of this “conversation” I bet we’d find out that Piers talked for 92% of the time giving Ben only 8%. Ben was great, but should have insisted that Piers be quiet long enough for him to answer uninterrupted and not being talked over.

    Here’s a youtube playlist called Piers Morgan Gun Debate. See for yourself how Piers “interviews” his guests.


    What a j-a$$ Piers is. He constantly compares crime numbers between small countries and the US, insults his guests, talks over his guests, dismisses the thoughts of his guests, refuses to discuss with his guests, etc etc…

  8. Rob_W says:

    Like Tammy, I am glad Ben is on our side. It is frustrating that the Republican Party refuses to wake up and utilize the talents of such great and articulate patriots as Ben and Tammy.

  9. flaggman says:

    I’m sure CNN had him on because they thought, first we’ll have Alex Jones make conservatives crazy, now we’ll have the nerdy jew make them look square. While I’m not the biggest fan of Ben’s fast-talking style, and while I won’t forget he was part of the GOP SmartSet that helped *bully* Palin out of the race in 2011, I will give him great credit for getting under Piers’ skin so much that he dismissed the constitution as “your little book”. For a British guest of America to say that? Ben really got him off his game. He got in a lot of good points, and was not intimidated. We need him to train GOP legislators on how to stand up straight and not give an inch to overemotional femboys like Piers.

    • Piratin says:

      I have nothing against men being less “manly”, whatever that is: more emotional? softer? gentler? more “feminine” (whatever that is)?

      I do have something against people being rude, bullying and willingly ignorant.

  10. Karan says:

    Ben hit it out of the park. Piers is so arrogant!

  11. kwilder says:

    One thing I would have liked Ben to say is that the US Constitution strictly forbids the federal government from ‘infringing’ on the citizen’s rights to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say the states can’t past statutes as they relate to gun rights, it doesn’t say that local governments can’t pass statutes as they relate to gun rights. It just states emphatically that the fed gov’t has no jurisdiction.

  12. makeshifty says:

    I’ve bought the notion for a long time that our current understanding of the 2nd Amendment as a means of resistance to tyranny is anachronistic, because of the firepower the federal gov’t has. However, I’ve found the jewish historical counter-argument compelling. The first thing the Nazis did before they started rounding up Jews in the ghettos was disarm all of them. Had the Jews had weapons, the Nazis still would’ve been able to overpower them with their greater firepower, but disarmed the Nazis were able to round them up quietly, so as not to disturb non-Jews. They were rounded up so quietly that Germans claimed after the war that they had no idea that Jews were being exterminated in the concentration camps right near their own villages.

    What I’m coming to realize is part of the reason to keep firearms for resistance to tyranny is political. Yes, the guns people can get are pea shooters next to the awesome firepower of the U.S. military, but think about the political implications of the federal gov’t facing widespread armed resistance, if it were to turn tyrannical, even if it’s able to cream the rebellion with its weaponry. At least it will be impossible for the gov’t to take us *quietly*. If it turns tyrannical, and the people recognize it (that’s kind of a big “if,” what with the analogy of the frog in the “hot pot”), it will be forced to use its weaponry against its own people. The whole world will see it. That prospect alone will make the totalitarians among us think twice.

    They like quiet cooperation, but as we’ve seen they pull back when the opposition shows itself capable of making a mess of things.

    I understand why Piers felt very confident that the whole “resistance to tyranny” argument was a non-issue. To people like him, the totalitarian militarism that Stalin and Hitler represented is of the past, not of the future. A democratic gov’t is not a threat. He doesn’t know his history very well. He assumes that our society could never become militaristic, and oppressive, because we elect our leadership. It doesn’t make sense in his mind, and that’s the problem with him. He forgets, or is ignorant of the fact that both Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Gov. Bev Perdue of North Carolina floated the idea of canceling last year’s election. Perdue denied it after it came out, saying it was a “joke.” I can hear it now, “Oh come on! You think I was being serious? Lighten up.” I don’t take the idea of an elected official suggesting that we cancel an election, and possibly future ones, lightly. I didn’t hear anybody laugh when she said it, either.

    To those who are schooled, and who are becoming schooled in the ways of the human heart as it applies to society, we see totalitarian/fascist attitudes around us, and we just hope that like the occasional cancer that occurs naturally in our bodies they’re just isolated instances. If they’re allowed to metastasize, well, we Americans could give good ‘ole Piers quite a show. As always, I hope it never comes to that.

  13. coldwarbaby says:

    Ben Shapiro is right on but still wet behind the ears. An example of my point would be the use of the word ‘civilian’ in the question of who should own an ‘assault rifle’.The word ‘civilian’ is used as a military term to describe a ciizenry being contained or protected or ‘locled down’ by a military or law enforcment entitiy
    ie. a citizenry or group of individuals or a community divested of freedom of movement or certain liberties. Shapiro would have correctly countered the dialog of the above question by answering that citizens should have the righ to own an assault rifle as they are protected by the Constitution as haveing the right to exercise the freedoms of the land by the law of the second amendment of that ‘little book’ as the cnn host called the Constitution that was given him by Ben.

You must be logged in to post a comment.