Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Friday, January 11. 2013Ben vs. Piers on gunsThis is entertaining, but the alert and fast-talking Ben Shapiro makes one disputative error which might seem minor, but is not. His error was in answering the question "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" The right answer would be "I don't know what your definition of an assault rifle is, but nobody has to justify his wants in America. It's a free country. Piers, why do you need a polluting Town Car and driver to bring you to work?" Link to the lively TV interview here. When white kids are killed, it's a catastrophe. When young black gangbangers die in Chicago, it's a non-story. The more I listen to all the hysteria, the more I want an AR-15 to play with even though I tend to prefer more aesthetic, old-school firearms, with wood in them. It appears that they are on back-order anyway. Just had to repost the Hello Kitty AR-15. I would not mess with this pleasant lady:
Posted by The News Junkie
in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays
at
12:05
| Comments (28)
| Trackbacks (0)
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Yeah, that bugged me too. Plus when asked to identify the weapon in the shootings, he say "assault rifle" which is wrong. They used so-called assault weapons. Assault rifles are already tightly controlled for private ownership.
Plus, he missed a good opportunity. It happens in those type discussions. Morgan says the NRA is powerful and well funded. Prior to that Shapiro had said the NRA received no public funds. It would have been an opportune time to ask Morgan why the NRA was powerful and well-funded. Could it be due to a large private citizen membership who donate their own hard earned money to support the NRA's efforts? This is a great point. One of my ongoing frustrations with "our" spokesmen at all levels is that they (most of them) concede ground by allowing the premises of questions like this and other statements to go unchallenged. This is why the Donald Rumsfeld press conferences were so popular among the right, he would challenge and refute the premise of the questions before answering the "real" question. This is also what Newt Gingrich does on his best days, which is the majority of his attraction as well.
The answer to Piers should have been, " I want one." Although I believe that Ben did a first rate job with Piers, I'd like to see the Leftists left with historical truth that in the past century, graves and body bags can most often be traced to them: Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, among others.
I Want one too, but I think I'll get the parts and put it together myself. Or just get the metal and drill the fiddly bits out and put it together myself. That way I know it works and I can fix it myself.
Yeah, it makes want a whole safe full of them as well. That doesn't surprise me, though. The anti-smoking PSAs always make me want a cigarette.
Your answer was good. The best is "we need to be well-armed in case the government ever become so corrupt that they need to be overthrown". That would make Piers' head explode (no pun intended) and land me on the terrorist watch list. But that watch list should be a wakeup call.
The 2nd Amendment is clear, we need to be well armed so that we can meet any contingency, including having to defend ourselves from American tyrants. I can tell you that AR15s shoot smooth as silk and they are a pleasure to shoot. If I had the money, I would get the AR in the .308 calibre instead of the standard .223/5.56 calibre. If you want an AR15 or other so called assualt rifle this might be the worst time to buy one. I was in a big gun store on the Tuesday and Wednesday after the shooting. There were literally more people waiting to buy ARs than I had ever seen in the store. Not shopping. Buying. Good luck getting your hands on them, Washington. I think that the biggest effect of the pending legislation on guns will be that ammo will be taxed until it is prohibitively expensive. After all, what good is a gun if you don't have ammo for it? I don't believe for one second that the left wants to make us safer long-term. I think they want our guns and the Sandy Hook tragedy is their ticket to grab for them now. QUOTE: I think that the biggest effect of the pending legislation on guns will be that ammo will be taxed until it is prohibitively expensive. After all, what good is a gun if you don't have ammo for it? This is subject to a constitutional challenge. a right can't be regulated out of existence. the demoncraps tried this with restrictive voter laws, literacy tests, property requirements, etc., all aimed at keeping blacks from voting, and all of which were found unconstitutional for that reason. by the time it gets to the USSC Obama will have put his cronies in place, so there'd be no successful challenge.
The AR-15's are not only hopelessly back-ordered, but amazingly overpriced, due to the mass hysteria of Obama's upcoming gun-grab.
Oh, wait - am I just being paranoid again? Sheriff Joe warned me about that...I must find my meds... "battle rifles" are what the military calls .30 caliber rifles, the-- .303, .30-03, .30-06, .308 calibers. after WW2 the US Army wanted a lighter caliber rifle for soldiers, who could carry more rounds. this came from studies on how soldiers actually used their weapons in combat, and a shift away from volleys of aimed fire to suppressive fire and maneuver.
the result was the "assault rifle", any of the sub-.30 caliber rifles, now typically .223/5.56mm. these have bigger magazines because -- hello -- suppressive fire instead of aimed shots. "assault weapon" is a concoction of the gun grabbers. and my response to why I need any gun is that I don't need to explain anything, a grabber needs to justify confiscation under constitutional standards. After watching the video I realized that Ben made the point I would have made and was eloquent in doing so.
As I have said publicly, my heart goes out to the victims and their families in the recent mass shootings. But if Piers is really interested in saving children, we should outlaw cars, hospitals and abortion. Combined, we lose thousands of times more children to car wrecks, hospital errors and abortions than we do to gun violence. Imagine the hue and cry if we had a right wing commentator on a major MSM news show who daily berated abortion providers and defenders for the thousands of children who are killed in abortion facilities every day. Such a public figure would be uncaring and would disrespect women for daring to criticize their abortions. Yet Piers criticizes assault rifles and their owners as uncaring despite the fact that less than 100 children are killed in America in a typical year by these weapons. Last time I saw stats for abortion the number in America alone was near a million dead babies every year. May God rest their souls and protect our rights. Bookworm has a post up today that makes a good point. We need to not engage in a "gun control" discussion as that concedes to some level of control. Rather, the discussion should be about "violence minimization". How do we reduce the violent acts in our communities?
That creates a real discussion with real effective outcomes possible. The "gun control" is based on the false belief that fewer guns will result in less violence. When pressed the Progs revert to fewer "gun deaths" as if death by other means is not still death. But by doing so the concede they aren't trying to stop the violence as a societal good but take guns so the violence doesn't make so much noise. It, also, places lawful gun ownership and usage, including self defense usage, as a viable solution to violence minimization. I had the same thought too. "Piers, first explain why I have to justify exercising my Constitutional rights to you?" is what I would have said.
"Imagine the hue and cry if we had a right wing commentator on a major MSM news show who daily berated abortion providers and defenders for the thousands of children who are killed in abortion facilities every day. "
it's happened. When it's happened, the response of the left is that those are not children. Just like it's fine to show pictures of children that have been killed by gunfire but not pictures of fetuses that have been aborted. We have had guns in this country since it's founding. Why do we have what we have now? Because since the 1960's we have deliberately abandoned what is often contemptously referred to as "conventional morality" and have put government in the place of fathers. The plague of young men and women whose financial support is provided by the government but whose moral and emotional support is father-free has given us what we now have.
To get rid of a culture of gun violence we need to get rid of the violence, not the guns. But that would require a reversal of dependence on the State and require a dependence on personal responsibility instead. Those who control the State either directly (politicians) or indirectly (academia) wish to stop that at any cost. So people who propose restoring morality are accused of hating women, etc. The Chicago Tribune did an analysis of the 503 murders that Chicago saw in 2012 (3 x the rate of New York). Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in America and the second highest rate of murders of any major city. 82% of the murders where there is a known perpetrator or a suspect were committed by someone with a criminal record. 54% of the victims had a criminal record. Restricting law-abiding citizens will do nothing about this. The term "assault rifle" has historical validity. During WWII, the Germans developed the Sturmgewehr 44 which directly influenced Kalashnikov when designing the AK-47. The US military was relatively late to the selectable fire infantry with he AR-15 in 1963 which subsequently morphed into the M-16.
The whole history of the assault rifle is fascinating. I had to stop by Hamilton AFB and learn to spray with the M16 on the way to VN. Kind of like carpet bombing in three dimensions.
Interesting comment by PFPORLOCK at that article:
"Something that gets overlooked about assault weapons, that maybe should be pointed out: Under Miller, it's precisely access to weapons suitable for military use that is protected by the Second Amendment. In other words, whenever the Left brands something an 'assault weapon' (whatever that is), they're inadvertently granting it protected status." I wouldn't say assault weapons are the only ones specifically protected by the 2nd A., but if the Left does seem fixated on the phrase that begins the 2nd, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," then perhaps the question to put to them is what better weapon is there for that purpose than a fully automated gun? My first choice would be either a bazooka or a howitzer, but then where would I practice with them? Piers is one smug, arrogant asswipe. He enjoys OUR constitutional protections that he would be denied were he in his native land, a country (and indeed a continent) that has been destroyed by the very nonsensical government usurpation of rights he insists we adopt here.
Piers assumes that he has ridiculed Mr. Shapiro by making him look like some type of conspiracy theory nut job who worries that our government may some day become so tyrannical that its citizens would be justified in revolting against its leaders. Poor Piers forgets that the Revolutionary War was just such an instance - colonists engaging in an armed revolt due to the tyrannical acts of Great Britain. Perhaps, Mr. Shapiro should have handed Piers a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Here's the pertinent text describing the right and the duty of the citizens to overthrow a government that has usurped the rights of the people, a situation that we may be coming very close to if indeed we are not already there: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Why would anyone need an assault weapon? Here are two very recent but under reported stories that answer that question without theorizing,
In Texas, a 15 year old was home alone with his 12 year old sister in the middle of the day. Two home invaders broke in thru the rear window, He grabbed his father's AR-15 and drove them off. They were arrested at the hospital. In Georgia, a mother alone with 2 kids in the middle of the day heard someone breaking into the house. They fled upstairs locking the bedroom door and then the bathroom door before hiding in a crawl space. He followed. She then emptied her 38 hitting the invader 5 times, When she was out of bullets, he got up and managed to drive a block before crashing. What would have happened to the family if he had not been alone?. I think everyone here is asking an assumption not in evidence. You're assuming Piers Morgan actually cares. I doubt if he does. What he cares about are his ratings and the easy route to better ratings is controversy. His regular viewers are watching the show anyway, they can't help. But by putting Shapiro or Larry Pratt on he is guaranteeing that people who wouldn't normally watch will tune in to see him get his head knocked off so his ratings go up. Higher ratings mean more money for him.
Posting the link to his show only helped Piers Morgan and did nothing for gun owners. Clicking on the link and watching only helped Piers Morgan and MSNBC. If you really want to hurt Piers Morgan don't EVER watch his show, a clip from his show or mention his name. Make him an un-person like Oberman. Assault rifle. There's no such thing as an "assault weapon", strictly speaking; it isn't really a technical term applied to any firearm except by gun control proponents, and for their purposes it's flexible enough to mean whichever firearm they've decided is too dangerous to owned by civilians.
Of course, depending on how you look at it, every weapon is an "assault weapon", just as every battle rifle of every kind is an "assault rifle". You could just as easily call them all "defense rifles" or "defense weapons", kind of like we've got a Department of Defense these days instead of a War Department. Somebody up-thread mentioned that the history of the "assault rifle" is fascinating, and it is; the sturmgewehr was developed by the Wehrmacht on the sly because Hitler had decided the infantry had as good battle rifles as they needed and forbade further development of such weapons. "Assault Weapons", "Cop Killer bullets", "Tea Party Militia", "Fracking", "War on Women"...
All examples of the pink slime that drips from the mouths of the media. |