Piers Morgan and Absurdity

Piers Morgan and Absurdity

5 512

PIERS MORGAN, CNN: Why do they need those weapons?

BEN SHAPIRO, BREITBART.COM: They need them for the prospective possibility of resistance to tyranny, which is not a concern today. It may not be a concern tomorrow.

MORGAN: Where do you expect the tyranny to come from?

SHAPIRO: It could come from the United States, because governments have gone tyrannical before, Piers. And this is –

MORGAN: Do you understand how absurd you sound when you say that?

That’s right, the federal government would never, ever send armed troops into the sovereign, private homes of law-abiding American citizens – especially under a Democratic president whose personality, instincts for peace and negotiating skills are so superior that such an episode would never even be contemplated.  That would be … absurd.

Gonzales Raid

H/T to Matt Lewis

  • bk

    What about WACO? That makes the Elian Gonzolaz debacle look like childs play.

    • http://facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000942528323 Chuck McMahon

      …or Ruby Ridge!

      Wait… you wouldn’t want to mention that one because it might defray your “crazy Democrats” theory. The truth is that these types of events occur under ANY political leadership. Each one represents a tragedy that may have been averted if one side or the other chose a different path. They do not logically lead to a conclusion that the government is going to for some strange reason change its fundamental principles and go rogue… This is real life, not “Last Resort.”

  • http://facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000942528323 Chuck McMahon

    Let me get this straight… You are trying to support the absurd notion that we need assault type weapons to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, and your “proof” that this is a legitimate concern was because law enforcement was forced to intervene when relatives refused to return a child to their biological parent?? Just because a federal agency has to deal with criminal activity does not then logically lead to the fact that our government is going to become oppressive and begin invading American homes. Man – I hate this… you just made me agree with Piers Morgan (who I detest). That line of logic truly is absurd.

    • GAAREDSTATE

      A crime really was not committed. This child had every right to become an American citizen. The federal government once again had to intervene in the personal lives of U.S. citizens and impose their will. This was another Clinton Administration, Attorney Janet Reno debotchery (…like the WACO massacre!).

      NOTE: U.S. policy has evolved into the current “wet feet, dry feet” rule: If a Cuban is picked up at sea or walking toward shore, he/she will be repatriated by force. If he/she can make it to shore (“dry feet”), he/she is permitted to make a case for political asylum.

      The child made it ashore with relatives of his mother.

  • William Tello

    The point is this. Whether the US government ever goes rogue and attempts to rule us with tyranny and fascism is a moot point. It could happen and maybe it won’t happen; it really doesn’t matter. (However, considering recent SWAT-type raids on people throughout the US and the rest of the world for digital piracy, drugs, unpaid student loans and what not, there’s always the possibility.)

    Anyway, what matters is that the second amendment prevents it from happening – period.