Piers Morgan: Planning to end CNN primetime show
Piers Morgan told the New York Times that he and CNN have decided to pull the plug on “Piers Morgan Live,” probably in March.
“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” he said, adding that although there had been times when the show connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” he said. “That’s run its course and Jeff and I have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.”
Morgan said he and CNN are in discussions about him remaining at the network in a different role.
Photo: Piers Morgan in 2011. (Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times)
HE GOT FIRED FOR BEING A TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT
Taking the trans story “outside the safe bubble.”
WASHINGTON — Transgender advocate Janet Mock accused CNN’s Piers Morgan of seeking to “sensationalize” her life after Morgan and his producers focused intensely on Mock’s past and physical aspects of her transition in an interview coinciding with the release of her book, Redefining Realness.
Morgan ended the first segment of the Piers Morgan Live interview by saying that Mock at one point had to tell the man she was dating that “you used to be yourself a man” — although Mock has never identified as a man.
The on-screen description of Mock was that she “was a boy until age 18,” although she was identifying as a girl in high school, and the Piers Morgan Live Twitter account posed the question during the interview, “How would you feel if you found out the woman you are dating was formerly a man?”
“He’s trying to do info-tainment,” Mock told BuzzFeed Tuesday night. “He doesn’t really want to talk about trans issues, he wants to sensationalize my life and not really talk about the work that I do and what the purpose of me writing this book was about.”
Mock told BuzzFeed that Morgan’s interest in her conversations with her boyfriend and the show’s identification of her departed sharply from the story she seeks to tell.
“My book is not about Aaron or my relationship, but that’s the most sensational thing they want to pull out,” she said. “They’re not talking about my advocacy or anything like that, it’s just about this most sensationalized … meme of discussion of trans women’s lives: ‘We’re not real women, so therefore if we’re in relationships with men we’re deceiving them.’ So, it just feeds into those same kinds of myths and fears that they spread around, which leads to further violence of trans women’s bodies and identities.”
The on-screen line that she “was a boy until age 18” reflected “bad judgment” and “reductive thinking about gender,” she said.
“What they’re saying is, ‘Only until I got the surgery, then I was a woman,’” she said.
But, she said, the interview — for better and worse — is part of want she chose to do by “going out of the bubble” and being public with her story.
“This is my first mainstream television show, was that moment, with Piers Morgan, and you see what they did to my story. Compared to a moment if I’m on Melissa Harris-Perry, which is slightly different, a more sensitive and safe space. But I go onto Piers Morgan, and all of my followers and everyone are like, ‘What is this?’” she said. But, she noted, “It’s also more representative of the ignorance that there is about trans people’s lives. We’re out of the safe bubble of social justice.”
So, Mock — who was with actress and trans advocate Laverne Cox and many others at her book launch party as the pre-taped interview aired — struck back: responding on Twitter by sending out a “reaction shot” photo of her and Cox.
“I was just sitting with Laverne, we’re at my party, and that’s why we made that face,” Mock said. “To have a moment that’s just like, ‘This is still our lives. You can try to do what you want and try to editorialize our lives and reduce it, but we know what our lives are. And we still stake claim to our own identities and our lives.”
She noted how social media has changed the tables on interviews like Tuesday’s with Morgan or like the interview that Cox and Carmen Carrera had with Katie Couric last month.
“That’s the special thing about social media now is that we can talk back. Piers doesn’t have the final say. And we read him,” she said. “Our media is just as valid. What we create ourselves, with that one Twitter picture.
“It also empowers our followers, too, who are watching us and wondering, ‘How do you handle this?’ And it shows that we’re not broken by this, we expected this. We didn’t expect greatness and sensitivity from him, but a part of doing that work and showing visibility and support is by going on those shows and being in those testy waters and seeing, ‘How can we navigate it and still rise above it in a sense?’”
Morgan, for his part, expressed on Twitter that he saw nothing to “rise above,” tweeting:
Update at 12:15 a.m.:
Update at 1:05 a.m.:
Update at 1:20 a.m.: Not done yet:
Update at 1:40 a.m.: Full circle:
Sherman: "Mitt Romney's 'War Room Was Being Run Out Of The [Fox] Headquarters'" | Video | Media Matters for America
Sherman is right on with the statement that Romney’s 2012 General Election War Room basically being run by Fox and RWNJ Talk Radio.
From the 01.14.2014 edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Live:
ST. LOUIS • Liberal CNN host Piers Morgan says he has banned conservative St. Louis radio host Dana Loesch from his show, alleging she was “glib” in a Twitter comment about the beheading of a British soldier.
The soldier was killed in London by a machete-wielding assailant, officials said today.
Loesch, in an apparent comment on criticism of gun owners by gun-control advocates, responded by posting on her Twitter feed: “Was the guy with the machete a member of the NRA? Asking for a friend.”
Morgan, who is British, responded via Twitter: “You think the beheading of a soldier is something to be glib about???”
A heated Twitter exchange ensued between the two, who have appeared on each others’ shows debating their opposing ideologies.
During the Twitter exchange, Loesch slammed Morgan for “calling me Nancy Lanza because I stood up for 2A rights,” referring to the mother of Newtown massacre shooter Adam Lanza. Morgan wrote that Loesch should “shut up with stupid political wisecracks” and “show some bloody respect.”
The exchange culminated with a Tweet from Morgan: “Can’t stomach @DLoesch goading Brits with her outrageous tweeting re beheaded soldier story. Unfollowed, and banned from my show.”
“Unfollowed” means you don’t subscribe to someone’s Twitter feed.
Loesch’s own Twitter profile later displayed the line: “Proudly banned from Piers Morgan’s TV show.”
Piers Morgan »> Dana Loesch.
Piers Morgan Tonight host Piers Morgan clearly has not had enough, nor can he get enough of, conservative commentator Dana Loesch. Maybe that will change after the latest episode of the Piers and Dana Show™, in which Loesch triumphantly declared that Morgan “admitted” the “truth” that he is in favor of completely disarming American citizens. In the umpteenth pointless cable news segment devoted to absurd gun nut talking points, though, Loesch appears to have “admitted” that she, in turn, is in favor of unlimited numbers of children being killed with guns.
The “sizzle” in this clip is the steady stream of absurdities that come out of Dana Loesch’s mouth, but the steak is Van Jones‘ absolute nailing of the point I’ve been trying to make about these cable news gun-nut “debates,” a point that Piers Morgan would do well to heed.
Dana Loesch would probably object to being called a “gun nut,” and point to the term as evidence that liberals are dismissive of those who disagree with them, but she earned the label in a previousPMT segment when she argued that Americans have the right to bear arms equivalent to those of our global enemies. That’s what makes you a gun nut, not a valid concern for the right of self-protection.
Loesch burnished that credential repeatedly in this segment, blithely arguing, for example, that “Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.”
This is a reference to the popular gun-nut talking point that assault weapons classifications are mysterious, arbitrary distinctions based solely on the weapons’ appearance, when, in fact, there arespecific functional criteria involved. The “confusing” variations arise only out of legislators’ attempts to make assault weapons bans less restrictive, a generosity that has obviously outlived its usefulness.
Loesch also casually dismisses the utility of high-capacity magazines by asking “Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.”
Then, there’s the exchange that Dana Loesch is so proud of, in which she gets the answer she wanted. “What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds?” she asks.
“The difference between 30 and seven is 23,” Morgan replies. “So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.”
From this, Loesch concludes “Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?”
“You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes,” Morgan replies.
“I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line,” Loesch smartly retorts. “Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?”
“I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America,” Morgan says.
“So you do believe in disarmament, then,” Dana concludes.
Like a pro wrestling announcer who isn’t in on the con, Morgan is hurt and miffed by this screwdriver to the neck, but he completely misses the implications of Loesch’s “logic trap.” Under her construction, that “seven lives lost are OK,” Loesch’s opposition to any limit on magazine size amounts to an endorsement of unlimited lives lost.
The reason it never occurs to Morgan to turn the tables on Loesch is that his mission is not the same as hers. As Van Jones pointed out, it is the job of gun nuts like Dana Loesch to say anything, anything at all, to prevent a meaningful conversation about gun violence, in hopes that public urgency toward the issue will wane, and the status quo will prevail. I don’t presume to know what Dana Loesch thinks, but I’m fairly certain she doesn’t really believe that Americans should have the right to possess chemical warheads. She’s not stupid or insane, she can’t possibly believe that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have turned out the same if the shooter had been forced to reload 30 times. These are just things that she says to derail the debate.
Most liberals would watch this clip and conclude that Dana Loesch is the villain. The unkindest way to interpret her actions is that she’s cynically trying to exploit this issue to gain fame and exposure for herself, and the kindest is that she sees herself as a bulwark against tyranny, willing to protect the rights she thinks she has, by any means necessary. Evil or misguided, though, Dana Loesch isn’t the problem, Piers Morgan is. He’s the one who keeps booking her on his show, knowing that the result will be pointless arguments like this one.
That doesn’t mean Dana Loesch has no responsibility in this, it just means viewers should have a clear understanding of what that responsibility is. Dana Loesch is a human being, and her responsibility is to act like one. Humanity requires a certain level of empathy, which is not to be confused with sympathy. Loesch views the gun debate through the lens of her own experiences, which do not include having her own child killed by a mass-murdering lunatic. If Dana Loesch’s child had been killed by the 13th shot from a 33-round magazine, during a killing spree that ended when the shooter had to reload, it’s entirely possible that she would still oppose limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or seven rounds. I hope that question is never answered, but I suspect that if she were somehow able to take the full measure of these tragedies, she might not snicker contemptuously through a discussion like this.
Dangerous Psychopath Dana Loesch shouts at Piers Morgan: A spoon ‘can be qualified as an assault weapon!’ | The Raw Story
Dana Loesch is a dangerous fucktard who should be in a mental institution somewhere.
Conservative radio host Dana Loesch on Thursday argued that classifying certain guns as assault rifles was silly because “if you stab someone with a spoon it can be qualified as an assault weapon.” Following Thursday’s revelations that Newtown shooter Adam Lanza had fired over 150 rounds with an AR-15 in less than five minutes, Loesch appeared on CNN to argue that it was a “false premise” that Lanza had used an assault weapon.
Dana Busted: Deranged gun fetishist moron Dana Loesch: "A Spoon 'Can Be Classified As An Assault Weapon'"
Newly minted RedState.com blogger, ex-CNN "contributor, and gun fetishist nutbag Dana Loesch was on national television yet again saying even more stupid shit about guns. The most insane thing of all that she said on tonight’s edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Live was that a “spoon can be classified an ‘assault weapon.’” A spoon is NOT anywhere close to an “assault weapon” in the sane world, but in NRA/#TCOT-land, it is.
Piers Morgan‘s show got heated on Thursday night when he invited Dana Loesch, Grover Norquist, and Van Jones to debate gun control. At one point in the segment, Loesch and Morgan grew especially frustrated as Loesch pressed the CNN host on where he draws the line on the number of gun deaths that are okay.
Morgan went off the “outrageous” and “insensitive” NRA leadership, going on to cite statistics about gun-related deaths in the country, compared to those in other countries with stronger gun laws. Often making this comparison on the show in the past, Morgan stressed that those countries have “negligible” gun-related deaths. How, he asked, can that be explained in “any rational way”?
“There is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms,” Loesch insisted, noting that just because a gun “looks scary” doesn’t mean it can be categorized that way. She and Morgan later clashed over what qualifies as an assault weapon, with Loesch quipping that even a spoon could be labeled one.
She further dismissed the argument about magazine capacity and criticized those who she felt are simply seeking to disarm people. Jones jumped in again to fire back at logic that doesn’t “make any sense” — like spoons. We’re talking about “funeral after funeral after funeral.”
“How many deaths are okay to you?” Loesch asked Morgan. “Answer that question.”
As he sought to argue how a seven-round magazine is different from a 30-round magazine, she interjected, “So seven is okay with you then.”
“Seven is better than 30, isn’t it?” he retorted.
The other two guests were NRA board member and Americans for Tax Reform Founder Grover Norquist (who has been on KFTK’s The Dana Show before) and senior fellow at Center For American Progress Van Jones (whom Loeschhas smeared previously).
From the 03.28.2013 edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Live:
After the show, she took to her blog at RedState to further smear gun safety advocates and repeated the baseless smear that the DHS is buying ammo, as even the deranged as hell NRA thinks it is too far out there..
Let’s not cede further ground on this issue due to fear on language: any attempt to curtail the civil liberty outlined in the Second Amendment is an abridgment of that liberty. There is no splitting of the baby here. You take all of it or none of it. Restricting magazine capacity is silly, for the reasons I noted in my response to Morgan. First, they’re interchangeable, easily modified, and can be made with remedial shop skills in your garage. It is completely unenforceable. So what’s the next step then? Regulating the amount of ammunition one can purchase? The DHS is well on their way to drying up the supply by buying over a billon rounds of ammo. Ammunition is becoming projectile gold, for the lack of a better phrase. Restrictions on magazine capacity are easier to stomach than full on ammunition rationing, so that’s where Democrats will begin, through the proverbial Overton Window.
Restricting magazine capacity is NOT “anti-2nd Amendment,” as you allege.
PIERS MORGAN, HOST OF PIERS MORGAN LIVE: Let’s now bring in my all-star panel. Van Jones, CNN contributor and president of Rebuild the Dream, conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch and Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an NRA board member.
Welcome to you all.
Van Jones, I just spoke again to Richard Feldman who is pretty close to the NRA leadership for quite awhile and the message is loud and clear from the NRA, as it always is. More guns and you’ll deal with gun violence. What do you say to that?
VAN JONES, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER OF REBUILD THE DREAM: Well, I just think people are just flabbergasted to hear this. I mean, the idea that the kind of gun, the size of gun, the kind of magazine, none of these matters. Well, then, fine, just pass out bazookas. Start selling neutron bombs on the open market and then when people start using the bazookas and doing — say well, it’s not the bazooka or owner, you see, it’s just — I mean, it’s not the bazooka, it’s just the bazooka’s owner.
Obviously the size of the cartridge matters. Obviously the kind of weapon matters. That’s why you can’t buy bazookas, you can’t buy neutron bombs, you can’t buy weaponized drones because these things matter.
It’s very, very frustrating — the shame that I see right now is that on the one hand we’re not doing enough about mental health, but then we have people who are hiding behind the fact that we’re not doing one thing to stop us from doing anything else. And that’s wrong, too.
MORGAN: I mean, Marco Rubio said today, he’s warned that he will filibuster any new gun legislation.
Dana Loesch, how can that be an appropriate response to what happened at Sandy Hook?
DANA LOESCH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, “THE DANA SHOW”: Well, simply, Piers, because we have gun laws already on the books. Most of the proposals are simply redundancy. That’s why, why are we paying individuals to go and essentially waste taxpayer dollars to argue laws that we already have on the books?
Laws which either aren’t enforced or criminals don’t obey them simply because that’s what criminals don’t do. Criminals are called criminals because they don’t follow law.
MORGAN: Right. So Adam Lanza had two rifles, a BB gun, a starter pistol, four more weapons he took to school including the AR- 15, 1600 rounds of ammunition in his house, 12 knives, three Samurai swords, a bayonet, eye protection, ear mufflers at gun range, (INAUDIBLE) binoculars, paper targets, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And he went and did what he did.
At what point, Dana, do you say, you know what, we’re just going to make it tougher for people to be able to have this kind of arsenal?
LOESCH: Well, Piers, you realize that Adam Lanza, according to the “L.A. Times,” the “Portland Observer,” numerous local media report in Connecticut, he did try to purchase a firearm. And Connecticut’s gun laws prohibited him from doing that. Those gun laws worked in the sense that they prohibited him from purchasing a firearm.
Now as to whether or not his mother should have had her firearms perhaps stored a little bit better and kept away from her son, that’s another topic of discussion. But, you know, again, he stole firearms, he committed a crime to obtain a firearm which he then used illegally.
MORGAN: Grover Norquist, you’re on the board of the NRA. And the NRA it seems to me has a lot of very reasonable members, many of whom tweet me. And if you’re watching now, you want to tweet me, @Piersmorgan, and let me know if you’re an NRA member. And they can be quite rational and they say look, you know, we have no real problem with background checks. We don’t have any problem with more investment in mental health and so on. Not even much of a problem with the high capacity magazines.
They’re not too sure about assault weapons. But they’re quite rational in what they say but the leadership always seem to me to be — particularly Wayne LaPierre, completely outrageous. Utterly insensitive, totally uncompromising. Why is that?
GROVER NORQUIST, BOARD MEMBER, NRA: Well, I think if you look at the history of gun laws, make a list of which cities and states have the most oppressive gun laws. You’ll find they also have more crime and more shootings. There’s actually, if you look at the science, you know, liberals are always saying, we should look at the science, and yet they don’t want to look at the existing science on whether gun laws make us safer or less safe.
John Locke did the first study of all the counties in United States and where you had concealed carry permits, more gun ownership by citizens, you actually had significantly less crime, hundreds and thousands of fewer murders, fewer rapes.
MORGAN: OK, Grover, Grover —
NORQUIST: What you don’t have reported in the news is the fact that those states that put in concealed carry laws decades ago and have more people carrying guns are safer to live in than ones that ban it. So when you ask why don’t we do something stupid, the answer is because we have looked at the statistics, because we have looked at the science, and flat earthers should not be passing new laws.
MORGAN: Well, let me — let me throw some science at you. How do you explain that, as I said to Mr. Feldman earlier, America has between 11,000 and 12,000 gun murders a year, 18,000 gun suicides a year, 100,000 Americans are hit by gunfire a year. And you look at somewhere like Britain or you look at somewhere like Australia or Japan or I could name dozens of other countries that have pretty strict gun control laws, and just have negligible gun deaths.
I mean, literally, like 40 or 50 people a year get killed. How do you explain that, Grover, in any rational way that convinces me that countries that don’t have guns in mass circulation have almost no gun crime?
NORQUIST: Well, if you compare apples and apples and look at the United States, and obviously Brazil and South Africa and other countries have a great number of gun crimes and they have very serious gun laws, so gun laws haven’t solved the problem in other countries, and where you put in more gun laws in Australia and Britain you’ve had more crime in general. More robberies, more crime. That they become less safe.
Now in the United States, compare the states, 50 or 57, however you want to count them, they’ve all got different gun laws and different —
MORGAN: OK, Van.
NORQUIST: — rules and —
MORGAN: Let me get Van in here. Let me get Van in here because he’s shaking his head vigorously.
JONES: Well, first of all, that’s just actually not true but I want to say a couple of things. This is not about concealed —
NORQUIST: No, wait a minute. It is true.
LOESCH: It is true. It is true.
JONES: Hold on a second. It’s not true.
NORQUIST: You can’t deny the science.
JONES: First of all this is not about —
NORQUIST: You’re a science denier, Van.
JONES: Are you going to let me talk? You guys are wonderful —
LOESCH: About gun laws, guys and statistics.
JONES: Hey, listen, I’m with you. I’m for statistics. Here’s what’s actually true. This is not a debate about concealed carry. You want to move the argument over to something that nobody’s arguing about. Nobody’s arguing about concealed carry. People are arguing about military-style weapons on the streets of America and whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing.
LOESCH: That’s a false premise.
JONES: The —
LOESCH: That’s a false premise.
JONES: No. That’s not — it’s a false premise?
LOESCH: No. Van, do you actually know what the difference —
JONES: That’s the entire debate in Washington, D.C. right now.
LOESCH: I’m going to correct you because I’m tired of this talking point being put out there. First and foremost, let’s get something straight. Military-style assault weapons are not out on the street. We are talking about semiautomatic weapons, weapons that are capable of select fire or weapons that are fully automatic.
MORGAN: OK. But Dana, Dana, Dana.
LOESCH: Then you can — no, I’m not going to let this go anymore, Piers.
JONES: You guys say the same thing every time.
MORGAN: No, Dana, you said this repeatedly on my show.
LOESCH: Then you can use the military term. Let’s stop conflating.
JONES: You do the same thing every time.
LOESCH: Let’s stop playing ignorance and —
MORGAN: General Stanley McChrystal —
LOESCH: Now you can go ahead and continue.
MORGAN: General Stanley McChrystal used the phrase — so forget us, forget Van, forget me. One of the great military commanders of the last 20 years in America —
LOESCH: The man who bans conservatives (INAUDIBLE) — yes.
MORGAN: — said these were military-style weapons. So is he wrong? Do you know more about these weapons than General McChrystal does?
NORQUIST: Evidently because —
LOESCH: General McChrystal is also of your same ideology so I want to put that out there first and foremost. There is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms. I do not own a military- style assault weapon just because of what — a firearm looks scary? Then you call it military assault? Do you realize that one of my children has a BB gun that looks like an AR-15? Is that going to be considered a military style assault weapon? It sounds silly and uneducated.
MORGAN: Adam Lanza killed — Adam Lanza killed — wait a minute. Wait a minute. Adam Lanza killed —
LOESCH: And it’s dangerous.
MORGAN: Adam Lanza, as we now know, in the space of 300 seconds, using an AR-15, killed 26 people, Dana.
JONES: Thank you.
LOESCH: And he reloaded four times.
MORGAN: He had magazine — he had a magazine for 30 bullets.
LOESCH: So, Piers, I want to ask you a question. Yes.
MORGAN: Are you telling me — are you telling me that doesn’t —
LOESCH: And he reloaded four times. Anyone can reload.
MORGAN: Are you tell me that doesn’t —
LOESCH: Anyone can reload.
MORGAN: Dana, let me finish. Are you telling me that doesn’t qualify as an assault weapon?
LOESCH: By the technical definition, no, Piers. Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.
MORGAN: So you’re equating stabbing somebody with a spoon —
LOESCH: Let me ask you a question, Piers.
JONES: Oh my god.
MORGAN: — to the shooting dead 26 people in five minutes?
JONES: Hold on, hold on.
LOESCH: If this is conversation about a ban on magazine capacity —
MORGAN: Really, Dana? Really? Talk about stabbing somebody with a spoon?
LOESCH: Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.
JONES: This is the strategy — it’s the conscious strategy.
LOESCH: And the only reason that he stopped was because he heard authorities.
JONES: What you’re seeing right now, Piers —
LOESCH: No, Van, this is the strategy of the people who actually deliberately want to disarm individuals.
JONES: Piers, what you’re seeing is the conscious strategy to distract and —
LOESCH: You guys talk about magazine —
JONES: Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
LOESCH: You talk about magazine restriction —
MORGAN: OK. Let Van — let Van have his say.
JONES: See, this is the conscious strategy on the part of the pro-gun folks to constantly bring things back around to things that don’t make any sense. You’re talking about people stabbing people with spoons. If that was a problem we had in America, people stabbing people with spoons, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now.
What we’re talking about is funeral after funeral after funeral. What we’re talking about is — are our children being gunned down and what we’re talking about is common sense measures. Not confiscating guns. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about commonsense measures that 90 percent of Americans agree with and the majority of gun owners agree with.
JONES: But when you guys get on television, you don’t talk like the people who actually are the gun owners in America. What you talk like are people who want to take the conversation in a direction —
LOESCH: I’m a gun owner in America, Van Jones.
JONES: — that has nothing to do — I’m sorry, you said?
LOESCH: By the way, the latest CBS poll shows that support for these gun control measures is tanking. This is —
LOESCH: let me finish my thought.
LOESCH: Then I am going to let you answer. I’m tired of this conflation and this uneducation when it comes to using terms about firearms. Let’s use —
JONES: You want to make it about terms and words. Fine. Hey, listen, what we’re talking about is funeral after funeral after funeral.
MORGAN: one at a time.
LOESCH: What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds? Piers Morgan, let me ask you a question. (CROSS TALK)
MORGAN: Let me explain to you the difference. Let me explain the difference.
MORGAN: Let me ask you a question. The difference between 30 and seven is 23. So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.
LOESCH: Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?
MORGAN: You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes.
MORGAN: Better than losing 30, yes, it is.
LOESCH: I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line. Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?
MORGAN: I would love to draw the line — I would love to draw the line — I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America.
LOESCH: So you do believe in disarmament, then.
MORGAN: I said zero gun deaths.
LOESCH: That’s the answer that I wanted.
MORGAN: When did I say disarmament? Wait a minute. You talk about conflating the argument. Dana, when did I say disarmament?
LOESCH: I’m taking it down — I’m using your logic and going down that road. If you’re talking about limiting magazines — first and foremost, magazines are universal. I can make one in my garage.
MORGAN: I said I wanted zero gun deaths.
MORGAN: Let me finish. We have to go to break. But you said — I said I wanted zero gun deaths. You announce that meant I wanted disarmament. That’s the problem with the pro-gun debate.
MORGAN: Let’s take a break. Let’s all calm down, come back and talk about gay marriage. That will be even more lively, probably. Let’s try that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MORGAN: Back now with Van Jones and Dana Loesch and Grover Norquist. Before we move on from guns, I just want to read a quick Tweet. This is from Steven Smith, who says to me “where can you buy these deadly assault spoons?” Maybe Dana can help him with that later. Let’s move on.
LOESCH: Really, it goes over people’s heads. Anything, Piers. Stabbing deaths every day.
MORGAN: Let’s move on. It was just a little joke, Dana. Let’s turn to gay marriage. Grover, I want to play you an astonishing piece of tape, really. Yesterday we had Bill O’Reilly almost converting to gay marriage. Today, Rush Limbaugh joined in. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: This issue is lost. I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable. And it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this. We lost the issue when we started allowing the word marriage to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Grover, is he right? Is the gay marriage debate lost to those that oppose it?
NORQUIST: Well, it’s an interesting question. Obviously, once you get the government into defining something, they’re going to mess it up. Marriage for a lot of people is a religious sacrament in any of the Abrahamic faiths. Yet the government should be enforcing contracts, if people want a contract with who they live with and how they want to pass on their estates. For years we worked with gay groups trying to get rid of the death tax, because that was one of the discriminatory factors there.
So I think there are a number of laws that the government’s got itself into that we need to extricate it. If the government was less involved in marriage and defining it and regulating it, we might be better off, everybody.
MORGAN: Dana Loesch, what do you think?
LOESCH: I’m not quite sure whether or not it’s lost. I do agree that the language has been muddled. And just the two cases that are before the Supreme Court right now, I don’t think that both of them will be tossed down. But the Defense of Marriage Act, especially where it concerns insurance benefits and engaging in contracts, I think people should be able to enter into contractual agreements with each other. There shouldn’t be any sort of stipulation on that.
That’s where, at the same time, while I’ve told individuals who have been out there advocating for same sex marriage and wanting to bring the government in, as someone who is a Christian conservative, I don’t want to bring the government in to defend my faith or to defend or define marriage. I think that’s something that should be left to the people. We don’t have the government involved in baptisms or taking of the sacrament.
So I don’t think that government should be involved in marriage, either. I think bringing the government in period is a bad idea.
MORGAN: OK. Van Jones, this sort of reminds me of conversations in America in the ’50s and ’60s, which would go along the lines of, I don’t mind, having thought about this quite carefully, black people using the same bus as me. But I’m not really ready for them to come to the same school. Is it that kind of repositioning?
JONES: It’s sad. First of all, we are on the verge of one of the great breakthroughs and achievements in human freedom, human equality. I can’t tell you how proud I am to be in a country where people — where the freedom to marry is going to be available to everybody very soon. Rush Limbaugh is right.
But the idea that suddenly now government is getting involved in marriage, government has been involved in marriage from the very beginning and nobody complained about it as long as it was for heterosexuals. Now — and I’ll say something else as well. You know, my marriage would have been illegal in a lot of parts of this country very recently, because I’m in a mixed race marriage.
So what I know is that — and the government was involved in regulating that. So what I think we’ve got to recognize now is that there’s — no matter what happens — this is a great thing about America — there is an expiration date on some of this bigotry that is in our laws, because the next generation doesn’t want to hear any of this stuff; 70, 80 percent of young people in America think that if you love somebody, marry them.
And the people who are messing up marriage in America are the heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are the ones being divorced. Heterosexuals are the — the people who are bringing marriage back and making marriage mean something is the gay community that’s fighting for that right. Now marriage means something. The Kardashians are doing more to destroy traditional marriage than gay people ever did.
LOESCH: A couple points, Piers, really quick. I can’t compare gay marriage to what black Americans have gone through, because in the Bible — and I want to point this out because this is how Christians look at this. Nowhere in the Bible —
JONES: I’m a Christian.
LOESCH: It’s not mentioned in the Bible.
JONES: That’s not true. That’s not true. I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian. I’m going to tell you right now —
JONES: The Curse of Hamm was used to say we were the victims — LOESCH: If you are trying to get Old Testament, remember, Van, the New Covenant with Christ, the New Covenant with God, that’s why we have the New Testament.
MORGAN: Dana, Dana, Dana, Dana —
LOESCH: — between a man, a woman and God, before God, on God’s terms. That’s how Christians define it.
MORGAN: Dana, Dana, Dana, what do you say to Van’s point that it wasn’t so long ago he wouldn’t have been able to get married without the help of the government interfering? Isn’t that an incredibly salient point?
LOESCH: You know what, Republicans all throughout, Piers — I agree with that because Republicans — that’s why you have the Republican party because they split from Democrats and they split from — you know, the KKK was the militant faction of that. They didn’t believe. They were the original abolitionists, the Frederick Douglass Republicans.
Yes, absolutely, they thought that was horrible. That’s why you had individuals fight for the Civil Rights Act.
JONES: Can I respond to that?
MORGAN: Unfortunately, Van, we’ve got to move on. I think you made some very good points, actually, which I think are pretty inarguable. The fact you couldn’t have got married 50 years ago pretty well says it all.
Let’s talk very quickly about a sad day, I think. Barbara Walters is going to retire apparently in May of next year, 80 odd years old, incredible energy, one of the most remarkable television journalists really ever. What do you make of that, Grover Norquist?
NORQUIST: Well, she’s had a tremendous career. She’s been great fun to watch and listen to and learn from. And I’m sure this is the sequester’s fault.
MORGAN: Dana Loesch, can we reach any point of agreement on Barbara Walters?
LOESCH: I grew up watching Barbara Walters. And it’s nice to see a strong woman with such a great — such an accomplished career in the industry and it’s sort of sad to see her go because of that.
JONES: I have had the honor to be on “The View” with her, watching her. She’s one of the best ever. She’s able to keep the empathy high, but she asks the tough questions. And I just think it’s a moment in history.
MORGAN: Yeah. Very sad day. It will be a great valedictory fly-by tour, though, lasting a year, which I’m looking forward to. So Barbara, if you’re watching, we wish you all the very best. You have been one of the truly great interviewers in television history. I for one will be glad you’re gone because you get so many great bookings which I may now have a sniff at. But that’s just a personal .
Thank you to my all-star panel, Dana, Van and Grover. I really enjoyed this. Let’s get you back soon.
She again bashed marriage equality, while guest Van Jones defended it. Grover Norquist spoke out against government regulation of marriage.
Is Dana Loesch out of her goddamn mind?! She appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight to make even more idiotic arguments for the 2nd Amendment. As if that weren’t enough, she made herself a bigger irresponsible moron by brandishing an AR-15 lighter on national television.
Charles Blow of The New York Times, on the other hand, made well-reasoned arguments on this issue— including calling out the NRA for what it really is: “a no regulation organization.”
From the 01.28.2013 edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight:
On Piers Morgan Tonight earlier this evening, Tea Party wingnut Dana Loesch seemed to have trouble defending her position that the Obama administration should be crucified over the Benghazi scandal. When other panelists reminded her of similar situations under the Bush administration (most notably the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lie that lead us into a bloody and senseless war). While both Morgan and fellow panelist former Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley agreed that serious questions need to be addressed concerning the current inquiry, the current bouts of misogyny and finger-pointing by conservatives like Rand and Loesch only detract from the seriousness of the situation.
Typical of her lack of debate and communication skills, Loesch refused to concede that both Rice and Clinton faced similar scenarios, and her outrage now seems hypocritical in light of her refusal to admit their proven wrongdoing. Her hyper-partisan speech once again proves she’s not interested in actually learning the truth of what happened during that deadly September 11th attack; no, she’s only interested in furthering her own (flailing) political career at the expense of others.
From the 01.23.2013 edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight:
h/t: Peacock Panache
"There Is No Such Thing As An Assault Weapon No More Than There’s Such A Thing As An Assault Unicorn (by MOXNEWSd0tC0M)
When Dana Loesch appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight to discuss efforts to strengthen gun laws, Piers Morgan introduced her as a “conservative radio talk-show host,” but didn’t identify her as a CNN contributor. CNN hired Loesch as a political contributor in early 2011, but has been absent from the network in recent months.
Without any official announcement, CNN reportedly suspended Loesch soon after she defended U.S. Marines accused of urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban forces, saying, “I’d drop trou and do it too.” Her comment was widely condemned, including by CNN journalists. (By coincidence, one of the Marines involved in the incident pleaded guilty at a court-martial on Wednesday.)
In the interview, Loesch and Hughes both got smacked down by Piers Morgan.
In the past few weeks, Piers Morgan has brought on a number of pro-gun advocates to argue with over gun control, and with each argument Morgan appears to get exponentially more frustrated with their arguments. Case in point, on his program tonight, after repeatedly grilling Dana Loesch on her opposition to restrictions on gun ownership, he told her that listening to her argue so vigorously against gun control “makes me sick.”
Morgan asked Loesch why any American would need large magazine drums. Loesch brought up a big news story about a New York man critically injured after being beaten to argue that having a gun would be useful for self-defense. Morgan pointed out that no one died in the brawl, and pushed her to explain why she thinks a gun would have helped the situation.
Loesch argued that the Founding Fathers would have put limits on gun rights in the Constitution if they wanted any. She asked Morgan if he’s ever fired an AR-15. Morgan said he has not, and Loesch told her that it is much easier to fire than other rifles.
She and Hughes said they do not support a single one of Obama’s proposed executive orders, which led Morgan to go off on a rant against them.
“The pair of you would like the right to have a tank and you don’t agree with a single–a single one of President Obama’s proposals for gun control. And you know what? It makes me sick when I hear people say that kind of stuff.”
And Mrs. Loesch, there IS such thing as an “assault weapon.”
Transcript of the segment between Hughes and Loesch:
MORGAN: Let’s turn to the other side of the gun debate now. Dana Loesch is a conservative radio talk show host of “The Dana Show,” and Scottie Hughes is the news director for Tea Party News Network. Her young brother was a victim of gun violence.
Welcome to you both.
Scottie, what was your reaction to what the president said today? And what did you agree with him about?
SCOTTIE HUGHES, BROTHER WAS MURDERED BY NANNY’S SON: Nothing. Because it was propaganda. From the second he opened his mouth, I thought the Golden Globes were done a couple of days ago. But from the second he opened his mouth to when he went over and high-fived those kids, exploited the kids —
MORGAN: Right. So let me just get this clear.
HUGHES: Nothing — sure.
MORGAN: You don’t agree with universal background checks for gun sales?
HUGHES: In French, back to the Bill of Rights. Strict constitutional.
MORGAN: You don’t agree with that?
HUGHES: Infringe on my rights. I think there is a certain thing to be said. But let’s point this out here.
MORGAN: Well, hang on, hang on.
HUGHES: You’re sitting — hold on.
MORGAN: How can it possibly infringe anybody’s rights to have a background check for a potentially lethal firearm given that gun owners, the people that — sorry, gun store owners have to have them? What possible infringement of your rights is it as a member of the American society if you want to buy a gun that are background checked?
HUGHES: Well, here’s the deal. I’m a legal gun owner. So I’m going to have it. I’m not going to object. You might find a stolen Oreo cookie in kindergarten in my background but I’m going to be cleared, and I got cleared. The criminals, though, are not going to do it. That’s the key to this. If you think the criminals are going to say, hallelujah, and they’re going to have a complete come to Jesus meeting and go get a background check, that’s completely false. If the criminals —
MORGAN: But that is about people planning to break the law. That’s down to law enforcement people to enforce the law. It’s a different issue.
HUGHES: Well, the key is, though, that once again, you’re doing a federal mandate.
MORGAN: You don’t agree with any of this? You don’t agree with —
HUGHES: I really don’t. I think he totally exploited —
MORGAN: What you — what —
HUGHES: — the situation.
MORGAN: Never mind — never mind your view about his exploitation skills. Would you cap ammunition magazines to a 10-round limit?
HUGHES: Because it doesn’t say so in the Constitution. Where do you bullet points the Constitution?
MORGAN: Where does it say you can have an assault weapon that can fire 100 bullets in a minute in your Constitution?
HUGHES: Piers, more importantly where does it say I cannot?
MORGAN: Right. So where’s the limit?
HUGHES: Well, there is not because it doesn’t say it. It does not say it.
MORGAN: But there — but there are limits. There are more than 50 gun control limits already. There a reason for it.
HUGHES: Because I don’t agree with those.
MORGAN: You don’t?
HUGHES: They shouldn’t matter —
MORGAN: So you want a tank?
HUGHES: You know what? When is the last time you saw a terrorist attack? Let’s be realistic —
MORGAN: Do you want the right to have a tank? Do you believe the Second Amendment gives you, Scottie Hughes, the right to have a tank?
HUGHES: You know what, honestly, I don’t see bullet points in the Constitution, sure. I don’t want one. MORGAN: Well —
HUGHES: I think my mayor would be upset.
MORGAN: OK. Dana Loesch, do you think that Scottie is right? Do you feel you have the right to have a tank?
DANA LOESCH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, “THE DANA SHOW”: That’s an interesting question, Piers. I want to explain something just very briefly.
MORGAN: That is the question. How can this be a sensible conversation?
LOESCH: No — listen, listen, listen, listen — no, listen.
MORGAN: Dana, you represent a lot of people —
MORGAN: — who believe what you say and trust you. How can you possibly —
LOESCH: I want to answer your question.
MORGAN: — say you want the right to a tank?
LOESCH: I haven’t even said anything yet. You’ve just presupposed what my answer is going to be.
MORGAN: Well, tell me you don’t want the right to a tank.
LOESCH: The interesting thing about the writing of our Constitution is that, Piers, our founding fathers were very specific on what was and was not mentioned in terms of the Second Amendment. Musket is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Firearms is what’s mentioned. Arms, period, is what is mentioned in the Second Amendment.
And there are two reasons why we were successful in the Revolutionary War. Number one, guerrilla tactics. Number two, we had the same weapons capability as those against whom we were fighting. And I think that that — if you can’t glean my answer from that, I think it’s pretty definitive.
MORGAN: Your country, America, has 5,000 nuclear warheads. I’d say you’re pretty covered on the threat of an overseas tyrannical regime.
I come back to this question, though, because Scottie wants the right to have a tank. She says there are no limits in terms of the firearms that she can have. By your answer just now, the logical assumption from that is that you also believe there should be no limitation of firearms if a potential enemy has the same thing.
So let me ask you again, Dana. Do you think you should have the right to have a tank under the Second Amendment?
LOESCH: I think the Constitution is clear and it says that we have a right to bear arms under the definition of arms. We have the right to firearms.
MORGAN: Does that include a tank?
LOESCH: If that is how arms is defined, I’m going to let you draw your conclusions on that.
MORGAN: No, no, no. Because I’d be following —
LOESCH: Our founding fathers are clear.
MORGAN: I’d be following this very carefully.
LOESCH: Piers, the founding fathers are clear.
MORGAN: On your Twitter feed you’ve been espousing yourself —
LOESCH: Yes. So have you started using the term — have you stopped using the term assault rifle?
MORGAN: Dana, Dana, Dana — I’ll come to that in a moment.
MORGAN: But you have been espousing very strongly your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
LOESCH: I’ve been quoting the Second Amendment.
MORGAN: So — this is not a time to be shy. Do you believe —
LOESCH: Oh, I’m not.
MORGAN: The Second Amendment gives you, as Scottie believes, the right to have a tank?
LOESCH: I believe that the Second Amendment gives us all the right to bear arms. That’s how I — that’s how I see it.
MORGAN: Does that include a tank?
LOESCH: If that’s how — if it falls under the definition of firearms.
MORGAN: Do you think it does?
LOESCH: I — if it falls under the definition of firearms.
MORGAN: Do you think it does, Dana?
LOESCH: If I say so, you’re going to — you’re going to fire back.
MORGAN: Do you think it does?
LOESCH: And accuse me about my interpretation.
MORGAN: No, I’m asking you — you’ve been interpreting it all week. I’ve been reading your Twitter feed. Do you think —
LOESCH: No, I’ve been quoting the Constitution.
MORGAN: Does your —
LOESCH: What I think —
MORGAN: Does your personal interpretation —
LOESCH: What I think is more of interest is your use of the term assault rifle.
MORGAN: Does your personal — Dana, answer my question.
LOESCH: It’s your use of the terms assault rifle. I have twice.
MORGAN: Does the — does your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment include your right to have a tank?
LOESCH: My personal interpretation of the Second Amendment isn’t a personal interpretation. It is what it is, and it states what it states. We have the right to own firearms. We have the right to bear arms.
LOESCH: Now all of that which falls under the definition of firearms, that is what is guaranteed to us.
MORGAN: Does that include a tank?
LOESCH: If it falls under the definition of firearms, Piers.
MORGAN: Scottie has —
HUGHES: When is the last time you heard somebody want a tank and buy a tank?
MORGAN: Scottie has —
HUGHES: When is the last time you —
MORGAN: Scottie, with respect, with respect, you’ve already said that you think it does. Dana won’t answer the question. And —
LOESCH: I have answered the question. You just don’t like my answer.
MORGAN: I don’t understand why. Well, my question is — LOESCH: So now you —
MORGAN: It’s your personal interpretation that you want —
MORGAN: That’s not funny.
LOESCH: No, no.
MORGAN: Because actually —
HUGHES: It’s ludicrous. This question is ludicrous.
LOESCH: Piers. Piers, with all due respect, I find it so interesting that you’re trying to nail down this definition when you can’t even accurately talk about what is or is not an assault rifle.
MORGAN: I will come to that. But here’s why — here’s why it’s such an important question. Because it’s precisely the definition and interpretation of the Second Amendment that has got America into this horrific mess, as I see it, in terms of —
LOESCH: We disagree on that.
MORGAN: In terms of the right to bear arms and what those arms are. I have no —
LOESCH: We disagree on that.
MORGAN: I know. But I have no problem with Americans who defend themselves in their homes with a handgun or a pistol or a shotgun. I have a major problem, as you know, with the more military-style assault weapons.
Now you say that the weapon used in Aurora and the weapon used at Sandy Hook was not an assault weapon. I ask you what is an assault weapon? If it’s not a weapon that can kill 20 children in a few seconds or unload 100 bullets in a movie theater in 90 seconds, what do you term that kind of weapon if it’s not an assault weapon?
And the reason I put it to you is that the last time there was an assault weapon ban, that particular weapon was included in the ban. And people got rounded by modifying it. But it was included. So it’s defined in 1994 as an assault weapon.
LOESCH: Actually, it was — it also discussed the cosmetics that you could add on to such a weapon. First of all, let me address your initial question. There is no such thing as an assault weapon no more than there is such a thing as an assault unicorn. And if there is one that exists, I would love to capture it.
As for assault rifle, you like to use the term military-style assault rifle.
MORGAN: Yes. LOESCH: I’m not quite sure what constitutes to you military style, but I will tell you this. As a —
MORGAN: Well, let me — let me —
LOESCH: Well, let me — let me explain.
MORGAN: Well, let me make it easy for you.
LOESCH: Let me explain.
MORGAN: Let me make it easy for you.
LOESCH: OK. Go right ahead.
MORGAN: My brother is a British — my brother is a British army colonel.
MORGAN: And he says that from his testing —
LOESCH: So you’re an expert?
MORGAN: Well, my brother is, yes. He’s fought alongside American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
MORGAN: He says he’s only belonged as does General McChrystal and General Colin Powell on a military field because they perform in a military-style capability.
MORGAN: When a young deranged man —
MORGAN: Well, it’s not funny. Stop laughing, Dana.
LOESCH: I’m not —
MORGAN: I don’t like anybody laughing in this conversation. These are —
LOESCH: I want to answer your question. You just — you won’t let me answer.
MORGAN: These are — these are fundamental — I am letting you answer. I’m telling you that in my view —
LOESCH: I know what the answer is.
MORGAN: Any rifle that can unload 90 bullets or 100 bullets in 90 seconds has to be an assault weapon.
LOESCH: Well, again, assault — when you use the term military- style assault rifle, you do realize that you’re trying to conflate the terms, and you’re giving the impression that Adam Lanza and these other individuals actually owned military standard rifles. An assault rifle, if you want to use this term for the sake of argument. You’re talking about either a weapon or a firearm that’s capable of select fire, which I’m sure you know what that means.
MORGAN: I do, yes.
LOESCH: Being that you’re discussing it. Or it’s semiautomatic, automatic, or it’s capable of select fire.
MORGAN: Now you see —
I’m actually not, though. I’m actually not. I’ll talk to you about it —
LOESCH: Citizens — but let me tell you.
MORGAN: I’m talking about it — no, no, Dana.
LOESCH: As a firearm owner, as a member of the NRA.
MORGAN: Dana. Dana.
LOESCH: As someone who has shot fully automatic weapons and who owns semiautomatic weapons.
MORGAN: Yes. Yes.
LOESCH: Let me tell you that a citizen cannot go out and purchase a fully automatic weapon.
LOESCH: They are regulated to ban. So when you use this terminology, it is from this knowledge base that you were using to cast aspersions on to our second amendment rights.
MORGAN: You don’t — you don’t dispute — you don’t dispute that the AR-15 was banned under the last assault weapons ban?
Excuse me, Scottie, wait a minute.
MORGAN: You don’t dispute that?
LOESCH: And Columbine happened, and Columbine happened after that. MORGAN: No, no. That wasn’t the question, Dana. Do you dispute that it was banned?
LOESCH: And Columbine happened after that.
MORGAN: Dana, you’re having trouble tonight answering any of my questions.
LOESCH: No, I’m not. I’m answering all of your question.
MORGAN: Just clarify and tell me this one second.
LOESCH: You not liking my answers does not constitute me not answering.
MORGAN: You say — you say the AR-15 is an assault weapon. Why was it banned then under the 1994 assault weapons ban?
LOESCH: Because people don’t like scary-looking guns. Do you realize you can get a pellet gun that looks like a military-style assault weapon —
MORGAN: OK. You don’t want to answer the question. OK.
HUGHES: And because — it’s because Joe Biden was at the lead of it. Joe Biden was the one.
MORGAN: Let’s take a break. Let’s take a break, come back. I’ll try some more questions. Why don’t we see if we can get some answers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Obama uses kids as human shields. The Democrats use kids as human shields. He brings these kids supposedly who wrote letters to the White House after Newtown, bring them up there to present a picture of support among the children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Rush Limbaugh today. Back with me now, Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes.
Scottie Hughes, why shouldn’t President Obama bring these children to the White House to illustrate a point that he is making these proposals now in direct relation to the slaughter of children?
HUGHES: Why sit here and say to these — to bring these children up on stage and give them high-fives and then sit there and your White House claims that the NRA ad exploits his own children? I mean, across the board, he is exploiting children. He sat there and is complaining double standard completely. He brought his children on every chance he could during the campaign. And now his White House is coming and saying this new NRA ad is actually attacking his children and that’s just wrong? Hands off my kids?
The same thing he did today with those four. And to you point, I’ll be honest to you, people own tanks. People own cannons. Hey, people own jet fighters. When is the last time you heard a crime done by one of those people?
MORGAN: OK, Dana Loesch, let’s ask you that question which is about the magazine clips. Do you think that there is any reason why any civilian needs a magazine — or magazine drums at it is now, over 10-round limit or more?
LOESCH: I think that there exist reasons that exactly why we should have more than. I know what — New York bans seven. I can think of a story just a headline that just hit the papers today in New York. There was a man who was attacked by a gang of men with bats and tire irons. There were I believe more than seven of those individuals that attacked him. I can’t think of that —
MORGAN: What is the point of that anecdote?
LOESCH: And also, and also, Piers —
MORGAN: But Dana, why do you tell that story?
LOESCH: Well, because it’s to highlight that if someone has a firearm and they’re able to defend themselves —
MORGAN: Have you seen that video? Have you seen the video?
LOESCH: Or — I’ve seen — I actually have screen shots of it.
MORGAN: OK. I bet you — I bet you you’ve —
LOESCH: But Piers — but Piers —
MORGAN: Well, hang on. Hang on. You can’t just say these things. I took the trouble to watch that whole video.
LOESCH: Yes, OK.
MORGAN: An unfortunate man involved in a pizza argument at 5:00 a.m. in the street gets attacked by a group of people who were clutching a bar of some sort.
LOESCH: A tire iron.
MORGAN: But he is a live. He didn’t get killed. He wasn’t shot. Is your solution to that fight in a street —
LOESCH: I made a suggestion.
MORGAN: And we don’t know who caused or what.
LOESCH: I didn’t say it was the solution.
MORGAN: It’s your suggestion that somebody pull a gun out and shot somebody.
LOESCH: If you have to defend yourself against more than one attacker, then absolutely. And, Piers, you also have — have you ever fired a — have a fired a weapon?
MORGAN: So that young man should have shot those people?
LOESCH: I’m not saying that. I’m saying that if someone has —
MORGAN: What are you saying then?
LOESCH: There are instances where there is more than one people, more than one person coming at you. There is an instance where you have —
MORGAN: Let me ask you. OK. Let me ask you.
LOESCH: But, Piers, here’s the thing.
MORGAN: Let me ask you this.
LOESCH: It’s the founding fathers —
MORGAN: What do —
LOESCH: — wanted this limit that would have enumerated that and the Second Amendment.
MORGAN: OK. We’ve already stopped as you don’t believe there are limitations. So that’s fine. So every one can have a tank.
Why would anybody — why would anybody need an AR-15?
LOESCH: Have you ever fired one?
MORGAN: I haven’t fired one. No. Why would anyone need an AR —
LOESCH: OK. Let me tell you right now. Let me —
MORGAN: Dana, let me just finish my question.
LOESCH: I want to answer this because —
MORGAN: Let me finish my question.
LOESCH: Piers, this will help so much. This helps so much.
MORGAN: Nobody — nobody — let me —
(CROSSTALK) MORGAN: Let me ask the question.
LOESCH: OK, go ahead.
MORGAN: Why would anybody need an AR-15 that has a magazine with 100 bullets in it, as with the shooter at Aurora? Why would anybody need that?
LOESCH: Well, first and foremost, if you’ve never fired an AR- 15, as a woman, who also has self-defense — has — uses guns for self-defense and likes to know that I have that security they’re a lot easier to fire than other rifles simply because of the recoil.
MORGAN: So you think all women should all be armed with AR-15s?
LOESCH: My goodness, now are you going to go off on a tangent every single time I say one thing? You just go off to make up another —
MORGAN: I’m trying to clarify what you actually believe.
LOESCH: Come on, now, Piers. Stay with me here. Stay here with me.
MORGAN: I’m trying to clarify what you believe.
LOESCH: Well, I’m trying to explain it to you, but you keep putting words in my mouth every time I try. So stop, let me finish, and we’ll get somewhere with this. No, an AR-15 is — honestly, it’s just like any other rifle. I don’t understand why some individuals can become so scared of this, because they think it’s a scary-looking weapon. It’s not. This is not like the military-style assault rifle that, you know, fully automatic or capable of select fire.
MORGAN: It shot 17 Americans — it shot 17 Americans in a movie heater in 90 seconds. It murdered a group of New York state firemen.
LOESCH: Do you know there are — there are pistols —
MORGAN: And killed 20 schoolchildren in an elementary school.
LOESCH: There are pistols made by Armalite.
MORGAN: Yes. But this particular weapon has been used in the last four mass shootings and still nobody can explain to me why any civilian —
LOESCH: How are law-abiding Americans responsible for that, Piers?
MORGAN: — need that? Or one of these high-capacity magazines?
LOESCH: Piers, how are law-abiding —
MORGAN: I don’t get what their need is.
LOESCH: How are law-abiding citizens like me responsible for that? I follow the law. And I’ll admit it. I own an AR-15. I follow the law.
MORGAN: James Holmes was a law-abiding —
LOESCH: I went through my background checks. I’ve taken the classes.
MORGAN: Dana —
LOESCH: I’m a responsible owner.
MORGAN: James Holmes —
LOESCH: Why should I be punished?
MORGAN: James Holmes was a law-abiding citizen. He bought his guns legally. He bought the ammunition over the Internet. And he went in and shot 17 Americans in a movie theater. So I’m afraid when the NRA —
MORGAN: When the NRA says taking our guns, attacking our guns today —
LOESCH: No. No.
MORGAN: Wait. The NRA said today attacking our guns will only hurt law-abiding gun owners like —
LOESCH: I want to focus on something for a second, Piers.
MORGAN: Do I presume then — do I presume —
LOESCH: I want to focus on that. He was —
MORGAN: Let me finish, Dana.
LOESCH: He was on medication and he was seeing a psychiatrist.
MORGAN: Do I presume — Dana, I don’t dispute that.
LOESCH: No, let me answer this. I want to bring this up. This is an important point, Piers.
MORGAN: I’m telling you, though, that he was a legal gun owner.
LOESCH: And it needs to be made.
MORGAN: As was Adam Lanza’s mother.
LOESCH: No, here’s the thing. This is where people who are —
MORGAN: Adam Lanza’s mother was a legal gun owner.
LOESCH: Piers, Piers —
HUGHES: But Adam Lanza’s mother did not shoot people up, Piers. You have to realize that.
LOESCH: And Piers, you need to realize, too, that this is where the people who are supposed to be telling — see, look. I’m going to use the case of Jared Loughner as an example. Do you realize that that — he could have been reported in terms of being mentally unfit, reported to NICS when they did the background check they would have determined that he was mentally unfit. He would have been unable to purchase a firearm.
The same thing with Holmes. But you have these laws in place.
Piers, what good are laws if they — if no one wants to follow them.
MORGAN: Scottie —
LOESCH: Do you realize —
MORGAN: Scottie said earlier —
LOESCH: No. Do you realize that there are laws that have been passed to incentivize states recording these people?
MORGAN: Scottie said early that she —
MORGAN: OK. I hear you. Scottie said earlier she doesn’t agree with a single thing that President Obama said today. What’s your view? Is there anything there you agreed with?
LOESCH: You know, I’m really — because I think that he was moved by what happened at Newtown, which I think anybody would have been. And at the same time —
MORGAN: Was there anything you agreed within the president’s proposals?
HUGHES: And instead of — today instead of having those four children —
MORGAN: You know that’s it. You know something?
HUGHES: — I would have liked to have the mother from Georgia that sat there.
MORGAN: The pair of you would like to have the right to have a tank and you don’t agree with a single —
LOESCH: Why are you making — now you’re committing —
MORGAN: With a single one of President Obama’s proposals.
LOESCH: Now you’re committing the straw man, Piers. Now you’re committing the straw man.
HUGHES: Because all you’re doing —
MORGAN: And you know something? It makes me sick when I hear people say that kind of thing.
HUGHES: Piers. Do we need to —
LOESCH: Piers, when did they say that, Piers? It makes me sick when I hear people —
MORGAN: Coming up, (INAUDIBLE) the gun debate and the president’s sweeping proposal.
US gun rights advocates have signed a White House petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported for allegedly attacking the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans.
The outspoken former British tabloid editor has launched something of a personal crusade for greater gun control measures in the wake of the December 14 massacre at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.
On Tuesday, Morgan held an especially contentious interview with executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt, appearing to become incensed and incredulous when Pratt suggested more, not fewer, weapons as the solution.
You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” Morgan said at one point during the heated debate. “You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don’t actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America.”
Following the interview, a Texas journalist posted a petition on the White House website alleging Morgan “is engaged in a hostile attack against the US Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment.”
“We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens,” it says.
Many Americans believe in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, which enshrines the “right to bear arms” in the US constitution.
Morgan insists America can outlaw military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines without infringing on people’s constitutional rights and says he has no quarrel with the Second Amendment.
Two days after the petition calling for Morgan’s deportation was posted, it had already garnered more than 19,000 signatures, closing in quickly on the 25,000 required to get a response from the White House.
At least some Americans have come out in support of British citizen.
In one message, reposted by Morgan, Lee Cox in Arizona wrote: “I’m a native-born US citizen, and I agree 100% with Mr. Morgan. If he goes back to the UK, should I go with him?”
America has suffered an epidemic of gun violence over the last three decades including 62 mass shooting incidents since 1982. The vast majority of weapons used have been semi-automatic weapons obtained legally by the killers.
h/t: The Raw Story
Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson opened his show Tuesday by concurring with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that homosexuality is an “ugly behavior” and accusing CNN’s Piers Morgan of “moral, intellectual bankruptcy” for broaching the subject in an interview with the leader Monday night.
This was not Mickelson’s first foray into anti-gay commentary. He has referred to the LGBT community as a “religious cult,” and suggested that AIDS is God’s “invention” to “punish” the “stupid behavior” of homosexuality, which forced Clear Channel Communications (which owns the 50kW WHO-AM 1040) to issue an on-air statement criticizing Mickelson.
CNN's Loesch Does Not Want Akin To Appear On CNN After "Legitimate Rape" Comments | Blog | Media Matters for America
CNN contributor Dana Loesch had a meltdown on Twitter after learning that Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) was scheduled to be a guest on CNN to discuss the controversy surrounding his claim that it is “really rare” for victims of “legitimate rape” to become pregnant from the assault, despite this being one of the top news stories of the day.
CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight had announced that Monday’s program would be hosting Akin — “the biggest name of the day” and “the man everyone is talking about” — following the Missouri Senate candidate’s inflammatory comments. Upon hearing that news, Loesch took to Twitter to criticize Rep. Akin’s decision to appear on her own network:
Akin didn’t appear on Piers Morgan Tonight.
(via Igor Volsky at Think Progress LGBT: Bachmann Plays Victim Card: ‘The Rhetoric Is Far Worse Against People Who Stand Up For Traditional Marriage’)
She is a batshit backwards-thinking kook.
Rep. Michele Bachmann — the woman who in 2004 described the gay “lifestyle” as “sad” and “part of Satan” — feigned ignorance at the harshness of her own anti-gay rhetoric and told CNN’s Piers Morgan last night that “the rhetoric is far worse against people who stand for traditional marriage. If anyone gets attacked in this country, it’s people who stand for traditional marriage”:
MORGAN: Yes. But you see, I was also taught to respect and be tolerant towards people who didn’t agree with those beliefs. And I think that America, with this movement on gay marriage and so on, just has to come a time when people who have strong religious beliefs, like you, like Kirk Cameron, actually show people like the gay community tolerance and a bit of slack, and say, I don’t agree with it, but nor am I going to demonize you. That’s all I’m getting at.
BACHMANN: I would like to see the lack of demonization for those of us who stand on sincerely held religious beliefs. It’s overtime. That’s where you see the demonization of people who stand on their beliefs.
MORGAN: So respect on both sides is what we need to get to?
BACHMANN: Of course.
Bachmann also stuck up for actor Kirk Cameron, who has come under fire for telling Morgan that gay people are “unnatural.” “You just brought up Kirk Cameron right now and his comments. He’s the one who is getting trashed right now,” she said.