Piers Morgan ‘Guns In America’ Special: Hectoring Guests, A Fact-Free Discussion

CNN’s Piers Morgan uncorked a special “townhall” event titled Guns in America on Wednesday evening that was at once replete with misinformation and filled with useless bromides. Worse, British citizen Morgan perpetrated a constant hectoring attack on anyone who exhibited the slightest disagreement with his cherished disdain for the U.S. Constitution.

Morgan began his program with wild hyperbole saying that guns were “the single most important issue in this country today” and saying it was a “national crises.” More important than the spiraling debt President Obama is getting us in? More important than any other issue? Apparently so.

However, since violent crime is on the decrease for the fifth straight year all across the country, it would hardly seem likely that guns are “the single most important issue,” would it?

But, coming from a man who Tweeted agreeing that he was gleeful that the deaths in Connecticut occurred so that he could push his anti-Constitution message with the greatest force, I suppose this would seem to be the most important issue.

Morgan’s on-stage panel was a bit quixotic for its lack of bona fides to talk guns and gun violence. He had on with him Democrat Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Corey Booker and CNN globe hopper Christiane Amanpour. Booker has at least dealt with the law enforcement side of the issue, but Amanour? What was her relevance to such a panel? Speaking of utter irrelevance to the issue, Morgan also had the bromide-speaking Deepak Chopra who’s contribution was utterly useless.

On the pro-gun side, Morgan had well-known pro-gun advocate and researcher John Lott. He also had Steve Dulan, the Attorney for the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners, and Doctor Xavier Amador who has from time to time also spoken in favor of our right to self-protection. Additionally, Will Cain, analyst for TheBlaze.com and a contributor to CNN, got a few seconds to participate.

Morgan, however, did not allow any of the pro-gun spokesmen to answer him when he asked them questions. Like a bully, he asked a question then powered through their answer to pose a second, even a third question refusing to give them any opportunity to answer his first question.

Morgan even screamed out that John Lott was a liar and then refused to allow him to reply to the charge or relay any information without interruption.

On the other hand, Morgan did give his anti-gun guests all the time they wanted to talk up their anti-Second Amendment points. Mayor Booker, for instance, said that terrorists can easily buy guns in America but can’t get on a plane. Christiane Amanpour said that all “semi-Automatic weapons” should be banned even though it didn’t seem she knew what one was. And in a rambling reply, Deepak Chopra claimed that anyone that wants firearms is mentally unstable.

Even the purported Republican, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, said that no American who isn’t a fully trained member of the military should be allowed to have weapons of the type under discussion.

Speaking of Tom Ridge, the former Governor did note that one of the major problems that has helped cause these mass shootings is the failure of our mental health system to help these people before they go out and kill. “There are multiple risk factors and if we’re serious about having a national conversation” Ridge said, “we better entertain” all the solutions, not just one.

Showing his single minded desire to push his agenda, though, as soon as Ridge was done speaking, Morgan utterly ignored Ridge’s points and went on saying it’s all about the guns.

“Christiane Amanpour, in the end, it’s about the guns because without the guns you don’t have the shooting,” Morgan said.

For her part, Amanpour claimed that it “isn’t about taking your guns away,” but then brought up the gun banning laws in other countries to which Morgan chimed in saying that handgun bans in Britain and Australia were very effective.

Interesting, that. On one hand Amanpour and Morgan both want to ban “semi-automatic weapons” and all handguns, but then both say that this isn’t about taking anyone’s guns away. Huh? How can you have it both ways? And how is it that Morgan says he wants to ban “assault weapons” but then praises handgun bans, too? Sure sounds like a lot of gun taking to me!

A little later, Morgan showed some bullet holes in a car that was outside the school in Newton, Connecticut. “Look at the power” he said with disgust about the bullet holes. This was little but an exercise to mislead, of course. On most cars, one can punch through the sheet metal with a butter knife. Car bodies are not that strong! The bullet holes really did not relay any meaningful information to viewers. The photos of the car were just an attempt to shock people into agreeing with Morgan.

Throughout the show, Morgan and his anti-gun guests indulged incorrect terminology nearly every time they opened their mouths. Several times Morgan and his guests said things like “high capacity clips” or “30-round clips,” for instance. Of course, there is no such thing as a 30-round clip. Clips only hold a few rounds. It is magazines that hold more.

Both Morgan and the absurd Chopra also incorrectly said that a muzzle loading musket takes “20 minutes to load.” This is nowhere near the truth. Even during the Civil War it was an accepted fact that a soldier could load and fire three aimed shots a minute with a muzzle-loading rifle.

Morgan also said that a semi-automatic AR-15 could fire six rounds a second. This is also not exactly true. The fire rate is not quite that quick as the operator needs to actually pull the trigger for each shot on such a weapon. Semi-automatic guns are not like fully automatic guns.

The anti-gun advocates on the panel also kept saying that no one needs a “military-styled gun.” But this is essentially a meaningless distinction. First, nearly every firearm was created for the military in its beginning. Further, as Will Cain pointed out, nearly every rifle can be made to look like a military gun just by changing stocks. What exactly is a “military-styled weapon”? Remembering that fully automatic machine guns are already outlawed, what are the real differences? Neither Morgan nor his anti-Constitution guests seemed to really know.

And this is not to even mention that the term “assault weapons” is meaningless nor that the 1994 Assault Weapon ban was a pretty useless piece of legislation.

Naturally the red herring that the founders didn’t have “assault weapons” in mind when they made the Second Amendment was also disgorged. This is an empty argument. The founders also did not have computers, TV or radio in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, either. So, do we cancel freedom of speech because the founders are purportedly too stupid to understand that technology could change?

Absurdly, in one of his last comments, after calling his opponents liars and like a bully screamed over them to drown them out, Morgan tried to make himself out to be the reasonable one in the room by claiming he “respected” everyone’s opinion.

Here’s the thing. I love America and I love Americans. I really do. I’ve been very lucky here, what for seven years I’ve lived her. And I respect the Second Amendment.

During the show he also said, “I’m not going to pretend that I’m right about it all. I respect everyone’s opinion.” But, clearly these are all outright lies. Piers Morgan does not respect anyone whose opinion differs from his and he has many times said that the Second Amendment needs to be eliminated.

Any logical review of Morgan’s Guns In America would report that this show was nothing but a chance for Piers Morgan to push his own personal anti-Constitution agenda, not any attempt at a dispassionate and informative discussion about guns in America.

Why Negotiating With President Obama Always Fails
The Kwanzaa Con: A Fake Holiday Created by a Rapist and Torturer
  • twolaneflash

    It’s bad enough to have the “unindicted co-conspirator” CAIR using American freedoms to subvert our legal system and liberty. To have the redneck-based CNN put on a Brit to subvert The Constitution is, as we say here, fightin’ words. Deportation now!


    • Commander_Chico

      Thanks for the laugh.

  • GarandFan

    It’s too bad we re-armed the Brits after Dunkirk. Piers would be speaking German today. Given his past asinine antics, it’s a wonder anyone would show up for a “discussion” with him.

  • stan25

    As with most Brits, Piers Morgan still believes that the United States is a terrorist nation. How dare they break off from the Mother Country and form a new system of government that does not have a King, Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Counts, Countesses, and of course Knights. Well, I have news for Piers and the rest of the British elite, we pulled your asses out of major trouble in two World Wars and this is the thanks that we get for doing it? The British establishment thinks that they were the sole winners of WW2 also

    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah but the Brits were/are with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, dumb as those wars were/are.

      • stan25

        The only reason that the Brits joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they were once British possessions. By helping us, they figured that the United States would give them back to them (Brits). Well that did not happen, so the Brits started a huge anti-war propaganda spiel about how the Americans want to control everything.

        • Commander_Chico


        • Brucehenry

          Afghanistan was never a British possession.

    • Guest

      We have a king now, what the heck is his Morgan’s problem?

    • The_Queen_of_France

      We have a king now, what the heck is Morgan’s problem?

  • Commander_Chico

    For a guy who says he loathes the MSM, you sure spend a lot of time watching it, Warner.

    I don’t think I’ve watched more than ten minutes of a Piers Morgan show, or Larry King before that. Vapid.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Well, that IS how I make a living, after all. Duh!

      • Hugh_G

        I wonder if you ever find anything ludicrous about yourself? Hmmmm.

      • Commander_Chico

        Kevin paid you for this? Wow.

        • herddog505

          Yes, how stupid to pay somebody to watch a “respected” news network and report on their “unbiased, fact-based” efforts to propagandize against American civil rights. Where’s Matt Taibi when you need him? Or Walter Duranty…

          Tell us: how do you feel about SPLC? You know: that group that pays people to… um… well, as far as I can tell, they make sh*t up about groups who don’t agree with them politically and try to scare us into beleiving that it’s 1963 again and the klan is a-coming? Or Journolist, for that matter?

          At least WTH is citing what Morgan and his guests actually said and did during that little glockenspiel, which is closer to what journalism is supposed to be than what is provided by most MiniTru outlets.

        • warnertoddhuston

          No. I make no money from Wizbang.

    • jim_m

      For a guy who constantly complains about Warner you sure read his stuff a lot.

      • Hugh_G

        I find it incredibly entertaining. Comedic. Sad. Propaganda . Lies. Dissembling. Deliberate distortions. He has it all.

        • Sky__Captain

          Hugh. Pot. Kettle.

          “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?”

    • Sky__Captain

      And yet at no time does Comrade Chico take issue with Warner’s points, but merely tries to be insulting.
      Either Comrade Chico sees nothing wrong with Warner’s points or is not capable of debunking them.

      • Hugh_G

        There’s not enough time or space to debunk his line of drivel.

        • jim_m

          Yes, we’ve just totally consumed all the bandwidth on the entire internet. There’s just no room for you to explain yourselves anymore.

          • Aw, crap. Won’t you share just a LITTLE for me? Please?

            (Attempts puppy-dog eyes, which is rather absurd for a 56 year old man…)

          • lasveraneras

            You misunderstand. When Hugh_G refers to the lack of “enough time or space,” he is referring to his own cranium and its intellectual capacity.

        • Sky__Captain

          Hugh is just another person who lacks the mental ability to debate anything.

  • Par4Course

    Liberals use mass murders to further their primary goals: increasing government and decreasing individual rights. It therefore is no surprise that they don’t want to discuss facts. They have no interest in real solutions, which are complicated and difficult. They want simple, easy, feel-good measures like “gun control,” that further their goals while doing nothing to solve the problem. (Try getting a legal gun in Chicago, the murder capital of the U.S.) Connecticut had stricter gun laws than 45 states but that didn’t stop the recent school shooter. Of course, government officials and rich liberals want armed guards to protect them but think it is low class and shameful that the non-rich are allowed to own guns to protect themselves.

    • jim_m

      Exactly. Leftist ideology never fails. It is only implemented in an insufficiently left wing (that is totalitarian) manner

    • Joe_Miller

      This is really weird because I was a huge Lib in the 60s and what I wanted, mostly, was for the government to butt out of my life. Now that I’m in my late 50s, I still want the government to butt out, but it seems I’ve morphed into a conservative. Weird, huh?

      • jim_m

        You didn’t leave liberalism,, but the left sure as hell did.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Weird, yes because let us say you are 58 now, that would have made all of you, about 16 years old in 1970.

        • Joe_Miller

          I’m sure you think you’ve made a cogent point, but it’s unclear.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            So you were a” huge liberal” when you were 5 to 15 years old, in the 60’s and wanted “the government to butt out”..out of what elementary and middle school? Unfortunately, because crazies can do anything they want and where they want with powerful weapons, we need laws to decrease or eliminate their opportunutes. I know you guys don’t see it that way.

          • Vagabond661

            No, I agree in elimianting their opportunities by reducing gun-free zones. Therefore more people with CWP would populate those areas thus eliminating the crazies chance of killing a bunch of people.

  • 914

    “Piers Morgan”?

    Sounds like a stuck up hollyweirdo name.

  • Morgan’s best work ever was done on ‘America’s Got Talent’. Snarky bastard was always good for a laugh.

    Snark has it’s place, but not in an important discussion, and that HAS to include accurate information.

    But that’s not really what’s wanted, is it? It’s an emotional argument that’s preferred – not something fact-based, because the facts simply aren’t horribly supportive of a gun ban.

    Morgan was pulling out all the stops to get an emotion-based presentation on the air, to get traction for his cause. Calling John Lott a liar and refusing to allow anything but what he agreed with just shows how much of a sorry hack he’s turned into.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Fabian Fascism is alive and well and lives in America’s Old-Europeon imports.

  • Vagabond661

    An imaginary conversation with a gun control advocate (GCA).

    GCA: Ban Assault Weapons!

    Me: That was done and it didn’t work. The ban failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.

    GCA: Well then ban more than 10 rounds in a magazine. Why do you need 10 bullets anyway? If you can’t hit a deer after 10 tries, you need to give up hunting.

    Me: Hunting is not the reason I own guns. It’s to prevent bad guys from hurting me and my family. I may need a few more shots especially if it’s dark and there are more than one.

    GCA: We could ban semi-automatic weapons. That way criminals wouldn’t have access to them.

    Me: Oh, I understand. It seems like the problem is criminals getting their hands on assault weapons or semi-automatic guns. Why not just make it illegal for criminals to have them and let law abiding citizens keep theirs?

    GCA: That’s crazy. Criminals aren’t going to obey that law.

    Me: Ah so if criminals are not going to obey that law then what is the real purpose of the ban on assault weapons or semi-automatic guns?

  • Vagabond661

    The latest idiocy in my local paper’s feedback section is a call for people to be held criminally responsible for crimes committed when their gun gets stolen.

    One guy even said a gun owner needed to be implanted with a smart chip so their gun would only fire if they had it. And he was dead serious.