Gingrich Schools Gun-Grabbing Piers Morgan: 'Isn't Your Real View That You Would Ban Pistols?'

Townhall.com ^ | January 25, 2013 | Scott Whitlock

[Kaslin]

Newt Gingrich on Thursday night interrogated the gun-grabbing Piers Morgan, pushing the CNN host as to what his real motives are. An aggressive Gingrich insisted, "So, why don't you share your real view?...Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?" [See video below. MP3 audio here.] The Republican also told the British anchor why the Founding Fathers were able to defeat "your army."

Morgan swore that his concern was "the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute." He added, "...That would be my primary concern right now." The former Speaker pounced, "Right now? Okay, right now." Gingrich lectured, "The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step."

Gingrich Schools Gun-Grabbing Piers Morgan: 'Isn't Your Real View That You Would Ban Pistols?'

The ex-presidential candidate grilled:

NEWT GINGRICH: And we actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, not just something there for hunters, not something there for target practice, but actually there because the founding fathers remembered that when your army tried to defeat us, luckily, our peasants weren't peasants. They were citizens. And as citizens, they were in fact armed. And that's the only reason we were able to win the Revolutionary War.

On January 10, Morgan sneered at another conservative guest who cited the Constitution: "You brandish your little book." 

On January 16, he mocked a female gun rights activist: "Do you want the right to have a tank?"

A partial transcript of the January 24 segment can be found below:

NEWT GINGRICH: So where -- so where are you -- so where are you on pistols that have fairly large capacity? Where are you on the pistols that killed most of the people in Chicago, Piers?

PIERS MORGAN: My position --

GINGRICH: It's okay if we kill them individually?

MORGAN: No. Let me make my position.

GINGRICH: Are you saying three, four, five, and that's okay?

MORGAN: Let my position very, very clear. What is happening in Chicago is completely outrageous, completely unacceptable. I think there's been a total breakdown in the effectiveness of the law enforcement. Because when you compare it to New York, they have solved a lot of the gun problems in New York with very stringent gun control and they've enforced it properly. There are -- it's like the Wild West situation in parts of Chicago. I've been there, I think it's outrageous. And I think the fact that 11,000 or 12,000 people die a year in America from gun fire and a lot of that is from handguns used by criminals and gangsters is disgraceful.

GINGRICH: Right.

MORGAN: And I think many of the other --

GINGRICH: So why -- right. So why don't you share your real view?

MORGAN: Many of the other proposals --

GINGRICH: Isn't it --

MORGAN: It's all wrong to me.

GINGRICH: Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?

MORGAN: No, it wouldn't. What --

GINGRICH: Wouldn't you ban pistols if you could?

MORGAN: Let me -- let me explain what I would do. I would agree with Diane Feinstein. It is the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute that can cause mass murder that would be my primary concern right now. And the AR-15 is a prime example of that.

GINGRICH: Okay, right now, and the reason you find so many of us, and by the way, it's a substantial majority, I think the last time I saw, 63 percent of the American people agree that the Second Amendment is actually there to protect us from tyranny. The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step. And we actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, not just something there for hunters, not something there for target practice, but actually there because the founding fathers remembered that when your army tried to defeat us, luckily, our peasants weren't peasants. They were citizens. And as citizens, they were in fact armed. And that's the only reason we were able to win the Revolutionary War.

MORGAN: And you think -- and you honestly think the founding fathers sat there and thought, okay, automatic weapons are banned because they are very dangerous. The semiautomatics that can fire 100 bullets in a minute are not dangerous and they should be lawful?

GINGRICH: I think the founding fathers would have found this entire debate strange because they actually believed in individual freedom and they were very suspicious of big government, and they would find the idea that you're going to permit, to use the word you kept using. You're going to permit us to have a few liberties right now, was the antithesis of the American experience.  

[Travis McGee]

[shatcher]

Does anyone notice Piers rarely answers a question he is asked. He always replies with another question. Someone needs to tell him that they will not answer a question unless he answers a question, and stick to it. Then, answer according to the sincerity and depth that Piers uses, letting everyone know that is how they will answer. Many of his guests have been forthright and truthful, but he has not. He is holding back to give the best propaganda.

[rcrngroup]

Great photo. I am copying it and will print it and put in my office. I wonder if/when I will be told to take it down!

[Cymbaline]

Upperclass Twit of the Year

[AFPhys]

Tremendous, most excellent post.

Yes: this whole “assault weapon” ban is all about incrementalism to get rid of handguns and rifles, and to make it possible for the Feds to confiscate all our weapons... the precursor to our total slavery to the government.

[onyx]

Thinking.... Minnesota?
God bless and keep you.

[lacrew]

The gun grabbers will use a slippery slope argument.

Step 1: Ban ‘assault weapons’.

Step 2: Wait for mass killing with a pistol (like Jared Loughner).

Step 3: “Assault rifles only account for a small percentage of killings every year. And, we’ve banned them. Why wouldn’t we ban handguns, since they kill so many more people. We have to do it - for the children”.

[tpmintx]

Does he thus presume to outlaw century-old bolt-action rifles?

Eventually. One step at a time.

[vette6387]

“How I wish Gingrich was Prez now.”

But oh horror of horrors, he’s had more than one wife. That’s a no-no for the BACs. They would not have voted for Newt either. Their reason for not supporting Romney was not his politics, it was his “religion.” One BAC here a couple of days ago said that he could not vote for a man who believed he could become a god in the hereafter! It’s not only the RATs we all have to fear, the BACs are about as bad when it comes to politics!

[unixfox]

They work for me. I own the rights. They are MY SLAVES.

Hardly. See tagline.

[Dave W]

Don't blame the Mittster. He got more votes in almost every state than the Republican senatorial candidate received in that state.

And that includes those sainted candidates in Missouri and Indiana.

Blame someone else.

[yldstrk]

“your army tried to defeat us” lmao

[Yardstick]

Nicely done, Newt!

[Kaslin]

From the article

-- snip -- When Morgan was chosen to replace Larry King at CNN, he saw the opportunity to make a name for himself in the U.S. as a journalist, and to add gravitas and respectability to the fortune and degree of fame he’d garnered from shows such as AGT and Celebrity Apprentice. And while Morgan is not at heart a liberal, he’s reinvented himself as one in the U.S. because he wants desperately to ingratiate himself with the country’s entertainment and media elites.

Morgan’s insipid interview style failed to win viewers, however, and his ratings were in the tank when the Sandy Hook shootings presented him with the opportunity to seize the moral high ground. The fact that he succeeded in seizing only the high grounds of righteous indignation and inflammatory rhetoric will have been of little concern to Morgan. He has seen how a combination of mock outrage, contempt for opponents, disregard for the facts, and preening self-regard worked for the likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and he has sought to emulate the formula.

-- snip --

[Kaslin]

He sure is a good debater and that is why I was the first one who said he would beat that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania in the debates handsdown, with even letting him use his teleprompter.

[SteveH]

Piers Morgan would be more entertaining if he conducted these interviews with a used butt plug in his mouth. :-)

[Kaslin]

This is what all liberals do. They dance around instead of answering a question, or change the subject.

[Kaslin]

BTTP

[NKP_Vet]

Those two young hotties schooled his ugly rear too. I want to know why he thinks he has the right to criticize gun laws in this country. The SOB is not a US citizen. I guess it’ll take Hank Williams Jr or Ted Nugent to remind him of that if he ever gets enough balls to interview them about the 2nd amendment.

[Billyv]

Two words for Piers: Oliver Cromwell
Except for this man Piers would be a serf.