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.  

[HomeAtLast]

I went to youtube to see this, and couldn’t watch more than a few minutes. The slippery creep kept interrupting Gingrich.

No reasonable person can discuss politics courteously with such people.

[paratrooper82]

If this Brit keeps it up, the American people will hand him and his ilk their Royal asses again in the second American revolution!

Eight Deuce on the loose!

[unique3]

It’s so absolutely clear that the ban proposal is just a first step this time around. If the government is allowed to take away constitutional rights based on activities of a few crazy people there will be no end to what will come down the road. Driving cars and trucks, eating fatty foods, knifes, axes, chain saws, wood chippers, fists, blunt objects, etc. all kill people.

Of course, smoking hasn’t actually been banned it’s just being taxed to death - actually a penalty not a tax when compared to the small tax on ObamaCare if one doesn’t sign up. Come to think of it - the high tax on smoking is unconstitutional since it’s really a penalty.

[Jeff Winston]

Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.

And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

So Shields basically thought he could achieve "total control of handguns" in the United States by about 1986.

27 years past his future target date, there are more handguns than ever (although I'm sure the percentage of Americans who own them has probably decreased), and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can't be taken away.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Supreme Court has ruled that they can’t be taken away. ***

As Andrew Jackson said about the Supreme Court...”The Supreme court has made it’s decision, now let’s see them enforce it!” (On the Indian removal to Oklahoma)

[i_robot73]

As usual, it’s been the camels’ nose under the tent.

The Income tax only pertains to the upper 2%
SS # will never be used as identifiers
Seat belts will never be used as a means to pull someone over for a ticket

Oh, how I wish they could bring up the original justification for these (and other) laws. Why, you cannot fine me, because ORIGINALLY this law was XYZ.

We already see the same. We’ll only ban THESE types of guns. Oh, that didn’t work? Well, we’ll ban ABC this time. Hummm, still not right, how about ALL guns??

Unfortunately, ‘our side’ never steps up and says “No. Per the 2nd, it SHALL not be infringed.” and thus never a nose to start nudging.

We seem to have the only groups ‘willing’ to reach across and hand the opposition the jar of Vaseline (with sand in it) for the rest of us ‘commoners’.

[Jeff Winston]

True. Fortunately, it does at least make it more difficult.

[Toadman]

The government doesn’t “permit” me anything, including guns.

I permit them some small amount of resources that I yield up reluctantly.

Well stated. I'm going to use your words as my own :-)

[Toadman]

Sadly I agree with you. The republican party is dead to me. I will only vote for a candidate who is most closely aligned with my beliefs and principles. The Constitution is not a difficult document to understand. Yet I violated my beliefs when I held my nose for McCain, grudgingly obliged Mitt (just to beat berry sotero) and what did it achieve? Squat.

Never again. I don’t care if a 3rd party kills the republicans for the next 50 years. I will not vote for a candidate based on a GOP recommendation. In fact, I’ll be suspect of any recommendation they have.

[MarMema]

BTT. So excellent.

[StAnDeliver]

"I hate this pansy-ass poncey Brit git who is recently arrived here and insists on spouting off his socialist clap-trap that has failed in his own homeland."

He failed in his own homeland. That's why he's here, and desperate not to have CNN bump his time slot out of prime. This is entirely constructed out of Morgan's deep-rooted fear to return home in shame having failed in the States (a la Billy Connelly). Gingrich ably exploited that fear and probably could have gone further...

[jmacusa]

Yes, Newt too often hones in on his detractors beautifully but seems to back off just at the moment when he should go in for the kill. Morgan must have been told to back off the anti-Second Amendment nonsense because he’s shut up about it. Even the socialists and Marxists at CNN know enough not to tempt fate in this regard,knowing that if it were known many of them have armed security for themselves it could backfire on them and Morgan, the piece of crap that he is knows how good he has it here in America.

[Rapscallion]

I boycott every sponsor of Piers Morgan.

[Tspud1]

You mean the NY police weapons that are now illegal since they have more than 7 shots?

[Tspud1]

Do you remember Charles Whitman? He didn’t make your list, killed 14 people and wounded 32 others. Mostly with sawed off shot gun and 6mm rifle. assault weapons??

[rcrngroup]

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

You are correct! How did you know?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

“Go to hell you limey POS. Better yet, go back to Britain.” ...Is there a difference?

Well, I think the weather is much nicer in Hell.

[Revolting cat!]

Well, I think the weather is much nicer in Hell.

With global warming inevitably upon us, weather in Hell will soon be nicer than anywhere!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I love how Newt said, "when your army tried to defeat us"

He's correctly portraying Morgan as the enemy. The enemy of the American People.

[Gabrial]

I hope Peer’s Organ finds himself at an ATM on Martin Luther Blvd at 12:30am some night. Then I would not have to listen to this crap anymore.