Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes goes rounds with Piers Morgan

report this ad

Piers Morgan continually tried to get Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes to say they had a right to a tank, trying to use an extreme example to make both of them look extreme. And in response Loesch continually said the 2nd amendment protects our right to bear firearms – and if a tank is a considered a firearm then sure. Obviously it’s not, but what Morgan was trying to do was to make her admit that she’s ‘interpreting’ the Constitution to make his point that if you don’t need a tank, then why do you need an AR-15 or something.

And it went on from there. Dana even tried to explain to Piers a thing or two about ‘assault rifles’ – or rather why they aren’t assault rifles but Piers just kept wondering why she ‘needs’ something that can shoot 100 bullets in a minute.

All in all Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes stood their ground as Piers tried to bully them through the whole interview.

Watch the the full interview below:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
report this ad
  • unclesamnephew

    i am tired of hearing of the peir of G.B. i believe the right scoop has become his largest viewership

    • PFFV

      Why do we have to explain why we have rights? They call the AR-15 an ‘assault rifle’ but it’s just a semi-automatic rifle that looks mean and nasty like a Machine Gun BUT ISN’T!

      More people died from hammers to the head than from guns, do we ban hammers?

      Taking guns, clips, defense options away from law abiding citizens doesn’t do a thing to make us any safer. In fact Gun Free Zones have been proven failures time after time. Crime always goes up when the criminals know where to go for easy prey.

      Once again the leftists deny facts and common sense as they continue to live in their warped fantasy world where money grows on trees. Our Trillions in Spending and Debt Will Be The Death of US A(ll)!

      • unclesamnephew

        i read a statement once….gun free zones are hunting perserves of the innocence

        • Conservative_Hippie


    • PFFV

      Why do we have to explain why we have rights? They call the AR-15 an ‘assault rifle’ but it’s just a semi-automatic rifle that looks mean and nasty like a Machine Gun BUT ISN’T!

      More people died from hammers to the head than from guns, do we ban hammers?

      Taking guns, clips, defense options away from law abiding citizens doesn’t do a thing to make us any safer. In fact Gun Free Zones have been proven failures time after time. Crime always goes up when the criminals know where to go for easy prey.

      Once again the leftists deny facts and common sense as they continue to live in their warped fantasy world where money grows on trees. Our Trillions in Spending and Debt Will Be The Death of US A(ll)!

    • martha chandler

      Who cares what piers thinks?? Why do we never stop hearing about him?? Let’s stop contributing to his pathetic popularity. The man is an idiot.

    • We’re just helpful like that.

  • Most Americans cannot afford the $8 million dollar price tag for a tank. The fuel and maintenance costs on tanks are pretty steep too. Piers is a freaking idiot.

    • That actually sounds pretty affordable for a tank. If I had the loot, I’d need quite the parking spot.

      • Witha tank you could park pretty much anywhere you’d like!

        • Logic failed me.

        • 12grace

          And if you lost your job and home due to obamanomics, you could live in your tank! Smile

          • That’s right and dare someone to try and take the tank : )

            • 12grace


          • PatrickHenrysBody

            I’d feel comfortable living in a tank. It’s almost like a motor home. The security system is pretty formidable as well.

            • 12grace

              Love it!

            • Until the neighbors with the A-10s start moving next-door.

              • PatrickHenrysBody

                Those pesky neighbors with their A-10s. They have to spoil it for those of us with tanks. 😛

          • funkybarfly

            A tankaravan.I like it.

            • 12grace

              If we don’t laugh sometimes, we’ll cry! Smile

            • Conservative_Hippie


          • Conservative_Hippie


    • You can have a tank , I say it’s a right
      Now you can’t drive it on a public road cus it doesnt do good u-turns and doesnt have blinkers and gets lousy mileage

      • In fact in europe YOU can buy a tank,…..a British one even


      • JDean3123

        Tanks actually make excellent u-turns if the road under them can survive. I was a tank driver then tank commander in a M60 – 30 years ago. Biggest problem with driving a tank on the road is what they do to the road. A 56 ton fully combat loaded tank makes short work of asphalt on a hot day. The M-1 is even heavier. IDK the full combat weight of an M-1 Abrams tank. Probably 60+ tons. Your right about the blinkers and the M60 used 3 gallons to the mile of diesel. 300 gallon tank = about 100 miles.

        • Yep. Thank God we caused the Germans to run out of fuel near the end of WWII.

    • M_J_S

      Actually, if all the people on your street take out a 2nd home mortgage for cash for “renovations” they could pool their resources to buy a a tank. If all you fail to pay your mortgage payments you’ll likely receive a federal subsidy to, in fact, pay back the cash loan you took to buy the tank.

      The real problems are the bathroom breaks in those things.

      I say go for it man, you’ll probably get a free government phone too!

      • Let’s petition some Dem senators, and get Al Sharpton on it. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should loan us the money, even if we can’t pay it back.

    • NCHokie02

      Don’ forget the crew to operate that tank, and if you’re going to be operating it you need to go into the Army and into the Armor corps to learn that stuff because you’re not going to learn it at the dmv. Now the operators of the vehicle know some routine maintenance but there’s a whole other level of maintenance that the mechanics perform so you have to take that into consideration. And of course there is the issue of ammo. Tank rounds aren’t the cheapest bullets on the block.

    • physicsnut

      check out the NY Times OP ed by the supposedly conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard ” I went after guns, Obama can too ”
      Keep your eye on the bouncing ball. While y’all blabber about how many rounds, these clowns – under the GUISE of BEING CONSERVATIVE – disarmed Australia.
      Do you smell a rat ? Did the Aussies smell a rat ?? Did the Brits smell a rat ???

    • I know a guy in Indiana that has several tanks in fact they used his tank in the movie TANK with James Garner. No one is asking him to turn them in and no one is has ever done a background check on him before he bought them. Why not Piers? Why are they leaving this incredibly dangerous situation alone? Because nobody cares!
      Get it nobody cares!

    • qualityrkc

      The point seemingly everybody on this page missed or isn’t willing to admit is that we already have restrictions on the 2nd amendment. You can’t hbave a fully functioning tank or a nuke and for good reason. Dana didn’t seem prepared to answer the question bc it is a difficult one to answer for someone who says whatever arms the military has civilians should be able to have. If she says yes civilians should have tanks then she is crazy bc we obviously shouldn’t allow civilians to have nukes and tanks. Secondly if she answered no then she would be completely undermining her whole argument. So are you guys playing dumb or just too uncomfotrable to touch this?

      • If the federal government tries to take your home with a tank, you are prettymuch f**ked, but that is why we have state militias (i.e. National Guard), and I think my governor would probably have issues with the feds rolling tanks through my neighborhood.

        As to your first point, I would have no problem with them enforcing the laws already on the books, or having harsher penalties on CRIMINALS that use guns to commit crimes. There is, however, NO LAW you can pass that will affect anyone but law abiding citizens.

        I can also change magazines in my guns in about a second, so the difference between a 30 roung mag and 3 10 round mags is the ammount of money the gun manufacturers make by selling more magazines.

      • KenInMontana

        Actually, with the correct permits you can own a fully functional tank ( I know a guy up the road that has two), the “nuke argument” is just plain silly. At the time of the authoring, what were the “weapons of mass destruction”, cannons, were held at the town commons, in a secure building with the extra powder. The US Supreme Court decision in the 1939 case, US v. Miller, defined the word, “arms” in the 2nd Amendment as “the ordinary weapons of the Infantryman”. If you want to continue this line of argument I suggest you bone up on the facts.

        • qualityrkc

          Im trying to get the facts. It’s why I commented asking questions. Thanks for letting me know about us v miller, I will look into it.

  • *I* was incredibly frustrated watching this segment. First, 3 people talking all at the same time was deeply ineffective and showed how little control Piers Morgan has over his own show. Especially when faced with two well-spoken, smart guests who know their stuff and don’t agree with them (by contrast – watch him with Al Roker or someone who bobbleheads their agreement with him – he’s quiet as a mouse).

    Then, Dana and Scottie made such interesting points, but every time Piers KNEW he was had, he overpowered them by interrupting and demeaning them with arrogance. How’d this guy get his job? This is not journalism, it is bullying.

    Last night I heard many people say, “I respect your Second Amendment rights but…I don’t understand (fill in the blank of what issue they don’t understand)” – so my question is: why are people not being educated as to what it is they don’t understand? Education is the first step to getting that comprehension and after they have ALL the facts, THEN they can decide whether or not they agree. But more than that – how can anyone respect a right they A) don’t understand and B) don’t agree with?

    I really do hope CNN either fires this guy or their ratings fall so low they are forced to revamp their entire organization. Because what Piers Morgan is doing is not working.

    • ghostbow

      My feelings exactly, but I would go further by saying all three of them looked like idiots, especially Scottie and Piers. Dana seemed the only rational and credible voice, but she let herself be played with that lame tank question.

      • qualityrkc

        Can’t stand piers morgan bit I have to admit the tank question is actually a very relevant and clever one. I personally would ave replaced tank with nuke. Ever heard of the nuclear arms treaty? Well a nuke missile is considered an “arm” and civilians aren’t allowed to have them in america and for good reason. By asking dana if she thinks we should have tanks he is attempting to highlight the problem with her logic. She says civilians should have any arms the military has. Well the military has nukes so he was asking if she thinks we could have those to test her integrity. She was unprepared for this question which is why she refused to answer clearly. Obviously civilians should not have tanks, rpg’s, and nukes but according to danas argument we should. I think even she knows this is crazy which is why she wouldn’t give a clear affirmative answer. On the otherhand she also knew if she answered no then she would be undermining her entire argument. This is an argument we need to figure out a retort to. I personally can’t think of one but maybe one of you could help me out. Now that I have explained why piers asked that question do you still see it as lame? And to go further do you believe civilians should have the right to own nuclear arms?

    • Your description is interesting,..it was frustrating to watch,…but switch the names around. I found both of the women to be nothing but echo chambers for the NRA,..and most telling neither could find any good what so ever (?!) in the Obama attempts to get a handle on this nightmare of a situation. I couldn’t help but ask myself,..I wonder if they would have been so snappish and clever if it was their own little children who had been shredded in Sandy Hook or maybe their brothers or sisters massacred in Aurora. The answer is of course they would not even show themselves.
      The tank question makes the point by exaggeration,..to make it again and even more exaggerated,…would it be OK for an individual to own their own tactical nuclear weapon.

      • Nukeman60

        As to parents of the SandyHook victims, if you killed my child with your bare hands, I would be in favor of cutting off your hands – before I had you executed. That is a strawman argument.

        As to owning nukes, it’s specifically against the law to do so. But it is not against the law to own a tank or a fighter jet. None of course are firearms.



        • qualityrkc

          The constitution doesn’t say firearms tho it says “arms”. We do call nukes nuclear arms hence3 the term nuclear arms race. And no you are not allowed to own a fully functioning tank or fighter jet so that is also wrong. We need to figure out a suitable answer for this question fast or else we are going to lose this argument and yours is not going to suffice bc it is wrong. Someone help us out here?

          • AlabamaPublius

            A major point being missed is not that “arms” cannot be regulated, banned, outlawed or confiscated … they can! BUT NOT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The constitution’s 2nd Amendment limits the Federals, not the states. And as far as owning a fully automatic machine gun, an RPG, a tank or a nuclear weapon, only the states can constitutionally allow or deny the citizens of their state the right to own these items. Now, do we really think than anyone in ANY state could get elected as governor running on the platform of legalizing tanks, RPGs and nuclear arms for their citizens? Let’s play in the real world for a change.

            • qualityrkc

              Thankyou! That actually makes a lot of sense, I wish these bimbos had atleast asked around before going on a show to talk about gun control but I do appreciate your response bc I did not know how to respond to this type of questioning.

            • KenInMontana

              The “Supremacy Recital” covers this, as the Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution.

              Addendum: If you’re wanting to “play” in the real world, you’d best bring some real facts.

              • AlabamaPublius

                If you could point me to your reference, “Supremacy Recital”, absent any insults I would be appreciative.

                • KenInMontana

                  It is commonly and incorrectly referred to as the “Supremacy clause”, however it is not a clause, it is what is known as a “recital”. A recital is a legal term for a section of a legal document that gives instruction on how the document is to be read. The Supremacy recital, simply put, grants Federal Authority supremacy over State Authority, but there is a catch, it only applies those Federal Authorities/Powers that are enumerated in the US Constitution. Hence the 9th and 10th Amendments.

                  As to insults, I did not direct anything that was any more insulting than what you put forward first.

                • AlabamaPublius

                  Again, can you direct me to an original source other than your interpretation and “commonly” referenced items for the term “Supremacy Recital”. Quite frankly, in my ignorance of the term, I searched, using several search engines for your term and found no matches. That’s why I asked for your reference source.

                • KenInMontana

                  This man, for starters; http://constitution.i2i.org/about/
                  Go ahead and drop him an email on the subject, I have had several correspondences with Rob and he is always happy to answer questions, particularly on the Constitution.

                  This book for another; The Original Constitution: What it Really Said and Meant
                  By Robert G Natelson

                  Recital is a Legal term.

                  From Black’s;The formal statement or setting forth of some matter of fact, in any deed or writing, in order to explain the reasons upon which the transaction is founded. The recitals are situated in the premises of a deed, that is, in that part of a deed between the date and the habendum, and they usually commence with the formal word “whereas.” Brown. The formal preliminary statement in a deed or other instrument, of such deeds, agreements, or matters of fact as are necessary to explain the reasons upon which the transaction is founded. 2 Bl. Comm. 298. In pleading. The statement of matter as introductory to some positive allegation, beginning in declarations with the words, “For that whereas.” Steph. PI. 38S, 389.

                  Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

                  I could go on, however, I am not going to do your work for you, that’s for you to do. I do encourage you to contact Rob, he will take the time to answer your question.

                • AlabamaPublius

                  When one takes the time to enclose a specific passage or phrase in quotation, the assumption is that they are quoting a published source; the need for quotes implying that he wording is not original with the author, but was taken from another work. I simply asked for the source. Telling me to contact “this man” or quoting passages from texts that do not contain the specific quote makes me think the quote “Supremacy Recital” does not come from a legitimate published source, but is a construction of your own or a logical construction which would not need the distinction of quotation marks. If you are unable to provide a reference to a published source containing the quoted reference, saying so would be preferable to the obfuscations of a lengthy rebuttal or directing my inquiries elsewhere

                  Having provided the quote, you either have a published source for the quote “Supremacy Recital” or you do not. I’m not asking you to do my work. Quite to the contrary; I’ve done my work by asking if, in using a quote from a source that I am unable to locate and you are apparently unwilling to provide, have done yours.

          • Nukeman60

            I’ll respond to you one time, because I realize you’re not capable in serious discussion here (and then I’ll bother no more). If you want to know what the founding fathers said about the 2nd amendment and the ‘right to bear arms’, then you should read their words. Try the Federalist papers, for starters.

            The 1st amendment gives us freedom of speech, yet everyone knows that does not include the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater. No one debates that point.

            The 2nd amendment acknowledges we have the right to bear arms (not allowed by the government, but given by our Creator). That also does not mean that we have the right to take out thousands of innocent people for decades to come. Get real if you want to have legitimate discussions.

            Try to find a reasonable argument. Piers used tanks to be extreme, in order to smear the Constitution. He’s an idiot and you apparently feel it wasn’t extreme enough. Where does that leave you?

            • qualityrkc

              I think you missed the trap he set for Dana. He wanted her to say “Yes we should have tanks” so she sounded crazy or “No we cannot” in which case she would be defeating her own argument that “we should be able to have whatever weapons the military has”. In reality the right answer was neither. If you look above Alabama actually does a good job of explaining how to answer this question so you should drop the high and mighty attitude and read it before you fall victim to the same trap Dana did because judging by your response you are just as clueless as I was. The idea that a nuke is too powerful of a killing machine to allow civilians to have is the exact argument liberals are trying to make about assault rifles. There is nothing wrong with asking questions pal.

            • AlabamaPublius

              Saving the 1st amendment for another discussion, you CAN yell “Fire” in a crowded theater despite SCOTUS statements to the contrary … much like their findings that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Ah, but those are discussions for another time.

              As to the Federalist Papers, they each go to voicing support for adopting the constitution (adopted 3/4/1789) while the 2nd amendment, along with the other 8 initial amendments, was adopted 12/15/1791. The Federalist Papers do not directly address these issues as they were not adopted until some two years after the adoption of the constitution itself and three years after the last of the federalist papers were written in 1788. True, all the Bill of Rights amendments had been part of most all of the state constitutions under the old Confederacy, but were not initially a part of the original constitution. Hence, I wouldn’t believe that the Federalist Papers would be a good place to start looking when attempting to interpret intent as relates to the Bill of Rights amendments.

              The 2nd amendment does not give you the “right” to bear arms. It simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on that right. Finally, implying that having a right to bear arms gives you a right to use them to murder others is a non-sequitur.

              • qualityrkc

                Appreciate it. BTW I was not surprised when the SCOTUS which is bought and paid for by corporations and special interests decided that the AFA was a legal “tax”. That law brought the biggest insurance companies in our country a customer base they could have only dreamed of. There is no way they would have allowed the SCOTUS to keep them from attaining that profit. Welcome to the united corporations of america.

                • AlabamaPublius

                  Probably more truth in your statement than is apparent. Recall that the major industrialists were overjoyed at Adolf Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933 and rejoiced when the government contracts began flowing shortly thereafter. The similarities of the corporate-government linkage today in America with those in Germany during the later part of the 1930’s are truly breath-taking.

              • KenInMontana

                Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, and then face criminal charges and civil liability.

                The Federalist papers were never “adopted” in the sense the Constitution was adopted. They are merely a collection of “position statements” in favor of the Federalist’s view published, beginning in October 1787, as a series of articles in The Independent Journal, a New York newspaper , there is a second collection called the Anti-Federalist papers.

                No, the Bill of Rights were not a part of the Constitution as adopted, hence the fact that they are written and adopted as the first ten amendments ( you count only nine for some reason). Congress passed and sent 12 amendments to the States in 25 September 1789, 10 were ratified by the States on 15 December 1791.

                The Constitution was “adopted” by the Constitutional Convention on 17 September 1787, completed the ratification process in 1790 and went into effect 4 March 1791, although Congress passed a resolution to put the Constitution into effect after it was ratified by a ninth state (New Hampshire), satisfying the minimum requirement for ratification, 21 June 1788.

                I am curious at the thought process that brought you to this (particularly where you seem to accuse him of stating the 2nd gives a right to murder):

                The 2nd amendment does not give you the “right” to bear arms. It simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on that right. Finally, implying that having a right to bear arms gives you a right to use them to murder others is a non-sequitur.

                When Nukeman60 said that:

                The 2nd amendment acknowledges we have the right to bear arms

                That strikes me as a bit of comprehension issue there on your part.

                • AlabamaPublius

                  So, you have no source for the quote “Supremacy Recital” other than I should correspond with “that man”?

                • KenInMontana

                  The use of quotation marks is to provide emphasis, I gave you the source and definition of the legal term. I think you’re smart enough to figure it out from there, if not, well then not my problem.

                • AlabamaPublius

                  I’m smart enough to know you don’t use quotations in published material for emphasis, but to cite work published by others. To do so without being able to provide a reference to the published source is disingenuous at best; dishonest at worst.

                • Nukeman60

                  I had planned on responding to this gentleman, but it looks like you did already – and more eloquently than I would have. Thank you for saving me the time. It’s always a pleasure reading your posts.

                  It appears he likes to parse words and dicker with details, which really never settles an argument, but merely proves that the liberal side loves to sidestep every issue using ‘Rules for Radicals’ by Alinsky and ‘The Little Blue Book’ by Lakoff.

                  Other than that, there is no real substance to their process.

      • 3seven77

        “,..and most telling neither could find any good what so ever (?!) in the Obama attempts to get a handle on this nightmare of a situation.”

        That’s because there IS no good whatsoever in Obama’s attempts to “get a handle on this nightmare of a situation.” It’s all political theater – a play for power – and nothing more. Obama is so concerned about this “nightmare of a situation” as you called it, that he passed off the job of “coming up with solutions” to Joe Biden.

        “I wonder if they would have been so snappish and clever if it was their own little children who had been shredded in Sandy Hook or maybe their brothers or sisters massacred in Aurora. The answer is of course they would not even show themselves.”

        I can’t speak for them. But I’ve thought about this myself. Yes, it would be horrible to have loved ones murdered like that. And what I would want for my loved ones is **Justice**. Justice. That means punishment for the perpetrator. That does not mean taking Constitutional Rights away from the majority of Americans.

        • I agree with you. It is the person not the weapon here. And theat does not give them the right to take away our Constitutional Rights.

      • NCHokie02

        can you afford a tactical nuclear weapon? Can you afford the platform to launch that weapon? Do you have the skill to operate both? That is retarded. Just like the tank. Sure you can have a tank. Can you afford one? Can you operate it (it’s at least a 4 man operation)? Can you provide enough fuel for it? Can you provide the ammunition for it? Can you provide all the maintenance for it?

        Please tell me what good will come out of Obama’s 23 executive orders? Oh I have one. Maybe when the DOJ investigates gun trafficking they’ll see they’ll finally realize they let thousands of weapons go into Mexico.

        • qualityrkc

          Bill gates could afford a nuke. A lot of billionaires could actually. Even if individuals weren’t willing to chalk up the money an organization of civilians could. Your argument is invalid bc of these facts. Do you not understand the relevance of this nuke/tank question. We need to figure out an answer on this.

          • NCHokie02

            No it’s not. This slippery slope argument of “Oh if we let people have semi-automatic rifles then they’ll want tanks, attack aircraft, artillery cannons, aircraft carriers, nuclear missles…they’ll want their own Army!! And then they’ll go crazy and destroy cities!!” is retarded. First off the simple logistics of purchasing a nuclear weapon, storing it, maintaining it….FIRING IT, is a little more complicated than a one man job who has the money. People have been watching too many Tom Clancy movies.

            Just because people should be alowed to own semi-automatic rifles, most of which do a lot less damage than your standard hunting rifle (round per round) doesn’t mean those people want tanks. PM arugment there is false. He’s injecting something into the argument that no one is talking about. Who’s talking about buying tanks and nukes besides PM and the guy above?? This issue is about semi-automatic rifles not tanks. So yes his argument is busted. He’s talking apples and oranges here.

            • qualityrkc

              Calling his argument a slippery slope does nothing to disprove the point he was trying to make…his point was that we already do have restrictions on what arms we can carry and for good reason…though if you read above you can see people answering my questions thoughtfully while citing actual case law. Ken in montana wrote “The US Supreme Court decision in the 1939 case, US v. Miller, defined the word, “arms” in the 2nd Amendment as “the ordinary weapons of the Infantrymen”. This would effectively make nukes illegal. My point is that in your response you only speak to the difficulty of attaining a nuke and the fact that nobody is asking for a nuke but neither of these explanations do anything to explain the legal side of why we should not be allowed to have nukes therefore your answers wouldn’t be sufficent to refute his argument bc you are talking about something different than what he was. It seems you still don’t understand the point he was erroneously trying to make.

      • 1endtimes2020

        What a ridiculous point. The women tried to complete one sentence and Piers kept interrupting to stifle their answer. He is very immature, and certainly not in the calibre of Larry Kig. I understand he was the Editor of the Mirror in England before he took Larry’s place. Getting to what happened in Newtown, had there been armed guards at the doors, even Mr. Deranged would not have dared to do his cowardly act. Had the principal taken a look in the hallway, with a pistol in her hand, she would have had a good chance to defend herself. Anyone who opposes a person’s right to defend themselves, in ANY way, has lost the argument or debate. People need to ask themselves what they would prefer to have in their possession if they were attacked by one or more persons. Piers said the man who was confronted by 9 people, (at least one with a tire iron) would have been better off being injured than have an assault weapon and shoot someone? Oh yeah? If that ever happens to him, he’ll regret being unarmed, where he can at least threaten those 9 persons to keep away from him. He can’t get it through his thick skull, that people whi intend to injure someone, to get their way, are not thinking the way he believes he does. The people who were shot in the theatre died because the rear entrance of the theatre was not guarded. Heck, drug stores have armed guards, but a theatre owner thinks, in this day and age of immorality, that there is no need to protect patrons, is not the fault of the NRA or law abiding gun owners. Had there been patrons who were armed and seen him come in with his rifle, they could have shot at him. Citizens who suspect a gun owner has gone off the deep end, and has guns, have a responsibility to report that to the proper authorities.
        If America is disarmed, eventually, it will be open to attack from within by enemies who are plotting to take over. America could be invaded by other countries. China has already trained over 250 million soldiers. If we have a communist in the White House, when thw time is right, who will stop the invasion from both outside and inside?
        Far fetched? Hardly. America is the ONLY country that stands in the way of world domination by communists. The cold war didn’t end. It acquired an opportunity to regroup. Look how strong Russia’s military is again. A Russian general said. “we will lull them to sleep. We will make them (America and the West) think that we are going to be democratic. We will rebuild and when the time is right, we will smash them. You can see that clip at http://www.fatima.org if you look for the DVD “Heavens Key to Peace”.
        We have leaders in government today who have no vision of the future, or can assess what is taking place in the world is a threat to our freedom. They think in terms of ‘getting along’ and how we can trade with each other (even if it means selling out American jobs, as has already happened, starting with Japan after WW2), and business will democratize the commuists. They don’t understand the communists as they don’t understand the muslims who will not rest until Israel is destroyed. (which will never happen).
        Give up our arms? No way. We may need the 250 million Americans who have guns in their homes to stop an invasion of America, even from within.

        • Poppapy

          To 1endtimes2020:
          I really enjoyed your Post. I couldn’t have said it better within the space you used. Given the opportunity, you or I could could discuss this ad infiitum. Whenever I try to discuss something with a liberal lefty I attempt to talk in a conversational manner. Unfortunetly, it doesn’t take long for them to start talking over me and shouting. That’s when I walk away in frustration. Boy, it sounds just like Piers Morgan. Oh shucks!!! I thought he was intelligent. I’m glad that you found a forum to exchange ideas and let it out. Keep it up.

          • 1endtimes2020

            Thanks for your reply. We are all very fortunate to have such a good forum to refer others to. As for Piers, Mr Stifler, he is about as unprofessional as can be. I think he wants to keep his overpaid job, so he has to try to impress his masters.

      • factsobill

        Waiting for You to wake up to reality and not yours and Pier’s Fantasyland is a waste of time and effort. You must be one of other 4 people who watch his show. A left-wing Wally George!

    • PatrickHenrysBody

      “…interrupting and demeaning them with arrogance.”

      Pretty much sums up the majority of leftists.

  • Lime Lite

    Piers uses his pathetic program to monologue. Can he just STFU and let people answer?

    • PatrickHenrysBody

      He just can’t help himself.

  • Watchman74

    Isn’t this like the 6th or 7th gun debate Piers has done? It’s getting old.

    • dangler017

      and he’s getting trashed in all of them, with the exception of the alex jones interview. alex lost it rather than piers winning it.

      • That was hard to watch, but AJ got his digs in. I especially liked when he mentioned Morgan getting fired for reporting false information.

        • Ya noticed pierced didn’t call him “exceptionally stupid” or insult him at the end of the show like he does ALL his other guests with whom he disagrees with. The spineless limey didn’t know whether AJ was all bluster or whether he really was on the verge of climbing over the table and re-enacting the War of Independence on morgan’s pompous ass !!

      • It’s ratings. People dialing in to see him get beat up is still “people dialing in.” So he figures, hey, get the traffic up, avoid being cancelled (which he was in danger of).

    • factsobill

      His ship seems to be sinking and he’s pushing Newton Exploitation , obviously!


    Don’t waste half the segment dealing with his stupid ‘own a tank’ framing of the debate.

    Just ask him these questions:

    Is there any EVIDENCE gun bans/restrictions make citizens safer?

    Which cities in America HAVE the strictest gun bans? Did these cities see their gun crime/murder rates DROP or INCREASE after the bans/restrictions were enacted? If not, why not?

    Has enough evidence been compiled as to whether strict gun bans reduce violent gun crime in America? If so, ask Piers if he looked at the evidence, and if so, what’s his explanation of it.

    If gun bans restrictions work, why ISN’T Chicago the safest city in America right now?

    If gun bans/restrictions work, why did Washington DC see it’s homicide rate drop from 188 in 2008 to just 88 in 2012 after the Supreme court ended the cities unconstitutional total ban on handgun ownership?

    Stop playing Pier’s game of trying to ‘justify why you need a gun’. Get HIM on defensive by demanding evidence that these gun control bans/restrictions he is shilling for will work in America.

    • He will answer with lies, as he has been.

    • Jer

      Quite right. The Second Amendment codifies the *right* to bear arms, so the burden is not on us to explain our *need* to bear arms. Because the Amendment is written broadly (notice no prohibitions on cannons, Congreve rockets or 100-gun ships of the line) we don’t need to explain why we *need* a semi-automatic rifle or a magazine with a capacity greater than the arbitrary limits set by politicians. They must justify their infringements on the Second Amendment, which they can’t do.

      • PatrickHenrysBody

        Good points. I wouldn’t mind scoring a 100-gun ship of the line myself. Master and Commander indeed! Aye!

    • Good points. I’m a Gingrich fan, myself. When will you be debating Piers, Mr Cates? If you can’t make it, the person I would like, is David Barton, Wallbuilders, that knows American History in/out, up/down. Did a great interview on the second Amendment and NRA history being organized to support blacks. Blacks were freed, yet still not allowed to defend themselves, so NRA was organized in support of them. I could die a happy individual to see David Barton educate Piers

      • factsobill

        Thanks for the reference, have a sunny day!

    • NCHokie02

      I always wonder why people don’t bring up Chicago and Washington DC’s murder rates wen talking about guns with PM. That defeats his argument right there.

      • qualityrkc

        Bc of nyc and other places that enact strict gun laws and have seen gun violence rates plummet. If you look at the raw data of the nations cities you will find there is an adverse relationship between strict gun laws and the lowering of instances of gun violence. Sad but true. Chicago and dc seem to be exceptions to the rule perhaps bc of their demographics.

    • I COMPLEWTELY agree with all your points – HOWEVER – when have FACTS or LOGIC ever gotten in the way of leftest hyperbole??

  • skspls

    Piers, you embarass yourself every time you open your mouth. Go away you overbearing idiot.

  • Piers is about as snotty as they come.

  • Watchman74

    I want to ask Piers if gun control has made the UK so safe why do they need 4.5 million CCTV cameras?

    • In fact the UK is something like 7 times more violent than the US – just not as many gun deaths. If the population was the same on a per capita basis their gun death #’s would be 350 to 400. That in a country where there are supposed to be NO GUNS.

      The gvmnt is fully aware of what the stats are. They are not interested in addressing that. They are interested in taking America’s guns away and windbags like that limey shill are only too glad to help.

  • Scottie Hughes slams it on Piers deaf ears just in a couple of minutes, where in the constitution does it say you can have 100 bullets? Hughes, more importantly were does it say I don’t! Boom take that!

    • Smurfing idiots just don’t get it no matter how many times you spell it out. The constitution tells the Federal government its role and limits, and then goes on to explicitly state that else is the state’s business or the people’s rights. Every guest should bring him a constitution until he’s proven he’s read it and can comprehend it, before he’s allowed a nice discussion about rights and “needs”.

      By default, the government doesn’t give people their rights, so they wouldn’t be in the constitution.

  • vinny

    Great job Dana and Scottie!

  • The ladies did very well. Morgan…………..the usual. They did a good job of drowning him out.

  • KenInMontana

    SCOTUS in their decision on United States v. Miller~1939 affirmed the definition of the term arms, in the Second Amendment as “ordinary military weapons”, as in the weapons carried by/issued to, an ordinary Infantryman.

    Piers, your research department isn’t worth the powder it would take to blow them to oblivion. Although, they do a bang up job of making of revealing you as the intellectual door stop that you are.

    • I like the puns. Wouldn’t a tank be considered an “armament”, or “arms”?

    • Doorstops have a USE. morgan exists to lie, cheat and piss people off – on both sides of the pond. It just pisses me off when an otherwise useless network like CNN lowers their standards even more by hiring one of the few media types who almost went to prison for his ethics at that limey newspaper. It is an insult to even refer to it as a TALK show. Bluster and lies by another perfect example of why America kicked their ass in 1776.

  • DCGere

    After watching Piers last night (wanting to see Shapiro), there was no way I could watch tonight. He is condescending, arrogant, and continually interrupts. Will not ever watch him again. I’m sure the ladies did a great job in defending themselves.

  • sybilll

    Don’t shoot the messenger, please. But, I get it that Dana understands guns and their styles and shooting capabilities inside and out. I get that Piers is clueless about all of the aforesaid things, and Dana laughed at his ignorance. But, as a gun novice myself, I wanted to learn, since the Progressives have once again succeeded in reframing what “assualt weapon” actually means, etc. Yes, Piers was once again playing calm footsies with his allies, whilst he treated both women as inferior, dimwitted, and unworthy of a discussion, but I think this was a missed opportunity for CNN’s low information voters, which sadly (which I plan to rectify) included myself.

    • PatrickHenrysBody

      That’s because Dana has actually held and fired a weapon. I doubt Morgan has even fired a squirt gun.

      • colliemum

        But his brother has – that’s what makes Musket Morgan an expert!

        • PatrickHenrysBody

          Heh. I see.

      • I’d love to “offer” him a chance to shoot a rifle, tell him it was a fairly standard round and hand him a gun that fired a .52-56 round and watch him crap himself when it dislocated his shoulder and tossed his useless ass on the ground 8ft behind where he’d been standing.

        • PatrickHenrysBody

          LOL…lefties like Morgan regularly don’t deal with reality. The gun debate proves it.

    • factsobill

      Quit watching CNN. For useful, accurate info Join the NRA, or look it up on google. For your own sake don’t use the media for information. Woe to the willfully misinformed.

  • aposematic

    I like Dana Loesch, didn’t know Scottie Hughes; Piers in in over his head. All he had was rediculus questions and rants to prevent answers he doesn’t like from being heard. Why people bother with these demagogues’ shows is disheartening. All they do is scream over any guest that disagrees with them. On the other hand when the guest screams over Piers, the guest, as in Alex Jones’ case, gets sqewered from all sides.

    • If they can tread on our constitutional rights then and say it doesn’t really mean anything then why do we have to abide by any laws regarding or respecting their office as president , or any other gov office if the Constitution is outdated for us and our protection then it should no longer protect them and their titles and or powers either ! just sayin…

      • Isn’t that why “it is our duty to cast them out and start over”. You can’t respect someone in office if that is your intent. A criminal is a criminal no matter what his/her title.

      • aposematic

        Actually, if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amend.) are voided, the Federal Government is illegal since that Document is the Federal Governments sole basis to exist in/under Law. Its a contract between the States and the Fed.s. If any part of that contract is unilaterally abridged, the entire contract would be void. Obuma and his fellow D’s have abridged that contract in so many ways already. One is the Budget they refuse to make for four years running now. Basically we are being ruled over by a rogue/illegal Government.

      • KenInMontana

        We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

    • I was kinda glad that Alex did what he did. Why sit there and let Morgan do it?

    • Jonesy didn’t do anything much FOR gun rights but it sure was fun to watch morgan cower and be polite for a change. I was really hoping Jones would flip OUT and do a re-enactment of the War of Independence on morgans ass right there on the floor – LIVE.

  • AustindPowers

    why does anyone need a car that goes 200 mph? they don’t… but does that mean that they should be outlawed? because i’m sure a number of people die from people speeding… even though we have lots of traffic laws and regulations… so i’m sure the answer to that problem is regulating cars so that they can only go 100 mph…

    • AustindPowers

      my point being, even though a number of people die each year from gun violence, how many people die from assault weapons? less than 1%… how many people in car accidents die from cars going 200 mph? less than 1%… how does getting rid of assault weapons, or fast cars, or limiting the number of bullets in a magazine, or limiting the max speed a car can go save anyone’s lives?

  • I do believe people should have the right to fight tyranical regimes (what about obama supporting civil rebellions in middle east?), with all weapons at his disposel, including a tank or a jet, technology should not be of trouble, or self defense means only owning a old musket? Is kinda bad that a citizen is viewed as someone less ethical than a government official… like if you work for government you are a angel incapable of doing evil… I miss the term used for soldiers of the french revolution, as much I disagree with the revolution itself: citoyen-armée, literally, armed-citizen.

  • He’s too scared to do that to Alex Jones Cos Jones will get in his face and knock him down to siz !! This man Piers is nothing more then a puppet of the corrupt system set on Cnn to bully anyone that doesn’t agree with this socialist administration !Dana your answers were spot on but next time knock him down like he does you and everyone else ! You may get a initial bad wrap but it will pass while many will start to tune into your cause/station like never before so in the long run you’ll be getting your message out in much much bigger scale ( just try it ) call for another debate !

    • I like that Alex called for a second meeting with a moderator. AJ has his issues, but he ain’t no dummy. I think that he is too used to having the bully pulpit, and that is just his personality. He supports most of the things that all conservatives do, and beyond.

  • Why does Piers Morgan have guests on his show if he has no intention of letting them answer his questions without him continually interrupting them and talking over them while they are talking and trying to answer his questions ?
    He was the only one who even mentioned owning a Tank – Obama had not mentioned Tank ownership – neither of Piers’ guests would say they wanted a Tank – but Piers kept trying to lead his Guests into saying that they believed in our right to own a Tank.
    Piers Morgan is a Moron, and CNN should Cancel his Show.

    • People DO own tanks … and fighter jets. Neither of which is classified as a damn FIREARM. morgan is a pompous idiot but the media loves him because according to modern media debates he who DROWNS the other guy out and repeats their lies enough times while talking over the person who is supposed to be talking – WINS.

  • urname1

    America is insane! Give up the guns…choose life!

    • WhiteGuy2

      come and get em………….

    • Watchman74

      You made a typo. Replace “life” with “Big Brother”.

    • Nukeman60

      Now there is a thought out, intelligent, reasoned argument. Good job, Piers. Oh, were you talking about our 2nd amendment rights and not about abortion? My bad. I think I’ll go out and buy a tank.

      • colliemum

        Nice one, Nukeman60!


    • Jer

      How does one “choose life” when a 6′-2″ 240lb thug with a crowbar has determined that he is going to take it from you? I can think of one way, but urname1, for whom “choosing life” apparently means curling up in the fetal position and thinking nonviolent thoughts, thinks that way is insane. So be it.

    • keyesforpres

      How did that work out for the Jews in the 1930s?

    • Did the people that Stalin disarmed choose life? Millions say “no” from their graves. Did the people that Mau disarmed choose life………again, “no” from millions in the grave. What about Lenin? Che’? There was a guy named Hitler that did the same. How many people did he kill after disarming them? From the grave, “no”.

      Now we (Americans) have a government who considers our vets to be the number one domestic terrorist threat. They say that anyone with more than seven days worth of food is a terrorist threat. They pass laws that allow the president to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens, and to detain us indefinitely without due process.

      There is a famous poem that was penned by a person who survived Hitler’s regime. It said that they came for these certain people, and I did nothing. They came for those people, and I did nothing. This goes on for a while, then he says “they came for me, and there was nobody left to help me”.

      Since you cannot defend yourself, I assume that you are resolved to being willing to strip down naked and walk over to the edge of a hole in the ground and be shot into a mass grave. If not, then you should not be willing to criticize those who are ardently defending their ability to differ from this kind of government tyranny through the use of self possessed armaments.

      You are not a Christian, because human nature is best described in the bible, and proven throughout history as to the nature of men. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The nature of man is not what you think, and that lack of knowledge will one day put you in a bad spot.

      We don’t need to hunt, and we don’t need to target practice. We don’t need guns for any reason other than to defend our lives and freedom. That is not something that your citizens have ever had the internal fortitude to rise up and guarantee through the use of force. You would obviously prefer that your superior elites would have a monopoly on the use of force, and one day you will find out what it feels like to have them come down on you for simply existing when they no longer desire it.

      You are ignorant of the realities of human nature, and you are ignorant of history. You are ignorant of your own reality, and support a system that is taking away your ability to have a say in how you are ruled. The EU has usurped your democracy, and you have been disarmed. One day the central government of Europe may just decide to not let you eat any longer. You see, I have more than seven days worth of food. I preserve my own food, while you have laws against it. You are worse off than the serfs of your past. You pay more in taxation than they did. You have no defense whatsoever against tyranny.

      Good luck with that, and you had better pray that your rulers decide to let you eat when they become totalitarians.

    • factsobill

      Insanity is thinking we would !

  • Nukeman60

    In his argument about the difference between the US and the UK gun deaths, all you heard from him was 39 killed, 39 killed. Tonight all you heard him say was ‘wants to own a tank, wants to own a tank’.

    His questions are all keyed to make the answers look ridiculous. I could ask him if he were still beating his wife and either way he would answer, it would be damning. Even a non-answer would be dodging the question.

    The very end of his program is all he is shooting for in these confrontations. He has set questions that he demands set answers for. If he doesn’t get the answers he desires, he talks over them. If he does get the answers he set out for, he uses it at the end and in infinite loops down the road.

    I really don’t see why he is any different than that idiot Mike Malloy, who spews insane, idiotic garbage every time he opens his mouth.

    • urname1

      could just say “i have never beaten my wife”…

      • Nukeman60

        That’s the way I would answer it too, but in Piers’ line of reasoning, he would say you’re not answering my question.

        Edit: by the way, did you miss my whole point here? We weren’t interested in wife beating discussions.

        • urname1

          Piers Morgan is an ass…no doubt about it! but no one can claim it is their “right” to won a lethal weapon, if you believe that is a “right” then your definition of the word is seriously flawed

          • Nukeman60

            You don’t seem to understand what a lethal weapon is. Do you have a ‘right’ to own your hands or to own a knife? The Constitution gives me unalienable rights. You have no ‘right’ to deny me that.

            • urname1

              Guns have one purpose…to kill…Knives are tools with multiple uses, when there used to hurt others then they become a lethal weapon. Its no ones “right” to kill.

              • WhiteGuy2

                In self defense, you absolutely do have the right.

              • DCGere

                Women have the right to kill unborn babies.

              • Nukeman60

                One purpose of guns is to protect. It’s a valuable asset. Another purpose is to defend against a tyrannical government. Also very useful. Your answer is like saying knifes are only meant to cut people up.

                You say guns are only meant to kill, but just because you say it doesn’t make it true. There are multiple thousands of times every year that guns have been successfully used in defense, without ever firing a shot.

                Step into my house uninvited and discover whether it’s a right to kill or not. People have rights. When someone else attempts to take those rights away, one is allowed to defend. If you are trying to take my life or the life of my family, I have a right to justifiable homicide.

                • urname1

                  You also have the right to your opinion. Keep your guns…i just hope you never have to use them…

                • Nukeman60

                  I will keep my guns. Thanks for the permission (although, I think the US Constitution already explained that ‘right’). I also hope I never have to use them (to kill another human being, that is. I use them all the time at the range and to kill in the woods). But if I have to use them, I am ready to do so.

                  I hope you never have a need for someone with a gun, as well. Because if that time comes and no one with a gun is around to help, I’m pretty sure I know what your last thoughts are going to be. It’s a well documented term, btw (oh, sh*t).

                • urname1

                  Haha you Americans are a very cynical bunch…it seems that yous believe everyone to be inherently evil and out to kill or hurt yous…i guess in Europe we just have a higher opinion of ourselves and our neighbours…Peace America…the world is watching

                • Nukeman60

                  Yeah, we’re watching Europe collapse, as well. The one difference is our freedoms. We’re a bunch of cynical freedom-loving individuals and you are a bunch of sheeple (save for the brave and enduring types like Colliemum, bless her soul).

                  Let’s see how you fare when the countries start to topple like dominoes (it’s very close now). Will you cry for more bailouts from us or will you just lay down and cry?

                • urname1

                  Yeh because the financial problems in Europe would all be sorted if we were all given guns??? Lol good comment :/

                • Watchman74

                  We just understand human nature better. Even in the utopia that is Europe people go off the rails and kill people ie Anders Breivik.

                • urname1

                  Yeh your right people do go off the rails ie Anders Breivik…thats still not a valid reason for everyone to own guns

                • Nukeman60

                  No, our 2nd amendment is a valid reason. We have one, you do not. Too sad.

                • WhiteGuy2

                  We don’t owe you a reason, and not everyone owns guns in this country.

                • Nukeman60

                  ‘Yeh because the financial problems in Europe would all be sorted if we were all given guns???’ – urname1 (aka Piers Morgan)

                  You mentioned the world was watching. I replied with we are watching you as well. Too tough for you?

                  BTW, crime in Europe is ratcheting up, while crime in the US is falling. Was that because you ban guns?

                • keyesforpres

                  Higher opinion of yourselves? Yeah, you are like that…snobs to the hilt with your “high opinion of yourselves”.

                  Hey, how did that last gun ban go? Let’s see…2/3’s of the worlds’ Jews were slaughtered and over 10 million Christians slaughtered…but hey, you have a high opinion of yourselves!!

                  By they way, hows that 50 million plus muslims working out for you? They’ve just about reached that critical percentage when they start slaughtering non muslims….boy will you wish you had a gun then!

                  Go to http://www.barenakedislam.com

                  You Europeans have chosen death (muslim immigration) over life (Jews and Christians)…but hey, as long as you have a high opinion of yourself!

                • “”in Europe we just have a higher opinion of ourselves and our neighbours”

                  A pretty idiotic statement consider WW1 and WW2 where around 100 MILLION people were killed …out of HIGHER RESPECT, I assume. Riiiiight.

                  America HAs lost its way in many respects – corrupted by the military/industrial complex and the banks but again, fool, if it wasn’t for America YOU’D be speaking German right now.

                • clockwindingdown

                  Um, Europe is not a country. You are using a collection of countries in comparison to a single country, in this case USA. Many of those countries have a higher violent crime rate then the USA.

                  If the USA would free itself of “gun free zones”, also known as “defense free zones”, the USA would, in all likelihood according to statistics, have an even lower violent crime rate.

                  As to your argument regarding “right” you clearly are not familiar with the USA Constitution, not that you should be. However until you are you may wish to with hold judgement on that you are not familiar!

                  In addition you seem to be lacking in comprehension as to what lethal and weapon mean. If you were familiar with the meaning you would realize most all people on this planet own and interact daily with such objects. You even contradict yourself on this regard in this string/splinter of this thread!

                  In the USA citizens are free people, including the defense of themselves. Reliance on others for self protection is a concept where Monarchs protected subjects to whom they would dictate and rule over.

                • Ray

                  Well, we did have that concept with slavery and sharecroppers, and Obama is trying to bring the European concept here.

                • factsobill

                  If it wasn’t for us and the russians you’d be posting in German today.

                • sybilll

                  Good gosh man, that is the idea, can’t you see? We don’t want to use them, but we will if necessary for self defense. However, if we need them to hunt for food to provide food for our families, we will. And, you holier than thou European, I have been there several times, and I was far more fearful there than I have ever been in my crime-ridden American metropolitan city. I went through a bomb scare at Heathrow, and I was told not to speak English in Athens, else the Turks might hear me, and I would (not could) be whisked away. Clean your own house, mate, before you judge mine. Otherwise, STFU

              • DCGere

                Adults also have the right to kill themselves, in many states, through physician-assisted suicide.

              • Actually you have a right to kill in self defense, It’s a human right.

                Anyway, in europe you can buy a tank

              • factsobill

                You do know this is pure wishful thinking on your part, Child.

    • I wonder if any guest will get brutal and respond as they should when he brings up his country’s criminal stats……

      I don’t want to live in your crime filled cesspool, I like my rights and I want to live here where it’s relatively safe…..it appears you do to.

      • Nukeman60

        Oh, Piers would have and answer – 39 deaths, 39 deaths. He never addresses the questions to him. Like any good liberal Alinskyite, he always misdirects and changes the tactic.

        • Thirty-nine [gun-related?] deaths and far fewer freedoms— I’ll take the freedom and my good judgement.

          • Nukeman60

            Yeah, me too. I’d rather die on my feet (here in the US) than live on my knees (like they are forced to over there).

            • I honestly couldn’t imagine living anywhere else with fewer rights……this already feels restrictive. I do wonder what it was like back during the very early 1900s.

              • factsobill

                Real freedom is what !

          • keyesforpres

            I think, when Piers throws that number out, the person should just acted stunned and say, “How can that be??? Guns are outlawed there!! You mean criminals ignore the gun ban???”

          • I’m a Canadian and have often visited AZ where on several occasions I saw people in grocery stores carrying side arms – unheard of in Canada. I felt perfectly safe because those are NOT the people we should be worried about.

    • Perhaps Piers is a Chris Matthews want to be – can he spit?

  • Sandra123456

    Assault rifles! Assault rifles! MAJOR problem. AR-15’s MUST BAN!!


    Total number of murders using any type of rifle, 2011, is 323! (Car accident deaths 40,000+ yearly)



  • WhiteGuy2

    I would love to see him act like that at the local pub, he wouldn’t last 60 seconds.

  • 12grace

    Piers shows himself to be an idiot, once again.

  • WhiteGuy2

    I have an assault cat, his name is shadow, and he will f- you up.

    • DCGere

      That’s funny!

    • Jaels_Song

      Can we provide old Shadow with some catnip and throw him in Piers face? =)

    • keyesforpres

      There’s also assault knives, assault baseball bats, assault hammers, etc.

      • WhiteGuy2

        yup , I have all of them too, plus assault breath.

        • keyesforpres

          Me too. Better go brush my teeth and hit the hay.

      • colliemum

        Don’t forget assault kitchen implements (frying pans, rolling pins …) and assault gardening implements – rather useful to have.

        • keyesforpres

          That too!

          It’s weird, I am no longer getting updates from Disquis in my box.

    • colliemum

      Your assault cat can join my assault housewolf, who regards any strange male ringing the doorbell (never mind entering the house) as enemy.

  • Btw I have another page besides my personal Facebook page under the title of “Conspiracy Queen” if you have a FB account feel free to like and join in topics. One more thing on Piers, he’s just a sharp dressed thug with a British accent for the Obama cause and even if you’re too nice to say it on air, I’ll say it for you and these types can’t be handled nicely it doesn’t work !

  • Cawoonache

    Piers, you sniveling twit. Yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own a tank. As long as I use it only for defense, why the hell not? Please, go back to England.

  • shut your damn mouth Morgan and let your guest answer, stop badgering them until they answer the way you want them to. You’re a major douche bag.

  • dangler017

    i loved it i thought he might cry at the end, he crumpled his paper and tossed it. he was so upset, they did agree with obuma on anything. loved it, way to go women!

  • Why does this Pampas ass just get on his lowly rated show and just go on a rant without guests, he can’t shut his mouth long enough for anyone else to make a point.

  • How did a tank get into this discussion, is there an ban on tanks I don’t know about? Did I miss one of Obama’s EO? Anyway, great job ladies, I had a great belly chuckle from the dimwit and that is good for my health

  • A TANK is NOT a firearm you pompous self-righteous limey windbag

    • colliemum

      Heh. It’s an assault weapon – so needs to be banned, according to Musket Morgan.

  • WhiteGuy2

    Why stop at a piddly little tank? I want my very own battleship! fully armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles, a death ray, and laser amplified azz kicker.

    • You need some sharks with laser beams.

  • PVG

    Why anybody that differs in opinion with this idiot appears on his show is beyond me. You are not going to change his demented mind, nor will you be treated with respect as you try in vain to get your point across. His ratings, for obvious reasons, are in the tank and will continue to sink if these (normally) intelligent people will simply boycott this jerk.

    • c4pfan

      I don’t get it either. Are people that stupid enough to think ‘I’m going to be the one to make him admit he’s wrong!’…Geez!

      • PVG

        Exactly! Not gonna happen.

    • He’ll respect you if you outweigh him by 150lbs, shriek in his face, blow spittle whenever you yell and look completely CRAZED. I just wish somebody would have the nads to come on his show ARMED AND act like jones did. Watch that pompous limey windbag pee himself in terror.

  • c4pfan

    I’m not wasting one second on this guy.

  • AR-15’s are used by ranchers to hunt feral hogs who attack their cattle. They prefer the AR-15 because it’s more durable to take out in the field. Yes, they need more than 10 freakin’ bullets to shoot a pack of feral hogs!!

  • Jaels_Song

    Pier expects us to hope for the best (not end up murdered) when we are attacked by a gang of 8 people. What the heck? How would one know while being beaten with a tire iron whether or not they will survive? I would be in fear of my life!

    • WhiteGuy2

      Yes according to the lunatic left we should just endure the terror of it all, and learn to live with the physical, and emotional trauma should we survive the onslaught.

    • all the right wing venomous drivel on this comment page just proves how not only should you not be allowed to own ‘assault rifles’, but in fact none of you should have guns. i’m sure if you did, and i was in a bar right now making this point, you’d have pulled it on me for exercising a 1st amendment right. and thats why so many of you get shot every year.

      • The policy of this site is to communicate respectfully- Mr. Browning Ox

      • Nukeman60

        And yet you took the time to make an account just to come here and talk to us. Very nice. There is hope for you yet. Hang in there. The liberalism is slowly melting away. Underneath, you will find a true conservative in time.

        • Jaels_Song

          The power of Christ compels him, the power of Christ compels him…

          “Ahhhhhhh, ahhhhhahhhh, ahhahahhhhahhh. ahhhhahhhhhahahahhh…”

          By George… I think we’ve almost got his demons exorcised.

      • Ray

        Mark, you are a comedian, aren’t you, one of those comedian clowns.

      • proudhispanicconservative

        You are more then welcome to leave and dont let the door hit you on the way out. TROLL, DRONE, (another one of the millions of idiot uninformed voters that voted for Obama)

        • tinlizzieowner

          He’s not even an American, that doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t vote for Obama though. 😉 😉

          • proudhispanicconservative

            That stupid accent, is what really makes me wanna punch him right in the gut.

      • Jaels_Song

        What does being in a bar discussing gun law have to do with 8 people pounding you with tire irons and baseball bats? What does a assault have to do with 1st Amendment rights? Hey Einstein… try to pay attention here, I was talking about a gang of 8 people assaulting a man with tire irons and baseball bats. Eight against one, with weapons.
        Conservatives are not out shooting each other Nimrod… the vast majority of murders happen in the inner city. We know of 59 inner cites in PA where NOT ONE SINGLE vote was cast for Romney, so they must not be Conservative.
        As a matter of fact, more people are killed with baseball bats each year than they are with guns… yeah, “baseball bats” just like the bats that the person I had mentioned was attacked with.
        And, yes… if I were being attacked by eight people who were beating me with tire irons and baseball bats and I had a gun on me, I would –without apology– fear for my life and defend my lonesome self with my gun. Of course, if you are willing to take the chance that you might survive that sort of assault, then you are welcome to take the bludgeoning. As a matter of fact, be my guest.

        Oh snap! I see you are a foreigner. Silly me! What was I thinking… you’d have no choice but to accept the bludgeoning! No wonder you’re pissed…

      • define assault rifle.
        if I smack you upside the head with a baseball bat is that then an assault bat?

      • factsobill

        Naw, don’t believe I’d need to use a gun on you,”stony”. People like you just end up with the livin’ Sh-t beaten out of you!

  • i googled ‘scottie hughes’ because i couldnt believe someone THAT stupid could be on TV as any kind of expert… and found this rightwing ‘troll-den’. i cant believe you people are for real. you actually believe that your constitution is so perfect that it is infallible, defying further amendment or clarification? it also seems like Republicans dont really understand it anyway- the 2nd amendment was not included in the bill of rights to allow citizens to walk around your cities with automatic weapons any more than grenades or bazookas- it was intended to ensure citizens the right to form militias in defense of your country from enemies foreign or domestic. your founding fathers were just men doing their best to put their philosophy into a political document- not a scripture from God. i’m not even American and i know this.

    • Your babbling plus your are wrong and I can prove you are wrong, if you have an hour to watch David Barton explain the Second Amendment

    • Ray

      Oh, you don’t say, can you give ANY supporting evidence that the 2nd amendment does NOT give us the right to any arm we can afford, excepting, of course, nuclear weapons.

      • qualityrkc

        Why do you make an exception for nukes? According to the 2nd amendment we should be able to own nuclear “arms”. What is your reasoning for excluding nukes?

        • Ray

          Because nukes require special handling and are highly destructive material, it’s a last case scenario weapon. I can gladly allow for this to be the one item we should not be able to own.

          • qualityrkc

            But where in the constitution does it say that we can’t have them? We can’t just go arbitrarily deciding which arms are prohibited and which aren’t because that is what the liberals are trying to do.

            • Ray

              It may not say we can’t, but, would you want your neighborhood jihadist with one?

    • Sorry to burst your marxist bubble but the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is what MADE the USA what it is. YES! It is, IMHO, near infallible as far as allowing THE BEST from its citizens and the least from its wanna be rulers.

      The fact that as soon as the Constitution was ignored and “re-interpreted” by politicians and judges is when it started to fall apart is obvious.

    • factsobill

      Low info voter.In his own Country. Still think we ought to liberate the UK.

  • i googled ‘scottie hughes’ because i couldnt believe someone THAT stupid could be on TV as any kind of expert… and found this rightwing ‘troll-den’. i cant believe you people are for real. you actually believe that your constitution is so perfect that it is infallible, defying further amendment or clarification? it also seems like Republicans dont really understand it anyway- the 2nd amendment was not included in the bill of rights to allow citizens to walk around your cities with automatic weapons any more than grenades or bazookas- it was intended to ensure citizens the right to form militias in defense of your country from enemies foreign or domestic. your founding fathers were just men doing their best to put their philosophy into a political document- not a scripture from God. i’m not even American and i know this.

    • Nukeman60

      You’re so much smarter – and yet you double-posted. Hmmm…

      ‘…it was intended to ensure citizens the right to form militias in defense of your country from enemies foreign or domestic…’ – no name

      For knowing so much, you might want to read what the founding fathers said about the 2nd amendment, before you declare your knowledge of why they wrote it. Your interpretation misses the mark just a little bit.

      But then, you did say you’re not American, so perhaps you are unfamiliar with what it says and stands for. We’ll wait. Go get brushed up and come back. We’re in no hurry. This ‘troll-den’ welcomes all reasonable comments. We’ll be waiting for yours.

    • Ray

      Mark Browning, you, sir, do not know what you are talking about. You have been spoon fed liberalism (spelled LIES) so long that your brain is wasting away (got a defective prion there boy!) The founding fathers commented on this issue, they stated that the militia clause was in SUPPORT OF THE NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF PROTECTION, and was therefore SUBORDINATE to the non-infringement of the right to bear arms. This right of self defense was talked about decades earlier than our bill of rights as a NATURAL LAW, by Sir William Blackstone. And was commented in the affirmative understanding of non infringement by our founding Fathers.
      You sir, are a disgrace. I feel much dumber even reading your incoherent bilge.

      • proudhispanicconservative

        Dont waste your time with this troll, his welfare check is more important then being free.

        • Ray

          I was having a little fun with a maggot. 🙂

          • proudhispanicconservative

            He is probably at home on the basement of his mother’s house, eating hotdogs, and enjoying getting his disability or welfare check, and blogging on the internet defending papa Obama. 🙂

          • factsobill

            As is your right. Continue, please.

    • Barack, is that you?

      • obama reverts to ebonics when he gets upset. That wasn’t him. Maybe mooochelle?

    • Jaels_Song

      You must not know much. Militias are made up of private citizens who own guns.

      ” i’m [sic] not even American and i [sic] know this.” Apparently not…

    • WRONG. The arguments made about the wording of the 2nd are ALL on record. Jefferson, Adams and other are all on record explaining that it is the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of ALL men to protect themselves from ALL enemies and to have the means to do so.

      One of the things that is an underlying theme behind the Constitution and the Amendments is that these ARE GOD GIVEN. Writing them out and basing a country and its government on those principles simply makes it easier for the citizens to KNOW when they are being screwed.

    • shall not be infringed.

    • sDee

      You are either ignorant of the Founders, the intent of the Constitution, the Federalists, the reason for the Bill of Rights and even basic American history, or, you are being intentionally deceptive.

      it was intended to ensure citizens the right to form militias in defense of your country from enemies foreign or domestic.

      The Second Amendment DOES NOT “give us the right to bear arms”, nor to form a militia. We have an inalienable right to bear arms – well stated by our Founders to ensure that we were always properly armed to defend ourselves from slavery under tyranny.

      The Second Amendment restricts the Federal Government from infringing upon our inalienable right to bear arms.

      The Second Amendment references militias because citizens are the militia. The founding tenets made all able bodied citizens militia. This model goes back to Switzerland when arms were swords and bows and remains there today as their Constitution still requires all home to be armed with modern weapons.

      Even if you totalitarians repeal the Second Amendment, we still retain and will defend our inalienable right to bear arms.

      • Ohsomemanabeenlieing

        I believe that I just heard a Liberal’s head explode! BOOM, NAILED IT!

    • factsobill

      So full of euro-sh-t!

    • jgilman1

      Just what exactly do you think they meant by domestic? Our government is trying to order and/or legislate the ability for criminals to be more armed than us. That means now I have two types of enemies to protect my family from, one may want to do me harm the other is trying to make it easier for them to do it. Here in NY our supreme leader just made thousands of law abiding citizens criminals with the stroke of a pen.

  • Ray

    Hey guys, you know that moment you have been kicked in the groin? I think the Brit is feeling that.

  • jgilman1

    Tanks should be legal. It would take 45 minutes to do a drive by shooting. It would be impossible to do a stick up (you have to play that scenario out in your head :). Ever tried to jack a tank? A properly installed car seat would be irrelevant.

    • And where the hell would you put the baby seats?

      • anywheres you want 🙂
        although you would not need one as…and heres the key…its a TANK

    • was mp in germany and often had to do traffic control for tracked vehickes on BA40 in hanau area.
      your jacking tank reminded me of one time a M88 lost a track. so another M88 came out with parts and to hoist it. that one blew a powerpack (engine-trans module) after lifting. so a third one came out to replace the powerpack in the second while the second was holding the first up a foot so a truck could drag track under the first.
      ahh good times LOL

  • mediaaccess1

    Idiot!! They won’t do a background check when someone wants to register to vote!!!! OR When Someone Wants to Be President for that matter.

    • Ohsomemanabeenlieing

      They don’t and that’s how we got this Commie in office!

  • why on earth do they keep going on this show? this man is a moron and is only wanting to stay in the spotlight cause he thinks HE matters.. stop going on his show

  • sjmom

    At this point I don’t know why anyone would go on this show and wish someone would get up and leave him running his mouth. He is rude, insufferable and if he doesn’t like our Constitution should leave the US tonight.

  • James1754

    One thing is for sure, Piers Morgan is a bully. He asks questions, when he does not get the answer he want he then does not allow the guest to answer.

  • Ray

    Not all Brits are bad, I like this quote from Churchhill to Lady Astor an appeaser for Hitler the gun grabber:

    “Winston, if I were your wife, I’d put poison in your coffee.” “Nancy,” Churchill replied to the acid-tongued woman, “if I were your husband, I’d drink it.”

  • Ray

    Im kinda wondering if this second amendment debate is a little of a smoke screen, what is going on with the debt ceiling? Do you think the republicans will cave without spending cuts? (I do)

  • Diogenes_wy

    Can you own a tank? Of course you can. Even ‘Governator’ Arnold owns one.
    Guys I shoot with have 50 cal rifles and even a Swedish anti-tank gun.
    As for ‘high capacity’ magazines, I can put 36 rounds through a revolver in 60 seconds. Give me a semi-auto with a 7 round mag and I can get 50 rounds down range in 60 seconds (accurately, I might add).
    Gun legislation equals BS. Doesn’t do anything except make politicians feel safer because the citizenry is under or ultimately un-armed.

    • sDee

      points well made

  • sDee

    The Second Amendment DOES NOT “give us the right to bear arms”, as Loesch said.

    The Second Amendment restricts the Federal Government from infringing upon our inalienable right to bear arms.

    This is important difference because even if the totalitarians repeal the Second Amendment, we still retain and will defend our inalienable right to bear arms.

    • colliemum

      Well said – and I wish either of them had told that slimy git that having a right means the government cannot determine what one ‘needs’. If he’d have let them get a word in edgewise, that is …

      • sDee

        That is what troubles me that constitutionalists and conservatives further promote the premise that the Government gives us our inalienable rights via, in this case, the Second Amendment.

        The inalienable right to bear arms is most essential of all – throughout the history of man, those without arms and those with inferior arms, become slaves.

        Enslavement is not forced with tanks and bombs. It must be carried out door to door, man by man. “Assault weapon” bans and magazine bans are designed to leave us with inferior weapons.

        • A ‘like’ for The inalienable right to bear arms is most essential of all – throughout the history of man, those without arms and those with inferior arms, become slaves.

    • Thanks for pointing out the obvious – an angle or point of view that I’m sure many of us never considered.

      • sDee

        There is nothing better to deflate the arguments of a gun grabber or useful idiot than by saying “Look, The Second Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms”.

  • MWorm

    Funny, someone can get a free tank if they want to fly to Russia and search a forest for one of the abandoned tank battalions. I bet Piers Morgan didn’t even think of that. Oh wait, did I mention think in the same sentence as Piers Morgan? My bad…

  • PFFV

    This POS is a rude arrogant a$$Hole! He doesn’t even let is so called guests answer a question!

  • fh_cke

    That Scottie chick…from some angles she’s OK looking, from others – she looks like a man!

  • Charm4sure

    Our arms are whatever it takes to stop an abusive government from stripping freedom from its citizens.

  • Here’s a glaring problem with the stats battle on guns.

    Like a man consumed with concerns and fears, Piers Morgan keeps running his fingers over his Thirty-Nine Gun Deaths rosary beads. Seeking reassurance. Brandishing it like a talisman against all logic and reason aimed his way. It is a false hope, though; those thirty-nine poor souls who died to bring him this glittering, crystallized element of beguilement and grief.

    I keep looking at the stats where guns have been banned, and I see the same trends, over and over: If you ban them thoroughly enough and long enough, then congratulations! You too may bring about such a glorious misapprehension of reality as the famous Thirty-Nine that has captivated the hapless Mr. Morgan. You may, in fact, see a drop in “Gun Deaths.” Sadly, not much of a drop, but “a drop” nonetheless. Commence the self-congratulatory phase! The dead won’t mind a bit, if you do.

    But here’s the price of that “drop” : a huge increase in gun crimes, AND a huge increase in violent crimes. Both. That drop in gun deaths comes at a very dear cost (and the term “dear” is used here in both senses). It’s too high a price.

    I must be exaggerating for effect, right? Surely I am spinning a web of moral equivalence here, yes? Tell that to women who will be raped in MUCH higher numbers due to their inability to fend off a larger, stronger attacker. Tell that to the shopowner who has to close his shop to recover in a hospital after his jaw is broken in a robbery, because the thieves know they cannot possibly be hurt by one man who has no gun if they simply walk in and “incapacitate” him. Ask all of the families of those who are murdered in such gun-free “incapacitations.” And in outright killings with weapons other than guns.

    Sadly, those are only a paltry few examples of the price paid by millions of people, all so some power-seeking, corrupt politician can claim they are “doing something about guns.”

    And then the flip side must be examined. Those gun deaths in America at which Europeans love to point, as evidence of the low estate to which we’ve been brought; just how many of them are due to law-abiding citizens? How many of the dead are law-abiding citizens? It turns out, in study after study, that, surprisingly—for people lost in a fog of the unknown—criminals do not respect gun laws, and because of this, criminals are often the target of other criminals. It’s not even a close thing: the vast majority of people who die as the result of murder are criminals.

    Fine, you may say. But when all guns are banned, criminals have a harder time acquiring them, right? Maybe so. But that doesn’t stop them; it only slows them down. That is, it used to. Modern smuggling techniques and modern, jihad-fueled corruption have made guns easier to acquire in recent years, even in totalitarian countries that ban everything that isn’t mandatory. And so, gun crimes have gone up in Europe, even during the years of the intense bans on self-defense. The fact is, the only people truly prevented from acquiring firearms all share one common statistical category: victim.

    Finally, come the logistics factors. These are the factors that appear to be the most difficult for our fireams-fearing British ex-patriate. Anyone who has ever been involved in logistics knows that complexity is not directly proportional to population. If you must plan logistics for one-thousand men, the work does not merely double if you are tasked with logistics plans for two-thousand men. It rises geometrically. So while per-capita statistics can be useful for tracking trends, they are not useful for comparing complexity between populations that are different in terms of scale, demographics, and geography.

    The datum-point, like a limit on arms, is rarely of much use in defense. The only reason this one, sad statistical point has currency or suasion today is due to Americans who have forgotten why the Second Amendment was placed in our founding document. Though arms are important tools for survival of the individual, they are also the only guarantee that tyranny can be held in check. Check your history Mr. Morgan. You’ll find no instance where a tyrant has been overthrown by rhetoric.

    • Edited a few typos and mis-edits, plus one verb-tense disagreement.

    • WordsFailMe

      If words could melt liberals like water on a witch, Piers would be piddle by now.

  • Charm4sure

    What a loser and WHINER Piers is! “I’m not getting any answers” means you’re not regurgitating dem talking points according to Piers.

  • You can’t “bear” a tank. An “arm” must be able to be carried. Since you can’t carry a tank, it isn’t protected.

  • chatterbox365

    Morgan is clearly riding on this issue to promote himself.

  • Rocco11

    If “right minded folks” stopped appearing on this freak show, with its 13 viewers, maybe it would dry up and go away? I learned from watching video of WFB on Firing Line, that debating anyone on the Left is like debating the feces eating silverback gorilla at the National Zoo. Why bother?

  • morgan is an arrogant British ponce who thinks he has the right to preach to us and talk down about our society, our behavior and our way of life. his nation exported their class based bigotry to the world for centuries, enslaved millions and sent people to prison for years for stealing a loaf of bread.

    Why would anyone want to go on his show to be bullied, insulted and talked over by a man who is totally uninterested in holding an honest conversation. he is only interested in promoting his own point of view and making speeches when his guests try to answer.

    He certainly isn’t a journalist. hes an overpaid talking head with a loud mouth.

  • colliemum

    Musket Morgan is a bully, he is rude and has no manners. That means his arguments are totally valueless, he is not interviewing Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes, he is bullying them.

    Btw – having a brother in the armed forces makes you an expert?

    (I love the ‘assault unicorn’! Can I have one?)

  • Biggbear52

    2012 33,000 lives lost on the highways of this Nation. Of those 17,000 were by the use of texting or talking while driving. Not one resulted in any criminal charge, NOT ONE. a 3500 pound vehicle is a lethal weapon when improperly used and far more deadly than any weapon in the wrong hands. Illicit prescription drugs are responsible for over 26,000 deaths Nation wide in 2012 and not one word of banning these dead devises. Most of which are over prescribed and exceptionally misused.
    PFFV says the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Not only is he correct. But in all reality assault rifles do not exist. We do in fact have SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, that in the wrong hands, (“FAST AND FURIOUS”) “ILLEGAL ARMS TRADING” that kill hundreds of thousands each year. Again not word one from the left. Media or otherwise! It is well known that people in key high official positions in this country are getting stinking filthy rich off the illicit drug trade in the U.S to the demise of again THOUSANDS each year, yet no word from the left except to demonize the right for doing nothing!
    Once again Piers has shown the mass’s in this country and the world that his one true agenda is to make himself and his communist friends appear to be good and to make anyone on the right, or presumed right, look very bad. This is known as being a NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATH. Loose translation. SICK SON OF A BUCKETTE!

  • JoeMontana16

    Can we get freaking Newt Gingrich on this show???? I mean we need people who can break through the idiocy of Morgan. Newt would fry this guys. I give these ladies kudos for trying but that’s all it was.

  • Biggbear52

    Newt will not go onto this show for good reason. he has already got an injunction on Piers Morgan for Slander!!

  • armyvet10

    Only two words need to be said to Mr. Morgan; and no one of them isn’t “off.” Equal Capabilitties. The Founding fathers knew as well as most conservatives know, that if citizens of a nation is to defend itself from all enemies, foriegn and domestic, then the citizens must have Equal Capabilities to defend themselves when the enemy shows up at the door. If the enemy brings a Armoured assualt vehicle the citizen has no chance if armed with only a Kabar, (a shout out to MikeytheMarine) On the other hand, Mr. Morgan can have the two words the last one being “off.”

  • Piers MoreGun-s: we do need “something that can shoot 100 bullets in a minute” – or 1,000
    or 500,000 shots a minute (I mean MAX) –
    when killers/killer break into our houses we need maximum power to fight him/them off – we are protecting lives of our families and ours…we wish we could fire continuously, until killers drop…
    Too complicated for you two grey cell brain?
    Apparently so – you prove it every time you open your snout.

    • hes another idiot that thinks the posted cyclic (theoretical ) rate of fire is real. what a buffer spring CAN do a barrel CAN’T.
      my M16A1 was cyclic of 750 or so/min (approx 12/sec) yet its sustained rate of fire was 20/min.
      anything more and meltdown happens.

  • Taurnil Oronar

    Why would I ever care what a non-citizen thinks about my Constitution? Cause I don’t. You know the elitists have no ground to stand on when they have to air the pontifications of a non-citizen to bolster their arguments about gun control.

  • the recoil is critical.
    everyone calls these high powered, they are not. they are kind of weak.
    I messed with some idiot over that on cns site yesterday.
    screenshots here

    not that high powered. most hunting rifles are much more powerful.
    this was after he tried to say AR stood for assault rifle

    • DCGere

      Recoil is critical, especially for women! I much prefer the AR15 (no recoil for me) over a .12 gauge or 306 rifle (which kills my ears). AR = assault rifle, must be a low information voter…

      • typical gun bragging lib.
        I have bone anchors holding my shoulder socket onto the bone (2 of them) so the 12g kick bugs the hell out of me LOL

  • Sandra123456
  • Leroy_Whitby

    Morgan is insufferable. He won’t let his guests speak.

  • Pancake3

    No matter how wide or tall he is, Piers Morgan is a small man.

  • MadAsHellJack

    Why is this limey bastard still on American television??? I think every conservative that speaks to this moron on his piss poor TV show needs to ask him why DON’T YOU GO HOME if you don’t like our Constitution, and don’t forget to remind his sorry ass we have that Constitution and 2ND AMENDMENT because of his tyrannical royally run homeland. I have this dream that a beautiful conservative woman jumps over his desk and beats his sorry ass to a pulp.

  • Sober_Thinking

    Piers is an ass… that’s all there is to it.

    He’s a dog, barking up the wrong tree. And CNN loves it. As long as Piers is an obvious idiot and talks about subjects erroneously, it drives ratings for that rag network.

    Being a moron makes good T.V. – it makes us all feel better about ourselves (how he or she is wrong and how right we are). Look at Jerry Springer… arguably the worst show ever on T.V. and yet that trash has a following. It’s smart of CNN to allow this mental midget to be a clown for the ratings. Lol… but their credibility wanes with each moment this goober is on T.V.

    CNN is really worthless for any honest discussion about anything relating to this pResident, current hot topics, or America. They are a huge part of the problem.

  • BeyondPolls


  • Jaels_Song

    Pier’s weapon of choice is “paper wad.”

    • stevenbiot

      Haha! He could have hurt her with that paper wad. Plus, he didn’t recycle. How un-Green of him.

    • piers shooting of choice is his wad…..make of that what you will 🙂

  • WordsFailMe

    I grew up in awe of a British accent>

    The most sophisticated on screen stars, every Roman Emperor and the most fearsome of NAZI Generals had a British accent.

    Whenever Cornell Wilde, on an African adventure or trapped on a WWII Pacific island with a hundred rabid Japanese soldiers met a fellow with a British accent, I knew that he met a friend. Anytime you heard David Nivens voice, you knew you were hearing from an ally, someone you could trust.

    Since the advent of Piers Morgan and his communist/socialist flap, the British accent has begun to grate on my ears. Probably about time we began to despise the British for what they are today. (colluseum excepted, of course…)

    • Jaels_Song

      There are still good Conservative Brits. At least the Brits have the good sense to create a petition to keep Pier’s from returning. I share a great sense of kinship with the few Brit friends that I do have. I just love them, their humor, history, and our many commonalities. I did not know that Colluseum was Brit, makes me love him that much more. =)

      • WordsFailMe

        I don’t like painting any people with a broad brush and I had Brit friends too. My po9int was about the “Historical and Cultural Credibility,” the true wealth of the language which has been squandered by this “pasty-faced, silly, nincompoop and the British accent he simply cannot seem to loose.”

        He’s typical of the immigrant who wants everything America has to offer, but he doesn’t think he needs to sacrifice anything to get it Millions of dead Americans have already paid the price for this stupid, rump fed- British lap dog. You know, like Muslims. American immigrant should be kept on Ellis Island or under a freeway in Florida for 2 years before letting them in the country.

        • Jaels_Song

          Amen. Wow, what a wake up! [He’s typical of the immigrant who wants everything America has to offer, but he doesn’t think he needs to sacrifice anything to get it Millions of dead Americans have already paid the price…]

          You are so correct. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

  • RecklessProcess

    Morgan cannot allow anyone to speak. He cannot stop himself from shouting instead of listening after he asks a question. He interrupts people before they get three words out. If CNN had some real commentators who are not overwhelmed with themselves it would be a miracle.

  • stevenbiot

    Piers got owned! Lucky for him, nobody saw the interview.

  • capeteddy

    There are no guns for sale in gun stores that can shoot 100 rds in a minute, all guns are one shot at a time or semi-automatic. The guns are only as fast as you can pull the trigger. Machine guns that shoot rapid or combat have been outlawed since the 1930’s. What you anti-gun people call assualt rifles are nothing but a one shot at a time rifles. It only looks bad because they look like there ready for combat. If people would stop and take a minute and realize that these so called assualt rifles are not rapid repeaters than maybe there wouldn’t be all this banning.

  • I thought the best line in the entire (useless) interview was when Dana said that the previous assault weapon bill banned the AR-15 because it’s “scary looking”. To me, that’s the crux of the matter, and it’s what most people are talking about when they say “assault weapon”. They should just change their adopted terminology to “scary-looking” weapon and use that from now on, as it can easily have the same cloudy definitions but is much more to the point.

  • Someone debating with Piers Morgan needs to point out that the British Army had muskets, and the citizens fighting against them had muskets. The 2nd Amendment did not limit them to pistols or bows and arrows, it expected them to have and use the same weapons that the government had. How could he argue against that? It would also put him into a face saving mode because he lost the war (well, not him,but those who had the same guns that we did).

  • deTocqueville1

    The two smart, beautiful, conservative women demolished the rude, bombastic, boorish lout. This in the end will not save his ratings.

  • russva

    Why does anyone need a mansion? Why does anyone need a Mercedes? Why does anyone need more than 2000 calories a day? Why do we need resorts?

    There are all sorts of things we don’t actually need. However, firearms are specifically enumerated, in the Bill Of Rights with the ending most prevalent “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

    Mr. Morgan, I assume, has enough understanding of the language to understand the meaning, or did he attend the same schools as Obama, Biden, Fienstein etc.?

    • PhillyCon

      Very well said. I wish more of our “spokespeople” would challenge these liberal assertions in such a fashion.

  • Deport Piers Morgan. Period. A right is a right and does not have to be proven as a need to anyone. It is nothing short of arrogant to think that we, as Americans, must prove a need for a right. It’s a right and it doesn’t matter who thinks we need it or not–we have it and we aren’t willing to give it up. Period. We don’t care if Piers thinks we need it or not, we have it and we’re keeping it. End of discussion!

  • badbadlibs

    If it wasn’t for this horrible incident in Connecticut, piers thru the brain, wouldn’t have a show by now? Is there anyone beside bo milking those tragic deaths more then this stupid on steroids host?

  • Freedomfirghters

    Piers is nothing but a big mouthed wanker. He asks a question but will not SHUT UP and let others answer, he puts words in their mouths. Then has the audacity to wad paper up and throw a tantrum like a spoiled twit because others don’t agree with his views but it’s ok for him to not agree to other people’s views. Pompas-Ass

    • WordsFailMe

      A cunning liberal

  • Why in the hell do people try to have a discussion with this moron? He puts words in peoples mouths and talks over everyone that he doesn’t agree with. He is British which in my mind means has no right to even be having this conversation. He brings these people on his show to exploit them and push his own agenda because his ratings are higher than they’ve ever been. STOP GOING ON HIS SHOW AND HE WILL GO AWAY.

    • Before he goes away, I want David Barton of wallbuilders, to educate Piers on the Second Amendment. I want to see Piers purse his lips tightly into that sour grapes look when Barton is through with him- That is my wish I am putting out into the universe- please answer my request

  • Dana, Pierce is a scholar on it cause his brother is in the British Army. Shit most officer only carry a 9mm pistol but Pierce is a know it all. I spent 38 months in Iraq and 99% of the officers and senior NCO’s carry a side arm as a rule. I got more time working on firearms than his brother and I was in the Navy. They need to send him back to the UK. Oh wait, they want to question him for some stuff I think the phone taps that have been in the news forever. He should clean up his own backyard before he try’s to tell us what to do. I say send the ASS home.

  • larrygrant876

    We left your country to get away from your types Piers Morgan so why did you follow us over here with your same old stupid ideas.Please go home, ask England if you can return because they are everything you are dreaming of allready. ” When guns are outlawed I will become an outlaw”. I quoted me. And My argument for large ammo clips is that they might become necessary in defense against tyrannical challenges to America

  • SFCDeano

    Every time I hear the argument about tanks and the 2nd amendment I go through the roof. For thirteen years of the 20 I was in the Army I was a Tank Commander so I know a little about them. My last tank was the M1A2. Tanks are not firearms they are “weapons systems” meaning it takes a “crew’ of at least three to effectively operate one. A tank has four weapons – two M240 (7.62) machine guns, a M2 .50 caliber Machine gun and a 120 mm smooth bore cannon, The 120 is of course the primary weapon. Tanks are direct fire long range weapons which means you have to put the cross hairs on the target and has Max effective range of about 3500 meters although they can reach out farther. Civilians don’t need these mainly because they are not practical for self-defense. Tankers carry M16’s and 9 mm for that. Should the populace rise up to a tyrannical government we will acquire tanks and other equipment through the soldiers who defect. Believe me they will.

  • larrygrant876

    God this idiot frustrates me I honestly wanted to hear this interview as well as some others on his show but I can’t stand his arrogance or his ignorance or the sound of his voice. Spanky go home

  • Amy

    Since CNN is the lowest rated ‘news’ channel out there, I wonder if they would go under if we on the right simply ignored them? If no ‘interviews’ were given, no comments made to any of their ‘reporters’ and no one replayed any of their idiocy then I have to wonder how long they would stay in business. I think their biggest viewership comes from us on the right when we either tune in to see this junk or watch it & mock it after the fact.

    Also – why do we give any legitimacy to this ‘Brit’? He’s loathsome & not even liked in his home country. Hell, his predecessor Larry King doesn’t even like him anymore.

  • What an ass-wipe PM is!! His goal is strictly to make Conservative guests look like lunatics. I am happy to note that he was unsuccessful with these two women. Hooray for them!

  • PhillyCon

    What a tool this guy is. His line of questioning of “tanks” is so absurd and he knows it.

  • factsobill

    Piers being the”stuffed shirt” Brit trying to bully these free thinking, strongly articulate women is awesomely bad for him. I loved watching P squirm. Thanks for the best Smackdown of Piers I’ve seen! Proud as an American of both of these Patriots!!

  • WordsFailMe

    These as****liberals blow about goodness and rightness with no thought of logic or reason. Defeating a liberal and his “position” with a cogent point or well-turned phrase is like trying to slaughter a hog with a ball-peen hammer. You’re wasting your time. The hog is more likely to die when a bus crosses through the sty or from old age than from repeated blows of a sharp, conservative intellect.

    Just my 2 pfennings worth.

  • CitizenVetUSA

    Morgan is using the US Constitution 2nd amendment as a basis for liberal sensational debate only to promote himself, and increase viewership of his show (Ratings) . It’s all about his job security! Me, me, me.

  • jim Asherman

    Here is the answer to the “tank” question.

    Morgan (M) V. Gun rights advocate (GRA )

    M: can you own a tank ?
    GRA: Well a tank isn’t a firearm, it is a motorvehicle.
    Speaking of which, I saw an interesting article about you, your car, and Melanie Griffith.
    What kind of car do you drive in the US Mr. Morgan ?
    M: Oh that was my Aston Martin Rapide .
    GRA: And why do you think you need an Aston Martin Rapide ?
    M: Its got 4 doors, and I can get my children into it .
    GRA: Lots of cars have 4 doors, what is the single distinguishing feature of the Aston Martin Rapide ?
    M: Goes 183 MPH
    GRA, IS there anyplace in the US that you can drive at 183 MPH ? Why do you need that ?
    M: Harrumph

  • notebene

    Here’s the answer that would have made Piers, the git, shut up: I need an AR-15 because President Obama and Eric Holder let hundreds of weapons go to criminals hands in his failed Fast and Furious operation! The POS armed criminals and I need to be able to defend myself!…More proof that government has never been and will never be the answer!

  • 1123jeff

    My father told me to never argue with an idiot. Because on lookers will not be able to tell which one is the idiot. We have to come up with a better plan. Hit Piers where he lives– in his wallet. Post the sponsors of his show and let then know we the people are boycotting their products. Piers is not going home,the English will not let him back into their country

  • CO2isGood

    Can’t stand these talking heads that ask a question then proceed to drown out the attempted answers with rude bloviation.

    The continued question about a tank…like he was making a major point if they answer affirmative about tank ownership…typical liberal fool assuming that people who own tanks are going to drive to the nearest school and start shooting.

    Hey Morgan you moron, there are american private citizens who own tanks.

  • Jaels_Song

    I crack up at the very end of this video when Pier’s loses it and wads up that piece of paper in his fist. Dana and Scottie simultaneously both begin to say “Piers, Piers…” as a mother would when trying to comfort and reign in an emotionally distraught child’s. It reminds me that while Conservative women are intelligent, strong and independent, we haven’t lost the wonderful nurturing qualities which make us feminine.

  • CapeLady

    Viewers may find this interesting… Brits are now marching in the streets demanding their gun rights back because violent crime has increased and they cannot defend themselves! If you are familiar with British actors… even Edward Fox was there!

  • Ohsomemanabeenlieing

    God this Pierce Morgan is such a DOUCHE BAG! Sorry that our second amendment offends you, go back to Great Britain where we sent you 200 years ago! Oh and take the commie liberals with you!

  • Piers Morgan is a child when he can not get his way, or you do not agree with him, he tries to talk over you.
    People did not own canons which were the equivalent of a tank. What in gods name would you use one for?
    I do not know how CNN’s ratings are doing but surely this man cannot be doing them any good.

  • Those two women cleaned his clock.

    Armored tanks are not guns despite the fact they have a gun attached. Piers is equating a kumquat to a watermelon.

    The term ‘assault’ is being kept a fluid term so that future bans can be enacted, Asking Powell and McChrystal is like asking any leftard because they don’t view the 2nd Amendment in it’s proper historical context. 2nd amendment is not for hunting. It is for self defense of any kind including defense against one’s own government.

    Piers typifies the old Persian Proverb: A fool who knows not that he is a fool is dangerous. Shun him.

    Personally I would like to punch Piers because that is exactly what he deserves. I don’t need a gun to whip his A**.

  • I could buy a bus, legally, start carrying passengers and drive it off a cliff. Doing this would kill many in seconds. Should we ban buses or planes for that matter? Another thought, I could take a knife, peal an apple, or kill someone with it. It is what THE PERSON DOES with the weapon, Piers. It is people killing people. Targeting specific weapons will not keep people from doing bad things to many people, period!

    This is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Protecting ourselves from enemies both foreign AND domestic does indeed include a tyrannical government here in the US. You have no debate sir. Keep talking, you are only making yourself look more like an – ask no more stupid questions please.

  • opinionatedhermit

    “It is because of this interpretation of the Constitution [second amendment] that got America into this horrific mess in the first place.”
    -Pierce Morgan (from my memory)

    Evidently, according to genius Morgan, it is the classic American Definition of our Constitution that has placed America in it’s horrible condition.

    WTF? I mean, WTF?

    This high paid journalist clown can’t even speak his native tongue well enough to get his ideas across. Let alone lecture any American on how they had better understand their Constitution….

    This man suffers some serious delusions……

  • badnewzbearz

    No way I’m giving up MY tank!

  • opinionatedhermit

    I am so glad Ben Shapiro showed the world what this clown is all about.

    This A-Hole bullied these two women. He asked them questions over and over and gave their answers ZERO respect.

    I am no expert. But I would highly encourage this man to find a mental health councilor…..

  • I’m curious as to why Piers would think Americans care one iota what he does, or does not have a problem with us owning?

  • qualityrkc

    A tank isn’t considered a firearm? really? How about a nuclear weapon. Ever heard of the nuclear arms treaty? He was forced to use an extreme example to show the inconsistency of the argument that says “any arm that a military has the civilians should also be able to have. I will admit that currently our second amendment if taken literally says we can have nukes. Since I think it is insane for people to have nukes we need to amend the constitution to fit modern times.

  • You made a classic mistake, you let him run the show. He asked all the questions, gave all the answers and never let you finish a complete sentence. Actually, he would have been a fool to do otherwise because he would have lost. You have to expect that going in to these things, it is never about the subject it is all about winning, and it is his show after all. All you can do is point out, every other second that that is exactly what he is doing. Stay on one question one subject, one answer and never leave it. You will never be able to finish an answer because he won’t let you, but at least you can fully expose exactly what is really going on. Other than that, you did a decent job.

  • WellUnknown

    Time and again, these events demonstrate that the only place the points made by the man named “Piers” make sense are in the extreme. As with other progressive leftists with or without a megaphone, he behaves like an undisciplined child who chooses to express his understanding of the world exclusively through hyperbole. The question about owning a tank is illustrative of that but serves a dual purpose attracting the undisciplined thinker.
    After his best efforts to dicredit two superb defenders of the Constitution and human rights fail, he throws a tantrum and feels “sick”. I wanted to commend Dana and Scottie for not succumbing to the natural impulse to comfort the sick or intervene when the child throws a tantrum. Also wanted to urge everyone to restart the petition drive to send the man named “Piers” back to his country of origin where he will feel more at home answering for his behavior in the phone hacking scandle the Daily Mirror newspaper.

  • this guy is a real jerk

  • Piers Morgan at 10:22 made a remark about “slaughter of children” . I’m curious about his position about “planned parenthood’s” slaughter of 333,942 babies in 2012.

  • Paladin

    “It shot 17 Americans in a movie theater in 90 seconds. It murdered a group of New York State firemen. It killed 20 school children in an elementary school. This particular weapon has been used in the last four mass-shootings…”

    And therein is the crux of his point of view. In his mind, it isn’t the people who committed these atrocities that are at fault, it’s the availability of the weapon used.


    Ma’am You did great job . Thank you

  • juandos

    Oh that was hilarious!

    Morgan getting beat up by a couple of girls, smart girls for sure…

    Thanks for posting this…

  • Monica Burkhart

    No one can explain to you Pierce because you cannot even ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. You have such contempt prior to being informed of the state of our Nation. What would have happened in history when HITLER invaded EUROPE and the citizens had AR-15’s? Your own country’s history should speak to you. May you find peace in your search for the TRUTH!