Gingrich to Piers Morgan: Let’s hold gun-control hearings in Chicago

posted at 3:54 pm on January 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Twelve minutes long but worth watching in full, partly because Gingrich is in fine form and partly because it’s a nice demonstration of how futile and bad-faith the “debate” over guns is. Morgan’s point is straightforward: If gun-rights fans think it’s okay to ban machine guns because rapid-fire weapons are too dangerous for the public to own, why not ban assault rifles? Granted, automatics fire much more rapidly than semiautomatics, but you can still get off an awful lot of shots quickly with an AR-15 if you’re pulling the trigger fast enough. Gingrich comes at that logic from the other direction: If semiautomatic rifles are banworthy because you can fire rapidly in volume with them, why aren’t semiautomatic pistols also banworthy?

The answer, if you talk to an honest gun-control advocate, is that they are. They’d love to ban all semiautomatics. It’s wildly illogical to focus only on one type if you’re worried about rapid-fire weapons, to the point where Morgan is left arguing here that we need to get rid of rifles but not pistols because, um, well, that’s the sort of weapon that lunatics like James Holmes and Adam Lanza seem to prefer — as if they wouldn’t resort to pistols if rifles were off the market. (Holmes and Lanza both had semiautomatic pistols on them during the shootings, in fact. My hunch is that the reason spree killers prefer “assault rifles” to pistols has little to do with lethality and everything to do with image. They’re on an insane power trip, and a bigger gun that resembles a machine gun adds to the thrill.) But Morgan knows that banning all semiautomatics won’t fly politically, at least right now, because most Americans believe in the right to own a gun and semiautomatic pistols are by far the most common type of gun that they own. So he’s forced to push this phony distinction between rifles and pistols to keep up the “reasonable regulations” facade and reassure fencesitters that he only wants to eliminate a few really dangerous guns, not the sort of guns found in many American homes that are … almost precisely as dangerous as the “really dangerous” ones he wants to ban.

Hence Gingrich’s point about the gun-control slippery slope. You can’t trust Morgan et al. to ban one class of weapons but no other; the logic of their position ultimately won’t allow it. And the failure of their polices will only be used as an argument that they haven’t gone far enough. That’s why he’s emphasizing Chicago. But never mind all that. Per WaPo, it sounds like Obama might have some of the Sandy Hook families in attendance at the SOTU, so unless you want to be a hateful bastard who doesn’t care that children were murdered, it’s time to stand aside.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Why do you need a 100 rounds and an AR-15 to defend yourself?

Well… a legitimate question in response to that would be to ask why does the government not want you to have a 100 rounds and an AR-15 to defend yourself.

JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 8:53 AM

you must not have a lot of confidence in the spirit of American and the power of the ideas upon which she was built if you think people will allow a true tyrant to rise. but if you have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans, why would you want to arm them? seems like a dilemma to me.

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM

So people only have insurance because they EXPECT something to happen?

I always thought it was based on protecting yourself on the small chance that something MIGHT happen.

It will be a lot easier for people to “not allow a true tyrant to rise”, if he doesn’t have all the guns.

So did you ever answer these people on why rifles are the culprit when a man with “low” capacity handguns killed more people in a similar incident?

The Schaef on January 26, 2013 at 9:20 AM

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Is it FAIR to punish 120 Million innocent people for the actions of one lunatic?

Galt2009 on January 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM

What is a “Piers?”

Galtian on January 26, 2013 at 6:21 AM

Where sesquipedalian lives in NYC. Located on the East River.

Del Dolemonte on January 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM

I really fear another civil war is brewing..

mmcnamer1 on January 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Proof postivie that Newt would have made an outstanding President. To have That British idioit spin like a top and not directly deal with the direct assertions of Newt when noting that the Brits had lost a war because of the ability to bear arms that should not be infringed upon show his mental acuity in what liberals always conflage. Control versus individual liberty.
How Newts personal life was the linchpin that brought down his candidecy by the press while the pretender now in the white house cant even produce a birth certificate or social security application is the tryanny that most reasoned of CITIZENS recognize. The question left is how far will goverment infringe up the personal liberty of her CITIZENS until the British idiot recognizes that the second amendment is truly needed.

nicknack60 on January 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

JellyToast said:

Why do you need a 100 rounds and an AR-15 to defend yourself?

First Rule of Warfare: There is no such thing as “enough” ammunition!

Second Rule of Warfare: It is better to have it an not need it. Than to need it and not have it!

Jack Deth on January 26, 2013 at 11:01 AM

the consensus opinion of 99% of nature scientists would be rather obvious.

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

What percentage of scientists thought the earth was flat?

What percentage of scientists bought into the asininity of phrenology?

What percentage of scientists believed in the Piltdown Man fraud?

What percentage of scientists were wildly enthusiastic about eugenics until Hitler killed 6 million Jews?

i respect the work you put into this, what with all the research. i do wonder if it’d be worth considering getting a life instead.

sesquipedalian on January 26, 2013 at 12:02 AM

LMAO. I have a life. You need to get some independent thought and healthy skepticism, which is especially important when trillions of dollars are involved.

Nevertheless, I do get a kick out of going back and reading the hysterical predictions of people like Holdren, Hansen, and Ehrlich, etc. Still waiting on the promised Ice Age that was supposed to happen around the time that I was born and the huge percentage of the globe’s population that was supposed to be wiped out by the mid-1990s from starvation.

The next time that a waiter in a restaurant pours you a free glass of water in a Manhattan restaurant, either laugh or, in your case, wipe your brow and say “Boy, did we dodge a bullet!” Water was supposed to be so scarce by ~2000, according to Hansen, (except for the billions of gallons that inundated the West Side Highway), we would never again get free water and water, itself, would be available by request only. lol

Another laugher, every time that we get snow or some of the coldest temperatures in 400-500 years, I snort because your “settled science” friends said that British children simply would not know what snow was by 2000 because it would be so rare.

But, hey, let me throw you a bone. Ehrlich wrote this in The Population Bomb:

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

He was partially correct. By 2000, the UK was “simply a small group of impoverished islands,” but it wasn’t due to population or climate change. It was the result of the Labour Party.

PS: The population in the UK today is ~61 million and much of the growth since the late ’90s has come from immigration.

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

BTW, England STILL exists.

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Why did Gingrich allow Morgan to run over him verbally for most of that “interview?” Morgan should just sit there and bloviate for the entirety of his show, without bothering with guests. He’s so afraid they might make a cogent point, he won’t allow them to finish a thought. He’s beyond contempt.

blackgriffin on January 26, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Why does anyone NEED…… .HUM… why did Rosa Parks NEED to sit in the front of that Bus?

Roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 26, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Morgan is a pee brain, with a mega ego.

Well… a legitimate question in response to that would be to ask why does the government not want you to have a 100 rounds and an AR-15 to defend yourself.

JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 8:53 AM

It’s not the Bill of “Needs.” It’s the Bill of RIGHTS. And who says Gun right people are ok with a ban on machine guns?

I’m not.

dogsoldier on January 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM

It’s not the Bill of “Needs.” It’s the Bill of RIGHTS

dogsoldier on January 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Quote of the Century!

Laura in Maryland on January 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

As conservatives we’ve got to start connecting the dots between this liberal indoctrination and political problems today. From my experience the difference in political culture and US historical knowledge between people under/over 50 is mind-boggling.

Case in point: the Second Amendment. People roll their eyes, a la Piers Morgan, when you tell them that the right to bear arms is fundamentally to protect against tyranny. Astounding, and sad.

Ditto for Obama’s re-election. We may be able to win in 2016, but it is a generational project to swing this country back to being center-right like it was in the 80′s.

BocaJuniors on January 26, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Sesqui, in case you return:

Scientists this week downgraded global warming from cataclysmic disaster to an occasional sultry afternoon.

Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.—John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013.

The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.——Professor Terje Berntsen,University of Oslo, 24 January 2013.

These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.—Caroline Leck,Stockholm University, 25 January 2013.

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Piers is really striving to become the biggest horses ass in the media. Not sure he can overcome Chris Matthews or not but he’s a horses ass nonetheless.

Old Coach on January 26, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Something was wrong the minute his parents thought of naming him “piers”

LaRepublican on January 26, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Piers is really striving to become the biggest horses ass in the media. Not sure he can overcome Chris Matthews or not but he’s a horses ass nonetheless.

Old Coach on January 26, 2013 at 11:07 PM

.
What about Olbermann?

listens2glenn on January 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Piers is really striving to become the biggest horses ass in the media. Not sure he can overcome Chris Matthews or not but he’s a horses ass nonetheless.

Old Coach on January 26, 2013 at 11:07 PM

.
What about Olbermann?

listens2glenn on January 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I thought about Olbermann too, but he has stiff competition from Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow. It’s hard when you want to be TV media-moron-of-the-moment with all these other idiots splashing in the pool and frothing at the mouth.

virgo on January 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM

BTW, Feinstein (and Morgan), regarding Harvey Milk’s murder, from wikipedia:

White positioned himself between the doorway and Milk, pulled out his revolver and opened fire on Milk.

Once again, a demagogue stands on the grave of the fallen to deceive the public for their own ends.

virgo on January 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

If this elitist limey doesn’t like American gun laws maybe he should go back to jolly old England. That Americans can even stand being talked down to by this jerk is depressing.

potvin on January 27, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I do not and have neer owned an AR15 but I find it very hard to believe anyoe can fire 100 rounds a minute fro the thing. The round cycle time si not that fast…maybe, if one os very proficient, half that number….

Just caught the news…tonight, 7 dead in Chicago today, and not a AR15 in the bunch.

JIMV on January 28, 2013 at 12:10 AM

This is why I am glad they are getting rid of stop and frisk in NYC, or hopefully they will. The reason is the left always brings up NYC when they discuss gun control and say…”Look how wonderful gun control works in NYC”! The truth is “stop and frisk” was the reason crime is low in NYC for a big city. Now that they going to get rid of it I suspect that crime rate will jump through the roof again in that city.

William Eaton on September 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5