Dana Loesch visits CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, tells more tall tales on national TV

Is Dana Loesch out of her goddamn mind?! She appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight to make even more idiotic arguments for the 2nd Amendment. As if that weren't enough, she made herself a bigger irresponsible moron by brandishing an AR-15 lighter on national television.

Charles Blow of The New York Times, on the other hand, made well-reasoned arguments on this issue-- including calling out the NRA for what it really is: "a no regulation organization."

From the 01.28.2013 edition of CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight:

Loesch on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight with her AR-15 lighter.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take. Congress is going to be paying attention to them. And we'll be able to make progress. 
MORGAN: President Obama just before today's White House Meeting on Guns. Joining me to talk about that is Dana Loesch, the host of "The Dana Show," and Charles Blow, "New York Times" columnist and CNN contributor. I'm also bringing back the former congressman Steven LaTourette, because, Steven, you were about to make a point about the Second Amendment. 
And in the interest of fair play, I would like you to make that point. 
LATOURETTE: Thank you. What I was saying is the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court recently in a Washington, D.C. case, Heller, and another case in Chicago, looking at gun regulations. And you can't frame the argument, why do you need that gun? That's not the issue. The issue is the Second Amendment says you are entitled to have that gun.
It also -- the courts have said that you can put reasonable restrictions on that. This is a political problem we're facing. So people can take the extreme views on this issue and get nothing done. Or you can say how can we come together and close the gun show loophole and -- 
MORGAN: OK, I get that. I get that point. I don't disagree with that second point you made there. But on the question of the Second Amendment, I got into this with Newt Gingrich the other day. Presumably -- I mean, do you agree or disagree with the ban on machine guns, for example, automatic machine guns? 
LATOURETTE: Well, that's a reasonable restriction. That's what I'm saying. 
MORGAN: But my question is, since the Founder Fathers never specified obviously the precise type of gun, because they couldn't have done -- they wouldn't have been able to foresee them. My question to you is, what is the substantive difference between the effect of a banned machine gun, that you and I both agree should be banned under the Second Amendment -- what is the difference between that and what it can do to a classroom full of children and an AR-15 loaded with a 100-bullet magazine?
Because to me, I don't see any difference. And that's why I don't understand why you're comfortable with banning one and not the other? 
LATOURETTE: It's not a question of what I'm comfortable with. The Founding Fathers didn't foresee texting while driving either. But that's not how we measure things. The fact of the matter is that the recent interpretation of the Second Amendment says that you're allowed to have a gun. What you have to do -- then say is what can we do within the political framework, the fractured political framework, where the Republicans control the House, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate -- 
MORGAN: I get that. 
LATOURETTE: That's what this is about. 
MORGAN: I get that, except that I just think you should also include an assault weapons ban. I'm interested in exploring the debates on both sides about that. 
Charles Blow, this is -- the contradiction that I can't quite work out in my head with the pro-gun lobby -- let's call them that, even though I'm not anti-all gun. It's a pointless phrase, in many ways. But what is the difference between agreeing that under the Second Amendment you can't own a machine gun, because it causes mass carnage in a few seconds, but you can apparently, as a right, have an AR-15 with a 100-bullet magazine? Can you explain to me the argument, the logic that differentiates those two? 
CHARLES BLOW, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": You can't ask me to explain the logic of this because I don't quite understand the logic of those. I do believe that we can start by saying that high-capacity magazines are probably not things we should have in civilian hands. I think that we can say that weapons like these assault weapons, assault rifles, both -- but I think also some assault handguns can be placed out of bounds of ordinary citizens.
And I think that's OK and still within the Second Amendment and does not violate the spirit of that amendment. 
MORGAN: OK, Dana, I spoke to Ray Kelly off camera at the end of that, because I knew that you and I had locked horns about this before. And I said explain to me the difference between an AR-15, in reality, and some of the more high powered guns. He said, look, if you get a 30-bullet magazine clipped to a high powered handgun, it can obviously fire at a rapid rate and everyone can see that. 
The difference with an AR-15 is that way you hold it and the way that you load the magazines makes it a much easier weapon to commit mass slaughter with, and a much faster one to commit it. So he said there is a substantive difference. 
But I ask you the same question I have asked others, which is what is the difference, in terms of the argument you're putting forward to me about your resistance to ban an AR-15 style weapon -- what is the difference between the kind of carnage it can cause in a school and a machine gun, an automatic rifle, which is already banned in most places? What is the difference? 
DANA LOESCH, "THE DANA SHOW": The AR-15 is semiautomatic, Piers. And a machine gun is obviously automatic. One is select fire capabilities. The other -- or one may have select fire capabilities. The other one you, with one -- pull the trigger once and you get one bullet. There's a huge difference.
MORGAN: But that wasn't my question. My question was in terms -- 
LOESCH: I explained the difference. You asked what the difference was. 
MORGAN: I know the technical differences. I am asking about the effect, if a man like James Holmes walks into a movie theater armed with, as he had, a 100-bullet magazine and an AR-15 and begins to unload, what is the difference in the carnage that he can cause in a minute compared to a machine gun? The only answer is a few more dead, right, because he still managed to hit 70 people. 
LOESCH: Well, we had the Virginia Tech shooting, which was done with handguns. By the way, I have never heard the term assault handgun before. But that -- Virginia Tech, that was the single deadliest shooting in the history of this country. And that was done with handguns. But if you're trying to somehow equate AR-15s with machine guns, the two are completely different. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. 
In fact, I asked your producers about this, Piers. I wanted to show you something. This is actually a small sized AR-15. In fact, if you will believe it, I got this at the gas station. It's a lighter that's probably -- there it goes, not going to work. 
The difference between a fully automatic, an M-16, which is the military style, is that you hold the trigger -- imagine this is me holding the trigger. The ammunition -- the rounds keep coming. But with a semiautomatic, you have to -- with one pull of the trigger, one pull, one bullet every single time. And I want to make -- 
MORGAN: No, no, no, no. 
LOESCH: -- 40 percent background check, that is a bunk number. That is a completely false number. You're citing a study done of 250 people back before the Brady Act in the Clinton administration. 
MORGAN: Dana, stop talking for a moment. We'll come to that after the break. On that particular point, I know the difference technically between the M-16 and the AR-15 completely. My brother used the M-16 in the Army. 
The point -- the point is the difference in the carnage they can cause in one minute in a school. I don't see much difference. And that's why I'm bemused that you believe one is entitled, under your rights, but the other you're perfectly happy not to be entitled under your rights. 
Let's take a break. Let's come back and discuss this further because it is a lively debate.
MORGAN: Back now with Dana Loesch, host of "The Dana Show," and Charles Blow, "New York Times" columnist and CNN contributor. Dana, let me ask you -- because I asked you this before and you said nothing. But now you have had time to think about this. What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do to curb gun violence in America? 
LOESCH: To curb gun violence in America? Stop disarming law abiding citizens. That is the first thing I would do. 
MORGAN: Other than -- other than not removing any guns, what would you do to stop the fact that 18,000 Americans kill themselves with guns every year, 12,000 murder with guns every year and -- 
LOESCH: And Piers, that is a fraction of people who have firearms. You can't loop -- you can't just lump law abiding gun owners in with criminals. I think that is really offensive to a lot of Americans, especially when you consider 2.7 million firearms were sold December 2012. 
MORGAN: What would you personally do and authorize politicians to do to reduce gun violence?
LOESCH: To reduce gun violence? Like I said, first and foremost, I would stop regulations that seek to disarm law abiding citizens. I would also, in addition to that -- that is actually one of the most important things you can do, because conceal/carry, first off -- whenever conceal/carry is implemented for instance, like Florida and Missouri --
LOESCH: That is a huge thing, Piers. 
MORGAN: Dana, other -- Dana, other than keeping guns in people's hand -- I have your point on that -- what would you proactively do to reduce gun violence? 
LOESCH: Tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained fire arms. 
MORGAN: OK, Charles Blow --
LOESCH: Did that answer your question? 
MORGAN: Charles -- 
LOESCH: I answered it. 
MORGAN: I am asking Charles. The president came out with all of these plans and all these initiatives, but many Republicans and many gun's rights people simply don't agree with any of them. They don't even think there should be background checks. 
BLOW: First of all, we should make clear that none of those suggestions are proposals to disarm any law abiding gun owners. None of them. The government has not said that they want to do that and is not doing that. The second thing is that the NRA is basically a no regulation organization. They don't want any new regulations of any sort. 
And none of the gun -- I don't call them gun rights groups, but gun proliferation groups, because that is the business that they are in, is to make sure that there are more guns produced, sold and in public hands. And I think that -- that -- pushing in that direction is actually the wrong direction for us to go, because they will not only -- there will be people -- who most people who buy a gun will use it responsibly. But the more guns that are out there, the more likely guns will be able to fall into the hands of the criminals. And that becomes the problem. 
MORGAN: OK. Well, the debate will carry on. I am sure I will have you both back very soon. Dana Loesch and Charles Blow, thank you both very much.
MORGAN: That is it for us tonight. And a programming note, Anderson Cooper hosts a special town hall on guns this Thursday night. And Anderson starts now. 

No comments :

Post a Comment

Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr