1.29.2013

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.






Transcript:

(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. 
(END VIDEO CLIP)
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. 
(CROSS TALK)
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? 
(CROSS TALK)
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 -- 
(CROSS TALK)
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.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
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 --
(CROSS TALK)
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.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
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. 

1.22.2013

On #RoevWade's 40th Anniversary, anti-choice extremist Loesch declares it "Happy Baby-Killing Anniversary"

On the 40th anniversary of the 7-2 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortions in the United States, notorious anti-reproductive choice psychopathic extremist moron Dana Loesch titled the anniversary as "Happy 'Baby Killing Anniversary" on her blog.



A video from a patriarchal perspective meant to flatter a woman’s perspective of herself. Sexism isn’t ironic if it’s done without any self awareness, it’s just for laughs, I’m sure. Just as I’m sure an organization founded by a racist white woman who wanted to mass murder “undesirables,” which included, by her definition, non-whites, is using a black actor to promote their cause of mostly-female genocide, since more female babies are aborted worldwide than males. 
The award for Idiotic Unintentional Irony Brought On By A Lack Of Historical Knowledge is Planned Parenthood!

She also misleadingly stated to her readers that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a "racist," when in fact the opposite is true.


Planned Parenthood on Margaret Sanger:

Myth:  Planned Parenthood has racist roots and its founder, Margaret Sanger, supported “black genocide.”FACT: Several independent media outlets have reviewed the facts and found that these claims are false and wildly misleading. PolitiFact gave this claim its worst rating, “Pants on Fire.”  They say, “We found no evidence that Sanger advocated - privately or publicly - for anything even resembling the „genocide‟ of blacks, or that she thought blacks are genetically inferior.” The Washington Post gave a similar claim made by Herman Cain four “Pinocchios.” They write, “No matter what you think of abortion, it seems pretty clear that Cain is spouting historical fiction.
There is no evidence that Sanger ever sought to kill black babies, either through the Negro Project or any other endeavor.”  The fact is Planned Parenthood opposes discrimination in any form and has worked to address racial and economic bias in access to health care for 95 years
.

More on Loesch's deliberate falsehoods on the "war on women" and attacks on women and pro-choice viewpoints: 

Dana Busted: #INSen: Anti-choice radical Dana Loesch defends Richard Mourdock's offensive comments 
Dana Busted: On KFTK's The Dana Show, Loesch defends Akin against the "GOP Establishment that wants him to drop out"
Dana Busted: Dana Loesch falsely implies that "McCaskill and Democrats want to control women"
LGF: Dana and Chris Loesch Defend Akin’s ‘Legitimate Rape’ Comments
Dana Busted: Clueless moron Dana Loesch defends Todd Akin's "Legitimate Rape" comment 
Dana Busted: Anti-choice liar Dana Loesch criticizes Lisa Brown's Vagina Monologues speech
Dana Busted: Loesch on KFTK's The Dana Show: "Progressive Women Suffer From 'Fake Leg Syndrome.'"
Dana Busted: GOP flunky Dana Loesch continues to misleadingly accuse the Dems of "pushing a 'war on women'"
Dana Busted: Loesch defends Kleefisch and Walker from possible recalls

Dana Busted: Loesch visits Chicago, still baselessly claims the "Democrats have a war on [conservative] women" 
Dana Busted: Loesch visits Madison, Wisconsin, and lies her butt off 
Dana Busted: Dana Loesch STILL falsely accusing the "Dems of starting the War on Moms' 
Dana Busted: Loesch falsely trumpets the "Democrats have declared war on [conservative] mothers" 
Media Matters for America: Dana Loesch's constant smears against Sandra Fluke 
Dana Busted: Loesch falsely accuses the Dems of "playing political games with VAWA" 
Dana Busted: Big Journalism's Loesch falsely accuses Jan Schakowsky of "validating misogyny" 
Dana Busted: Loesch defends the sexist Oxycontin Smuggling Hypocrite's attacks on Sandra Fluke 
Dana Busted: Outright moron Loesch still lying about Sandra Fluke 
Dana Busted: On her radio show, Loesch ridicules college-aged women for supporting access to contraception
Dana Busted: Anti-choice whacko Dana Loesch defends Virginia's horrid extremist Ultrasound Law
Dana Busted: Loesch's recent lunacy continues on trucking
Dana Busted: Loesch lies on ABC's This Week on everything
Dana Busted: Anti-Choice liar Loesch: "Liberals only care about breast cancer to push their pro-abortion agenda"
Dana Busted: More anti-choice propaganda from Dana Loesch 
Media Matters: Loesch and guest Katz bash Michelle Obama 
Media Matters: On The Dana Show, Loesch Claims "Democrats Use Women As Prostitutes For Votes" 
LGF: CNN and KFTK’s Dana Loesch Equates Mandatory Trans-Vaginal Ultrasound to Having Sex 
Media Matters: Limbaugh, Loesch join chorus blaming MoveOn for activist beating

1.17.2013

Unhinged Moron Dana Loesch on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight: "There Is No Such Thing As An Assault Weapon"

Teabagger and 2nd Amendment Absolutionist Dana Loesch made her return to CNN... but not labeled as a "CNN contributor." Both her and Tea Party nutball Scottie Hughes were on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight to make baseless attacks about gun regulations and to make fools of themselves on national television. .

MMFA:
When Dana Loesch appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight to discuss efforts to strengthen gun laws, Piers Morgan introduced her as a "conservative radio talk-show host," but didn't identify her as a CNN contributor. CNN hired Loesch as a political contributor in early 2011, but has been absent from the network in recent months.  

Without any official announcement, CNN reportedly suspended Loesch soon after she defended U.S. Marines accused of urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban forces, saying, "I'd drop trou and do it too." Her comment was widely condemned, including by CNN journalists. (By coincidence, one of the Marines involved in the incident pleaded guilty at a court-martial on Wednesday.) 
In December, Loesch reportedly filed a lawsuit against Breitbart.com claiming that the site refuses to publish her work or allow it to be published elsewhere. Loesch was formerly identified as editor-in-chief of Breitbart's Big Journalism site.
In the interview, Loesch and Hughes both got smacked down by Piers Morgan.

From the 01.16.2013 edition of CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight:


Mediaite:
In the past few weeks, Piers Morgan has brought on a number of pro-gun advocates to argue with over gun control, and with each argument Morgan appears to get exponentially more frustrated with their arguments. Case in point, on his program tonight, after repeatedly grilling Dana Loesch on her opposition to restrictions on gun ownership, he told her that listening to her argue so vigorously against gun control “makes me sick.” 

Morgan asked Loesch why any American would need large magazine drums. Loesch brought up a big news story about a New York man critically injured after being beaten to argue that having a gun would be useful for self-defense. Morgan pointed out that no one died in the brawl, and pushed her to explain why she thinks a gun would have helped the situation. 
Loesch argued that the Founding Fathers would have put limits on gun rights in the Constitution if they wanted any. She asked Morgan if he’s ever fired an AR-15. Morgan said he has not, and Loesch told her that it is much easier to fire than other rifles.
 She and Hughes said they do not support a single one of Obama’s proposed executive orders, which led Morgan to go off on a rant against them. 
“The pair of you would like the right to have a tank and you don’t agree with a single–a single one of President Obama’s proposals for gun control. And you know what? It makes me sick when I hear people say that kind of stuff.”
And Mrs. Loesch, there IS such thing as an "assault weapon."

Transcript of the segment between Hughes and Loesch:

MORGAN: Let's turn to the other side of the gun debate now. Dana Loesch is a conservative radio talk show host of "The Dana Show," and Scottie Hughes is the news director for Tea Party News Network. Her young brother was a victim of gun violence. 
Welcome to you both. 
Scottie, what was your reaction to what the president said today? And what did you agree with him about? 
SCOTTIE HUGHES, BROTHER WAS MURDERED BY NANNY'S SON: Nothing. Because it was propaganda. From the second he opened his mouth, I thought the Golden Globes were done a couple of days ago. But from the second he opened his mouth to when he went over and high-fived those kids, exploited the kids -- 
MORGAN: Right. So let me just get this clear. 
HUGHES: Nothing -- sure. 
MORGAN: You don't agree with universal background checks for gun sales? 
HUGHES: In French, back to the Bill of Rights. Strict constitutional. 
MORGAN: You don't agree with that? 
HUGHES: Infringe on my rights. I think there is a certain thing to be said. But let's point this out here. 
MORGAN: Well, hang on, hang on. 
HUGHES: You're sitting -- hold on. 
MORGAN: How can it possibly infringe anybody's rights to have a background check for a potentially lethal firearm given that gun owners, the people that -- sorry, gun store owners have to have them? What possible infringement of your rights is it as a member of the American society if you want to buy a gun that are background checked? 
HUGHES: Well, here's the deal. I'm a legal gun owner. So I'm going to have it. I'm not going to object. You might find a stolen Oreo cookie in kindergarten in my background but I'm going to be cleared, and I got cleared. The criminals, though, are not going to do it. That's the key to this. If you think the criminals are going to say, hallelujah, and they're going to have a complete come to Jesus meeting and go get a background check, that's completely false. If the criminals -- 
MORGAN: But that is about people planning to break the law. That's down to law enforcement people to enforce the law. It's a different issue. 
HUGHES: Well, the key is, though, that once again, you're doing a federal mandate. 
MORGAN: You don't agree with any of this? You don't agree with -- 
HUGHES: I really don't. I think he totally exploited -- 
MORGAN: What you -- what -- 
HUGHES: -- the situation. 
MORGAN: Never mind -- never mind your view about his exploitation skills. Would you cap ammunition magazines to a 10-round limit?
HUGHES: No. 
MORGAN: Why? 
HUGHES: Because it doesn't say so in the Constitution. Where do you bullet points the Constitution? 
MORGAN: Where does it say you can have an assault weapon that can fire 100 bullets in a minute in your Constitution? 
HUGHES: Piers, more importantly where does it say I cannot? 
MORGAN: Right. So where's the limit? 
HUGHES: Well, there is not because it doesn't say it. It does not say it. 
MORGAN: But there -- but there are limits. There are more than 50 gun control limits already. There a reason for it. 
HUGHES: Because I don't agree with those. 
MORGAN: You don't? 
(CROSSTALK)
HUGHES: They shouldn't matter -- 
MORGAN: So you want a tank? 
HUGHES: You know what? When is the last time you saw a terrorist attack? Let's be realistic -- 
MORGAN: Do you want the right to have a tank? Do you believe the Second Amendment gives you, Scottie Hughes, the right to have a tank? 
HUGHES: You know what, honestly, I don't see bullet points in the Constitution, sure. I don't want one. MORGAN: Well -- 
HUGHES: I think my mayor would be upset. 
MORGAN: OK. Dana Loesch, do you think that Scottie is right? Do you feel you have the right to have a tank? 
DANA LOESCH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, "THE DANA SHOW": That's an interesting question, Piers. I want to explain something just very briefly. 
MORGAN: That is the question. How can this be a sensible conversation? 
LOESCH: No -- listen, listen, listen, listen -- no, listen. 
MORGAN: Dana, you represent a lot of people -- 
LOESCH: Listen. 
MORGAN: -- who believe what you say and trust you. How can you possibly -- 
LOESCH: I want to answer your question. 
MORGAN: -- say you want the right to a tank? 
LOESCH: I haven't even said anything yet. You've just presupposed what my answer is going to be. 
MORGAN: Well, tell me you don't want the right to a tank. 
LOESCH: The interesting thing about the writing of our Constitution is that, Piers, our founding fathers were very specific on what was and was not mentioned in terms of the Second Amendment. Musket is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Firearms is what's mentioned. Arms, period, is what is mentioned in the Second Amendment. 
And there are two reasons why we were successful in the Revolutionary War. Number one, guerrilla tactics. Number two, we had the same weapons capability as those against whom we were fighting. And I think that that -- if you can't glean my answer from that, I think it's pretty definitive. 
MORGAN: Your country, America, has 5,000 nuclear warheads. I'd say you're pretty covered on the threat of an overseas tyrannical regime. 
I come back to this question, though, because Scottie wants the right to have a tank. She says there are no limits in terms of the firearms that she can have. By your answer just now, the logical assumption from that is that you also believe there should be no limitation of firearms if a potential enemy has the same thing. 
So let me ask you again, Dana. Do you think you should have the right to have a tank under the Second Amendment? 
LOESCH: I think the Constitution is clear and it says that we have a right to bear arms under the definition of arms. We have the right to firearms. 
MORGAN: Does that include a tank? 
LOESCH: If that is how arms is defined, I'm going to let you draw your conclusions on that. 
MORGAN: No, no, no. Because I'd be following -- 
LOESCH: Our founding fathers are clear. 
MORGAN: I'd be following this very carefully. 
LOESCH: Piers, the founding fathers are clear. 
MORGAN: On your Twitter feed you've been espousing yourself -- 
LOESCH: Yes. So have you started using the term -- have you stopped using the term assault rifle? 
MORGAN: Dana, Dana, Dana -- I'll come to that in a moment. 
LOESCH: OK. 
MORGAN: But you have been espousing very strongly your interpretation of the Second Amendment. 
LOESCH: I've been quoting the Second Amendment. 
MORGAN: So -- this is not a time to be shy. Do you believe -- 
LOESCH: Oh, I'm not. 
MORGAN: The Second Amendment gives you, as Scottie believes, the right to have a tank? 
LOESCH: I believe that the Second Amendment gives us all the right to bear arms. That's how I -- that's how I see it. 
MORGAN: Does that include a tank? 
LOESCH: If that's how -- if it falls under the definition of firearms. 
MORGAN: Do you think it does? 
LOESCH: I -- if it falls under the definition of firearms. 
MORGAN: Do you think it does, Dana? 
LOESCH: If I say so, you're going to -- you're going to fire back. 
MORGAN: Do you think it does? 
LOESCH: And accuse me about my interpretation. 
MORGAN: No, I'm asking you -- you've been interpreting it all week. I've been reading your Twitter feed. Do you think -- 
LOESCH: No, I've been quoting the Constitution. 
MORGAN: Does your -- 
LOESCH: What I think -- 
MORGAN: Does your personal interpretation -- 
LOESCH: What I think is more of interest is your use of the term assault rifle. 
MORGAN: Does your personal -- Dana, answer my question. 
LOESCH: It's your use of the terms assault rifle. I have twice. 
MORGAN: Does the -- does your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment include your right to have a tank? 
LOESCH: My personal interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't a personal interpretation. It is what it is, and it states what it states. We have the right to own firearms. We have the right to bear arms. 
MORGAN: Right. 
LOESCH: Now all of that which falls under the definition of firearms, that is what is guaranteed to us. 
MORGAN: Does that include a tank? 
LOESCH: If it falls under the definition of firearms, Piers. 
MORGAN: Scottie has -- 
HUGHES: When is the last time you heard somebody want a tank and buy a tank? 
MORGAN: Scottie has -- 
HUGHES: When is the last time you -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Scottie, with respect, with respect, you've already said that you think it does. Dana won't answer the question. And -- 
LOESCH: I have answered the question. You just don't like my answer. 
MORGAN: I don't understand why. Well, my question is -- LOESCH: So now you -- 
MORGAN: It's your personal interpretation that you want -- 
(LAUGHTER)
MORGAN: That's not funny. 
LOESCH: No, no. 
MORGAN: Because actually -- 
HUGHES: It's ludicrous. This question is ludicrous. 
LOESCH: Piers. Piers, with all due respect, I find it so interesting that you're trying to nail down this definition when you can't even accurately talk about what is or is not an assault rifle. 
MORGAN: I will come to that. But here's why -- here's why it's such an important question. Because it's precisely the definition and interpretation of the Second Amendment that has got America into this horrific mess, as I see it, in terms of -- 
LOESCH: We disagree on that. 
MORGAN: In terms of the right to bear arms and what those arms are. I have no -- 
LOESCH: We disagree on that. 
MORGAN: I know. But I have no problem with Americans who defend themselves in their homes with a handgun or a pistol or a shotgun. I have a major problem, as you know, with the more military-style assault weapons. 
Now you say that the weapon used in Aurora and the weapon used at Sandy Hook was not an assault weapon. I ask you what is an assault weapon? If it's not a weapon that can kill 20 children in a few seconds or unload 100 bullets in a movie theater in 90 seconds, what do you term that kind of weapon if it's not an assault weapon? 
And the reason I put it to you is that the last time there was an assault weapon ban, that particular weapon was included in the ban. And people got rounded by modifying it. But it was included. So it's defined in 1994 as an assault weapon. 
LOESCH: Actually, it was -- it also discussed the cosmetics that you could add on to such a weapon. First of all, let me address your initial question. There is no such thing as an assault weapon no more than there is such a thing as an assault unicorn. And if there is one that exists, I would love to capture it. 
As for assault rifle, you like to use the term military-style assault rifle. 
MORGAN: Yes. LOESCH: I'm not quite sure what constitutes to you military style, but I will tell you this. As a -- 
MORGAN: Well, let me -- let me -- 
LOESCH: Well, let me -- let me explain. 
MORGAN: Well, let me make it easy for you. 
LOESCH: Let me explain. 
MORGAN: Let me make it easy for you. 
LOESCH: OK. Go right ahead. 
MORGAN: My brother is a British -- my brother is a British army colonel. 
LOESCH: OK. 
MORGAN: And he says that from his testing -- 
LOESCH: So you're an expert? 
MORGAN: Well, my brother is, yes. He's fought alongside American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
LOESCH: OK. 
MORGAN: He says he's only belonged as does General McChrystal and General Colin Powell on a military field because they perform in a military-style capability. 
LOESCH: OK. 
MORGAN: When a young deranged man -- 
(LAUGHTER)
MORGAN: Well, it's not funny. Stop laughing, Dana. 
LOESCH: I'm not -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: I don't like anybody laughing in this conversation. These are -- 
LOESCH: I want to answer your question. You just -- you won't let me answer. 
MORGAN: These are -- these are fundamental -- I am letting you answer. I'm telling you that in my view -- 
LOESCH: I know what the answer is. 
MORGAN: Any rifle that can unload 90 bullets or 100 bullets in 90 seconds has to be an assault weapon. 
LOESCH: Well, again, assault -- when you use the term military- style assault rifle, you do realize that you're trying to conflate the terms, and you're giving the impression that Adam Lanza and these other individuals actually owned military standard rifles. An assault rifle, if you want to use this term for the sake of argument. You're talking about either a weapon or a firearm that's capable of select fire, which I'm sure you know what that means. 
MORGAN: I do, yes. 
LOESCH: Being that you're discussing it. Or it's semiautomatic, automatic, or it's capable of select fire. 
MORGAN: Now you see -- 
(CROSSTALK)
I'm actually not, though. I'm actually not. I'll talk to you about it -- 
LOESCH: Citizens -- but let me tell you. 
MORGAN: I'm talking about it -- no, no, Dana. 
LOESCH: As a firearm owner, as a member of the NRA. 
MORGAN: Dana. Dana. 
LOESCH: As someone who has shot fully automatic weapons and who owns semiautomatic weapons. 
MORGAN: Yes. Yes. 
LOESCH: Let me tell you that a citizen cannot go out and purchase a fully automatic weapon. 
MORGAN: Right. 
LOESCH: They are regulated to ban. So when you use this terminology, it is from this knowledge base that you were using to cast aspersions on to our second amendment rights. 
MORGAN: You don't -- you don't dispute -- you don't dispute that the AR-15 was banned under the last assault weapons ban? 
(CROSSTALK)
Excuse me, Scottie, wait a minute. 
LOESCH: Right. 
MORGAN: You don't dispute that? 
LOESCH: And Columbine happened, and Columbine happened after that. MORGAN: No, no. That wasn't the question, Dana. Do you dispute that it was banned? 
LOESCH: And Columbine happened after that. 
MORGAN: Dana, you're having trouble tonight answering any of my questions. 
LOESCH: No, I'm not. I'm answering all of your question. 
MORGAN: Just clarify and tell me this one second. 
LOESCH: You not liking my answers does not constitute me not answering. 
MORGAN: You say -- you say the AR-15 is an assault weapon. Why was it banned then under the 1994 assault weapons ban? 
LOESCH: Because people don't like scary-looking guns. Do you realize you can get a pellet gun that looks like a military-style assault weapon -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: OK. You don't want to answer the question. OK. 
HUGHES: And because -- it's because Joe Biden was at the lead of it. Joe Biden was the one. 
MORGAN: Let's take a break. Let's take a break, come back. I'll try some more questions. Why don't we see if we can get some answers. 


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Obama uses kids as human shields. The Democrats use kids as human shields. He brings these kids supposedly who wrote letters to the White House after Newtown, bring them up there to present a picture of support among the children. 
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Rush Limbaugh today. Back with me now, Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes. 
Scottie Hughes, why shouldn't President Obama bring these children to the White House to illustrate a point that he is making these proposals now in direct relation to the slaughter of children? 
HUGHES: Why sit here and say to these -- to bring these children up on stage and give them high-fives and then sit there and your White House claims that the NRA ad exploits his own children? I mean, across the board, he is exploiting children. He sat there and is complaining double standard completely. He brought his children on every chance he could during the campaign. And now his White House is coming and saying this new NRA ad is actually attacking his children and that's just wrong? Hands off my kids? 
The same thing he did today with those four. And to you point, I'll be honest to you, people own tanks. People own cannons. Hey, people own jet fighters. When is the last time you heard a crime done by one of those people? 
MORGAN: OK, Dana Loesch, let's ask you that question which is about the magazine clips. Do you think that there is any reason why any civilian needs a magazine -- or magazine drums at it is now, over 10-round limit or more? 
LOESCH: I think that there exist reasons that exactly why we should have more than. I know what -- New York bans seven. I can think of a story just a headline that just hit the papers today in New York. There was a man who was attacked by a gang of men with bats and tire irons. There were I believe more than seven of those individuals that attacked him. I can't think of that -- 
MORGAN: What is the point of that anecdote? 
LOESCH: And also, and also, Piers -- 
MORGAN: But Dana, why do you tell that story? 
LOESCH: Well, because it's to highlight that if someone has a firearm and they're able to defend themselves -- 
MORGAN: Have you seen that video? Have you seen the video? 
LOESCH: Or -- I've seen -- I actually have screen shots of it. 
MORGAN: OK. I bet you -- I bet you you've -- 
LOESCH: But Piers -- but Piers -- 
MORGAN: Well, hang on. Hang on. You can't just say these things. I took the trouble to watch that whole video. 
LOESCH: Yes, OK. 
MORGAN: An unfortunate man involved in a pizza argument at 5:00 a.m. in the street gets attacked by a group of people who were clutching a bar of some sort. 
LOESCH: A tire iron. 
MORGAN: But he is a live. He didn't get killed. He wasn't shot. Is your solution to that fight in a street -- 
LOESCH: I made a suggestion. 
MORGAN: And we don't know who caused or what. 
LOESCH: I didn't say it was the solution. 
MORGAN: It's your suggestion that somebody pull a gun out and shot somebody. 
LOESCH: If you have to defend yourself against more than one attacker, then absolutely. And, Piers, you also have -- have you ever fired a -- have a fired a weapon? 
MORGAN: So that young man should have shot those people? 
LOESCH: I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if someone has -- 
MORGAN: What are you saying then? 
LOESCH: There are instances where there is more than one people, more than one person coming at you. There is an instance where you have -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Let me ask you. OK. Let me ask you. 
LOESCH: But, Piers, here's the thing. 
MORGAN: Let me ask you this. 
LOESCH: It's the founding fathers -- 
MORGAN: What do -- 
LOESCH: -- wanted this limit that would have enumerated that and the Second Amendment. 
MORGAN: OK. We've already stopped as you don't believe there are limitations. So that's fine. So every one can have a tank. 
Why would anybody -- why would anybody need an AR-15? 
LOESCH: Have you ever fired one? 
MORGAN: I haven't fired one. No. Why would anyone need an AR -- 
LOESCH: OK. Let me tell you right now. Let me -- 
MORGAN: Dana, let me just finish my question. 
LOESCH: I want to answer this because -- 
MORGAN: Let me finish my question. 
LOESCH: Piers, this will help so much. This helps so much. 
MORGAN: Nobody -- nobody -- let me -- 
(CROSSTALK) MORGAN: Let me ask the question. 
LOESCH: OK, go ahead. 
MORGAN: Why would anybody need an AR-15 that has a magazine with 100 bullets in it, as with the shooter at Aurora? Why would anybody need that? 
LOESCH: Well, first and foremost, if you've never fired an AR- 15, as a woman, who also has self-defense -- has -- uses guns for self-defense and likes to know that I have that security they're a lot easier to fire than other rifles simply because of the recoil. 
MORGAN: So you think all women should all be armed with AR-15s? 
LOESCH: My goodness, now are you going to go off on a tangent every single time I say one thing? You just go off to make up another -- 
MORGAN: I'm trying to clarify what you actually believe. 
LOESCH: Come on, now, Piers. Stay with me here. Stay here with me. 
MORGAN: I'm trying to clarify what you believe. 
LOESCH: Well, I'm trying to explain it to you, but you keep putting words in my mouth every time I try. So stop, let me finish, and we'll get somewhere with this. No, an AR-15 is -- honestly, it's just like any other rifle. I don't understand why some individuals can become so scared of this, because they think it's a scary-looking weapon. It's not. This is not like the military-style assault rifle that, you know, fully automatic or capable of select fire. 
MORGAN: It shot 17 Americans -- it shot 17 Americans in a movie heater in 90 seconds. It murdered a group of New York state firemen. 
LOESCH: Do you know there are -- there are pistols -- 
HUGHES: Illegally. 
MORGAN: And killed 20 schoolchildren in an elementary school. 
LOESCH: There are pistols made by Armalite. 
MORGAN: Yes. But this particular weapon has been used in the last four mass shootings and still nobody can explain to me why any civilian -- 
LOESCH: How are law-abiding Americans responsible for that, Piers? 
MORGAN: -- need that? Or one of these high-capacity magazines? 
LOESCH: Piers, how are law-abiding -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: I don't get what their need is. 
LOESCH: How are law-abiding citizens like me responsible for that? I follow the law. And I'll admit it. I own an AR-15. I follow the law. 
MORGAN: James Holmes was a law-abiding -- 
LOESCH: I went through my background checks. I've taken the classes. 
MORGAN: Dana -- 
LOESCH: I'm a responsible owner. 
MORGAN: James Holmes -- 
LOESCH: Why should I be punished? 
MORGAN: James Holmes was a law-abiding citizen. He bought his guns legally. He bought the ammunition over the Internet. And he went in and shot 17 Americans in a movie theater. So I'm afraid when the NRA -- 
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: No. 
MORGAN: When the NRA says taking our guns, attacking our guns today -- 
LOESCH: No. No. 
MORGAN: Wait. The NRA said today attacking our guns will only hurt law-abiding gun owners like -- 
LOESCH: I want to focus on something for a second, Piers. 
MORGAN: Do I presume then -- do I presume -- 
LOESCH: I want to focus on that. He was -- 
MORGAN: Let me finish, Dana. 
LOESCH: He was on medication and he was seeing a psychiatrist. 
MORGAN: Do I presume -- Dana, I don't dispute that. 
LOESCH: No, let me answer this. I want to bring this up. This is an important point, Piers. 
MORGAN: I'm telling you, though, that he was a legal gun owner. 
LOESCH: And it needs to be made. 
MORGAN: As was Adam Lanza's mother. 
LOESCH: No, here's the thing. This is where people who are -- 
MORGAN: Adam Lanza's mother was a legal gun owner. 
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Piers, Piers -- 
HUGHES: But Adam Lanza's mother did not shoot people up, Piers. You have to realize that. 
LOESCH: And Piers, you need to realize, too, that this is where the people who are supposed to be telling -- see, look. I'm going to use the case of Jared Loughner as an example. Do you realize that that -- he could have been reported in terms of being mentally unfit, reported to NICS when they did the background check they would have determined that he was mentally unfit. He would have been unable to purchase a firearm. 
The same thing with Holmes. But you have these laws in place. 
Piers, what good are laws if they -- if no one wants to follow them. 
MORGAN: Scottie -- 
LOESCH: Do you realize -- 
MORGAN: Scottie said earlier -- 
LOESCH: No. Do you realize that there are laws that have been passed to incentivize states recording these people? 
MORGAN: Scottie said early that she -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: OK. I hear you. Scottie said earlier she doesn't agree with a single thing that President Obama said today. What's your view? Is there anything there you agreed with? 
LOESCH: You know, I'm really -- because I think that he was moved by what happened at Newtown, which I think anybody would have been. And at the same time -- 
MORGAN: Was there anything you agreed within the president's proposals? 
LOESCH: No. 
MORGAN: OK. 
HUGHES: And instead of -- today instead of having those four children -- 
MORGAN: You know that's it. You know something? 
HUGHES: -- I would have liked to have the mother from Georgia that sat there. 
MORGAN: The pair of you would like to have the right to have a tank and you don't agree with a single -- 
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Why are you making -- now you're committing -- 
MORGAN: With a single one of President Obama's proposals. 
LOESCH: Now you're committing the straw man, Piers. Now you're committing the straw man. 
HUGHES: Because all you're doing -- 
MORGAN: And you know something? It makes me sick when I hear people say that kind of thing. 
LOESCH: Piers. 
HUGHES: Piers. Do we need to -- 
LOESCH: Piers, when did they say that, Piers? It makes me sick when I hear people -- 
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Coming up, (INAUDIBLE) the gun debate and the president's sweeping proposal. 






Tweets by @JGibsonDem