Just two days after CNN’s Piers Morgan, in a debate (really it was a shouting-down-your-guests fest) with conservative commentator Dana Loesch, suggested that it was outrageous for a New York man, being attacked by a gang of 7 others, to wound his attackers or present a gun in order to avoid being violently beaten. This sort of logic is common among anti-gun advocates. One columnist recently headlined a piece, “real men use their fists, not guns.” Second Amendment and pro-gun supporters suggest that this defies logic, that criminals will not follow the law or even basic decency.
Morgan always has a lot to say about his critics (we wrote just yesterday about him calling Andrew Sullivan a “dick”), but one certainly doesn’t expect it to involve, yes, guns. The Daily Caller’s Charles C. Johnson writes:
In 2004 Morgan penned an op-ed for the Evening Standard headlined “I can’t be liberal on burglars,” in which he said he said a series of home invasions and robberies at his home made him wish for a gun. Britain, which had banned all guns, had seen a rash of break-in burglaries, one of which took the life of financier John Monckton.
If Monckton “had killed one of those burglars while defending himself … then he would now be facing a jail sentence for manslaughter or even murder,” Morgan wrote. “No part of my liberalism allows me to deem this fair.”
“I am now so liberal on most things that my army-officer brother likes to refer to me as a ‘wet, pinko, cheese-eating surrender monkey,’” Morgan wrote. “I’m antiwar, don’t like foxhunting, feel threatened by ID cards, and think cannabis should be decriminalised.”
“But when it comes to burglars I turn into a rabid fascist. I want them erased from life, all of them. Preferably after a decent period of cattle-prodding, testicle electrode treatment, and slow gentle skewering over hot coals.”
When he bought his first home in London, he explained, “it seemed the most exciting thing in the world. Then we got burgled three times in six months, and our lives became consumed by fear and fury.”
The thieves “nick [steal] everything, and always did it in a repulsive manner — trashing the house each time, crapping on the stairs, urinating on the beds. It wasn’t enough that they wanted out possessions, they wanted us to feel really violated as well. And we did,” he wrote. “Now we were confident, physically robust young men. But it really shook us up. Add a bit of violence to the mix and I think we’d have gone racing back to our mummies.”
Morgan added that he would have no compunction about kiling a burglar who posed a threat to him or his family.
It goes on and on.
Johnson dug up these past comments that are sure to embarrass the anti-gun crusader. Of his rivals, he jokingly fantasized that left with only one bullet to kill three men, he’d take a “clean shot to take out” one of the foes while “ricocheting hit to mortally wound both” others.
Hypocrite or can it all be summed up? Surely, the gun debate will get louder and louder.
Fast forward to the 11:25 min mark to listen to Morgan’s exchange with Dana on the scenario mentioned at the start of this post.