CNN’s Anti-Gun Advocate, Piers Morgan Joked About Shooting Rivals, Okay With Killing Robbers

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.

3 Comments

  1. January 18, 2013  5:35 am by Charles C. Johnson Reply

    And in case you wanted to pay the writer! Here's the link. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/in-england-piers-morgan-joked-about-shooting-rivals-said-homeowners-who-kill-burglars-should-not-be-prosecuted/

    • January 26, 2013  6:47 am by Becca Lower Reply

      Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Johnson. :)

  2. January 25, 2013  1:54 pm by TangoUniform Reply

    If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

    Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

    Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

    Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

    I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

    Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

    For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

    The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

    Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

    The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

    I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns.Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

    We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

    A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

    Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

    It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

    If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

    Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

    I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

    Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

Leave a Reply

Twitter Down! Twitter Down!

All hell broke loose when Twitter went down just over an hour ago. At the present time, Twitter does not know what caused the popular micro blogging service to crash. During the ou[...]