Newt Gingrich Administers Butt Hurt to Anti-Second Amendment Blowhard Piers Morgan

Morgan must love getting spanked. First Ben Shapiro, Dana Loesch, and now Gingrich.

NEWT GINGRICH: So where — so where are you — so where are you on pistols that have fairly large capacity? Where are you on the pistols that killed most of the people in Chicago, Piers?

PIERS MORGAN: My position —

GINGRICH: It’s okay if we kill them individually?

MORGAN: No. Let me make my position.

GINGRICH: Are you saying three, four, five, and that’s okay?

MORGAN: Let my position very, very clear. What is happening in Chicago is completely outrageous, completely unacceptable. I think there’s been a total breakdown in the effectiveness of the law enforcement. Because when you compare it to New York, they have solved a lot of the gun problems in New York with very stringent gun control and they’ve enforced it properly. There are — it’s like the Wild West situation in parts of Chicago. I’ve been there, I think it’s outrageous. And I think the fact that 11,000 or 12,000 people die a year in America from gun fire and a lot of that is from handguns used by criminals and gangsters is disgraceful.

GINGRICH: Right.

MORGAN: And I think many of the other —

GINGRICH: So why — right. So why don’t you share your real view?

MORGAN: Many of the other proposals —

GINGRICH: Isn’t it —

MORGAN: It’s all wrong to me.

GINGRICH: Isn’t your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?

MORGAN: No, it wouldn’t. What —

GINGRICH: Wouldn’t you ban pistols if you could?

MORGAN: Let me — let me explain what I would do. I would agree with Diane Feinstein. It is the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute that can cause mass murder that would be my primary concern right now. And the AR-15 is a prime example of that.

GINGRICH: Okay, right now, and the reason you find so many of us, and by the way, it’s a substantial majority, I think the last time I saw, 63 percent of the American people agree that the Second Amendment is actually there to protect us from tyranny. The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step. And we actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, not just something there for hunters, not something there for target practice, but actually there because the founding fathers remembered that when your army tried to defeat us, luckily, our peasants weren’t peasants. They were citizens. And as citizens, they were in fact armed. And that’s the only reason we were able to win the Revolutionary War.

MORGAN: And you think — and you honestly think the founding fathers sat there and thought, okay, automatic weapons are banned because they are very dangerous. The semiautomatics that can fire 100 bullets in a minute are not dangerous and they should be lawful?

GINGRICH: I think the founding fathers would have found this entire debate strange because they actually believed in individual freedom and they were very suspicious of big government, and they would find the idea that you’re going to permit, to use the word you kept using. You’re going to permit us to have a few liberties right now, was the antithesis of the American experience.

Morgan is the quintessential pompous prick.  He’s so thoroughly convinced of his own moral superiority that he fails to realize when he’s been owned.  His implosions against American citizens who support the Bill of Rights and Constitution are on par with former MSNBC/Current TV moonbat  Keith Olbermann, and dysfunctional loony Chris Matthews.

And he’s just as unhinged.

 

Related posts:

17 thoughts on “Newt Gingrich Administers Butt Hurt to Anti-Second Amendment Blowhard Piers Morgan”

  1. Clearly you have never heard of BUPA or Aviva.

    Try reading up on something once in a while. In failing that, just try reading something, anything. Even a pop up book.

    Have a nice day

    1. Spaff,

      The facts are cold, hard, and unpleasant. Don’t shoot the messenger. Aviva & Bupa…WOW. You mean that you actually have two whole other options? Two private healthcare companies? And yet the NHS, which has the bulk of British patients is still impersonal, filthy, and antiquated. You’d think with all that compassion for the poor, that the conditions would be better monitored and enforced. But, when you accept (um pardon me, can only afford) government control over your healthcare, that’s what happens. Taxpayers are footing the bill for a medical system that has proven to be an epic fail. I think we can agree on some things:
      1. That people should be able to select the insurance provider that suits them
      2. That costs can be kept down if a patient uses services like CAT scans and MRIs wisely and takes accountability for their own personal health.
      3. Laws against medical fraud, padding bills, dishonest health care claims, need to be strongly enforced.
      4. Stop unnecessary regulations on pharmaceutical companies that drive up the costs of prescriptions: i.e. studies of comparative effectiveness.
      5. Allow the the expansion of generic drugs.
      6. Work with your doctor and don’t take any unnecessary medications. I know people who take handfuls of pills every damned day, and it causes more problems than it’s worth.

      I read up on many things, thank you. Politics, history, commentary, essays, military, philosophy, fiction, science, a veritable collection of diverse educational and informative topics. Hence, the ease with with I battered your arguments. Try reading other posts on my blog. You may learn something.

      You have a nice day as well.

      SFC MAC

  2. Ma’am your facts are inaccurate, I’m sure the loud shouting man television has told you how horrible they are, but he is wrong. You have described a tiny number of hospitals in the country, not the bigger picture.

    Just today an NHS Hospital in Birmingham has been preparing to replace half a girl’s skull with a Titanium plate after she was shot at point blank range in Pakistan.

    The NHS also gave Professor Stephen Hawking advanced machinery tat allowed him to live and become one of the leading Physicists in the world today. He would have died without it, he has said so himself.

    There are other options for healthcare in this country, the NHS is not the only option there are plenty of private places people can go to, but they don’t.

    1. Spaff,

      The record of terrible incidents and the body count belie your assertion.

      They don’t have much of a choice, because there’s only one universal healthcare system. They’d have to leave the country, otherwise.

      SFC MAC

  3. For somebody who likes to post a lot of links, you clearly did not read the one I posted in my previous post, where we were noted for having some of the best healthcare in the world. I’m assuming you forgot to read it and didn’t rudely just dismiss it.

    The Sun has never been a reliable paper, it’s not really a newspaper; it’s a tabloid. This is a newspaper that is always changing it’s political backing between left or right. Recently 22 of it’s journalists have been arrested, with a likely 10 more to follow, because of what appears to be professional misconduct.

    I’m not saying that Welfare is something that should be a luxury, but it is there as a safety net. And, most of the time, that is what it is used for.

    Much like The Sun, you are very good at picking out individual stories and treating them as if they are the complete norm. Those minor anomaly’s are just that and nothing more. I’m also sure the list of people who died in our hospitals is much smaller than the list of people who were admitted and didn’t die.

    As for the list of people that can afford to use our hospitals, that’s the entire population of our country, is that the same in America?

    1. Spaff,

      You have a failed socialist health care system that costs thousands of lives due to depraved indifference, overcrowding, lack of adequate care and bureaucratic incompetence. I didn’t need the Sun to point that out.
      The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9046584/Britains-healthcare-companies-look-as-sick-as-their-patients.html

      The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/buyer-beware-the-failure-of-single-payer-health-care

      The National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=MDFjODUzM2E0ZTdmMGM4NzgyZDE0M2QzNGYwMDI1MGQ=

      The Heartland Institute: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/britains-health-care-system-costs-patients-and-businesses-billions

      Apparently, many British citizens aren’t too enamored with your NHS.

      As for “affording” your hospitals, do they really have any other choice? And just think, ObamaCare enforcement is on the horizon for us. We have so much to look forward to.

      SFC MAC

  4. Did you really just quote The Sun, it’s one of the worst newspapers in the UK, and probably Europe. You can’t trust anything they say, look at how it’s written…

    People are always going to play the welfare system if it’s there, that is a major downside to it. However, these people have been and will always be the minority of people. For the majority a welfare system, and in Britain country a healthcare system (one of the best in the world, http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1 ) is used because it is needed.

    When did people, such as yourself, stop caring about people and put the economy first. Doesn’t that seem in the least bit morally repugnant? Wouldn’t you rather that banks and businesses were attacked instead of the individuals at the bottom.

    Also Keynesian economics and Marxism are ideologically opposed to one another. I’m sure that Obama has studied both, that does not mean he is a follower of both beliefs.

    The thing is, you have to look at what has been written in the past, from both sides, and use it to move forwards. It’s well and good honoring aspects and ideas from the past, but to blindly stick to them and worship them because of what they have done rather than what they can point towards is ridiculous.

    1. Spaff,
      Are you really trying to dismiss the Sun’s direct quote because the thought of welfare leeches in your socialist ‘utopia’ is distasteful? Tsk.
      Whether you like it or not, a bloated welfare system is a result of a government’s mishandling of the economy and domestic policies. It’s a trough for derelicts who won’t work, don’t want to work, and have never worked. The system is abused in the amount of billions of taxpayer dollars every year.

      As I mentioned we have our own population of welfare slugs right here.

      Before I go any further, let me squash your ridiculous claims of the NHS being “one of the best in the world”:

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/baby-death-panels-new-study-reveals-gruesome-practice-of-starving-sickly-babies-in-british-health-system/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/socialist-british-healthcare-kills-12000-patients-per-year/

      The elderly and infants are dying by the bushel under your “healthcare”. It’s an abomination.

      ObamaCare contains much of the same in the form of Death Panels. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, aka the Death Panel, is deeply entrenched in the application of ObamaCare. Its function will be to determine whether or not your medical condition warrants treatment and the privilege of government funding. It will cost an estimated $1.8 trillion annually, family premiums will increase by $3000, and it has already had bad side effects on the economy.

      I guarantee it will get so bad that Obama’s successors will be forced to repeal the socialist Frankenstein he created.

      Self-sufficiency and expecting able bodied people to work for a living is the bane of the leftwing entitlement culture. Anyone who thinks that welfare should be an automatic entitlement with no responsibility attached, is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

      Keynesian economics espouses big government spending, Marxism exploits “class struggle” and making a nation of proletariats–where everyone is “equal” and no one can do better, regardless of initiative, ability, and motivation. Obama has certainly engaged in both.

      “Wouldn’t you rather that banks and businesses were attacked instead of the individuals at the bottom.”

      You mean the job creators and business owners who invested their hard work, money, and sweat to build those banks and businesses? Some of those folks are small business owners, who are sick of being penalized for what they’ve earned.
      Many of them were once “individuals at the bottom” who worked their way up, a concept that escapes you. (And the “Occupy” idiots)

      I come from a working class background. No one gave me or my family a meal ticket. My environment was far from prosperous. My mother raised 7 kids, mostly by herself. We all worked. My two older step sisters worked two part time jobs, and my mother worked to make ends meet. We believe in a helping hand, not a handout. As I said, I was a Soldier for 3 decades and I paid taxes.

      Parents are supposed to set an example of values, principles, and work ethic to help their kids have a better life than they did. The opportunities are there. You have to do something besides sit on your ass and complain about how unfair it is that the eeeeevil rich have so much money. They worked for it. Ordinary rational humans wouldn’t want to destroy their countries’ economy and penalize wage-earners with more taxation. But, that’s the goal of the class-warfare neo-Bolsheviks in the White House and the Democratic party.

      SFC MAC

  5. But why does it have to be updating by the left, I’m pretty sure there are members on the right that would like to change some things to the constitution. Obama is no more socialist than FDR, whose plans also included a very minor redistribution of wealth, if only to level the playing field. If you look around today the playing field is pretty uneven, people born into welfare families cannot help being born into welfare families.

    Also Lenin was a Communist not a socialist, that’s like calling a tea party member an outright fascist. It’s easy to do, but horribly inaccurate. He probably would’ve disagreed with Obama’s views on Democracy.

    Hope you liked our website.

    1. Spaff,

      (Note: click on the bolded terms for links.)

      Funny you should mention FDR. The failed “New Deal” was his legacy. I would go a step further when describing the intentions of FDR. He was a socialist who advanced the welfare state, and whose policies prolonged the Depression and damaged the economy for years. His unprecedented grip on the Oval Office and his pretext of a “New Deal” to transform the United States from a Democratic Republic to a socialist state, led to Contitutionally imposed term limits to the presidency.

      “Change the constitution”??? Most Tea Party/Republicans I know would like the government to honor the constitution for a damned change instead of ripping it to shreds. Minor redistribution? Is that what you call seizing of businesses, banks, and healthcare? You’re—as you Brits say—daft. “Even the playing field” is another socialist catch phrase. As if working for a living, earning your way, personal motivation, taking advantage of opportunities, and simply getting up off your lazy ass and looking for a job, are just too hard because *SOB* the playing field just isn’t fair! Well, since Obama’s “redistribution” train wreck has resulted in sky-high unemployment, those welfare slugs can suck off the public teat for a long time.

      People born into welfare families usually get a good look at how to take advantage of the system and use it for themselves.

      Case in point:

      Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

      It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

      They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

      The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

      The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.
      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4764841/Why-work.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

      We have plenty of those right here in America, too.

      When the government creates a carte blanche ‘safety net’, that net becomes a trap. More money goes into feeding the welfare class and Big Government than doing things that would get this country economically healthy. Generate jobs and employment by giving entrepreneurs the incentives to build and invest. This takes limited local, state and federal governments who aren’t hostile to business.

      Secondly, it takes a change in the attitude of people who think that everything earned by someone else belongs to them; free gratis.

      We have devolved from a country of rugged individualism to an entitlement culture. There’s a growing population who believes in getting something for nothing in the form of cradle to grave Nanny State care. Those of us who worked all our lives have a problem with that. I served as a U.S. Soldier for 30 years. I paid federal income tax, state tax, medicare/medicaid tax, and social security tax. I pay tax on my military pension, as well.

      I don’t mind my taxes going to help the bona fide disabled and elderly, but I’m also supporting a population of professional welfare recipients who manipulate the system and pass it to their children like a family heirloom. When I was a kid, it was a source of embarrassment to accept public assistance, and you tried to get back into the work force as soon as you could.

      Now it’s considered a “right”.

      Here’s a good essay for you to read: Goods are not rights: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/fling-welfare-state_576909.html

      Obama is a combination of socialist/Marxist/anti-colonial/Keynesian breeding; his parents were Marxist. His application of economics is the conduit through which he intends to transform the United States into government-controlled distribution of economic and natural resources. When a leader insists, “you’re not entitled to success, and “you didn’t build that”, you can bet they’re not a fan of Milton Friedman.

      Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on “public ownership” (READ: government ownership) of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism is just one step away from communism. Obama targets free market economic survival, and pushes government mandates to strangle it.

      A capitalist, he ain’t.

      SFC MAC

  6. Darn it, I should have gone for the Dear Sir/Madam like I originally planned…

    It is funny how anti-second amendment people focus on the first half, but it’s equally amusing that pro second amendment people only focus on the second half. The statement itself is too open to interpretation and needs to be tweaked.

    I’m not saying that the Bill of Rights should be trashed or thrown away or spat on or set alight. I just think that it could do with some updating and tweaking here and there, like anything. Even the Bible went through multiple re-drafts and changes, including adding a whole new Testament a few years later.

    As for Obama’s so called Socialism, this is quite interesting:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/20/is-president-obama-really-a-socialist-lets-analyze-obamanomics/

    1. Spaff,
      The kind of “updating” intended by the Left involves not just “assault weapons” bans, but the complete evisceration of the Second Amendment. Which is funny, because most of them can’t tell the difference between an “assault weapon” and a Nerf toy. I’m not exaggerating, either:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/schools-no-tolerance-policies-extend-to-childs-play/

      If you read the Constitution, you get the distinct impression that the founders meant for the checks and balances as well as the Bill of Rights, as protection against government tyranny, especially the Second Amendment.

      You’ll note that the biblical revisions toned down the fire and brimstone of the powers that be.

      As for Obama’s socialism, aside from the links I provided in my previous comment, his own words and deeds are proof enough:

      He’s engaged in the wanton destruction of our free-market system and demonizes successful business owners with anti-capitalist regulations and rhetoric, i.e.: “You didn’t build that”.

      Do “redistribute the wealth” and “fundamentally transform” America, ring a bell?

      He seized 2/3rds of our auto industry, along with a number of lending institutions, which had been forced to knuckle under the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac disaster.

      ObamaCare is one of the most unconstitutional, socialist big government intrusions, ever. The healthcare choices of millions of Americans were taken away under the guise of a “tax”, which in itself, will be overwhelming. The coming tragedy, similar to your NHS, will be catastrophic.

      His class warfare tactics are what got him elected twice. There’s a contingent of welfare slugs in this country that consistently buy into the “evil capitalist” crap.

      He was raised in a Marxist environment and worked as a Chicago “community organizer” with groups like ACORN (another socialist organization).

      I’ll even take it a step further and point out that Dear Leader has engaged in some pretty nasty lawlessness and abuse of office. He should have been impeached years ago.

      Obama’s socialist designs: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/21/obamas-socialist-designs/

      From Forbes Business: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/05/27/is-it-within-bounds-to-ask-is-obama-a-socialist/

      And you know you’re a socialist when the French praise you for your policies.

      Oh, and when it comes to gun-grabbing double standards, no one does it like leftwing politicians who believe their lives are more precious than everyone else’s.

      His policies would make Vladimir Lenin blush.

      SFC MAC

      PS: I took a peek at your site: http://5paff.wordpress.com/

      How Spaffy can you get?

  7. Sir,

    With no disrespect your government is nowhere near close to being a socialist one. America will not become Laos overnight, don’t worry.

    Also I don’t think I forgot any emphasis on the second half of the second amendment, it was an emphasis you chose to put there yourself, and in doing so you seemed pretty quick to forget the first half.

    Do you not think that when this amendment was written that again, with all due respect, your countries founding fathers would not have predicted the sheer destructive capabilities of the firearms we have today, or their regular availability.

    Surely the second amendment is slightly out of date in the 21st Century?

    1. Spaff,
      Actually, I’m female (About me and this blog)
      There’s still a population in America that won’t submit to Obama’s socialist policies, and yes he is indeed a socialist.
      Anyone who studied Obama’s personality, Marxist philosophy and background, would have understood that he is totally unfit to lead a Democratic Republic.
      Funny how the anti-Second Amendment crowd prefers the first half over the latter. As an American citizen who has read and appreciated the U.S. Constitution, I understand the founder’s intent. They had the foresight to create a set of checks and balances (legislative, judicial, executive) so that government could not be centralized, and therefore, oppressive. Well, our leftwing politicians have folded spindled and mutilated the Constitution to suit their hubris, and the result is a $16+ trillion debt, out of control spending, and a disastrous foreign policy. Which brings me back to the Bill of Rights. If it were up to them, the Constitution would be flushed and the Bill of Rights would be altered to ensure the whims of the government over the rights of the people. Matter of fact, several of them, including leftwing professors and politicians who are sworn to protect the constitution, have said words to that effect. I think the founders would be angered with the government’s intrusions. The weapons they possessed to beat your British monarchy were a far cry from the clubs used by Neanderthals, so your point is?

      Out of date??? The entire Bill of Rights is more important now than ever.

      “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty”.
      —Thomas Jefferson

      SFC MAC

  8. We here at Spaff Towers in good old England hate Piers Morgan, we really don’t want him back. However the second amendment does not make a lick of sense in modern day terms, it is used and abused by the political left & right in America. Here it is;

    ‘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.’

    Surely this means that that the ‘militia’ are the ones who should have the weapons, and they are the ones with the right to bear arms. America’s well regulated militia is their army, you know the commando wearing people with drone and explosives and whatnot, so surely they should be the only people who can legally have firearms?

    Just Curious

    Sincerely

    Spaff

    1. Spaff,
      You’re forgetting the emphasis on that second part: “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The founders knew that unchecked, governments can get out of control. The Second Amendment is meant as a means to stand against government tyranny and for individual liberties. I have the right to own a firearm, whether it be for hunting, sports, target shooting, or self-defense. Given Obama’s socialist big government infringement on everything from taxes to free speech, to healthcare, it is relevant now more than ever.

      BTW: We in America can see just how well Britain’s “gun control” has worked out.

      Curiosity solved.

      Cheers,
      SFC MAC

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial