Maddening Video: Ted Nugent FAILS to bring up Fast and Furious in debate when Piers Morgan serves up the opportunities

Why. Do. Gun. Rights. Activists. Refuse. To. Go. On. Offense. In. Debates?!

The latest very frustrating example takes place in a debate between Ted Nugent and Piers Morgan.

Take note at the 5:40 mark when Nugent is asked to respond to Barack Obama's gun control argument. Instead of bringing up Fast and Furious - a very deadly gun walking operation, led by the ATF / DOJ - he brought up Benghazi:

"...the Scammer-in-Chief, who claims that just to save one life would be worth this... He had a chance to save four American lives in Benghazi and refused to do so and now he's sending F-16's to Egypt..."

Both valid arguments to be sure but neither drives a stake into the heart of the administration's position on Gun Control. The ATF knowingly placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to commit hundreds of murders. On top of that, just a little over one month ago, the ATF in Milwaukee allowed a machine gun (automatic) and a 9mm to be stolen from one of its vehicles. Those two weapons are still loose on the streets of Wisconsin.

There were plenty of opportunities for Nugent to hammer on this. He got very close when he made reference to a 'gun free zone' in Mexico that isn't working. It was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how defenseless Mexican citizens were when the U.S. Government flooded that 'gun free zone' with assault weapons (AK-47's and .50 Calibers) that were used by criminals to kill innocents. Nugent missed a huge opportunity.

Beginning at the 7:10 mark, Morgan actually tees up a Fast and Furious reference that Nugent completely missed. When talking about the increase in gun sales nationally, Morgan said:

"Do you think America is going to be safer because gun stores like this are selling so furiously and so much faster, weapons and ammunition increasing both in America?"

Talk about a slow, high-hanging curveball right in Nugent's wheelhouse! Guess what? He whiffed. Instead of saying something like, "Let me talk to you about Fast and Furious, Piers..." Nugent apparently didn't see the natural connection.

I love Ted Nugent but frankly, it is getting beyond tiresome to see second amendment proponents like him completely blow by the slam-dunk argument in the gun control debate.

A take-away line begins at the 3:30 mark when Nugent says, "Leave us the hell alone!" This perfectly captures the problem with gun rights proponents in these debates. They're never on offense and the best way to do that is to highlight the deadly irresponsible / nefarious operations of Obama's ATF / DOJ.

h/t MediaIte:

Two Woefully absent arguments in Gun Control debates

"I've been sitting here, getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not about duck hunting and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this but it's about our right, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there." - Suzanna Gracia-Hupp in 1993 Congressional testimony about banning assault weapons.

It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse but remember, doing so is warranted when the truth lies in that horse's bones. Like Gracia-Hupp in that 1993 hearing, I too am getting "fed up" with the gun control debate, not because I don't think it's legitimate but because practically everyone who is engaging in it is arguing the wrong points while playing defense instead of going on offense.

There are two arguments that second amendment proponents never seem willing to address. First, the reason for the second amendment is to protect against tyranny and second, it's the government that should be the subject of a gun control debate relative to Operation Fast and Furious.

To his credit, CNN's Piers Morgan is giving plenty of gun rights advocates their say on his show but few of them seem all that interested in deviating from the terms of Morgan's debate, which is that no one needs an AR-15 for home defense. When guests argue the point that they do, it sounds a bit loopy. Most of the arguments have to deal with fending off multiple intruders. When that's the argument, people like Morgan are more successful than they should be.

It's like pro-lifers allowing leftists to make the argument about whether abortions should be permitted in the cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's health. Those cases are so rare as a percentage of the overall number of abortions that they're outside the bounds of the central issue, which is whether abortion is murder. Conservatives constantly allow the debate to shift away from the real issue.

The same thing continues to happen with the gun control debate. Here are two examples. First, staunch conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch does battle with Piers Morgan. Notice what the debate is about - the nuances of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. While Loesch is correct and makes some good points, Morgan is far more successful with viewers because Loesch doesn't shift the debate to what the second amendment is really about (see Gracia-Hupp quote above).

Pay attention at the 3:00 mark. Morgan's question to Loesch is:

"What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do, to curb gun violence in America?"

Her answer:

"Stop disarming law-abiding citizens."

She's right but doesn't go on offense. She also has a problem coming up with another example when prompted by Morgan to do so but does ultimately add that there should be...

"...tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained firearms."

Once again, this would have been a perfect opportunity to inject the government's role in Fast and Furious into the debate. Consider Morgan's response if Loesch would have said something like:

"Well, Piers, perhaps we could start with more transparency in Operation Fast and Furious. How about you demanding that President Obama lift Executive Privilege on subpoenaed documents by the House Oversight Committee that Eric Holder doesn't want you to see? How about we dig a little deeper into how the ATF - with the approval of the Justice Department - was allowed to put assault weapons, to include .50 Caliber rifles, which are much more powerful than AR-15's, into the hands of drug cartels? It seems to me, Piers, that you're being a little biased in this debate."

Until conservatives engage in the real debate, the progressives will continue to make gains. It's really a shame because Loesch is very conservative and never afraid to debate the hard issues.

The AR-15 lighter was a nice touch, though.

Via GWP:



Here is another example. Two young conservative women in an interview with Piers Morgan do the same thing Loesch did; they allow Morgan to make the debate about whether an AR-15 is necessary for home defense (See Suzanna Gratia-Hupp quote again). This is not the reason the second amendment was put in the Constitution. While one of these women accurately cited a news story about how an AR-15 came in handy relative to home defense, the pro-second amendment crowd has got to start going on offense instead of simply playing adequate defense.

Via WND:

1993 Video: Killeen, TX woman testifies in front of Congress after losing her parents because of Gun Control

In 1991, Susan Gratia-Hupp went to a Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX (not far from where Nidal Malik Hasan killed 14 and injured 32 in a gun-free zone eighteen years later) with her parents. Hupp left her gun in the car because Texas law prohibited her from taking it inside. Watch her tell the story of what happened next.

A couple of years ago, Hupp spoke at a Tea Party rally I attended and she has just as much fire and passion today as she expressed in that 1993 hearing.

While you're at it, watch Chuck Schumer's face and then ask yourself if his motives for gun control today are pure.

They are not.

Via Breitbart, which is calling for Piers Morgan to have Hupp on his show.

Video: Larry Pratt dismantles Piers Morgan... Again

Piers Morgan is apparently a glutton for punishment because after being thoroughly and roundly defeated in a debate with Larry Pratt last month, he had Pratt on again. The result was the same. This time, Pratt even brought up Fast and Furious. Morgan's reaction was predictable.

Via Gun Owners of America:

Pratt also brought up Operation Fast & Furious and tagged Morgan for refusing to discuss the Obama Administration’s “culpability to commit mass murder” while supervising an operation that flooded our southern border with illegal firearms.

Fast and Furious should be brought up by gun rights activists in EVERY. SINGLE. GUN. CONTROL. DEBATE.

It's the magic bullet (metaphorically speaking) in this entire saga.



For posterity, here is Round One again:

Video: The Appeal and Absurdity of Alex Jones in under three minutes

I must admit, absent Alex Jones' accusation that Piers Morgan is a 'hatchet man for the New World Order', the former seemed to be winning the debate with the CNN host until about the 1:50 mark of this clip. If I had been watching this with a Frank Luntz dial device, you'd have seen my line take a plunge right about there (after dipping slightly during the Piers-is-a-NWO-apparatchik line).

It's easy to see how the overly emphatic indignation of Jones - Ron Paul's biggest media mouthpiece - gathers him a following. That said, the combination of his over-the-top choleric diatribes mixed with his belief that 9/11 was an inside job torpedoes his credibility.

Piers Morgan knew that, which likely goes a long way to explaining his calm demeanor during Jones' rant on the gun control debate. Just before the 2:00 mark, Piers changed the subject and asked Jones who was responsible for 9/11. Without missing a beat, after having carried on a mocking rendition of Morgan's dialect a bit too long, Jones went right into his belief that the Bush administration blew up Building 7.

Via GWP:



The video above was edited by a gun control nut and was intentionally made to look Jones look as kooky as possible. Here is the full, unedited version of Part one of the interview:



While Jones made excellent points, his delivery (and 9/11 Trutherism) made Morgan look reasonable, unlike the CNN host's interview with Larry Pratt last month, in which the opposite happened:

Audio: Today's Podcast - Interviews with Larry Pratt and Jeffrey Lord

On December 28th, while guest hosting for Lynn Woolley, I had the opportunity to interview Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator.

I talked to Pratt about his interview with CNN's Piers Morgan as well as the blatant hypocrisy from the left when it comes to Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious, an operation run by the ATF and DOJ. I spoke with Lord about his recent column on the fiscal cliff negotiations in which he made very salient comparisons between what's going on today and what happened in 1982.

Incidentally, Morgan's interview with Pratt continues to have legs. After tens of thousands of people of signed a White House petition demanding that Morgan be deported, the CNN anchor has written a column of his own in which he threatens to deport himself and actually names Pratt specifically as being the catalyst for the anti-Piers sentiment.

The Selective Outrage of CNN's Piers Morgan (Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious) speaks volumes

First up, this exchange between CNN's Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA). Take note of all the name-calling and where it's coming from. According to Morgan, Pratt is a "dangerous" and "stupid" "idiot" who offends Morgan by "laughing". Though the issue of Fast and Furious doesn't come up, a central theme in this post is Morgan's behavior, so pay particular attention to it.

It's 11 minutes but you won't want to stop watching until the very end, at which point, Pratt even manages to successfully drop a Neville Chamberlain line on Piers.

Via Sipsey Street:



CNN's Piers Morgan has been frothing at the mouth over the issue of gun control since the horrendous Sandy Hook shootings less than one week ago. Yet, for the last two years, his righteous indignation over Operation Fast and Furious has been conspicuously absent, if he has addressed the government-sanctioned operation at all.

At Sandy Hook, a man who reportedly worshipped 'Satan', illegally accessed legally registered guns and murdered people with them. As a brief aside / reminder, Barack Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, had reverence for 'Lucifer' as well. The resulting carnage is being exploited by people like Morgan and Obama to argue for more gun control.

Conversely, Fast and Furious was the result of the U.S. Government (ATF / DOJ) intentionally putting assault weapons (the same weapons Obama and Morgan want to ban) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that there would be similar carnage that could be exploited in the same way that Sandy Hook is currently being exploited. Those plans went sour when it was learned - thanks to whistleblowers - that two guns from the operation were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border patrol agent, Brian Terry. Since then, it has been learned that hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered with guns placed into the hands of those cartels by the ATF.

To put this in the proper context, what the ATF did in Fast and Furious would be akin to someone breaking into the home of the Sandy Hook shooter, getting access to his mother's guns, giving them to the shooter, and letting him do what he did.

The silence from mainstream media types like Morgan on Fast and Furious, coupled with his caterwauling over gun control because of Sandy Hook, says far more than if Morgan had remained measured in his reporting of the Newtown / Sandy Hook shootings. The attempt to gin up a climate for more gun control is exactly what Fast and Furious was supposed to do. Morgan is essentially implicating himself with his own bi-polar behavior when it comes to Fast and Furious vs. Newtown.

Here is an exchange on Morgan's network from June of this year, in which CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin completely dismissed any hint of Eric Holder being culpable in Fast and Furious. In reality, if Morgan were consistent, Holder would be responsible for the DOJ / ATF not only failing to control guns but for giving them to bad guys.

Video: Newt destroys CNN's Piers Morgan on Economy

I jumped aboard the Newt for President bandwagon after his two South Carolina debates prior to that state's primary, which he won handily. He was subsequently destroyed by Romney' Super PAC ads, lost the Florida primary, and never recovered.

Last night, Gingrich demonstrated why he was a better choice than Romney. In addition to thoroughly spanking CNN's Piers Morgan for blatant left-wing partisanship and vacuous amount of economic knowledge, Gingrich is much better at going on offense.



h/t Hot Air