More Piers Morgan Asshattery

Last night, Rob wanted to watch the interview with Mark Sanford, so I wound up sitting through this pompous windbag’s bloviations, including yet another segment where he interviews a sympathetic subject and promotes fallacies about “assault weapons.” This bit made me want to punch my TV.

[HODA] KOTB (Of the Today Show): Yes. It’s so funny because every time I hear the argument, I feel — I feel just what you said. I mean, you are sitting here and you’re listening and you’re thinking, why — why do we have these types of weapons? And look, I think you should be able to be armed. I lived in the south for many, many, many years. People like to have their guns. They want to protect themselves. And I get it.

But I can’t believe there can’t be a discussion. That’s the thing that kills me. It’s one thing we’ll figure out what we decide later, but you can’t have a discussion about whether or not these types of weapons —

MORGAN: You have covered war zones. So you know the power of these weapons in military hands. They are really military-style weapons. When a machine like an AR-15 can pump out 100 bullets in a minute, these are war machines.

No, Hoda – you can’t believe there can’t be a discussion where everyone agrees with your stupidity! There has been an ongoing discussion, and the only thing your friend Piers does is bully and abuse the people he interviews who happen to disagree with his assertion that an AR-15 can pump out 100 bullets in a minute, like it’s some kind of uncommon trick!

The AR-15 fires ONE round every time the trigger is pulled. ONE. So the number of rounds it fires really depends on how many times you can pull the trigger in a minute, and how quickly you can change the magazine. It is not an automatic weapon. It LOOKS like an M4 – used by the military and featuring an auto setting – but it is not. Generally speaking, the AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator.

In other words, Piers Morgan and CNN are once again spreading lies, promoting fallacies and fomenting panic. This should not be a surprise to anyone with half a brain, but when you have a agreeable guest on your show, who is about as ignorant about firearms as you are (despite having lived in the South), the head-nodding and sympathetic clucking is a substitute for the truth. It is quite obvious that neither Piers Morgan, nor CNN actually care about the truth.

And by the way, if you want a useful primer on so-called “assault” weapons that is actually filled with FACTS, and not histrionics, check this out.

h/t to my buddy Rachel Lucas for finding that one.


4 responses

  1. If you want to see something else that will make you “want to punch (your) TV”, look up what Lauwrence ODonnell said about Tom Selleck last night.

    That sort of uncalled-for scolding-slander should be met only with a challenge to a duel. But Lo-Do would be far to cowardly to accept….


  2. If I had a 100-round drum that didn’t jam, fully loaded and ready to go, I still wouldn’t pump out 100 rounds as fast as I could. Bad for the barrel (especially the throat), bad for the wallet.


  3. You are very astute Nicki, and I always enjoy reading your ‘in your face’ style commentary. In a commentary on my blog from a few days ago, I stated the following:

    “In the video, Piers, the ‘expert’ states that an AR15 will fire 4-6 rounds per second. I would like to see Piers take an AR15 to the range, and demonstrate that on video for his viewers personally. Of course a true assault weapon will fire upwards of 900 rounds per minute, depending on weapon configuration and if there is a rate reduction buffer to control the speed in which BCG cycles. If the AR15 is such a ‘devastating’ rifle and a ‘weapon of mass destruction’, then please explain why seventy people were shot in Colorado, and only twelve were fatalities. If you do the math, that is a kill ratio of only twenty percent. If the AR 15 is just as deadly as the select fire weapons in the military, then why isn’t the military issued the AR15 rifle, which would save the government huge costs in reduced ammo usage? That’s an easy one, because they are not the same, and those pushing gun control are being deliberately dishonest to the uninformed general public.”

    The complete commentary can be found here:


    1. Well put, sir! Bravo!


%d bloggers like this: