Dana Loesch’s calling out of CNN’s “real journalist” Piers Morgan over his error in categorizing the caliber of the Bushmaster rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre might seem petty, aside from two reasons. First, Morgan believes he’s fully qualified to determine what weapons American citizens should and should not be allowed to own. Second, he himself wastes no opportunity to call out his detractors on their spelling errors, like so:
It's 'Chanel' > RT @Sig45Mike: Hey @piersmorgan I heard you use Channel No. 5 as cologne. Such a pussy. #NRA
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 12, 2013
It's 'victims' > RT @TedNugent: In Piers Morgan's not so great Britain they jail innocent victems for basic self defense. Soulless idiots
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 10, 2013
If you don’t take the time to spell-check your tweets, you’re not worthy of addressing Morgan. Getting basic information about guns wrong? That’s not the point — just ban something, already.
@DLoesch No, he used a Bushmaster .233 AR-15 assault rifle – and killed 26 people in a few minutes. That not enough for you?
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 12, 2013
It’s .223, but who cares about facts. Why not pivot to an attack on the character of your opponent? That almost worked on your show the other night.
.@piersmorgan That's an awful question to ask @DLoesch Piers. Can't you debate anyone without it being personal?
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) January 12, 2013
@DLoesch I haven't misused any terminology – are you questioning the fact Lanza used an assault rifle?
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 12, 2013
Why yes, yes she is. And she’s not alone.
https://twitter.com/adamsbaldwin/status/290249677402669056
. @piersmorgan You're claiming that guns in these shootings had selective fire, auto capability? Is this new, unreported information?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
. @piersmorgan Because "assault rifle" doesn't mean semi auto: http://t.co/h33ye87B
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
. @piersmorgan If you're claiming now that the weapons in those shootings were automatic, then that's a huge story.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
@DLoesch Do you understand how a modified AT-15 behaves? It can fire up to 6 bullets a second, like a M-16 military assault rifle. Wise up.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 12, 2013
It’s AR-15.
@piersmorgan I actually own an AR-15 and have fired fully autos before. Do you own any or fire regularly?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
With all due respect @piersmorgan , you specifically said "military style" meaning you claim Lanza's firearm had select fire capability.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
I ask @piersmorgan because I'm genuinely interested in whether or not you believe Lanza had in his possession a banned auto firearm.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
. @piersmorgan I would like for you to explain what qualifies a rifle to be classified as an "assault rifle." I will wait.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 12, 2013
That’s good, because when it’s Morgan’s turn to respond to an argument, you have to be prepared to wait a while.
I dispute defining anything on made up or incorrectly used terms, @piersmorgan .
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
if the truth matters to you, @piersmorgan , which I'm sure it does, I would think that you'd like to use accurate terms.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
@DLoesch Dana, you obviously think AR-15s are harmless – I think they're senseless military-style killing machines. Let's agree to differ.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 13, 2013
Ah, so rather than correct himself on the facts, Morgan would prefer to set up yet another straw man — if a gun isn’t defined as an “assault weapon,” you must believe it’s harmless. Got it.
https://twitter.com/gopfirecracker/status/290249461874171905
@piersmorgan @DLoesch Piers…not to talk for Dana, but you focus on AR-15s, which are a tiny % of gun deaths while ignoring gang shootings
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) January 13, 2013
@piersmorgan @DLoesch What's the point of owning a "harmless" gun? Group of robbers break into my home, should I throw a teddy bear at them?
— Jenny (@Jenny_IDLYITW) January 13, 2013
We can have disagreements over the Second Amendment but we can't disagree how firearms work or what they are called.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
And we can agree to differ, @piersmorgan but as a mother I find it beneath you to question my concern for children if I disagree with you.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
With all due respect @piersmorgan, just b/c @DLoesch differs on solution on the matter that doesn't mean she's not "concerned" abt tragedies
— Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) January 13, 2013
Is this, at last, the “national conversation on guns” that everyone’s been calling for?
My first goal is to get people to accurately identify firearms. Second is to accurately note gun laws. After this, discussion.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
Accurately identifying firearms, and knowing the laws which already exist to restrict access to them (unless you’re a journalist, that is), is important in any honest debate. Perhaps that’s why this tweet from the official show feed, @PiersTonight, implying that fully automatic weapons were part of the gun control debate was quietly deleted.
They've been banned since the 1930s. @piersmorgan MT @PiersTonight: "Fully automatic weapons…are unneeded…" #gunsinamerica
— Lilac Sunday (@LilacSundayBlog) January 11, 2013
"fully automatic weapons" are illegal already MT @PiersTonight: "Fully automatic weapons…are unneeded. Something needs to happen" Nick…
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) January 11, 2013
@PiersTonight no, we don't need FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS! U even know what the difference is? Or do you just like to ramble & hear yourself?
— Eric Treece (@EricTreece) January 11, 2013
@DLoesch @piersmorgan and CNN deleted a tweet from the @PiersTonight where they wrote about fully automatic weapons
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) January 12, 2013
How are we supposed to have an honest national conversation if you gun nuts won’t shut up and agree with everything we say?
Mulling over whether or not to RT all the threats from people against scary guns in my timeline. A bit ironic, you lot.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
Morgan did manage an apology to Loesch, sort of.
Sorry. For exposing your lack of knowledge of guns. > RT @DLoesch @piersmorgan Also, I would like an apology for what you stated earlier
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 13, 2013
@piersmorgan How so? You incorrectly identified a semi as one capable of selective fire, made up a caliber, and called AR-15 an AT.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
I'm off for dinner @DLoesch – but you keep talking. More you pro-gun lobbyists' views are heard, the better.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 13, 2013
We weren’t aware that Loesch was a gun lobbyist, but that certainly sounds like an invitation to appear on Morgan’s show. In the meantime, Piers and his musket have been welcomed to the gun range.
I also invite @piersmorgan to visit my favorite ranges with me any time.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 13, 2013
