Tucker Apologizes for the Stupidity of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says it May be His Last Gun Debate

EASIEST WAY TO DISARM A LEFTY IN THEIR GUN CONTROL ASSAULT, EXPLAIN WHY TAKING GUNS AWAY FROM THOSE WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW IS GOING TO STOP A CRIMINAL FROM ENACTING GUN VIOLENCE ON THE REST OF US?

RedState | September 20, 2019 10:49 am

I don’t remember seeing this happen before, but it did on Thursday night — Tucker Carlson apologized to his audience for what he considered to be the unacceptable ridiculousness of his guest.

Tucker welcomed to the show former Bill Clinton pollster Bernard Whitman to discuss gun violence in cities such as Baltimore and Chicago.

Tucker asked Bernard:

“Why are the places with gun bans, Chicago and Baltimore, for example, so much more dangerous than places where so-called assault weapons are common like Vermont or New Hampshire?”

Bernard credits surrounding states and their lax gun laws:

“You have to look at where the guns are coming from. In Chicago, 60% of the firearms that Chicago police seize are coming from states like Indiana, with very weak gun laws. In New York City and New York state, 74% of the guns seized are coming from states with weak gun laws. In New York City alone, nine out of 10 guns purchased and used quickly come from states with lax gun control laws.”

That’s right in line with Chicago’s Democratic mayor, Lori Lightfoot. As I covered on September 3rd, she blames the Windy City’s problems on Republicans (here):

“60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside IL — mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation. Keep our name out of your mouth.”

But Tucker had a really great question for Bernard that should maybe be posed to Lori as well:

“[I] have never understood why, if all the guns in Chicago come from Indiana, then why doesn’t Indiana have a similar murder rate?”

Bernard’s answer? Because those states are losin’ all their dadburn guns to Chicago and NYC!

The dude thought he had a real cool comeback:

“Because the guns are leaving. The guns are being shipped to metropolises. … You just made a great argument for federal gun control. That’s exactly why we need federal gun control.”

Tucker:

“We already have federal laws against trans–“

“We have federal loopholes,” Bernard interjected.

Tucker said nope:

“There are no loopholes. Actually, I know a lot about this subject, and there are…the guns moving from Indiana to Chicago are moving by car. … That’s against the law, and the feds don’t do anything about it. It’s not a loophole, it’s unenforced. But you’re not answering my question. There are a lot of guns in Indiana, there are a lot of guns in Vermont, there are a lot of guns in Maine.”

Bernard suggested it’s all about the crowd:

“There’s a lot more people in Chicago, there’s a lot more people in New York City. That’s why the guns go to where the people are. That’s the principle of supply and demand.”

Tucker came back with, “Oh, it’s just population density? But you know that that’s not true. That’s a lie. … There are lots of densely-populated places with guns without a lot of murders. Maybe there’s something else. Maybe it’s not the guns. And you know that that’s true, so why don’t you just say it?”

Talk of background checks ensued.

Back to Tucker, who referenced Tuesday’s horrific execution of a Chicago 4th grader in broad daylight as a strike against the boy’s father’s gang:

“The person who pulled the trigger in this specific case, who was accused of murdering the 9-year-old, had a prior conviction — was not allowed to have a gun under federal law in the first place. And so that’s the point that you ignore every time, which is that people who break the law tend not to obey the law.”

Solid. Bernard went back to loopholes.

You should see for yourself how it ended.

“Might be my last gun control debate,” Tucker uttered to the audience.

“It’s too stupid. I’m sorry to afflict that upon you.”

The Fox host references a riddle no one appears able to answer: A gun ban will take firearms from law-abiding citizens; now how do propose to get them from the criminals?

All of the present plans seem concentrated on disarming those who follow the law. Shouldn’t murderers and robbers be the groups they’re focusing on?

How do you get their guns? They’re the ones, ya know, murderin’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: