President Donald Trump’s push for more stringent background checks in gun sales has attracted an unexpected ally: Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro.
Speaking Saturday evening with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), she defended the president’s position and pushed back on claims by the congressman that surrendering to even the most minor gun control demands could lead to the confiscation of all firearms in America.
Watch the discussion below:
Source: Fox News
“My concern is that a background check wouldn’t have stopped the shooter in El Paso or Dayton, so I am wondering why that’s the center of the discussion,” Gaetz said, beginning the discussion.
“The president has said we need intelligent background checks,” Pirro replied. “I spoke to the president a few hours ago. And he said he’s committed to going forward with some kind of background check because this is happening far too often. It may be that one or two may have gotten access to a gun, but there are issues that need to be confronted.”
That was a stunning answer from her. So was what the judge said next.
“I’m here in Australia — they don’t have problems like this,” she said.”This is starting to be, unfortunately, a uniquely American situation. And I’m a gun owner. I am a strong Second Amendment person. But some of the wrong people are getting their hands on guns.”
It’s typically liberal Democrats who cite Australia, which abides by gun control laws more strictly than those of the U.S., as an example of how gun control laws allegedly work.
After several high-profile massacres in the U.K. and Australia, both countries moved quickly to implement gun control. And it worked. pic.twitter.com/Bb8NBx5Mkk
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) October 4, 2017
Australia enacted strict gun control laws after a horrific mass shooting in 1996. It worked. https://t.co/tmxwczZhMD
— Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) October 3, 2017
Australia started the biggest gun control experiment in history 20 years ago — and it worked https://t.co/Y3jCC6dCWl pic.twitter.com/oHeCZEDbx3
— Tech Insider (@techinsider) December 4, 2015
“Nobody would suggest that in the United States we would want Australia’s solution,” the congressman replied. “There they went and confiscated all the guns. You know who did what Australia did? Venezuela, and now their people can’t fight back when they’re having to fight their way out of a socialist dictator.”
He added, “I think in the United States, we need more of what Sen. Graham’s discussed as it relates to red flag laws and communities that want to do that.”
Red flag laws are a lightweight form of confiscation that permit family members of a troubled person to request that local authorities temporarily confiscate the individual’s firearms for his or her protection.
Pirro replied by immediately dismissing Gaetz’s concerns about potential wide-scale confiscation.
“Congressman, nobody is talking about take away people’s guns,” she said. “The United States Supreme Court made it clear we have the right to have these guns for our own personal protection. No one is talking about taking our guns away.”
Fact-check: FALSE.
While confiscation isn’t directly relevant to a discussion about background checks, the assertion that “[n]o one is talking about” it is plainly false, as evidenced by the myriads of columns and op-eds written by high-profile individuals calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Why it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment https://t.co/UA68rZiZk4 pic.twitter.com/5CsS2J4bRE
— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) June 13, 2016
Chicago native and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. https://t.co/QJ98F8avcK pic.twitter.com/274MYklWf8
— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) March 27, 2018
Excellent piece by @ElieNYC on the 2nd amendment. “I’m not willing to accept that you can buy a Glock and stalk your ex-girlfriend, just so long as you can prove that you haven’t murdered any of your other ex-girlfriends, yet.” https://t.co/4F4TV2qT39
— Blair A. Robertson Ⓥ (@Blarob) August 9, 2019
I think even Madison would agree, it is time to repeal the Second Amendment.https://t.co/XXUspcoxkR
— Kaushik Basu (@kaushikcbasu) March 25, 2018
“What we’re talking about right now is something that’s uniquely American,” Pirro added. “You cannot deny that, congressman. We’ve got to do something about it in this country.”
“But why start with burdening law-abiding gun owners?” Gaetz replied.
The judge responded by doubling down on her claim that “nobody is talking about taking away people’s guns” and arguing that some people shouldn’t be allowed access to weapons.
“If someone says I am going to kill every woman I know and I’m going to cut her throat and rape her, then damn, I want that guy incarcerated, and I want him psychologically looked at. And the same with people who own guns. If they’re a danger, we’ve got to take their guns away,” she said.
“I agree as it relates to red flag laws with due process, but I’m not sure I agree that the background check bill passed by Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives would do anything to reduce the frequency of mass shootings that have captivated the nation,” the congressman replied.
He continued, “I do not believe that wide-scale background checks on the national level are proven to make anyone safer. And I think that in many cases, we’re often so eager to do something that we don’t take the time to take a breath and do the right thing that’ll make our communities safe. There’s nothing that the American people have to fear from law-abiding gun owners.”
Pirro wasn’t pleased by this reply.
“We’re not talking about law-abiding gun owners,” she said. “We’re talking about whack jobs … This is something the Supreme Court has agreed is consistent with the Second Amendment … If someone has been in a mental institution, shouldn’t I know about that as part of a background check as to whether or not I’m going to give this guy a weapon?”
“Of course,” Gaetz replied.
“Then what’s the problem!?” the judge asked in exasperation.
The congressman replied that the core problem is with the specific bill that congressional Democrats are seeking to pass. Like all of their legislation, it contains many problems.
“It would make it difficult for people who have enforced a domestic violence restraining order to have their own firearm to protect themselves from a potential abuser,” he said as one example.
Pirro conceded that point and concluded the discussion by saying, “I don’t deny what you’re saying, whether it’s video games or lack of a father or whether it’s the culture or it’s who we are or whether guns are in our DNA, I don’t know what it is, but what I do know is that it’s time to start talking about it.”
Fair enough.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Vivek@bizpacreview.com
V. Saxena is a staff writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.
- ‘It must be an insurrection’: Pro-Palestine protestors fill California State Capitol, force lawmakers to adjourn early - January 5, 2024
- ‘I enjoy making men uncomfortable’: Critics predict ‘Disney’s biggest flop yet’ as feminist director’s past comments resurface - January 5, 2024
- Musk SCORCHES Mark Cuban with one line in DEI debate: ‘Cool, so when should we expect …’ - January 5, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
