• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

Piers Morgan Reduced to Name Calling in Gun Control Debate

In case you haven’t seen this yet, here’s CNN’s Piers Morgan interviewing my friend Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America. Morgan behaves like a child, using the words “stupid” and “idiot” to refer to his guest, and Pratt keeps his cool. Morgan is totally outclassed, though that itself isn’t much of a feat, I suppose. Drudge is linking to this story today. (Someone in the comments points out that it was yesterday’s main headline on Drudge.)

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • kirk

    what does one do with a ‘guest’ that becomes rude, arrogant and condescending?

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    You and I must have watched different videos. The only thing you could possibly be referring to is the point at which Piers throws out a bunch of provocative statistics and takes two minutes to line up his question — which is a series of accusations — and Pratt grows impatient. Who wouldn’t? Is a question coming? Would Piers have sat through all that? The question answers itself. And if you’re defending the use of “stupid” and “idiot” to refer to a guest, I hardly know what to say.

  • http://twitter.com/AGW_IS_A_HOAX The Anti Al Gore

    Actually Drudge had this as the main headline yesterday.

  • kirk

    What does one do with a ‘guest’ that becomes rude, ill mannered, condescending and denigrating?

    An additional point on the rude ‘guest’, p. morgan: his ad hominem reveals he has no real info to interject into the discussion and, therefore, has lost the debate.

    I wonder if this ‘elitist’ even realizes this. To him and his ilk, it matters not, their ‘superiority’ insulating them from the reality of the stupidity the spew.

  • devo

    lol at then end where morgan talks about what 2 congressman are going to do to make sure this never happens again. LOL like 2 congressmen are going to solve anything! with an approval rating in the toilet i dont know why we just dont throw out the whole congress all together and then work from their. congress is supposed to have power for the people, but there just a wall in the way of both the people, and politics.

  • kirk

    i am referring to morgan as rude, arrogant and condescending, NOT pratt.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    Pratt is the guest, Morgan is the host.

  • kirk

    morgan is a ‘guest’ in this nation, not pratt…morgan is the ‘guest’ referred to in my post.

  • George

    Sounds like confusion due to duality of meaning. English is a confusing language at times (and some of the English peoples, apparently, can be odd in their thought processes at times as well – see PM). Looks like you’re both on the same page after all!

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.boucher.351 Kevin Boucher

    Piers Morgan is such a tiresome, obnoxious blowhard. Go back to jolly ol’ England!

  • Rob Nabakowski

    Some people just need their ass kicked from time to time and Piers Morgan is one of those people.

  • http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

    overall the congress has low approval rating, but most members have high approval in their own districts.

    Basically the country is divided. many languages, many cultures, many ethnic groups. all fighting for their interests and advancing their power, fertility, and territory.

    In South West Hispanics are advancing their power, in Great Lakes Blacks, in East Coast NY and Florida Jews and Cubans.

    Thats what happens in multi-ethnic societies, where the individualistic whites are aging shrinking dying, and the rise of highly cohesive non-whites taking control of America.

    America looks more and more like Iraq and Syria. Mass immigration of different ethnic groups has destroyed America. but open border libertarian zombies are in the dreamland.

  • devo

    wait a sec here, “highly cohesive”? i think that would also put you in a “dreamland”. there’s nothing cohesive here, and that alone would be a case for throwing out congress and at least trying something new and thought out. you said yourself the country is divided, and everyone has high approval in their own district. would you also agree that most of the country is also disillusioned? the problems you bring up are directly because of internal isolationism brought on by… STATISM lol you think free markets would keep people more divided?

  • http://twitter.com/M_Khalilian Michael Khalilian

    Piers is an ignorant loudmouth, but Pratt isn’t much better. I’m so sick of the all the anti gun-control posts from libertarians. I have looked at all the data and heard the different opinions, and while I strongly believe in the right to defend yourself, I think new gun control legislation does need to be passed.

  • Zach D

    Ugh, I can’t stand debating people who resort to name calling. It just proves they are incapable of adequately arguing their points and must smear their opponent.

  • Dan Rice

    They hate to be laughed at. (Stop laughing. Stop laughing! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!)

  • Jim

    You know what they say – don’t feed the trolls. Clearly this clown is trolling to see if he can get a non-leftists-are-racists reaction. He’s throwing bait, seeing who will take it. Just let him dangle like the fool he is.

  • pro

    People keep debating “gun control” without specifying what they mean. Similarly, I’ve heard Tom Woods point out that Keynesian equations refer to “capital” using a single variable without acknowledging that there are different types of capital. If new legislation is necessary, what specific laws do you think should be passed?

  • John C

    Why don’t we catch the left in a pickle by asking them to bring the troops home so one troop can be placed in each classroom in America to guard the children? Not sure how they would argue their way out of that request.

  • Anonymous

    “while I strongly believe in the right to defend yourself, I think new gun control legislation does need to be passed”.

    Why? The gun control laws we have now don’t work. If they did, Newtown wouldn’t have happened. Connecticut already has an “assault weapons” ban, it doesn’t work. The nation has a Gun Free School Zone law too. And it didn’t work. How many more ineffective and stupid feel good laws do you want? You must be a very confused and irrational sort of “libertarian”. Maybe you should spend more time at Huffington Post or Slate. You know, places where people like ineffective and oppressive legislation that deprives us of fundamental civil rights and doesn’t do anything to make us safer.

  • Dan Rice

    I don’t think he’s a troll. His argument seems to be in line with Hans Hoppe’s analysis of immigration: immigration into a property is to be restricted by the property owner. This is most easily seen in private property. Ideally, everything would be private property and we wouldn’t have to worry about this. So-called ‘public’ property is the core of the immigration problem, especially in the case of the United States, where virtually every piece of private property is directly adjacent to the public domain. Who owns ‘public’ property? Those who paid for it? Those who administrate it? Everyone? As long as there exists ‘public property’, there will always be incentive for non-contributors to exploit it, therefore immigration restriction is the only thing that can slow the bleeding of these ‘public’ resources. (Of course, the best solution is to eliminate the ‘public domain’ altogether.)

    While he didn’t put it in very palatable verbiage, his proposition isn’t without merit. Many libertarians really haven’t considered these things to a sufficient extent. In this sense, I too was a ‘zombie’ on the subject until I read Hoppe.

    Perhaps by “libertarian zombies” he is implying a misrepresentation of fully-alive libertarianism by certain libertarian individuals, rather than questioning the principes of libertarianism themselves.

  • Jim

    I understand what you’re saying, and I’ve read all of Hoppes books. But I don’t see where “Brown” is making the point, broadly, that abolishing the welfare state and public redistribution will dry up any immigration concerns.

  • Dan Rice

    I didn’t mean to suggest that he was making that specific point, but that his stated concerns did not conflict with the Hoppean analysis of the implications of immigration.

  • http://twitter.com/MooseOfReason Jeff

    “what does one do with a ‘guest’ that becomes rude, arrogant and condescending?”

    The guest on the show was Mr. Pratt, not Mr. Morgan. Therefore, it would seem that your comment is directed at Mr. Pratt.

  • Dan

    I guess he is sick of libertarians being consistent to their principles when it comes to guns. Sounds like utilitarianism is more his style.

  • Daniel McAdams

    Funny how several I have seen unfamiliar with GOA who have because of Larry’s cool and supremely Christian approach decided to join that organization. Hats off to Larry Pratt who by withstanding the slings and arrows has become a hero.

  • http://www.praxacademy.com Rothbardian

    Pratt makes some good points, not sure how he “isn’t much better”. If you think ‘gun control legislation’ (whatever that means) will fix anything, you need to observe how effective current laws are.

  • Patrick

    It’s been asked all over the place and generally the answer is “people with PTSD guarding our kids? Really?”

    So they acknowledge the damaging health effects of the war and yet they keep the war going. Sigh…

  • Patrick

    Tom — for the most part Larry handles himself well, but the repeated generic attacks on how “Brits” handle themselves is unprofessional IMO. As if all British people are as irritable (and irritating) as Piers Morgan. That’s just not fair, nor does that fit an individualist worldview.

    That said, thanks for posting this. Apparently (DailyPaul has the post up) Ted Nugent is smacking up Piers right now as well.

  • P_drum

    Ok Mr. Morgan if you want to talk about who is inconsistent why not ban guns on police too and military, ohhh that’s right they are not suceptible to commiting horrible crimes they’re completely immune to commiting evils. Does Waco ring a bell? Condecedning jerk.

  • succubye01

    Well you can see where Dr. Woods might think you were referring to Mr. Pratt as the “guest” on Piers Morgan’s show. I thought the same thing when reading your comment.

  • kirk

    morgan is a ‘guest’ in this nation and it is in this vein that the term ‘guest’ was employed. should have set the terms of the word ‘guest’ in my note and then following that up with my note. understand the confusion..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Carroll/100003342890124 Dave Carroll

    A lot of British people really are like Piers Morgan

  • Anonymous

    There really is something wrong with America’s gun extravagance but it isn’t dissimilar to every other problem, which is a moral issue, not one that should be solved by government.
    I don’t think its permissible for most gun nuts to cite the second amendment in justifying excessive weaponry, your country is so removed from the constitution that it’s scarcely permissible as an excuse anymore, but that doesn’t mean I advocate gun control either. I advocate a return to personal responsibility and self moderation. But that concept is so skewed now that I wouldn’t know where to start.

  • http://www.facebook.com/austin.holthaus Austin Holthaus

    I think you fail to understand WHO is “removed from the constitution”…elected officials are “removed from the constitution,” not the rest of us who ordain it. All the more reason for American’s to be suspicious that when our government works to disarm us, it may be up to no good.

  • Anonymous

    Plenty of people are removed from the constitution, not only elected officials. They’re people as well.
    Is it sensible for the home owner to own a machine gun? Doubtfully. Is gun ownership a form of protection against the state? -Usually not. Is the solution to the misuse of firearms more regulation? -No. I have neither defended the state or gun owners, and I agree that the govt may be up to no good. Disorder and tragedy enhances govt power through the security/welfare state.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Russell-Page/1156898858 Russell Page

    Who in America wants to copy the Limeys. Glad we had guns when their jolly old king wanted to enslave us.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JohnSwitzer John Switzer

    Mr. Morgan, if you want to be chair of the Democrat party, please give up your position as a supposed newsman.

  • Anonymous

    Laws are obeyed only by law abiding citizens. Laws can do nothing to prevent any kind of aberrant or illegal human behavior. A particular law comes into play only after the fact, that is, when someone breaks it. The perpetrator is arrested, brought to trial and given a prison sentence and that is not 100% certain.

    Look at how well the drug laws work: more violence and the highest prison population in the world.

    I don’t know what the answer is if indeed there is one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gord-Hicks/1106074939 Gord Hicks

    Weird how liberals/progressives act like laws are magic spells or something.

  • Matthew Alexander

    Wow. What a colossal ass.

  • http://twitter.com/M_Khalilian Michael Khalilian

    So you’re saying no law should be passed if people might not follow it?

  • http://twitter.com/M_Khalilian Michael Khalilian

    Nope. Guns are the one position where Libertarians act like Neo-cons on.

  • http://twitter.com/M_Khalilian Michael Khalilian

    Again, so you’re saying that no law should be passed if it might not be followed? I think it should be much harder to get guns. As a strong Libertarian, I believe in the non-aggression principle. Guns are inherently violent. They were made to kill. This thought clashes with my belief of natural rights of individuals. Does an individual have a right to a thing who’s only purpose is to kill? Obviously yes for self defense, but I just think that making it harder to get guns could only help be more of a deterrent for people wanting to use them for evil.

  • http://www.praxacademy.com Rothbardian

    No. I am merely saying another law will not fix the problem. Perhaps it will mitigate the problem, but at the cost of much freedom and anti-gun legislation is inherently aggressive.