Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'
This is Jeff Zucker's CNN? Monday night's Piers Morgan Live featured Morgan defending the nanny state and calling for federal gun control. Meanwhile his guest, new CNN host Morgan Spurlock, pushed for more gun laws and half agreed with Morgan in his support of the nanny state.
"Isn't he right to be a nanny?" Morgan said of New York Mayor Bloomberg's large soda ban. "People need nannying." He also excused Chicago's strict gun laws that fail to stop gun crime, instead blaming neighboring states with lax gun laws. "So until you have a federal gun control that stops that happening, this will keep happening in places like Chicago," the CNN host said of gun violence.
[Video below. Audio here.]
Talking with Morgan about guns, new CNN host Morgan Spurlock wanted to see "universal background checks," a limit on magazines, and a database for the mentally ill so they can't purchase guns. "People aren't tracked. There's no way to kind of know who those people are and really keep the firearms out of their hands," Spurlock told his host.
Before hosting Spurlock, Morgan had interviewed the parents of Blake Lammers who turned in
their teenage son to the police after he had planned to conduct a mass
shooting. Lammers had a history of mental illness, and Morgan insisted
that mental health information show up on background checks. He also pushed for national gun control to override state laws.
"And the fact that Chicago has quite tough gun control is utterly
meaningless, because they all just get in their cars and go outside of
the state to neighboring states which don't have strong gun controls. So
until you have a federal gun control that stops that happening, this
will keep happening in places like Chicago, until they can enforce it
properly," Morgan said.
Later on in the show, Morgan and Spurlock talked about New York Mayor Bloomberg's "nanny state" bans on public smoking and large sugary drinks. The laws "demonstrably improve the quality of life of people," Morgan told Spurlock.
Spurlock acknowledged the success of Bloomberg's smoking ban: "as much as people were against the smoking ban, when that went through a few years ago, nobody's talking about it now. Like everybody loves the fact you can actually go to a restaurant and the guy next to you is not puffing up. It's great.
[Video below. Audio here.]
Spurlock also touted poll numbers that CNN hammered during the gun control debate:
"[O]ne of the things we talk about in the show is 90 percent of Americans, when there was a vote about to come up about having background checks and expanding background checks to any type of a gun sale, 90 percent of Americans approved of that. And 90 percent of Americans don't approve of anything or agree on anything."
"The only thing that people approved on or agreed on more than universal background checks was ice cream," he added. "[T]here are a vast amount of people that want change. There's a tremendous amount of people that want things to be different."
Below is a transcript of the segments, which aired on Piers Morgan Live on June 17:
[9:06 p.m. EDT]
PIERS MORGAN: And the point is, Bill, isn't it, that if you look at the
loopholes in the background checks system in America, he could have
gone to a gun show. From all the investigations I've seen, he could have
walked into a gun show, no questions asked, and bought the same kind of
assault rifle there. And when you see Washington reacting in the way
they did recently by doing absolutely nothing, not even tightening
background checks, what do you feel, as responsible parents who did, you
know, almost the unthinkable. Having to hand your son in, because
you've just run out of other options, what do you feel about Washington
doing nothing?
BILL LAMMERS, turned in son, feared mass killing: It's a – it's going
to happen again. I mean doing nothing is the worst thing that you can
do. This – we're just waiting for another mass shooting to happen. It's
going to happen again and again and again. Something has to be done. And
it's appalling to just see that Washington and gridlock and they can't
pass anything. I mean –
MORGAN: I can't – I can't buy a Kinder egg in Wal-Mart. I can't buy six
packets of Sudafed in Wal-Mart. I can't buy certain types of French
cheese in Wal-Mart. All these are deemed too damaging, potentially, to
my health. But your son -- and let's repeat this again -- who had been
to a mental institution seven times in the previous few years, but
because he had never been court ordered to one of the institutions, just
didn't show up on the Wal-Mart background check. The same Wal-Mart he'd
been in with a meat cleaver to try and harm an employee before. I mean,
it almost defies belief, and yet we hear about these things time and
again. What do you think it will take, Tricia, to wake people out of
their slumber on this issue?
TRICIA LAMMERS, turned in son, feared mass killing: Well, if the
Aurora, Colorado, shooting didn't wake people up, and the shooting that
happened in California, if that didn't wake people up, I don't think
Congress and the government – I don't think you can wake them up. Maybe
something needs to happen to their family. Or maybe if they had mental
illness in their family, and their son or daughter was arrested, maybe
then someone would wake up and see that things need to change.
B. LAMMERS: But we're here –
(Crosstalk)
MORGAN: Because, Bill, I mean – I think what I was saying, Bill, just
before you answer as well. The Chicago situation this weekend, over 40
people shot in Chicago in over 20 different incidents. That is one issue
involving gun violence. That is an issue involving mainly gang-on-gang
related violence. And the fact that Chicago has quite tough gun control
is utterly meaningless, because they all just get in their cars and go
outside of the state to neighboring states which don't have strong gun
controls. So until you have a federal gun control that stops that
happening, this will keep happening in places like Chicago, until they
can enforce it properly.
But in terms of what happened to your son, what is so relevant is we
saw exactly the same thing happening with this young man in Santa Monica
10 days ago. We saw it at Sandy Hook with Adam Lanza. We saw it at
Aurora with James Holmes. Each time, disturbed young men who should
never be allowed anywhere near these assault rifles and yet they're able
to.
B. LAMMERS: Well, so it's probably the health care professional not
able to report to the local authorities or to the ATF or the FBI that
they just saw a patient that would harm the general public or themselves
if they were to buy a weapon. So it's a failure of the healthcare
system to not be able to report because they're too – you know, the
HIPPA privacy – it's too shielded and guarded information. But yet we're
enabling these people with some type of a mental handicap to go out and
buy a weapon and use it on themself or others. They're –
(Crosstalk)
MORGAN: And, of course, it comes at a time when – well, it comes at a
time when the majority of Americans, according to all the polls, seem
quite happy that the NSA can access almost all their private data. So
you have a complete hypocrisy here. We have the same Republican – mainly
Republicans, I'm not going to say just Republicans because some
Democrats are doing it, too. But the ones who shout loudest about we
can't infringe the Second Amendment, in terms of background checks
because of the information it may unveil, they're the ones saying, NSA
should carry on doing what they're doing.
B. LAMMERS: So I really don't think anything's private any more. In the
day of the internet, everybody has everybody's information. Yet my son
could go in there and buy an AR-15 and there was zero that showed up on
his background check. So –
MORGAN: Absolutely extraordinary.
(...)
[9:21 p.m. EDT]
PIERS MORGAN: And I want to bring in Morgan Spurlock. He's the
Oscar-nominated filmmaker behind "Super Size Me." But now he's getting a
firsthand look at just how easy it is to buy guns in his new CNN show, Inside Man. He goes to work at a gun shop.
(...)
MORGAN: What did you discover in your show?
MORGAN SPURLOCK, filmmaker: What you start to see is, these types of
folks, they aren't in a database. People aren't tracked. There's no way
to kind of know who those people are and really keep the firearms out of
their hands. The shop that I worked in did an incredible job of running
background checks on people from a legal standpoint. Did they break the
law, did they have outstanding warrants? I mean, they ran all the specs
that they had to –
MORGAN: It was in Virginia.
SPURLOCK: It was in Virginia. Fredericksburg, and I mean, they did
everything to the letter of the law. More than probably most other
shops. They were great. But this part of the puzzle is one that is very
much missing from doing background checks on people.
MORGAN: I mean, how lax is it in reality?
SPURLOCK: I mean, in terms of somebody like that who has mental
problems, it's very lax because none of that is reported. None of that
goes into a database that ultimately is managed by or controlled by the
states.
MORGAN: And there is a hypocrisy, isn't there, between those who
campaign for the Second Amendment and say, look, the reason we don't
want universal background checks is we don't want this information
getting into the wrong hands with the government. And at the same time,
they're saying, we're quite happy for the NSA to be tapping everyone's
phones, e-mails and so on.
SPURLOCK: Yeah. It's very ironic, and one of the things we talk about
in the show is 90 percent of Americans, when there was a vote about to
come up about having background checks and expanding background checks
to any type of a gun sale, 90 percent of Americans approved of that. And
90 percent of Americans don't approve of anything or agree on anything.
MORGAN: No, never!
SPURLOCK: The only thing that people approved on or agreed on more than universal background checks was ice cream.
(Laughter)
SPURLOCK: 93 percent of Americans like ice cream more than universal
background checks. But not baseball, not apple pie, all those were much
less than even universal background checks.
MORGAN: What does it say about America's relationship with guns?
SPURLOCK: I mean, it's very much – there's a part of this that is very
embedded into our culture. What you see in the show and what you realize
over the course – what I realized over the course of us making this is
there are a vast amount of people that want change. There's a tremendous
amount of people that want things to be different.
MORGAN: But their voice tends to get drowned out.
SPURLOCK: Well, it gets drowned out by both sides. It gets drowned out
by the people who are saying, we have to get rid of these for good. We
have to have massive reform that gets rid of all the firearms. And then
there's people on the other side that are saying, oh no, Second
Amendment, we have to have it stand by our rights. That is what our
country's founded on. These people in the middle get lost in the
conversation.
MORGAN: What is the sensible compromise, from what you went through
with your show, could actually make a difference in reducing the gun
violence toll?
SPURLOCK: I mean, I feel like if you do universal background checks, is
a great start. If you create a database where people with mental
problems don't have access to firearms, that's a great place to start.
If you limit the amount of high-capacity magazines, that's a great place
to start. I mean, I don't think you'll get a – you won't get a AR-15.
You won't get a weapons ban.
MORGAN: But when you see that kind of weapon –
SPURLOCK: Yes.
MORGAN: -- and you think about the type of people who have had it in
their hands committing atrocities, Why would any civilian really need
one of those outside of hawk hunting?
SPURLOCK: Well, sure. I mean, it's like – I shot one. They are fun to
shoot. That's the thing. For somebody who's a sport hunter, somebody who
just wants to have them for sport to go shoot – it's a fun –
MORGAN: Is that enough? They're fun?
SPURLOCK: Just to have fun. I mean, sure, why not? Ultimately, if
there's a way that you can have them and you can keep them for people
who want to have them because they're fun, just like I love driving a
Ferrari because it's fun. Or I love doing these things that are outside
of the realm of other people's understanding. I don't own a Ferrari.
Hopefully one day that'll happen.
(Laughter)
SPURLOCK: But you know, then we could drive around in our Ferraris and with our AR-15s. It would be a magical day in America.
MORGAN: Maybe it would, but I'm not sure I agree with that.
(...)
[9:32 p.m. EDT]
MORGAN: What do you make of Mayor Bloomberg in New York banning the sugary drinks over 16 ounces?
SPURLOCK: I mean, it's one of those things where part of me applauds the idea of something like that wanting to happen, but part of me hates the idea of having to ban anything. You know, that people – you know, you want to be able to have a responsible citizenry where they can, you know, make responsible decisions.
MORGAN: But does that ever happen in reality?
SPURLOCK: No. Not really. You know?
MORGAN: So isn't he right? Isn't he right to be a nanny? I mean, when we think about a nanny state, I think there's often a time when there should be a nanny state. Yes. People need nannying.
SPURLOCK: This is when you – when you provide kids with helmets or you make kids have to wear helmets, or you have to have seatbelts in cars. You know –
MORGAN: And they demonstrably improve the quality of life of people.
SPURLOCK: That's right. No, it's like --
(Crosstalk)
SPURLOCK: No, as much as people were against the smoking ban, when that went through a few years ago, nobody's talking about it now. Like everybody loves the fact you can actually go to a restaurant and the guy next to you is not puffing up. It's great. You know the difference between that and someone drinking a big sugary drink is not many people die from secondhand obesity.
Like I don't have – I've never had somebody roll over on me. And you know, it's like, that's the problem.
MORGAN: It could happen, though.
SPURLOCK: It could happen. It could happen. That's right.
MORGAN: You'd be around too many thin guys.
-- Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center
