Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

September 13th, 2013
10:09 PM ET

Cain vs. Morse on gun laws

"Crossfire" hosts Van Jones and S.E. Cupp debate state gun laws with recalled Colorado State Senator John Morse and gun advocate Will Cain.

More show highlights:

Morse: It's my right not to get shot
Van Jones and S.E. Cupp talk with John Morse and Will Cain about state limits on rounds in gun magazines.

Where do you draw the line on weapons?
Van Jones raises the question of where to draw the line on weapons in the U.S.

Cupp: Gun violence is a real problem
Van Jones and S.E. Cupp agree that gun violence needs to be looked at more closely.

Read the live blog and at and see the results of the viewer vote.

Posted by
Filed under: Debates • Guns • John Morse • S.E. Cupp • Van Jones • Will Cain
soundoff (19 Responses)
  1. Kibappeaw

    Hello everyone! I wish to ensure you are all coming. Get to the Affiliate Circuit Convention this week and find me to chat business or perhaps straight marketing. I'm traveling per day early.

    Don't just forget about Mitchells and Jareds shares. And arrive at the Badgerball – I am going to be there! You could even see me performing some DJing 😉

    Because of all of the affiliate advertising conference and Affiliate Marketing sponsors and I really hope to see you there!

    December 1, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Reply
  2. Rogue351

    No Debate needed. Under our current constitution owning a gun is our right as Americans. But, there are several things everyone needs to come to terms with. Allowing so many to own guns does not only protect people it enables people. The next thing people need to understand is that not everyone who buys a gun legally is a "Responsible gun owner". The proof is the staggering number of guns on our streets in the hands of criminals. Criminals are just regular people, until there not. If everyone that purchased a gun legally where a "responsible gun owner" they would keep their weapons secured. A "Responsible gun owner" would never sell to a less responsible party. Last but not least, gun do not kill people. People with guns kill large numbers of people. With the availability of guns today, it is more likely those who should not have guns have easier access to getting guns. This is simple supply and demand, more guns more people with guns. 30 years ago a criminal or an aspiring criminal that wanted a gun may have not been able to get one because not everyone had one. If the criminal did get a gun it was more than likely a 6 round revolver, semi auto 7 round 1911, a shotgun or a deer rifle both with magazine capacity between 6 and 8 rounds. Today with the introduction to the public market of guns like the AR-15 that is regularly sold with an optional 30 round magazine. Combined with the media frenzy regarding guns people are buying ammo in bulk and storing several high capacity loaded magazines with the weapon. Why, because the media along with the Tea Party and the GOP have incited a panic that our guns will be taken from us. By doing so they have increased gun sales several times over. This increased sales has and will continue to increased gun manufactures contributions for political campaigns. Basically you have been duped and the unlucky recipient of a bullet is the ultimate looser . Which in most cases are young black Americans. Interesting how the KKK, Arian Brotherhood all vote Tea Party and GOP isn't it. More guns along with more opposition against new gun laws make owning a gun for a less than stable person much easier. The basic math is more guns equal more people protected by guns. Which unfortunately does not result in a media grabbing headline. However, more guns also results in more shootings which does grab media attention. So for all of you "gun enthusiasts" out there. Take responsibility for your weapons. The right that allows you to own guns is also costing others their right to life, that is a fact. The next time you take your weapon out to enjoy a day of target practice. Or you take your AR-15 with the 100 round clip deer hunting, know that your weapon could end up in the hands of a criminal if YOU are not responsible. People are dying every single day because certain "responsible gun owner" turned out to be not all that responsible. If they had actually been as responsible they would have secure their weapons thus not allowing them to be stolen buy the regular joe turned criminal, or the criminal that saw a great opportunity. Or the mentally ill person that never showed signs of a "break" until it happened. It is a proven fact that most crimes are a matter of opportunity for the criminal, or aspiring criminal. You not securing your weapon creates the perfect opportunity for a criminal and a potential life changing experience for another family. That is what America needs to swallow if we continue on our current path with guns in America. There will be no miracle discovery as to why people go on these rampages. There will be no one video game or movie that pushed anyone over the edge. It is all about money, greed, power, supply and demand, and some unknown limit that has yet to be determined on how many people must die per year due to gun violence. So far we are at 21000 and rising. But I am sure that new legislation is fourth coming in the works on how determine that number. The other fact we need to live with is you're not a participant in gun related violence until you are. Anyone up for a game of roulette ?

    September 17, 2013 at 1:02 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      Wow. That was a LOT of words. First of all, you are right about everybody needing to keep their guns secure. That is simple common sense. You are wrong about other things. Back 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, guns were more common. They were not generally in a steel safe. At most, they were in those little glass display cases. 50 years ago, you did not even need a background check to buy one. You just walked in, plopped down $50, and walked away with the gun. It is NOT the guns that have changed - it is society. If you want to die, and want to go down in a blaze of glory, go shoot a lot of people - you then get on the front page of every paper in the country, and even get your own Wikipedia page.

      It also used to be "back in the good old days" that people were taught their eternal value. Prayer was not yet illegal in school. People understood about eternal consequences. These days, people have been reduced to hairless apes with nothing at all after death.

      Hollywood these days also glorifies violence, with so many special effects that a gunfight seems a whole lot more glamorous than it really is.

      Also, a lot more people back then understood guns from using them. Back then, a gun was a tool. It was fun to poke holes in tin cans, and a good tool for getting supper. These days, a gun is NOT a tool. To many lower-class children, a gun is a symbol of respect and power.

      By the way, the GOP has NOT incited any sort of riot over guns being taken away. You can blame the President himself for his major gun control pushes. Of course the AR-15 sells out when a lot of congressmen want to make them illegal. DUH! It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

      Finally, the AR-15 is actually not legal to take deer hunting, since the round that it uses is not powerful enough. Also, the fact that you do not actually know the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine" shows that you really do not know much about the subject.

      Remember the Washington sniper? He shot people with an AR-15, which is a GOOD thing - there were survivors. If he had used an old-fashioned bolt-action hunting rifle with a decent round, like the 30-06 (very common deer or elk rifle), there WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SURVIVORS. If I had to be shot with any center-fire rifle, the AR-15 would be my 1st choice, because just about the weakest rifle round that you can find.

      September 17, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Reply
    • Kevin

      Oh, one more thing. I love the focus on "gun violence." Somebody stabbed to death is just as dead as somebody shot to death, so focusing on gun violence without giving consideration to violence in general is just stupid. If guns had never been invented, I am sure that there would still be murder and crime. You would then have the "sword-grabbers" outlawing any blade over 3 inches.

      Yes, guns do make it easier to commit a mass murder, especially in a "gun-free" zone where the bad guy is the only one armed. But consider that mass murders are very rare. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to get struck by lightning (average 79 per year) than to be shot in a "mass shooting." The VAST MAJORITY of murders happen with one or two victims at a time. That kind of damage could EASILY be accomplished using gun technology more than 100 years old. This means that, even if every gun invented in the last 100 years was make illegal, that would do almost nothing to the overall murder rate. In fact, even if every gun were magically removed from the country (yes, even taken from criminals, which WOULD take magic), the criminals would still have knives and clubs. Now, since criminals are generally male and younger, you now have a case where women and the elderly are at a serious disadvantage. It only takes about five pounds to strength to pull a trigger, so people of less physical capacity can still use them. When it comes to hand-to-hand combat, the odds are that the criminal will have a great advantage over the victims.

      September 17, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Reply
  3. PaulG

    The arrogance of Morse, and the left in general is astounding. The public is reject both their policy and tactics.

    September 16, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Reply
  4. David

    At the point someone is able to obtain a gun to perform a violent act, the laws have failed... the size of the magazine is irrelevant. Firing 15 rounds as opposed to 30 just means the shooter will have more magazines on them for faster reloads...

    September 16, 2013 at 11:48 am | Reply
  5. Oakspar77777

    The host (anti-freedom rhetoric at full tilt) argues that the polls favor gun control citing a poll with loose questions asked immediately after an emotional tragedy.

    The poll at the bottom of this article is 4 to 1 against gun control being effective.

    What you have is the measure of emotionality verses the realities of logic and reason when emotions are cooler.

    Colorado proved that limiting freedom is always a losing proposition in this country.

    September 15, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Reply
  6. Tom1940

    This "debate", nor those like it going on across the country, are about regulating firearms. The bottom line is repeal of the 2nd Amendment and confiscation of all privately owned firearms. Fortunately, there are those from both sides of the aisle who recognize that banning firearms is not the solution. Going after (potential), and actual perpetrators is at the heart of the matter. If we wished to end "slaughter" and "horrendous", "horrific" killing of American Citizens annually, and "things" were the main focus of our attention – we would have banned and confiscated automobiles long ago.

    September 15, 2013 at 11:17 am | Reply
  7. Donna

    First, let me say that I am a voter in Senate District 11 and I voted for Morse to be recalled. He states here that they allowed people to discuss these laws prior to voting on them, while this is not an out right lie it is a half truth. They did stop people, including law enforcement, from expressing their opinions on these laws. Those that were allowed to express themselves were ignored. These were the laws some members of the senate wanted, they were not about to take the chance that someone might actually make sense and sway a vote. This arrogance is why I signed the recall petition and voted for this recall. When you do not allow the people you are supposed to represent to express their opinions you are denying them their right to the legislative process, You, Mr. Morse, do not have the right to silence the people of Colorado!

    The fact that Morse and Giron continue to deny that this is the reason they were recalled is just unbelievable to me. You would think that they would have woken up by now. Anyone who sells their vote to the mayor of New York, or anyone else for that matter, deserves to be recalled. The mayor of New York for God's sake!! The man can't even get his own city in order and you are allowing him to dictate how you vote. Unbelievable!!

    September 14, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  8. Steve

    Loving this format, great debates, best CNN show ever. In an honest debate liberal always lose. Keep it coming.

    September 14, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Reply
  9. Allen

    I am not concerned with the capacity of a magazine on a weapon. But how can anyone be against background checks. I am not saying if I chose to give a gun to a family member a check should be required . But if you sell a firearm a background check is reasonable. Or the seller should be held responsible if they sell to a felon or someone with a mental illness . I support the the amendment . I also have more weapons then I would ever need . But I am smart enough to admit my firearms may protect me from a criminal. Only a moron would think they could protect themselves from the government if they decided to attack. You could fire a thousand rounds from a million AR – 15's at the same time at a Abrahams tank and it would only scratch the paint. You will never see the hellfire missile fired from a drone 30,000 feet above.

    September 14, 2013 at 8:12 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      Allen: About the background checks. I can certainly understand your opinion on this. However, consider the following facts about the new law in Colorado:

      If a solder stationed here is living with his girlfriend get deployed, he needs to get a background check for his girlfriend every month while he is gone (real story). How does this help anybody?

      If I want to sell or load a gun to a friend of mine that I have known for years, I have to get a background check on him too. Never mind that he already has guns and that we have gone shooting together. The fact that he has passed numerous background checks in the past and has a concealed carry permit apparently means nothing. How does this help anybody?

      We had fires here in Colorado that destroyed many houses (in the hundreds). If you evacuate your home, or it burns down, you may need to leave your firearms with a friend, because you HAVE NO HOME. Yet, you are still subject to these same laws. Good luck finding a transfer dealer at 7:00 at night because you have been ordered to evacuate, and have to get your expensive guns out of the house. Of course, you COULD keep them in your car, but if you actually have a family, there might not be enough room in the car. So, sorry, you are a criminal for leaving your collection with somebody out of the fire zone. Enjoy your time in jail.

      It is VERY DIFFICULT to get a dealer to do a background check. Simply stated, the BATF cracks down HARD on even the tiniest paperwork mistakes. Write "Y" instead of "Yes" on a few form is enough to get your license yanked (yes, it has happened). Given this, there is no real reason for a dealer to file paperwork that could cost them their license, yet they make no money. So, even if you WANTED to follow the law, it is very difficult.

      Now, I can understand the desire to want background checks for people selling to strangers... I really do... However, there is no legal way for gang members to legally buy firearms in Chicago and Washington DC, yet they manage to obtain guns.

      So, please tell me how this makes sense as written?

      September 14, 2013 at 10:41 am | Reply
    • Donna


      I don't believe the background checks are an issue for most of us in Colorado. We already had a law that background checks are required, if they would enforce the laws we already have wouldn't that save a lot of time and money. A lot of people are yelling loopholes, gun shows and internet sales; Colorado already requires background checks on sales at gun shows. I'm not sure about internet sales because I have never purchased a gun on the internet. (I have looked at a few gun sellers sites and they require you have a gun dealer here process the transaction so wouldn't that mean they would be doing a background check?)

      The problem I had is the extent to which they wanted the checks. You say "I am not saying if I chose to give a gun to a family member a check should be required ." Well it is a law here, now, that we are required to get a background check if we want to give a gun to a family member. In my opinion this is completely ridiculous and unenforceable. How is law enforcement going to know when someone gives a gun to a family member?? How is law enforcement going to know when someone sells a gun to someone else??

      September 14, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Reply
  10. Lodestone

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The commas are important. Control can be implemented, but not from the Federal level but the state level. The premise is simple: The State's people can arm themselves against the Federal Government and people not of their State. So, Yes, people are allowed to bear arms.

    However there is the part about "a well regulated militia". That infers that the State can coordinate and regulate arms within its own State. Thus passing gun control laws at that State level makes sense as its own citizens can decide how to regulate their own State rather than Other States according to their desires and needs.

    September 14, 2013 at 1:33 am | Reply
    • Lodestone

      While we all understand the part about "limiting magazines", it's absurd in the face of the ability to modify. It only takes one to kill. But in the face of people gone on a shooting craze, the stories of the shootings show a lack of responsibility of securing weapons from members in the family who are mentally disturbed. If someone was planning a shooting spree, I'm sure they will take the time to get larger magazines one way or another.

      September 14, 2013 at 1:37 am | Reply
      • Lodestone

        It would not. Considering that the issue is actually 'the threat of violence', the possibility of gun violence is the greater issue than the amount of damage a gun can do. The senator has an issue with the 'threat of [gun] violence" is reduced by him merging it with the issue of the "capacity of violence".

        September 14, 2013 at 1:51 am |
    • Jonny

      Then just change the constitution.

      September 16, 2013 at 12:42 am | Reply
  11. ge

    as long as americans are killing americans whats the problem

    September 13, 2013 at 10:39 pm | Reply
  12. Roberta Harcourt

    I am enjoying your new show 'crossfire'. Never watched any show regularly on CNN because of your "left lean"! This show seems to have promise.. I will certainly watch it!

    September 13, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.