Former Fox News anchor and current podcast host Megyn Kelly had what can only be described as a volcanic eruption, one that might actually rival that which took place centuries ago at Pompeii, all over one of her guests on “The Megyn Kelly Show,” and the magma and ash she spewed into the air was absolutely justified.
During the program, one of her guests took an opportunity to launch into a vicious verbal assault against Kelly and insult her journalistic ethics, all the while pushing the same tired gun control garbage we hear on a daily basis.
According to a report from the Daily Wire, Kelly invited “All-In” podcast co-hosts Jason Calacanis and David Sacks onto her show, where she pushed back on soft-on-crime policies and the district attorneys who promote them.
It didn’t take long for the conversation to move over to the topic of mass shootings, with Kelly dismissing the idea that all of this could be easy — and conveniently for the left — blamed on mental health issues and having too many gun rights.
I mean, when you examine the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the principle seems pretty clear. You have the right to bear arms. Period. Gun control impedes that right. You can’t have too many gun rights.
At this point, Calacanis suggested that Kelly needed more people “to die” in order to care about the issue and then, apparently tossing caution to the wind, accused the podcast host of purposefully lying to her audience in order to boost “ratings.”
Things pretty much plummeted in a downward spiral from that point forward.
“How many people need to die in a shooting, Megyn, or get hit by a bullet for you to consider it a mass shooting? Is it four? Is it seven?” Calacanis interjected, according to a report from The Daily Caller.
You know that scene in the classic film, A Christmas Story when Ralphie’s mom asks him what he wants for Christmas and he blurts out that his heart is set on a Red Rider BB gun? The face of instant regret he makes after having spilled the beans?
That must have been how Calacanis immediately felt on the inside after his rant.
“Let me finish my point, Jason. As I was saying before you interrupted me, I’m not trying to dispute the use of the word ‘mass,’” the host went on to say. “What I’m trying to dispute is the attempt to now say we’ve gotta get guns because of all the mass shootings, the mass shootings are what justify our newfound push on gun control.”
“So how many people need to die in a mass shooting for it to be –” Calacanis interrupted a second time, apparently having no value whatsoever for his own well-being.
“Why don’t you answer my question since you’re here as the guest?” Kelly fired back. You can almost see the smoke rolling out of her ears, signaling the impending explosion. At this point, Calacanis really should have apologized and then sought shelter, but he didn’t.
“I think you’re conflating a lot of different issues in a very partisan way to get ratings,” Calacanis blabbed.
Oh boy.
Here it comes.
“That’s bulls***!” the host asserted. “Don’t question my motives. This is where you — you turn into kind of an a**hole! … I’m giving you my honest analysis. And for you to say that I am misleading the audience for ratings is a prick thing to say, you don’t know me,” Kelly erupted.
“I’ve made my name and made my business based on honest journalism,” the podcast said. “I realize you may be number 26 worldwide, but you’ve never done real journalism at the level I have in your life. So I don’t need a lecture from you about ratings.”
“I am here to deliver honest information to my audience,” Kelly added. “That’s what I’m doing. You can disagree with my point without getting personal.”
Kelly then moved on from that conversation to engage with Sacks concerning progressives and their refusal to acknowledge gun crime until it provides them with a political opportunity for further pushing their anti-gun agenda.
Afterward, she told Sacks, “Thank you for engaging,” taking one final, well-deserved shot at Calacanis.
Hopefully, Calacanis learned something valuable from this experience, and the next time he finds himself on the other side of a gun control debate will treat that individual with the respect they deserve.
