The View Host Claims You Can’t Be Pro-Life and Own a Gun

A single line on daytime TV turned into a wider fight about faith, life, and guns. Alexander Hall at Fox News reported that “The View” co-host Sunny Hostin called pro-lifers hypocritical if they keep “AR-15s in their cabinet.” In response, gun-rights commentator Colion Noir posted a video arguing the exact opposite – owning a firearm to protect family is consistent with valuing life. Two sources, two worldviews, one question that won’t go away: does “pro-life” mean you must be anti-gun? 

What Sparked The Debate

Hall explains that the segment followed comments from Pope Leo XIV, who told EWTN News that supporting abortion restrictions while favoring the death penalty or backing “inhuman” treatment of immigrants was not truly pro-life. “The View” praised the clip. Joy Behar said you’re “at least consistent” if you align your abortion and death-penalty views in the same direction. That framing set the stage for Hostin to lay down her broader standard – one that reaches far past abortion into guns, immigration, and social policy.

Hostin’s Consistency Claim

According to Hall’s report, Hostin described herself as a lifelong Catholic who is against abortion and against the death penalty. She added she is “also against guns,” and sees this as part of a humanitarian ethic that values all life. Hostin tied that claim to a charge of hypocrisy: some Christians call themselves pro-life but support executions, back strict immigration enforcement, cut benefits for kids, and, she emphasized, keep AR-15s at home. For Hostin, those stances clash with the label “pro-life.”

The AR-15 Line That Lit Up The Internet

Hall quotes Hostin saying pro-lifers who “have their AR-15s in their cabinet” aren’t truly pro-life. That line carried the segment far beyond the show’s studio because it moves the abortion debate into the realm of self-defense. It suggests that even owning a commonly used rifle undercuts the moral claim of being pro-life. To some viewers, that read like moral clarity. To others, it sounded like a category error – treating the tools used to defend innocent life as proof that you don’t value life.

Behar’s “Consistency” Yardstick

Behar offered a simple test: if you are anti-abortion and anti–death penalty, you’re consistent; if you are pro-choice and pro–death penalty, you’re also consistent. It’s a clean matrix – but it also leaves out the reasons people draw lines where they do. Hall notes Hostin has long said she is personally anti-abortion while defending legal abortion as a matter of church–state separation. On “The View,” though, Hostin pushes the larger humanitarian standard: if life is precious, then your policies, including on guns, should reflect that.

Noir’s Core Rebuttal: Pro-Life Isn’t Pro-Victim

Colion Noir takes aim at the AR-15 claim first. He says calling pro-lifers “hypocrites” for owning a rifle used to defend their families makes no sense. In his words, protecting innocent life with the most effective tool for home defense isn’t a contradiction; it’s the point. Noir argues “pro-life” means defending the innocent, not leaving them helpless. To him, the idea that a parent with kids at home should give up a reliable defensive tool to prove moral purity flips the logic of “pro-life” on its head.

Innocent Life Versus Punishing Evil

Noir also challenges how Hostin links the death penalty to the pro-life label. He says the concept is about innocent life, like unborn children and law-abiding people, not violent offenders. He separates self-defense and criminal punishment from the value of the innocent, arguing those are different moral lanes. He admits the system that administers punishment is its own debate, but the principle stands: there’s a moral difference between guarding the vulnerable and excusing those who harm them.

The AR-15 As Real-World Protection

In the video, Noir brings it down to daily life. He mentions moms who own AR-15s for home defense and notes they’re not “hunting humans.” They’re trying to make sure no intruder turns their children into headlines. He argues a rifle is a tool – accurate, controllable, and effective under stress. If “pro-life” includes protecting your family from violent attack, he says, then a capable defensive arm is consistent with that duty. It’s not about posturing; it’s about being ready when the worst shows up.

Immigration, Borders, And Moral Math

Noir also pushes back on Hostin’s immigration point. He says you can value human life and still want border security. To him, prudence at the border does not equal cruelty, any more than locking your front door means you hate your neighbors. The larger issue, he argues, is performative compassion – loud, camera-ready indignation that ignores hard tradeoffs. His position is that real compassion protects actual people, starting with your own household, while still treating others with dignity.

Slogans Versus Standards

Here’s the tension both sources expose. “Pro-life” is used like a catch-all slogan, but people load it with different standards. Hostin, as Hall reports, stretches it into a broad humanitarian umbrella: anti-abortion, anti–death penalty, anti-gun, pro-subsidies, and softer immigration enforcement. Noir narrows it to moral categories: protect the innocent; punish the guilty; equip good people to stop evil. These aren’t tiny disagreements. They’re rival definitions that lead to rival policies.

The Real-World Test

Words are easy; crises are not. When a door is kicked at 2 a.m., the question is practical – can you protect life right now? Noir’s view answers yes: a lawful, trained citizen with an effective tool can stop evil before it ruins a family. Hostin’s view answers differently: fewer guns means fewer tragedies. But if good people are disarmed while bad people are not, the moral calculus gets messy. A consistent pro-life ethic should think about the attacker, yes – but it must think about the victim first.

What “Pro-Life” Means In Policy Debates

Hall’s reporting shows how “The View” folded firearms, immigration, and social spending into one “pro-life” test. That version treats “pro-life” as a total package of political positions. Noir insists the package should start with clear lines: innocent life is worth defending, and tools for defense support that principle. Whether you agree with Hostin’s humanitarian approach or Noir’s defensive ethic, the question isn’t going away: is the pro-life label about broad policy vibes – or about specific duties to protect life in the real world?

The Bottom Line

Alexander Hall chronicles how Sunny Hostin and Joy Behar framed pro-life consistency on “The View,” with Hostin declaring that keeping an AR-15 undercuts the label. Colion Noir fires back that owning a defensive rifle is exactly what a pro-life parent does: guard the innocent. One side widens “pro-life” into a political umbrella; the other roots it in protection and moral distinctions. However you slice it, this moment forced a blunt choice: is pro-life a slogan about feelings – or a standard that includes the courage and the means to keep people alive?

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.