I think it’s cute when people like Piers Morgan try to play historian.
It’s like he hasn’t heard of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle’s use in the American Revolution. Our founding fathers actually had a pretty good idea what rifles were like. Breech-loaders, too (which have been around since the 16th Century).
The sound you hear? That’s me rolling my eyes. I love when liberals try to talk about guns, but fail to get past their cognitive dissonance and make stupid comments.
Thanks, Carol. You made my day.
Nicely done, Carol.
Piers Morgan pontificating on the Constitution makes me feel terribly provincial- I was under the impression that how much consideration should be given to the opinions of Englishmen regarding firearms in the colonies was a settled matter.
This reminds me of the line in Lincoln about George Washington’s portrait in an English privvy after the Revolutionary War.
Nothing makes Englishmen shit their pants more than the sight of George Washington.
Reminds me of wailing about how modern firearms are so much more deadly than ones of the 18th century, and how the levels of firepower are unprecedented.
And then someone points out to them that eg. Jefferson went around with, what, three brace of pistols when traveling?
(It’s even better to remind them that privately owned artillery has always been and remains perfectly legal, so long as it’s muzzle-loading.
That’s right – you can own cannons and mortars without even a tax stamp or a by-your-leave from the Feds, as long as they’re not firing an explosive projectile, and aren’t loaded from the breech.
This explains why muzzle-loading cannon are so popular with organized criminals…)
I think I’m in love.
Piers isn’t actually seeking an answer to his question, which might seem odd.
The purpose of posing such questions is 100% selfish. He wants to hear himself say it, while wearing a dashing suit. He’s not actually trying to engage a conversation with another, you know, person.
A person like Carol,
who, in only 6 words, filet’s him.
Don’t forget the horseradish, Carol.
I would have used nine — the ones she used, plus, “…you babbling idiot.”
…which is why I’ll never be offered an ambassadorship.
Good answer from Carol, however such displays will be remembered and punished in the future as the firewalls come down.
Toss in Bob Costas, who had a moronic anti-gun comment about the recent murder-suicide by a Kansas City Chiefs player. The best response to that was a photoshop of his comment atop a promo photo of him and OJ as announcers…
Gun don’t kill people, Bob Costas’s friends kill people.
I am soooo gonna steal that.
There is something being missed here, something of constitutional importance. Morgan’s opinion rests upon a historization of the Constitution, i.e., weapons constitutionally allowed are those of a 18th Century type. Modern guns are more sophisticated and effect than those of the 18th Century. For this reason limitations on the possession of fire arms of TODAY can be enacted without violating the Constitution. Roth, on the other hand, gives a technological interpretation (arms effective at a given age). This would allow the sophisiticated arms of today. Let us consider two examples of non-bearing or bearing outdated arms.
1) If the American rebels had used guns of 16th Century technology against the then upto date arms of British soldiers, it becomes doubtful if they could have won. In other words, the American rebels possessed arms on the technological level of the British. Roth is but asking for the same situation today. But, I suspect that Morgan would answer: “That is the problem. Today’s arms are just too dangerous!” O.K., in the 1930s Jews and other dissidents in Nazi Germany had no weapons at their disposal. So, when it came to being hunted down and sent to one or the other disposal camp, Jews and others had no means of defense. If said unarmed citizens had had in their possession arms of technological equivalence to those of the Nazis, they at least could have put up a fight. Am I implying that I want to put up a fight against the police and military power that Obama has? If he should use then against me, if he should order that I disappear, the answer is “Yes”, The point of the right to bear arms entails more than hunting, rather self-defense against a potential governmental tyranny. Am I saying that Obama wants to be a tyrannt? No! I am saying that I want a constitutional right to bear arms, if need be, against tyranny.
One more point, logically derivative from the logic of Morgan’s argumentation. The right of Free Speech, too, can be historized, i.e., free to speak with 18th Century communication technology. If so called “free speech” within the terms of today’s technology is left unchecked, then maybe someone will insult, say, Muslims and provoke violence. Since, as Obama has claimed, the future does not belong to those who slander Islam, then the critiques of Islam placing it in a negative light could, given today’s technology, be disturbing to the peace. We can extend the dangers of free speech with TODAY’s technology to whatever area of discussion that a governal power wants hushed up. In short, the logic of Morgan’s “constitutionalism” can justify anulling the Constituion fully or adopting it to the current needs of governmental power.
Anti-gun folks often scoff at the idea that we need the right to keep and bear arms, as a defense against tyranny in the United States. Right, they say, like that’s ever going to happen HERE!
Such people confuse cause and effect. The reason an American tyranny remains unlikely is because the ultimate power rests with the people. An estimated 100 million Americans own firearms; it don’t get much more ultimate than that.
That an American tyranny is unlikely doesn’t mean that the Second Amendment is unnecessary. It means that the Second Amendment is doing its job.
Well said. I bought my first gun in 2009. The prospect of tyranny is why I chose an AR-15 over a hand gun.
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.
It’s just amazing that the first phrase (i.e. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”) is so often abused.
When it feeds their purposes, it means the guns are for the militia, but shouldn’t the “arms” to be considered be those that a militia would use.
No contemporary militia would be using muskets. Likewise, when it was drafted, it was also envisioned to cover a whole of of “arms” that aren’t guns .. like ships ans cannons.
The idea that the 2nd A should be read as protecting private ownership of the issued long-arms for the regular military is occasionally encountered. In the event of a militia call-up for national defense (as the founders envisioned), the militia would be fighting alongside the regular forces, and it would be tremendously advantageous to be able to use the same ammunition and parts to supply and maintain both groups.
Isn’t that kind of what the Swiss do?
Piers, was the first amendment devised with pamphlets and soapboxes in mind, not TV, radio, and the internet?
We have a winner!
That’s always my argument too. But the Brits don’t always get it because they don’t have anything similar to the First or the Second.
But this chick PWNED Piers!
Gun’s don’t kill people…
The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” is it’s own virtue and requires no other justification.
Isn’t Piers Stefan O’Meara (aka Piers Morgan) a British national? Who is it, exactly, who thinks Piers has the brain power, insight or relevancy to comment on the US Constitution and the right to bear arms?
Piers has never heard of “letters of marque and reprisal”. A rifle, even a cannon, could be owned by anyone who could buy one, but these were small potatoes to the biggest and most powerful military power; a cannon-equipped ship of war. “Privateers”, they were called, and they were the most powerful non-government force on the planet for 200 years. PRIVATE CITIZENS could build or purchase a sailing vessel and fit it with cannons and carronades and set out to sea. And as long as they had the “letter of marque”, he was allowed by his own government to go to war.
Comments are closed.
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000034