by Big Dog on Dec 31, 2012 at 13:12 Political
Piers Morgan says the Second Amendment does not mean what it says and is ambiguous. Throughout this article I will be posting the words of our Founders so as to make it clear for Mr. Morgan who evidently has trouble understanding the English language. Ironic as that might seem.
— George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
Piers Morgan of CNN is a guest in the United States. Let us make no mistake about that up front. He is here because we have been nice enough to allow him to be here. The problem is that Piers is a terrible guest who thinks he has some say in how this country is run. Piers is here and he is making a stink about his incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment and even likens America’s obsession with guns as, in part, due to hatred for the British and the Revolution.
Hey Piers, if we hated the Brits you would not be here making a ton of money and living large. You would still be hacking people’s voice mail in the UK and otherwise invading their private lives to publish trashy news.
But I digress.
Morgan is in a snit because a petition to have him deported at the White House website is up to 90,000 signatures (now over 100k). Morgan says he has been attacked for his position on guns in America and he finds it ironic that he is being attacked for exercising his First Amendment right to which he is entitled as a legal guest here.
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
I find it ironic that Morgan, who has no say in the matter, is upset about exercising his right to free speech when his exercise of that right was done in support of removing the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, Morgan is upset that people would attack his right but thinks that no one should be upset that he has been attacking their right. Keep in mind, Morgan has no say in the matter. He is a guest.
Let us get into some of the items Morgan posted in his UK Daily Mail piece. He totally misinterprets the Second Amendment. He claims that the Amendment does not allow Americans to have AR 15 type firearms (which he calls assault weapons) and that those weapons are for the military and the police. Morgan is ignorant of the fact that the Second Amendment allows the people to keep the same kinds of arms that would be used by individuals in military service and that hunting and sport shooting have nothing to do with the issue. He poo poos the idea that the 2A is for Americans to defend against its own government should that government become tyrannical. He seems to have missed the history lesson of a tyrannical government that King George ran and the mess that happened when Georgie tried to take our guns.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Without our firearms America would still be under British rule and perhaps Piers would be a ruling governor in the colonies. It is also important to note that while Morgan dismisses the idea of Americans maintaining arms to keep its own government in check this government has committed far worse crimes against the people than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. This government makes King George look like a piker.
In any event, Morgan thinks the Second Amendment is unfortunately worded and that it is ambiguous, at best. I submit this Piers, the Second Amendment is pretty clear in that it does not restrict ownership to any type of firearm and it does not restrict to those in the militia. The Constitution starts with the words “We the People” and that phrase means all citizens of this country. In fact, the Declaration of Independence tells us that the government derives its just powers with the consent of the governed and the Constitution lays out that the PEOPLE are in charge. The phrase “the people” is used several times to indicate all citizens of this country. So why would the phrase; “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” mean something else?
It does not and only an idiot would think otherwise.
Morgan claims that 100,000 people are shot in the US each year. This number is misleading and is designed only to make people think these shootings or any associated deaths would not have occurred if we banned guns. First of all, the only way to get to anywhere near 100,000 is to include suicide (successful and not) as well as legal shootings. As far as suicides go there might be fewer suicides by gun if it were harder to get one (it will never be impossible regardless of any ban) but the number of suicides will not go down. In China, a country that would certainly get Morgan’s blessing for gun control, nearly 300,000 people a year commit suicide. If someone wants to die he will find a means to end his life even if he can’t get a gun.
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
A number of shootings are accidental, the number of fatalities low and the number of murders even lower. The number of deaths by firearm is around 31,000. 18,000 are suicides (which would still happen as evidenced by the same numbers pre and post gun ban in the UK and Australia as well as the number in China). The number of homicides includes all (remember, some homicide is ruled justifiable) and even at 11,000 is lower than the number of people who die in drunk driving accidents, baseball bat murders (the most common weapon in the US), and knife murders.
Incidentally, if we were to remove guns from the equations in America and all other nations to which people like Morgan compare we would see that America has more murders with all other types of items that can be used as weapons, items one supposes are as easily available and as prevalent in those other countries (certainly every kitchen in the UK has a knife in it).
I understand that Morgan is a sensationalist type “journalist” (remember, he was a tabloid journalist who did illegal things to get stories) but certainly he does not expect us to believe his claims. His sole experience, a subject he knows a thing or two about, comes from a one time three hour controlled excursion to a range he participated in and a few family and friends who have some kind of firearms experience. Most rural children in the US have more firearms experience (and knowledge) than Piers Morgan. Morgan is lying to people in order to assist Barack Obama and the Democrats in achieving the disarming of Americans and the violation of the US Constitution.
— Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Morgan tells us, in his stiff British style, that we do not cure alcoholism by giving alcoholics more booze or drug addiction by giving addicts more drugs. His connection is that a gun problem (a problem to Morgan and his ilk) should not be fixed by allowing more guns. This is flawed and I would think that an addict and past drug user like Morgan would know better.
You see, no one would give an alcoholic or an addict alcohol or drugs to treat their problems and no one in America would give a mentally ill person a gun. Morgan wants us to believe that since a few people have done terrible things with guns we should ban all guns to solve the problem. In order to make any connection to his alcohol or drug analogy we would need to make all people who do not have alcohol or drug problems stop drinking or using any kind of drug and take sobriety classes. Alcohol is perfectly legal in this country and we do not stop people from drinking it. EVEN ALCOHOLICS AND PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE DRUNK DRIVING ARRESTS CAN BUY IT. Yes, alcoholics can get alcohol. We have not banned it but we do go after behavior that is harmful. We go after drunk drivers. We hold alcoholics accountable for things they do while drunk. What we do not do is force every person who does not abuse alcohol to stop using it or to go through treatment.
We tried making alcohol illegal in this nation and plenty of it was produced, sold and consumed, much of it by the politicians and people who worked to get it banned. A ban on alcohol was so ineffective that the Constitution was changed to remove that ban. Certain drugs are illegal to buy, sell or use. Other drugs have specific uses and are well regulated. Every day in this nation people obtain the drugs that are illegal and the drugs that are controlled and they use them. People die every day from using drugs illegally so it is obvious that any kind of ban does not work. In fact, more people die of drug (legal and illicit) and alcohol each year than from gunshots (the list includes all firearms deaths. We know that homicide is fewer than 11,000 of the deaths and suicide the most). Perhaps as a past druggie Morgan should concentrate his efforts on these senseless deaths, death by assault drugs…
— Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
Morgan wants the readers of his piece (aimed at the UK) to think that a ban will solve gun violence. He cites numbers and uses them incorrectly and he omits things that hurt his argument. The reality is Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in this nation and over 500 people have been murdered with guns in that city. In the US the cities with the most stringent gun control laws have the most gun related shootings. Hell, during Ronald Reagan’s terms in office DC had the toughest gun control around and Reagan was shot in that city while surrounded by armed guards. Criminals do not obey the law and people intent on doing something bad will do something bad no matter what.
Mexico has tougher gun laws than the US, the UK, and Australia. The murder rate per 100,000 is extremely high. If gun control is the answer why is Mexico in such trouble (discounting the fact that Barack Obama and Eric Holder illegally shipped firearms there and armed drug cartels). While Morgan likes to say that more guns equals less crime is nonsense one must engage in willful suspension of disbelief to arrive at his conclusion. In places where there are more legally owned guns there is less crime and in places where guns are strictly controlled there is more crime. Morgan also laments that arming teachers and nurses and others is not the answer. We do not have to arm them we only have to allow them to be armed if they so desire. If schools were not designated as gun free and people with legal carry permits could carry their firearms then school shootings would likely not occur. Keep in mind that all the mass shootings since 1950 with the exception of one have taken place where guns are not allowed. The one that took place where they are allowed was in Arizona where Congresswoman Giffords was shot. Her assailant was stopped by a young man who was legally carrying a concealed firearm.
— Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition 
Let’s face it. Bans do not keep people from getting banned items. Drugs are banned and people get drugs. People under 18 are not allowed to buy tobacco but many people under that age use tobacco (by the way, the number one killer in the US where people are 50 times more likely to die from tobacco related ailments than a gunshot, non tobacco users 5 times more likely) and people under 21 are not allowed to buy alcohol but people under 21 drink everyday. How many of these under aged people die in drunk driving accidents and will Morgan be rallying against alcohol?
The truth of the matter is that even in his beloved UK people have been murdered with guns after guns were banned. The people of the UK are victims to increased crime since they were forced to turn in their firearms. People lie awake at night listening as criminals try their doors to see if they are unlocked. Hot burglaries have increased and there are more crimes because of the gun ban. These are facts that Mr. Morgan can look up. In fact, he could watch this video of his fellow countrymen telling us in the US NOT to let them ban our guns.
Piers Morgan has shown that he does not understand the US Constitution or the Second Amendment. More importantly, he has involved himself in an issue that is none of his business. The rules governing this country and the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, are a matter for the citizens of this country. Morgan is a guest and as such should conform to the laws and customs of the host nation.
Think of it this way. If Morgan invited you to live in his house because you were down on your luck he would be allowed to set boundaries and rules. Suppose you smoked tobacco and kept a firearm in your room and ran around in your underwear, all in violation of the rules for living in Morgan’s house. He would be well within his right to evict you and you would have no right to demand that he change his rules to suit your thoughts, beliefs, and desires.
Morgan is doing that to us. He is a guest in our house and yet he is trying to change the rules to suit him.
That is what the petition to deport him is all about. We want to evict him from our house because he does not like to follow the rules and he gets involved in things that are none of his damned business.
Yes, I know Piers Morgan stated in the article that he has children and he is concerned about their safety and if America does not change its gun rules to suit him he might pack up and go home.
First of all, I would like Morgan to tell us where his children go to school. No, for you liberal twits, this is not some way to bring harm to them. I oppose harming children. It is for us to see if Morgan sends his kids to a public school or some elitist private school where guards protect the children, you know like Barack Obama and the DC elite do. If Morgan sends his kids to a school with armed guards or where they are pretty safe he has no grounds upon which to stand.
— Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
I would also like to know if Morgan employs a bodyguard and if so, is that guard armed? You see, so many of the elitists tell us that guns are bad and no one needs them but these very people employ armed body guards to protect themselves. They think they are more important than you are. Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and countless other liberal twits employ armed guards to protect them and their families.
I know, Clinton and Obama are US presidents and afforded guards just like Republican presidents. The difference is that Republican presidents did not run around with armed guards while telling you that guns are bad and that you must be disarmed.
If guns do not make us safer than why do so many liberals surround themselves with armed guards.
And if liberals in Hollywood oppose firearms why do so many of them make a fortune using firearms in their films? Maybe liberals in films are responsible for the violence.
America is an armed nation. Our Constitution protects the right (a right that preexisted our Founding) to keep and bear arms. We did not take kindly to the British rulers trying to disarm us in the past and we will not take kindly to our American leaders (who think they are rulers) trying to do so now.
We certainly will not allow a British guest in our country to dictate how we should run things.
So Piers, if you want to leave please be my guest. If you want to stay you are welcome to do so provided you live by our rules.
More quotes about gun ownership from the Founders.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post