CNN’s Piers Morgan Tweets Attack on Second Amendment

British citizen and low-rated TV host Piers Morgan of CNN sided with sportscaster Bob Costas in an attack on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by coming to Costas’ support in a Tweet on Monday.

“Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns,” Morgan Tweeted, “and Americans go crazy with indignation. He’s 100% right.”

The Brit compounded his lack of knowledge by Tweeting, “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.”

Sorry, Piers. Not “fact.”

Morgan then made the mistake of proving his complete ignorance about history and the U.S. Constitution by bantering with several Twitter followers who criticized him for his obvious failure to grasp the facts.

Of course, the truth is that the Second Amendment was not “created with muskets in mind.” The Second Amendment was crated with military long arms — whatever form they may take — in mind.

The founders weren’t so stupid as to imagine that technology would never improve. Their goal was to give the people access to the same long arms that the military would use no matter what sort of long arms they were or were to become. So, yes, Piers, “high-powered handguns & assault rifles” were, indeed, meant to be covered by the Second Amendment.

There are two reasons, for that, we all know.

First, the founders expected “the military” to be we the people. Because the founders did not trust a large standing army, they only wanted a small standing army and to serve national security they wanted maintained a series of local militias so that, in times of trouble, the U.S. would have a military force at hand to repel invaders. Those militias would be made up of every military age male in the country.

This means the people would have to have the same firearms that any army, anywhere would have. If they didn’t, their militias would be practically impotent and that would defeat the whole purpose of the militia.

Secondly, the founders expected that arms in the hands of the people would serve to temper the arrogance of the government. They obviously miscalculated on the latter.

So, this absolutely does mean that the people should be able to have the same firearms as the army. On the other hand, the founders did not think that citizens should have tanks, cannons, jet fighters, nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction, quite despite that they hadn’t been invented yet. After all, the founders specifically said “firearms” which in their day did not include the weapons of mass destruction that did exist then. Weapons such as ships of war, grenades, cannons, and land mines (then called torpedoes) were not called “firearms” in the founder’s day. They knew the difference.

The founders were not as stupid as Bob Costas and foreigner Piers Morgan think they were.

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 6, 2012.
Filed under 2nd Amendment, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Vagabond661

    True, it would have been harder for Belcher to commit suicde with a long gun but he still could have killed his pregnant girlfriend.
    And the reality is, you don’t need a firearm at all to kill someone. Ask Nichole Brown Simpson. Oh wait. You can’t.

  • jim_m

    35% of murders in England and Wales are associated with domestic violence.

    The UK has a total ban on handguns. Explain why banning handguns has anything to do with reducing domestic violence or murder.

    In fact since it put a total ban on handguns in 1997 it’s murder rate has increased and only recently approached the level back in 1997 demonstrating that removing legal access to handguns has little affect on reducing the murder rate.

    • SteveCrickmore075

      Kansas City, Missouri, with less than one hundredth the population of the UK, still has a higher homicide number of deaths by firearms, than the UK number of deaths by firearms; about 85 deaths per year, which is fairly typical, in that one smallish mid-western city, as opposed to only about 65 for the entire United Kingdom, in the last year.

      • jim_m

        The point is not to make an invalid comparison of one culture to another, but to demonstrate that within a single culture, the banning of guns had the opposite effect than intended, if it had any effect at all.

      • retired.military

        That is because the UK doesnt have that many firearms. That is like saying that 17th century France had more deaths by guillotine than China. If there aint that many guillotines in China there cant be that many deaths by Guillotine in China.

        BTW the Killeen, Ft Hood Area has less deaths by firearms than Kansas City. THere are more guns in that area than in Kansas City as well.

        See it is easy to make invalid comparisions Steve.

        • Brian_R_Allen

          …. the Killeen/Fort Hood Area experiences fewer deaths by firearm than does Kansas City. There are more guns in that area than in Kansas City as well ….

          And even more — and way scarier looking — firearms — and way fewer deaths by their criminal employment — in both Israel and Switzerland.

          Must be something to do with their border controls.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I expect to see the number of deaths caused by twinkies to drop suddenly in the near future, will that statistic also be used to justify gun control?

  • jim_m

    Weapons such as ships of war, grenades, cannons, and land mines (then
    called torpedoes) were not called “firearms” in the founder’s day.

    It was not uncommon for a private vessel to have a swivel gun, which is a small cannon. Lexington and Concord were about the British moving to secure the Cannon of the local militias. That being the case it seems unreasonable to assume that the founders believed that artillery pieces should be in the sole control of the government.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Again, the Constitution mentions FIREARMS. A cannon is not now and was not then considered a “firearm.” And I never said that they considered cannons should fall under “the sole control of government” and neither did the founders.

      • jim_m

        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.

        Seriously Warner, I’m beginning to think that Bruce et al have a point. Nowhere does it say “Firearms”. It says “arms” and and only “arms”.

        • warnertoddhuston

          Again, cannons were NOT considered “arms.” It was considered ordnance. You should look into the actual history (especially of the state constitutions at the time). The founders were talking about firearms. Cannons, ships of war, land mines, and grenades were not considered firearms or arms. They were considered weaponry, yes, but “arms” and “firearms” were pretty specific in their day.

          • jim_m

            Your article said

            After all, the founders specifically said “firearms” which in their day did not include the weapons of mass destruction that did exist then. Weapons such as ships of war, grenades, cannons, and land mines (then called torpedoes) were not called “firearms” in the founder’s day. They knew the difference.

            You said that the founders used the term “firearms”. They did not. Your article claimed that the founders did not intend for the people to have access to cannon. But they did have access to them. I doubt that the founders would have demanded that the people not have access to the same weapons they had access to.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Again, you need to read their words. Read their debates. You can’t just read one word in the Constitution and think you have all you need to know to answer the question.

          • jim_m

            Seriously? If the specific use of the word “firearms” were that important to them they would have certainly used it in the most important document they ever created.

          • warnertoddhuston

            You just don’t know what you are talking about. Take “free speech” as another case that proves you wrong. When the founders were talking about “free speech” they were NOT talking about ALL speech. They were really only talking about political free speech. Evidence? Every state had speech restrictions and the founders were not suggesting that such restrictions were all wrong. Of course, by your logic here, a “Christmas tree” could be an oak or maple instead of a pine tree because, gosh, if the founders of the Christmas tree MEANT it to be a pine tree they would have called it the “Christmas pine tree.”

          • jim_m

            That’s nice Warner. It also has nothing to do with anything I said. I said nothing about the 1st amendment in any of my comments.

            My point was that the amendment said “arms” leaving the meaning open to firearms as well as other weapons. You repeatedly made the claim that they said “firearms” a point which was demonstrated not to be true.

            The rest of your comment is nonsense.

          • Hawk_TX

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

            Where does it say political speech?

            You seem to have a tendency to read words that aren’t there.

          • jim_m

            I never said that they considered cannons should fall under “the sole control of government” and neither did the founders.

            and

            cannons were NOT considered “arms.”

            It seems like you are trying to have it both ways.

          • Carl

            (Warner is making up his own facts again – part of his quest to land a job as a professional liar on Fox News)

          • Hawk_TX

            Arms is a term that encompasses all weapons both offensive and defensive. You can confirm this by consulting any dictionary.
            The definition of what constitutes arms has not changed since the writing of the Constitution. Here is a link to a dictionary from 1768 which defines arms as “Weapons of offense, or armour of defense.”

            http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP270&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

            And here is a link to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary which again defines arms as “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”

            http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,arms

            Clearly the definition of arms encompasses cannons, ships, land mines, grenades, and every other weapon in existence. The founders were intelligent men and had they intended to ban weapons such as cannons they would have. However, by simply referring to arms we know that they clearly did not intend to.

            If you have research into the founders trying to ban cannons or other weapons then please share with us.

      • Hawk_TX

        “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.”

        Where does it say firearms?

        • jim_m

          It says firearms in the same Bill of Rights where the second amendment refers only to the Army.

        • retired.military

          When was the last time you tried to BEAR a cannon?

  • SteveCrickmore075

    The problem that Costas and the Kanas City writer Jason Witlock he quoted, were talking about was the temptations of the gun culture, a sub-culture that is part and parcel of American life, that a good proportion of NFL players, generally not known as the most patient of people, evidently share.

    Witlock:
    “That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. “

    Belcher owned at least three guns, had a history of an explosive temper and rage about women. He was undergoing professional counselling, by someone provided by the Chiefs. It didn’t need much to trigger him. The Chiefs head coach, Romeo Crennell didn’t seem totally surprised that he had killed his ‘chief’ girl friend, but presumably he hadn’t asked Belcher to give up his guns, outside the Chiefs’ facilities.

    “You’re talking about young people who come to you, and sometimes they don’t know the law, they just have a gun. Believe it or not, some of them drive it up in the car. They might drive it to a state where they don’t know what the laws are in that state or the states they have to travel through with a gun in the car,” he said. “What we try to do is try to educate them and inform them and say look let us take care of this gun for you because you can’t have it on NFL property, at any NFL event you can’t have one, so let’s not be tempted by it .” (but outside the property?)

    • jim_m

      “They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. “

      Absolutely! My gun is constantly badgering me, telling me, “Don’t take that from him! Show him who’s boss. If you just let off a couple of rounds you’ll win this argument.”

      The argument is that silly. Inanimate objects do not encourage, discourage persuade or intimidate. People can use objects to do that to others but the objects don’t do it themselves. If your argument is that people cannot be trusted with certain objects then you are headed down a very slippery slope. One wonders when you will ban swimming pools since they cause at least 1/3 as many deaths as guns and many times more than accidental gun deaths.

      • herddog505

        Well, you have to consider the low mental caliber of the average lefty: a gun, a pointy stick, a turnip or just about any other inanimate object is at least as bright and therefore capable of leading them astray.

        • jim_m

          ” low mental caliber

          Snort! LOL

      • SteveCrickmore075

        I don’t believe there are five thousand drownings in American swimming pools a year. If there are, that is why we need lifeguards at public pools. Belcher was obviously a troubled, confused person. His team, his second family knew about him, his college history of rages with women, his immaturity and his rocky relationship with their star running back’s cousin, plus he had been benched the previous game partly because of a concussion, he was on a one year contract, plus his propensity to violence, alcohol, likely even his guns. They talked about his issues. One doesn’t allow a walking time bomb on a plane. A live grenade doesn’t intimidate, according to you, but I don’t want someone carrying one around, thank you. Any proactive response would have been helpful, like joining up the dots with his mini arsenal at home..but given how tenacious the second amendment is, any one who did, would have been ridiculed as unAmerican or even threatened themselves.

        • jim_m

          You conflate his temper with his gun ownership. You then say that because he owned guns that no one should own guns, that because he obviously could not be trusted with guns (at least obviously in hindsight) that no one should be trusted.

          Infringing upon everyone’s rights because one person could not be trusts is foolish. We do not restrict everyone’s right to own and drive a car because some are reckless. Nor do we restrict access to knives.

          I think that the focus on guns by the left is indicative of two themes in their ideology 1) that individuals cannot be trusted to run their own lives and that government must do it for them and 2) that government must be the sole authority and it must be able t impose its will upon the people for their own good. Therefore people must not be allowed the means to oppose government coercion.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            We have different philosphies, but of course I don’t feel people should not be allowed to own guns ,hey that is rooted in American history, their psyche, maybe justifiably; but like american football the nfl for head helmet tackles are giving stricter penalties and are going to finally add more padding on helmets because of the head injuries player suffer, without hurting the game. More should be done about the illegal use of guns in commission of a crime, or some proactive steps. A driver’s license is automatically revoked or suspended if a doctor discovers a seizure,he has a duty to notify the state, the threshold should be just as high with the possesion of guns; but in Belcher’s case I was talking not so much about the law, I was speculating what the Chiefs in locus parentis, felt they could do or couldn’t do, benching him was one thing, too bad they couldn’ t have benched his firearms.

        • Carl

          estimates range from 3500 to 6000 per year in the US. More than half are children.

          • Sky__Captain

            Unfortunately, Carl was not one of them.

  • Vagabond661

    This is the best qoute I have seen on this subject:

    “Jevon’s girlfriend isn’t dead because he had a gun, she’s dead because she didn’t.”

    • Brian_R_Allen

      Here’s even better food for thought:

      The atrocities of September 11 2001 were not primarily the legacy of the recidivist treasonous lying looting thieving Gorelick-Wall-Building co-serial-rapist Billy-Bubbah-Blythe (“Cli’ton”) “administration.”

      Nor of government nor airport nor airline, “security.” /joke

      As is the case in every American mass murder, the atrocities of September 11 2001 were the direct consequence of the criminal curtailment of the united States’ Constitution’s Second Amendment-guaranteed Absolute Right to bear arms!

  • 914

    “The founders were not as stupid as Bob Costas and foreigner Piers Morgan think they were.”

    But Piers and Costas are every bit as stupid as we know they are.

  • Meiji Man
    • Sky__Captain

      Those responses are devastating, which is why Steve Crickmore and Carl will completely ignore them.

  • GarandFan

    Odd that libs NEVER mention Switzerland. Every male, to age 45, is part of the “army”, and keeps his individual weapon and ammunition at home.

    Instead of attacking the 2nd Amendment, perhaps libs should look at the INDIVIDUAL misusing a firearm. Oh, wait…..no, don’t want to go there. It’s not the INDIVIDUAL, it’s the insidious gun that’s responsible.

    Having just about killed (pardon the pun) gun ownership in merry old England, an ER doctor observed an increase in stabbings in London. His Rx? Only licensed people should own sharp knives.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. The Second Amendment was created with military long arms, in whatever form, in mind ….

    Rubbish.

    The Second Amendment was created with bloody tyrants in mind.

    Like England’s Mister George Three and like such rule-by-fiat “justices” as Ginsberg and Kagan and Sotomayor and Roberts.

    And exactly like Barry Buraq Hussayn bin Buraq Hussayn bin Hussayn Ugubugu Samuel Doe Robert Mugabe Soetoro.

  • Commander_Chico

    I have to agree with Warner again. We need black guns like AR-15s to be able to Fight the Power and defend liberty. That is the reason for the Second Amendment.

  • sablegsd

    ESAD, Piers. Go home and walk through a no go zone with no gun and no bodyguard. Hypocritical clump of smegma.

  • electedface

    Mass shootings = proof that gun regulation is necessary.

    • jim_m

      A load of BS. The very first comment is that online sales still need to be processed through an FFL. Unless you are conducting a direct face to face sale you need to ship the weapon. You can only ship a gun to an FFL.

      Online sales have gone up for guns just like online sales have gone up for everything. When you are spending over $1000 for a purchase no sales tax is a nice deal.

      Since most mass shootings involve mentally disturbed individuals and selling a gun to such a person is illegal the real issue is not to stop selling guns to everyone but to better identify the mentally ill so they get the help they need.
      Too bad the left’s solution is that we should punish the innocent. Again.

    • jim_m

      A load of BS. The very first comment is that online sales still need to be processed through an FFL. Unless you are conducting a direct face to face sale you need to ship the weapon. You can only ship a gun to an FFL.

      Online sales have gone up for guns just like online sales have gone up for everything. When you are spending over $1000 for a purchase no sales tax is a nice deal.

      Since most mass shootings involve mentally disturbed individuals and selling a gun to such a person is illegal the real issue is not to stop selling guns to everyone but to better identify the mentally ill so they get the help they need.
      Too bad the left’s solution is that we should punish the innocent. Again.

    • Vagabond661

      Yo Patrick. The mall was a gun free zone. How much more regulation do you need?

    • Vagabond661

      Yo Patrick. The mall was a gun free zone. How much more regulation do you need?

  • electedface

    Mass shootings = proof that gun regulation is necessary.