Piers Morgan Says Second Amendment Only Meant for Muskets

Piers Morgan has a great English accent, but it’s obvious that he doesn’t know much about the United States Constitution. Morgan is editorial director of First News, a national newspaper for children, and the host of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight. As with most of these show hosts, they aren’t very informed when it comes to history and logic.

Morgan got into a debate over gun control after Bob Costas went on his anti-gun rant following Jovan Belcher’s murder of his girlfriend and his later suicide.

Trying to add credibility to his anti-gun position, Morgan made reference to the United States Constitution. Here’s what he said:

“The Second Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns and assault rifles. Fact.”

 See if you can find this claim in the Second Amendment:

“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.”

Even without this embedded constitutional right, we have the right to bear arms. Rights don’t come from the State. This point is not often made. The Constitution doesn’t say that we have a right to work or own property. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to ensure the already existing right to “keep and bear arms.” Morgan should study some of his own British history before he spouts off in America.

“The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court remarked that at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights there was “‘clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia’ and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t say what type of “arms” is included in the right to bear them. There’s a reason for this. Our founders knew that the definition of “arms” can change over time. What were “arms” in the 18th century differed from what would have been defined as “arms” in the 13th century. The Constitution was designed to be a document for the ages, not just for the late 18th century.

Following Morgan’s logic, the freedoms of speech and press found in the First Amendment should be limited to a town crier, horses and footmen to carry communiques, quill pens, and actual printing presses. This would mean setting type by hand, rolling ink ever the type, and pressing the paper on the raised letters, one sheet at a time. Since we don” press” paper over type today, therefore, to follow Morgan’s logic, we can’t appeal to the First Amendment’s right to “freedom of the press.”

If the Second Amendment was only for muskets, then it was also only for parchment and literal printing presses. Our founders knew better. Ideals transcend technology and innovation. Ideals are for the ages.

The six books I wrote in the 1980s were typeset electronically. Even so, the galley sheets still had to be pasted on boards so plates could be made. No one in the 18th century, or even in the last decade of the 20th century, could have conceived of printing exclusively with digits by way of a Portable Document Format PDF.

Printing has made more technical advancements since the First Amendment was drafted than have “arms.” A founding father from the 18th century could easily recognize a modern-day handgun and rifle, but would be stymied by a laptop computer with software that is used to typeset a book with no hard type that could be turned into an electronic file that in the end could print a million copies of a book in days.








Comments

comments

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles.

Posted in First Amendment, Gun Control, History, Media, Second Amendment Tagged with: , , ,
  • otoole123

    Deport ” No- Talent” Morgan.

  • TheWalsh

    The British allowed the African colonial subjects to have only muskets. Is this what Piers Morgan thinks of us?

  • J Wilson

    I suppose that if the right to KEEP & BEAR ARMS is limited to MUSKETS, Mr. Morgan…
    THEN, the right to FREEDOM of SPEECH & PRESS is likewise limited to the vocal range of TOWN CRIERS & MANUALLY OPERATED, TYPESET PRINTING PRESSES printing NEWSPAPERS delivered on HORSEBACK!!!
    Ergo… your “RIGHT” to spill propganda on behalf of the CROWN on CNN via Television is no longer protected…. So.. get the %^$#@ off the air and go find a soap box to stand on in the middle of Central Park.
    Better yet. Carry your pompus limey ass back to the home island… You know, the country we seceded from by force of privately-owned FIREARMS!

  • Freedomfirghters

    He needs to be deported or hanged for treason. This idiot doesn’t deserve to be over here. Even the Brits don’t want him and that says a lot. Instead of deporting him send him to china or North korea so he can live in his “gun free” utopia.

  • SickoftheBS

    “Piers Morgan Says Second Amendment Only Meant for Muskets”
    Well then freedom of speech was only meant for US citizens and freedom of the press was only meant for printed paper so STFU.

  • commandtech

    Piers Morgan is a Criminal from the UK, he was dismissed from an Editor position for forging Photographs of UK solders abusing Muslims, Morgan was dismissed and later picked up by Communist News Network, there is now a movement in the UK to prevent him from returning. No one wants this Fraud/Criminal/communist POS.

  • enyeart

    Piers Morgan is a far left liberal progressive who should be deported back to the UK.

  • DrTom

    Piers Morgan is an idiot with a poor grasp of US history.
    I can envision King George being an arrogant idiot like Morgan.

  • Moose

    Piers Morgan is a fool like most anti 2nd Amendment detractors. The 2nd Amendment was not put into place to give people the right to hunt. It was put into place for two specific purposes, to have weapons in the hands of the people to prevent invasion from foreign powers and prevent our own government from taking away the freedom of the people. Remember, we just had a revolution at the time of the writing of the Constitution. If you believe Piers Morgan, freedom loving people would be fighting a corrupt government with muskets rather then technology weapons. Stupid!

  • Johnny Geetar

    HA! THIS is rich…….. this coming from a meatsock whose people CANNOT EVEN WIN A WORLD WAR ON THEIR OWN! We threw em out of this country! Their colonies one by one world-wide, threw them out ALSO. And we fought AND WON a 2 front war to SAVE THEIR BACON FOR THEM, a 2 front feat even Hitler HIMSElF COULD NOT PULL OFF!

    Q) What was Dunkirk?

    A) A bunch of Englishmen trying to imitate Frenchmen! (Retreatists!)

    Whose shoulder did they come crying on when they were getting their arses HANDED to em, TWICE? And now, they want to lecture US and instruct us on proper comportment, ownership parameters, and protocol of CITIZEN GUN OWNERSHIP? This utter folly and absurd irony appears to have COMPLETELY escaped Piers Morgan. It isn’t sad folks; it’s downright funny. And so will the end result be if the federal government is stupid enough to irretrieveably provoke 100 MILLION American gun owners whose patience is RAPIDLY evaporating…….
    And I hope some government snoop is reading this, too! Good! Pass it on up to your boss. Behold the ballbaggery of federal logic here from a purely citizen standpoint;
    You have turned America into an economical, social and political shambles! And at the WORST possible time, you would anticipate COOPERATION from the American gun owner in DISARMING US and leaving us vulnerable to the VERY Douchebaggery that YOU created?? Oops, be back in a minute…….. Sorry folks, back now. I had to change my shorts from laughing so hard………..

    Oh, and by the by for Piers and friends, the answer is a flat-out and unequivical NO as far as cooperation with the federal government in disarming us. Perhaps the Brits and Aussies may have left their gonads and backbone in the truck out back, but I can ASSURE YOU, that is not even REMOTELY the case among America’s 100 MILLION gun owners with 350 MILLION firearms at their disposal, with many 10′s of BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition on hand. That’d be billion with a really big B……….Tread V.E.R.Y. carefully here, feds……. our patience with your socialist, political ballbaggery is running out quickly, ESPECIALLY where it pertains to our birthright of the 2nd Amendment……. Is that internet bravado? Hardly…… It’s FACT. Digest that as you will……..

  • Winghunter

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
    Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

  • Hal Howell

    He needs to be sent to Mogadishu with a one way ticket and no credit cards!

  • RedMeatState

    Really, Piers? Is that because the British LOST both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812?
    Now they’ve disarmed their own citizens, let’s see how that works for them as they adulterate their population with muslims and other infidels!

  • Dark_Archer

    who gives a rats as s what this commie liberal english weeni thinks hes not even a citizen of this country …in fact he is an enemy of our freedoms and should be tried and hung along side the communist democrats token negro obuckwheat

  • http://www.facebook.com/glennmmckenney Glenn McKenney

    Your comparison of freedom of the press and the printing press to the right to bear arms and the musket was brilliant. This line “Ideals transcend technology and innovation. Ideals are for the ages.” perfectly crystalizes a thought I’ve had about “muskets” being the absolute limit of the 2nd Amendment as posited by the likes of the feckless Piers Morgan. The best personal armaments they had at the time the Bill of Rights was written were muskets. Doesn’t it stand to reason that in 2013 we have the right to possess the best personal armaments that we have the ability to manufacture? #ShallNotBeInfringed

  • voisybay

    complete bull
    That’s exactly what was intended–to defend against the British trying to reoccupy the colonies–I bet if the forefathers had known how stupid American’s would embrace guns they would have added the statement—”upon establishment of the state–citizen ownership of guns is now irrelevant and prohitbited”

  • US citizen

    Mr. Morgan should go back to England just as fast as his little legs will carry him ! My ancestors came here in 1634 and I don’t put my country down like the ingrate he is !