Morgan spoke to an audience at the National Press Club and discussed his new book, “Shooting Straight: Guns, Gays, God and George Clooney.” The CNN host has gained notoriety for calling for more gun control, especially since the shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., and Morgan didn’t disappoint, addressing what he says is the evolution Second Amendment and the Constitution.
“That to me shows you how clumsily worded, and I say that with great respect for the Founding Fathers, that Second Amendment was,” he said. “The comma in the middle is perhaps the most dangerous comma ever written because it can be interpreted in different ways.”
Unlike Morgan, a Brit who just won't (or is it can't) go home, our Founders were generally fine writers. I'd have suggested leaving out the extraneous bits, but the language of the Second Amendment is clear. The only problem that pompous ass has is the fact that we refuse to listen to him.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the "extraneous bits" like the little reference to the militia.
DeleteThe part that confuses the weak-minded. The Founders were brilliant and made the error of presuming that everyone else reading the text would be like them.
DeleteI'd encourage Piers to go right ahead and give it a try. I'm sure with approval for more gun laws up near 90% or so, it should be a slam dunk. He has but to decide whether to try for state by state ratification, or the Constitutional Convention.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that he's a permanent resident, but I don't recall seeing that he's become a naturalized citizen. But this sad, sorry, little tosser is arrogant enough to believe that it's his place to change our laws.
DeleteThe comma has caused the debate. The English rules on how to read and understand phrasing, commas, and sentencing would favor a right only to form militias. Not every American was a militia member, nor would every American respond to a call to arms for protection of the new government.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteAnonymous, explain how a comma changes the word, people, into militia.
DeleteIt's ALL about the militia. People owning guns is what makes the militia possible.
DeleteUmm... how does that help your cause, Mike? You just said the militia is not possible without the right of the individual to own guns. Wait, wait… I know what you are thinking. You say we don’t need militias anymore, therefore there is no right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Is that right? Let’s take this further. According to the Second Amendment, what is the purpose of the militia? The security of the free state. So according to Mike logic, all one needs to do is say we don’t need a free state anymore (because that’s sooooo 18th century), and *poof* the right to arms is gone. Is that about right?
DeleteThe people can keep and bear arms so that they can form militias so that the country can remain free. Is that what you agree on? That is pretty damn important.
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.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me, as well as the founders wrote, if they had meant for only the militias to keep and bear arms, they would have specified the militia instead of the people.
Maybe be putting the militia phrase first, they were specifying the militia instead of the people.
DeleteBecause putting the militia clause first changes people into militia?
DeleteVitamin C being necessary to human health, the right of the people to keep and eat oranges shall not be infringed.
Does that mean that I can eat oranges only to prevent scurvy?
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.
ReplyDeleteSeems pretty cut and dried to me. If the Founders had meant only for the militia to keep and bear arms, they would have specified the militia in the second part of the amendment that I bolded for you.
How the fuck would the founders have known what YOU were gonna bold.
DeleteDon't be an idiot Mike B. I emphasized it for your edification. But I'm pretty sure if one of the founders were alive today, they would tell you the same thing.
DeleteIf the Founders were alive today--that's exactly what we need: many more people of their quality. We've reached the state of saturation of idiocy in our government.
DeleteThe founders would be appalled at you gun nuts.
DeleteMikeb, do you mean those people who rose up against a meddlesome government?
DeleteYeah, the ones who owned other human beings as slaves and denied women rights. The demi-gods that you have on a pedestal.
Delete