Posted on 04/04/2018 5:56:56 AM PDT by C19fan
Piers Morgan used a series of tweets Monday to call for a ban on all semi-automatic guns and stress his conviction that “no civilian needs one.” His call for a ban on semi-automatic firearms was followed by other tweets in which he told Americans that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, it was only intended to protect militias members’ ability to be armed.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That’s Funny Right There!
“A bunch of farmers and rubes with muzzle loaders beat ‘em.”
Just think what could be done with a bunch of bolts, levers, pumps or even Sharps?
Yes. So they can protect people like they did in Sacramento. That guy was protected from getting cancer from his cell phone.
“Piers may be honest but he just doesn’t get it. “
A brainwashed product of his culture. Like trying to talk a moslem out of his religion.
Mr. Morgan is appaarently unfamiliar with the subject on which he speaks.
“A double-action revolver is pretty darn close to being “semi-automatic”.
One shot per trigger pull.
“...and stress his conviction that “no civilian needs one.”
Actually, I do need one Mr. Morgan but that’s beside the point.
“Said I didn’t have much use for ‘em, never said I didn’t know how to use ‘em.”
Matthew Quigley
It’s a reading comprehension problem gun-grabbers suffer from. Let’s look at this another way:
“A well regulated fishing industry, being necessary to the security of a well-fed state, the right of the people to keep and bear fishing tackle, shall not be infringed.”
Now, does this sound like I need to work on a fishing boat to own a rod and reel?
A Well Regulated Militia?
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light: “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.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today: “Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: “To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: “To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”.
The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”! Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth: “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.” For those still overcome by propaganda: The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.” The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
The entire male population old enough to fire a gun anad march.
Thanks for stupid opinion, Piers. Americans don’t tell England what to do, and as for the reverse, well, that’s why there was a Revolution.
Can we still have single shot muskets pretty please big government man?
Good Words!
bump to post 90.
Excellent definition of the second amendment, and fits right with a linguist who wrote a paper for a court case. Wish I could find that again, read it here on FR.
The gist was that linguistically the militia was not reffering to “the people” in the admendment, and the right to keep and bear arms was not being given but was already inherent. In other words the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with the militia in the sentence structure. Linguistically the militia was only prudent because it was a necessity for a free state.
Your excellent write up says exactly the same thing (i.e. the right to keep and bear arms does not hinge on being in the militia, heck it is the counterbalance for it.)
Excellent write up, and I wish it was taught this way in schools. Heck, I even wish most gun advocates understood this correctly.
Yes, most people fail to realize the full intent of the amendment by the states. People who disagree come up with their own assertions, bias, and ignore the history and the context of why the states were amending the constitution with the bill of rights before they would ratify the founding document into law. The Militia (Organized Military) was the government entity that needed regulating and the method to accomplish this was for the people to be armed with no infringements placed on them by the government. Revisionists today say you can’t own a tank or artillery. When the constitution was adopted you could in fact own cannon if you wanted one and many merchant ships and ship owners did in fact arm their sea going vessels with cannon.
Well, yeah, but I thought semi-auto means autoloader.
The 1860 Starr revolver was a double action cap-and-ball revolver; a repeater which fires one shot per trigger pull.
Is it semi-auto?
Anyway, Piers needs to put some teeth in his belief. Maybe crash a gun show here & knock over some tables. Flapping his gums at us Yanks isn’t going to result in new gun laws.
Britain is a crapped out nation. Done for. So they want us to be like them. Not bloody likely, mate.
I have ran into many people, when debating the 2nd amendment, who say “well should citizens be able to own artillery ect” and I always counter with the cannon and how yes we were allowed to own those.
Agreed Mr Morgan, no british citizen needs a semi-automatic firearm. (I bet a bunch of them wish they had one though).
False !
These people were told that if they pissed on themselves, or puked on themselves that they would be just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.