Where Piers Morgan shows he doesn't 'get' the US Constitution - again - Granite Grok

Where Piers Morgan shows he doesn’t ‘get’ the US Constitution – again

Piers, Piers, Piers – you of all people should know the phrase containing “and dispel all doubt”.  A recent tweet on his favorite hobby horse (the Socialist / Statist mantra that citizens should be disarmed) shows a serious lack of understanding of the underlying philosophy of the US Constitution.  The Founders were careful with their words and careful with their construction of that document – and Morgan just continues to flail away

I’d like to suggest a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines the right NOT to be shot/killed by a gun.

Certainly, he is of the “Safety & Security should be primary over Freedom” crowd.  Right there, he goes cross purposes to the fundamental meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution as the intent was to put a fence around Government to prevent its intrusion into the natural self-evident Rights imbued to us simply for being human. They knew that this fence HAD to be constructed by negative liberties – the Bill of Rights spells out what the Government CANNOT do so as to safeguard those Rights.  The Constitution spells out what is allowed and more importantly, outlines that everything else for “powers” is not allowed to the Federal Government.

For the sake of argument, what would this take?

The most important change would be at the personal level:

  1. Each and every person in the whole country would immediately and automatically become an active pacifist.  So Piers, how likely is that to happen, that all urges to commit violence against others would be suppressed?  It isn’t true now, has never been true in the past – how likely would it be in the future?  Slim is being optimistic
  2. Everyone adopts a “Peace through Strength” – everyone is so armored up that NO one is willing to face the wrath of the victim.  Somehow, I don’t think this is viable in Piers’s eyes – he treats the phrase “An armed society is a polite society” with much disdain.

But I really think he meant that the responsibility to keep him safe was the purview of Government – and Government alone. He is willing to relinquish the responsibility to defend himself from other bad actors – the mark of a true Progressive (and pie in the sky – after all, the definition of a neocon is a Liberal that got mugged when reality decided to intrude into dreamy time).  And that would take one of two different twists:

  • An extremely large and intrusive Government.   As #1 is not likely, the only response that leaves the Second Amendment intact AND suffice Morgan’s need for safety is to….wait for it…..create a police state.  – a cop on every street corner, in every home, and by the side of every person.
  • A complete disarmament of the Citizenry – sacrificing Freedom for a perceived state of Safety and Security.

The first is not likely – as the old joke goes “I carry a gun in my pocket because the cop is too heavy on my back”.  We’d be like any other police state in history, because NO Government could expend that amount of capital for a single purpose – the original purpose would be added onto every way from Sunday to justify to the taxpayers “hey, look at what we are doing for you!”.  Just like Diane Feinstein, just like Nanny Bloomberg, just like the Brady Center, he wants complete confiscation – hey, it has worked out so well for jolly old England, eh?

Simply put, he wants to be relieved of the burden to protect himself – to be free from worry. Outsourcing basic responsibilities – no problem in the socialist state he came from (and from which we see story after story when ordinary citizens attacked by evil people who do not respect the law or others, it is the victims that are held to blame for defending themselves – even as the State is not there to protect them as Morgan assumes.  Individuals can and do change but human nature in the aggregate does not – believing otherwise as Progressives do is insanity

It comes down to this: the Progressive definition of Freedom is a 180 from that of Conservatives: YOU have to provide for me.  To provide for my “freedom from worry”, it is OK with Progressives to take from others.  In this, it is a zero sum deal, for Government cannot give to one without it first being earned by another and then confiscated.  This holds not just for the monies to give for free Obamaphones and free housing (freedom from worrying about long distance communications, freedom from worrying about shelter from the elements), but in the case of disarming us, we lose that Freedom which might not even result in his ability to be worry free.

Freedom from basic personal responsibility always results in loss of freedom – TANSTAAFL.  And as we have seen, there are those in Government all to ready to take that freedom under the monniker “for the common good”.

 

>