Pathetic: Piers Morgan takes 18 hours to craft comeback to ‘gun-toting heroine’

As Twitchy reported yesterday, CNN’s ratings-challenged Piers Morgan took to Twitter to fawn over Bob Costas’ sermon on the evils of guns. “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles,” the gun control fetishist tweeted.

In a beautiful smackdown heard ’round the Twitterverse, author and commentator Carol Roth went after Morgan for his holier-than-thou preaching. When he snootily asked what part of the Constitution addresses self-defense, Roth zinged, “right next to the word ‘muskets.’

Piers’ response came 18 hours later. No, really: 18 hours!

Hey, give the man a break. Witty retorts are awfully hard, though Morgan could learn a thing or two from Roth.

Although Morgan took the better part of a day to respond to Roth, it wasn’t because he wasn’t on Twitter. He tweeted this a couple of hours before getting back to Roth.

Aww, poor Piers. He’s a martyr for the cause!



Piers Morgan: Bob Costas is ‘100 percent right’; Second Amendment was written with muskets in mind

Disgraceful: Celebs, Bloomberg and Piers Morgan use Colo. shooting to push gun control

Nanny Bloomberg on Piers Morgan Tonight ghoulishly guns for gun control

Piers Morgan wastes no time in using Wis. shooting to further anti-gun agenda

Michael Moore urges Americans to ‘rise up now’ over gun control

  • Peyton

    Maybe if we had some of Obama’s bayonets on those muskets, criminals could just stab people and the gun control debate would cease.

  • therantinggeek

    First thing that went through my mind when I saw that picture…


    • TugboatPhil

      I was thinking “Knitting needles into my eyes!!”

  • Shawn Smith

    “I’d like fewer Americans to die from gun crime each day.”

    Yeah, if only all of America could be like Chicago or D.C. with strict gun control and high murder rates.

    • Catchance

      Or even like the U.K. with strict gun control and higher violent crime rates.

  • Bui van vat

    Piers Morgan has as much right as anyone else to his opinion on gun control — in England. If he wants to live in a society with fewer guns, I’ll offer to help him pack for his return trip back. He might be a little hesitant, though; he’s got out of the woods yet on the phone hacking scandal.

  • Jack Deth

    Being such a righteous Pommy Bastard, I thought that Piers (What kind of a parent named their son “Piers”?!!!) would have dug deep into the history of Monty Python. And John Cleese’s endless courses in Self Defense with “Defending yourself when attacked by a Pointed Stick, banana or raspberry!”

    Most of which ended with Eric Idle’s recruit being shot by a .38 revolver. Or crushed by a falling one ton weight.

    • tredglx

      And how does one defend against an assailant with a one ton weight…

      If you’re Piers(1), you put someone taller next to you. And run.

      • peteee363

        i deeply feel no assailant would be walking down the street carrying a one ton weight. if there was a person who could carry that, he also wouldn’t be able to walk, or run very fast. pelting him with bananas, or eggs might make him lose control of the weight, and drop it on his head. but if gang banger is pulling out a revolver, i want one, or a semi auto pistol, then it would be a fairer fight. don’t libs always mention how they want everything fair? i am not sure if my back could handle a one ton weight, leave that for piers!

        • tredglx

          LOL! Excellent reply.

  • Marsh626

    If he really wanted to reduce gun violence he’d support racial segregation.

    “Hispanics” and blacks commit insanely high rates of violent crime in general, including violent gun crime.

    That’s the REAL reason why Chicago, Brazil, etc, have such high gun violence rates despites severe restrictions on firearms.

    But nobody is allowed to say that due to political correctness…

    Gun violence rates in America have very little to do with NRA and Tea Supporting Red State White Americans…

    Yet we always take the blame for the Left’s ghetto brown base acting like degenerate 3rd world mongoloids…

  • Conservative First

    Eh, what the hell is a BRITISH CITIZEN doing lecturing us about our constitution?

    • DRomani


    • Elysse Hamilton

      My sentiments exactly. During the campaigning season prior to the election, he was insufferable! He freely opines while having very limited information on which to base his views. I can’t believe he gets to host a talk show.

    • Kelly Layne

      That was my first thought. Go home is what I say

    • TexSizzle

      Correction: British SUBJECT.

  • Danny Wheeler


  • Brian E.

    “Does it authorise individual ownership of tanks, UZIs and nukes?”

    – Piers Morgan

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    – George Washington

    • walterc

      Why yes it does, if that’s what i need to defend myself from a tyrannical government. Why do you ask?

    • robcrawford2

      As someone else pointed out, at the time of ratification, there were US civilians operating fleets of armed ships.

    • EOD

      “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
      Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

      -George Washington

      Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches
      that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
      Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

      -Patrick Henry,

      “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

      -Alexander Hamilton

      Never Trust A British Subject [Piers Morgan] Talking About The Need For Gun Control In The United States Of America


    • Jeff Markel

      Exactly, we the people are the militia to stand guard against the government of tyrany, not hunting

    • Toaster Crisp

      As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
      them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
      occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
      the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the
      next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

      –Tench Coxe

      The militia of these free
      commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared
      with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are
      the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall
      turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to
      disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement
      of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the 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.–Tench Coxe

      Uzi’s and tanks, absolutely. Nukes? Since nation states cannot even manage to produce and deploy them, as with chem and bio weapons, your strawman is invalid, Tory.

  • Golphin

    Once Zucker takes over, cleans house ( including Short Piers), demoralizes the news staff that he brings in, continues the tradition of treating CNN viewers like imbeciles ( which if you watch, you are) , we won’t have Old Piers to kick around. Or Soledad. Or John. Or Carol. Or Wolf.
    CNN will be a sports network by 2016.

    • Pdub420

      and a horrible one….

    • carycartter

      golphin, I’m not seeing a down side there …

  • ricci

    who is piers morgan again……….lmao as bugs was famous for saying ” what a maroon”

  • AndiGibson

    An open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock

    Gentlemen: I see that you have chosen to use the horrific crime of the murder of Kasandra Perkins to express your belief that guns are the problem, not the men who wield them. I am utterly certain that you believe that you have the moral high ground on this matter. I am equally certain that such a belief is appallingly wrong, not to mention terribly misogynistic. Why do I say this? Because had your desires on gun control been in place, I would not be alive to be writing this now.

    Do you know what kept me safe? Not some piece of paper. Not a judge tut tutting at him and shaking his/her finger and telling him to leave me alone. Not the police, who, after all, would only be able to respond once he had caused me harm. No, what kept me safe was my Glock.
    My Ex was nearly a foot taller than me and, at the time, had about 150 pounds on me. If he had been able to get close enough to me to harm me, there were very few options I had to protect myself. But with my Glock, well, I would be able to stop him before he got that close. I am alive today because he knew that if he tried to make that otherwise, there was a better than even chance he would be the one lying there in a pool of blood instead of me.

    Let us not beat around the bush, you want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you? Honestly, who do the two of you think you are to demand that my blood be shed so that you may preen about what wonderful people you are? Why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for Kasandra Perkins’ murder from Jovan Belcher and placing it on an inanimate object? That is what you are doing, after all. Your position is that absent the gun, Jovan Belcher would not have murdered Kasandra Perkins. What utter rot. It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen. By focusing on the gun, you are choosing to make Jovan Belcher a mere bystander to his own actions. That is horrific. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins. He chose to pull that trigger. He chose to take her life. How dare you attempt to absolve him in even the slightest manner for that crime. He killed her. Not a gun. He did it. No one else.

    I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed so that you can sit there and declaim your supposed superior morality to the world. No. You would rather I be dead. That is the logical conclusion of your positions. I will not die for you. No other woman should either.

    Alive despite you,


    • tredglx

      So glad you’re still with us, Alexandria.

    • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

      Yes, and he shot her 9 times. 9 times. I firmly believe that had there been no gun, he would have murdered her another way, and possibly the baby too.

      • righthook38

        Exactly. He’s a football player. Who’s to say he wouldn’t have just strangled her with his bare hands? How utterly ridiculous.

        • wolfie773

          And then, following their logic, Costas and Whitlock would have taken to the airwaves to demand that all people had their hands removed. Because hands can be used as weapons.

        • Slappy

          A la Chris Benoit. Guns aren’t the problem.

        • PennyRobinsonFanClub

          Or used a big combat knife.

    • Foxxman

      A stunning speech, if I may call it that…so absolutely on the mark and to the point. Bravo, Alexandria! An outstanding effort. Well said! I am SO grateful you are here with us.

    • ATNorth

      I know Alex, and this is a true story.

    • MsDessie

      So very glad you are still here to be able to write about your experiences. I’d go so far to say that men who don’t want women to own firearms are waging a war on women.

    • lissa

      Wow. I am humbled. Thank you for sharing this, Alexandria.

    • CombatDiver

      For an early CHRISTmas gift, I gave my wife a Gen 4 Glock 26. God bless you Alexandria and thank you for such a powerful letter. Your story and many others like it are what make our 2nd Amendment worth dying for. Also, in my humble opinion, there isn’t much sexier than a pistol packing woman.

      • iKarith

        Sure there is. A rifle-packing woman. :)

    • Dee Dunbar

      and I’ll keep my 12 gauge thank you very much!

    • WingRider41

      Great response to a couple of idiots who think that they know it all! The old saying “When seconds count, the police are minutes away” says it all when it comes to personal protection. Nothing like the barrel of a 45 auto pointing at a robber/murder/rapist to make them reconsider. So thankful that you had the forethought to protect yourself.

    • Abir Mandal

      Actually all liberal policies call for the sacrifice of someone for their fuzzy feelings.

    • Argus_C4P

      It is impossible to argue with an incontravertible reason to have a gun. A marvelous explanation for gun rights that even the intelligence challenged Piers Morgan cannot dispute. So glad that you are with us today.

    • Ray Valdes

      Alexandria, to a Liberal mind, a woman laying in the ditch raped and murdered with her own pantyhose is morally superior to the same woman explaining to the police how her assailant got those fatal gunshot wounds

      • Ray Valdes

        And by the way, OJ did not use a gun, he used a kitchen knife. Shall we make those illegal too, Mr Costas?

    • Scott Simmons

      Nothing speaks truth like personal experience. I’m glad you chose NOT to be a victim, Andi!

    • Keith Myatt

      Very, very good points Alexandria. In fact, even lacking a weapon, Jovan could have killed his girlfriend with his bare hands I am sure. I am very glad you are alive and well to relate this story. Too many women are not. I remember a young actress (I cannot remember her name) but she had a restraining order against a stalker when he murdered her with a knife. Yes, that RO really put the fear of god in him. I would certainly like to see the stats of women who have defended themselves with a gun and put that in Piers Morgans face.

      • mdtljt

        Her name is Rebecca Schaeffer. She was murdered at 21…sad ending to a beautiful girl…

    • Charlotte Powell

      Wow! There is nothing more to add to that! Well said, glad you’re safe!

    • Lin Jarvis

      Thank you.

    • Justin Levesque

      Who’s the creep who actually voted this post down?

  • buckeyelady

    The only point that Piers Morgan has is his foolish notion that there should be a ban on gun ownership. He thinks that will end all gun violence. But perhaps if he’d see the other side of the issue he would understand the right to bear arms is a fundamental right in a free society, to have the right to protect oneself from the harm of others. Once a society gives up that right it leaves the government wide open to control the nation, and then we are no longer free people. The founders knew this. History knows this. Hitler knew it. How come Piers can’t understand this and promote our rights rather than trample on them. Piers is living in LaLa Land.

    • TheOriginalDonald

      more importantly, milady, Fidel KNEW it.

    • Dustin Shadle

      many brits regret not trying harder to stop their local gun ban. they know now that they are true subjects of the left over empire. besides, there are still guns there, in the shadows and hidden all over. none legal of course, but then lots of things keep coming around, legal or not.

    • Dan

      We saw what effect prohibition had on alcohol consumption didn’t we? And isn’t it odd that though marijuana is illegal, it’s use is more prevalent than ever? So are we to assume that a gun ban would be any more effective?

  • tredglx

    Cut Piers (1) some slack. His gears grind exceeding slow, and stupid.

    • Jordan Burr

      You think paranoid schizophrenics should have nukes. And gears don’t grind “stupid”. idiot.

      • Thom*


      • peteee363

        hey, i am guessing you never repaired a gearbox before? i have seen gears ground to a fine powder, shows yet more knowlwdge lacking in your liberal mind. does any liberal ever hold a real job???

      • Grandma HeadInjury

        Is this an example of that mindless name-calling you were whining about earlier? Now, when I call you a “hypocrite,” please understand I am not calling you names. I am just stating a fact.

      • tredglx

        Reading your reply is proof enough that yes, they do.

  • Hiraghm

    Meanwhile, an Oklahoma woman was stabbed to death by her husband…. in England.

  • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

    I had replies in 30 seconds:

    .@piersmorgan I’d prefer less American deaths from auto-accidents every year, which is significantly higher than gun deaths. #Perspective

    .@piersmorgan I’d prefer less American babies being slaughtered in the womb every year. Don’t think that’s a debate worth having, is it…

    • $21367552

      “Fewer blastocysts”, not “less babies”, sweetie.

      • Son of Kochthulu

        The blastocyst is a very short period in the development of a human life. Many (maybe even most) abortions occur well after that period.

        • Grandma HeadInjury

          You got owned by science, “sweetie”!

          Go @facebook-8326080:disqus !

        • frgough

          The abortionist’s argument: It doesn’t look like me, so I can kill it. Oddly enough, that was Margaret Sanger’s take on it, too. Blacks don’t look like us whites, so we can kill them.

      • PennyRobinsonFanClub

        Technical jargon is SO good for dehumanizing unwanted people, isn’t it? Damn those useless eaters!

  • Keith Davenport

    if 2nd amendment is only about muskets then the 1st amendment is only about printing presses

    • EOD

      Actually there was no Press Corps back in the day.

      Freedom of the Press is Freedom of the Printing Press… the Written Word.

      Saying that Reporters are enshrined with special rights by way of the Press clause also goes against the Equal Protection Clause, and adds Institutions as a Class into the protections of the Bill of Rights.

      • Chris Armanini

        I think you’re both correct, though you’re over-applying Originalism a tad in this case, EOD (not that the Class-bias reminder isn’t perpetually pertinent). Keith’s basic point parallels Ms. Roth’s musket comment, lest we never use a computer to make our mark.

        • EOD

          The Computer is the Printing Press of today, and what clause 4 of the First Amendment was meant to enshrine in todays world.

          The Federal Government seeks to state that only Government recognised Journalists are covered for protections in the Bill of Rights, which cannot be the case.

  • Thomas Simpson

    “The 1st amendment was devised with quill and ink in mind, not high-powered electronic communication devices. Fact.”

    • TWG2A

      LOL! Good one!

  • TonyMontana3

    Piers Morgan destroys right wing tools once again.

    • lainer51

      dream on… he’s got nothin’ – just like his show on the Communist Network News.

      • Phil Smith

        He has a show? About what? How great it is to live in the UK! Why the hell do Americans listen to this POS! We booted them out once,,we can do it again!

        • lainer51

          he replaced that old goat Larry King as host of a talk show… it is HORRIBLE, even worse that King’s show, if that is possible!

        • lainer51

          he replaced that old goat Larry King as host of a talk show… it is HORRIBLE, even worse that King’s show, if that is possible!

    • TWG2A

      You’re an even bigger idiot than you appear here if you believe for one second that the Second Amendment is a “right wing” issue.

    • Gallatin


    • TheOriginalDonald


      Scarface just got sliced and diced again (figuratively speaking, of course)

    • Guest

      By asking if nukes appears next to muskets? Yeah, OK. By the wya, no ti does nto appear beside muskets, ebcause muskets does not appear, idiot.
      The country got a long for thousands of years with no autos. People kill with autos, let’s ban them and make everyone rely on public trasnpo provided by the government.

    • Michael Rice

      By asking if the word nukes appears next to muskets? Yeah, ok. By the way, no it does not appear next to muskets, because muskets does not appear, idiot.
      Of course, this is coming from the same people who feel it is illegal to signify the federally recognized holiday of Christmas on public property.
      This country, and the world as a whole, got along fine for thusands of years no autos. People use autos to kill others. Why not ban private autos and make everyone use public transportation?
      Didn’t terrorists, I mean extremists, use airplanes to kill thousands of people? get rid of air travel, now!

      • Guest


    • Orpheus75

      “Piers Morgan destroys right wing tools once again”…. what dream world are you living in? All he did was show his severe ignorance, and got owned.

    • Thom*


    • Grandma HeadInjury

      I’m sorry….did you run across some new tweets that we haven’t seen yet?

  • DRomani

    I just LOVE how Morgan comes here to America to make his money and instead of being humbly appreciative – he runs his mouth and puts down our country’s laws. Go home Morgan…we do not need your two cents while you are cashing your American checks!! YOU were not there – YOU have no right to judge anyone!!

  • TocksNedlog

    Piers Morgan logic: Advances in technology have rendered the Constitution insufficient; therefore, in the name of “promoting the general welfare” the government MUST restrict previously protected liberties.

  • Jordan Burr

    Where does Carol Roth draw the line? She didn’t answer the question.

    • lainer51

      she didn’t write the constitution, she doesn’t get to “draw the line”.. just like Piers doesn’t get to change the 2nd amendment…BTW Piers – lose the slimy accent. It doesn’t do well by you.

      • Jordan Burr

        Ok, so where does one draw the line? Should civilians be allowed to own tanks and RPGs?

        • Gallatin


  • righthook38

    How many times do we have to explain this? When you outlaw guns, the only people left with guns are the criminals!!! They don’t give up their guns…..because they are CRIMINALS! How stupid ARE you people?

    • chewydog

      P. Morgan unintentionally admits this. Yesterday, when confronted about the high crime and ridiculous gun control in Chicago he states:

      “It’s awash with guns stolen from other Cities”
      Probably flew right over his head.

    • Gerald Moon

      The Liberals can never stand on their own merit only on the lies they breed with no facts backing them up..

    • Orpheus75

      rather stupid.

  • Jordan Burr

    Once again, where does carol Roth draw the line?

    • peteee363

      why must a line be drawn, when the constitution lays it out in plain english, or did you need to see a version printed in a different language, like the new moronic type, or is dumb speak good enough, i think i have both available for you!

      • Jordan Burr

        So you are saying civilians should be allowed to own tanks? That inevitable would happen if there is no line drawn.

        • peteee363

          currently civillians are allowed to own tanks. but! not the ammo used in them. so it looks like you are of the same thoughtless mind of piers. try to buy a machine gun, or a nuclear bomb, chances are you will quickly be told no, or arrested. but there is no line on weapons that are not automatic. as technology changes, so must the weaponry. people do own cannons, and long range rifles, as well as shotguns. why must a line be drawn, when it is spelled out so clearly. can i send you a copy of the constitution for dummies?

        • Gallatin

          And your point might be?

        • MrInterpid

          Iraqi muslims own RPG’s and AK-47’s and don’t know what a working toilet is. You draw your lines and everybody else draws their own as they see fit. Your line setting argument is pointless.

  • peteee363

    actually, fully automatic weapons (uzi’s), and nuclear bombs are currently against the law to own, or use. but, there is a big difference between a fully automatic machine gun, and a simple semi-automatic pistol, or rifle. also if my neighbor is a pest, a nuclear bomb would not only remove him, but the whole block, and me too, does piers even know what a nuke can do? is he that stupid?

  • jay williams

    I want jahadis to stop beheading Christians,ban knives and swords and suicide bombers!

  • jay williams

    then will talk about guns….

  • robcrawford2

    “I’d like fewer Americans to die from gun crime each day.”

    So shoot criminals. The fewer of them there are, the fewer crimes they can commit.

    • hh

      Reminds me of what someone said on Twitter, to paraphrase: The next time someone asks me if I support abortion in the case of rape, I’m answering yes, abort that rapist with a handgun immediately.

      • Dan

        Isn’t it odd that the government will not kill a rapist for his act, yet they allow you to kill the product of that act?

        • TexSizzle

          That is the death penalty for the child of the criminal.

          • Dan

            My point exactly. A child who is blameless and innocent.

    • Grandma HeadInjury

      Or British blowhards…

  • JackD

    Last night Piers asked Salvatore Guinta, who was awarded the Medal of Honor, what he thought about gun control in America.


    I don’t know if any American can make it any clearer to this CNN fraud.

  • Jordan Burr

    Piers made a good point. Should regular civilians be allowed to own tanks, RPGs, etc.? Yes or no? Where does one draw the line?

    • peteee363

      you can buy a tank, just not the ammo. you can also buy jets, and ships from the navy, just not the cruise missles they currently use. have you ever been to a air show, or a re-enactment excercise? they have tanks, cannons, and all type of old millitary hardware. all owned by mere citizen civillians. you too can purchase a old tank, it has armor as thick as your skull!

  • TugboatPhil

    Piers, one of the reasons WE beat YOUR ancestors was they were using muskets, but WE had developed the Kentucky and Pennsylvania Long Rifles. They were state of the art for that day, with increased effective range and accuracy.

    The 2nd Amendment was written with the average citizen possessing the most advanced rifle in the world. Using your logic, every adult citizen should be issued an automatic rifle on their 18th birthday.

    And if anyone wants to run on that platform, you’ll have my vote.

    • Matthew Wood

      By Piers Logic not just an Automatic Rifle but anti aircraft weaponry, anti-tank weaponry, and something along the lines of at the very least a NORAD system.

  • Jordan Burr

    Can you people break out of your bubble and answer my question? Where does one draw the line? Is it ok for civilians to own mines, armored humvees etc.?

    • peteee363

      you can get any vehicle armored you want today, but, you cannot add machineguns or automatic weapons. how many times must you be told, read the constitution? my offer still stands, on a copy of the constitution for dummies!

      • Jordan Burr

        I’m not asking what you can get, moron. I’m asking where one should draw the line? Is it ok for the civilian populous to have nukes or not?

        • [email protected]

          Jordan you draw the line at what ever stops the tyranny. ever hear of Burma, Sierra Leone or maybe our revolution, A civilian population must use what ever it has to, to rid a despotic government or some one invading your home to do you harm. Surely I am not going to use a tank to take out a burglar.

        • Thom*


        • rickg62

          As you complain about name calling.

        • peteee363

          sorry to inform you, but that dog does not hunt. you keep asking the question, and i keep ansering it. just because you do not like the answer, does not mean it has not been answered! and one more time, for your difficulty reading, it is currently against the law to posess nuclear materials, such as those used to make a bomb. but it is not against the law to be ignorant, as you serve to prove my point, yet again!

        • Grandma HeadInjury

          “I’m waiting for an answer instead of mindless name-calling.”

          “The only thing you guys do is call me names. You don’t answer the question. lol.”

          So aside from your repetitive immaturity and the insufferable boredom to which you subject us, we can at least appreciate the consistency of your hypocrisy…

    • R.C.

      The 2nd Amendment is Federal. This is typical of liberal mental disorder to look to the Nanny for all the answers. The Amendment is fine as is, however, my state may not wish me to own a tank, rpg, etc…..

      We are a Repubilc. We are supposed to be 50 labs of Liberty.
      Another logical answer would be that a tank would certainly damage, at minimum the roads if not the local community by moving, much less firing a projectile. Hauling a cannon for your farm protection during the Civil War was not making all your neighbors pay for constant road maintainance, etc.

    • TWG2A

      Yes, it SHOULD BE ok for law abiding civilians to own whatever tools they fund for the government to use. We will not be victims to tyrants. Read the Bill of Rights, idiot.

    • Grandma HeadInjury

      Nah, we’re waiting for you to repeat the question 4 more times.

      Move along, cupcake. The adults are ignoring you.

      • Jordan Burr

        I’m waiting for an answer instead of mindless name-calling.

        • Emily B

          How many times do people have to answer you? Seriously, not so good with the listening…

        • Grandma HeadInjury

          Said the mindless name-caller….

    • Emily B

      Yeah, um, people keep answering you. Are you just not listening, or….

      • Jordan Burr

        The only thing you guys do is call me names. You don’t answer the question. lol.

        • rickg62

          Try reading. Peteee363 already answered you. Are you expecting somebody to print the Federal regulations regarding every conceivable type of ordinance? Suffice it to say that there are plenty of regulations on the books spelling out just what firearms and armaments that are allowed to be purchased by citizens. Some people may take issue with some of them one way or another, but that’s why we fought with those muskets, so we have a say in how the laws read.

    • EOD

      With 100 Million Civilian Gun Owers in the Nation it would be quite easy to pick up HUMVEEs (some even with Mines and Heavy Weapons inside) from the U.S. Military if the Nation was being enslaved by the Government by way of the U.S. Military.
      With Zero Civilian Gun Owers in the Nation it would be very easy for the Government by way of the U.S. Military to grind you and everyone you know up in to food.

    • Edd Campbell

      Mr. Burr,

      The “line” is best drawn by the Individual facing the decision, not by the fears or notions of others. More often than not, say in 99.99% of the cases, common sense and a limited budget will help draw that line. It’s the fact that there’s always that .01% — no matter how strict you make the laws, that the rest of us should be left to make our own choices.

  • jay williams

    this country was founded by a CITIZEN ARMY,2nd ammendment meant to protect us from a despotic goverment,I will never give my guns…..

  • jay williams

    minutemen used their own weapons to free country,THAT was the first U.S army….

  • EOD

    Muskets were the High-Powered Handguns & Assault Rifles at the time when the Second Amendment was Carved Into Stone.


  • Gallatin

    Does it authorise individual ownership of tanks, UZIs and nukes? > RT @caroljsroth @piersmorgan right next to the word “muskets”

    Let’s see if I remember my history right again. We needed some cannon for the siege of Boston so we took our muskets and went up to Fort Ticonderoga. Once we got there we surprised the most powerful military in the world and took the fort from them. We then transported the cannon back to Boston where one morning the most powerful military in the world awoke to the cannon staring down at them. So no we don’t necessarily need the 2nd Amendment to allow us to have a tank in our back yard; when we need it we’ll just take it from you.

    • rickg62

      Not to quibble, but we already had Fort Ti. Ethan Allen did surprise them and captured it relatively peacefully. During the siege of Boston we did go and retrieve them which, of itself, was quite a story.

      • Gallatin

        Your quibbling is fine I didn’t recall exactly how it happened but I knew some basic details. I think my point still stands though, we took our muskets and captured more fire power. So piers morgan is still an elitist buffoon.

        • rickg62

          He sure is. I just didn’t want some lib trying to bust you down for your history.

          • sally1137

            Rick’s right. I was there.

          • rickg62

            And I thought I was the only one. Bye the way, I have the musket to prove it.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    I would like to apologize for naming Piers Morgan the Celebrity Apprentice-DonaldTrump

  • TheOriginalDonald

    “I’d like fewer Americans to die from gun crime each day”-Piers Morgan

    We’d like to be alive-Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman

  • john j

    Tired of all the citizens of other nations telling us how we should run our country! You don’t like it go home!

  • lissa

    I wonder if Mr. Morgan will now take to the Twitterverse to decry the horrendous act on the NYC subway which saw a man pushed in the path of an oncoming train and killed. After all, trains kill!

  • Douglas White

    AWESOME!!! Nothing like watching a Lefty idiot get smacked on an international forum. She outwitted him, outsmarted him and owned his lame a**. She should now drive a tank into his driveway to really nail her point home. 😀 LOL

  • Jim De Arras

    The 2nd amendment was written with the latest available armament in mind. George Washington had cannons on his land for defense.

  • Donald Koller

    Love it.

  • MsDessie

    The last time I checked, more people were killed in automobile accidents than by guns. Gun haters don’t really care about people or they’d go after cars first.

  • Keninmo

    Seriously, what else would you expect from a Brit? The 2nd Amendment was written specifically to protect the US citizenry from BRITISH INVASION! If the population of 1812 had been “armed” like Putz Morgan wants, we would be sipping tea, eating crumpets and pledging to the Queen. Uh — that’s why the 2nd Amendment exists, Piers. And to keep us safe from any local tinpot who thought he would just move in and take George III’s place. It is still as amazingly relevant a right today as it was in 1786.

    • scott

      You should do more research on the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It wasn’t included as a foil against the Brits….

      • Keninmo

        The British Monarchy had a long history of disarming those they found quarrelsome. The canard of it being in because of Indians by Progressives is not the reason for it being a Constitutional Bill of Rights — self-defense at an inidividual level was taken for granted. The problem was that Britain had tried, and implemented, several Colonial American militia disarmament campaigns as early as the 1760’s, peaking on 18 Apr 1775, when Gage ordered the seizure of the Concord militia’s weapons and munitions, which…uh, lead to the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the start of the Revolutionary War. Hmmmm..guess you should probably research before posting, eh?

      • Keninmo

        For a simple, obvious example, William Knox, Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs in 1777, on his opinion of American militias being armed “the Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be
        re-enacted & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, &
        every piece of Ordnance removed into the King’s Stores, nor should any
        Foundry or manufacture of Arms, Gun-powder, or Warlike Stores, be ever
        suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be
        imported into it without License; they will have but little need of
        such things for the future, as the King’s Troops, Ships & Forts will
        be sufficient to protect them from danger.”

  • Jordan Burr

    Apparently people here think that giving me examples of what I can get answers the question of where one should draw the line, but it doesn’t (obviously). So, once again, where does one draw the line?

    • rickg62

      Alright mister know it all. Let’s turn this around. Where would draw the line? Let’s see where your sympathies lie instead of acting insufferable.

  • David Steele

    The limit to your right to bear arms is the same as the limit for your right to free speech, or the right to a free press….not very limited. Exactly as the framers intended.

    • Jordan Burr

      But where should it be limited?

      • Thom*


      • scott

        Do the words “Shall not be infringed” confuse you?

  • Johnny Blade

    Hey Piers, you only care about people who die from guns? (Actually all my guns have killed fewer people than Teddy ‘the Liver’ Kennedy) How about the MILLIONS of lives who end in Planned Parenthood clinics? The 2nd amendment is an ACTUAL enumerated right, unlike the political activism that resulted in the twisted contradiction of Roe.

  • Dustin Shadle

    Actually, you can own tanks, and uzi’s with the right papersowrk and checks, and lots of money that most people dont have to spend.

  • Johnny Blade

    Someone should tell Piers that the private ownership of tanks and Uzi’s aren’t illegal… lol

    • Jordan Burr

      That’s not what he is arguing. He is questioning where one should draw the line.

  • Scruffy Scirocco

    Piers needs to return to the land of the redcoats. The 2nd amendment was specifically designed to ensure that the people can wrest control from an out of control government if necessary. Not gonna happen with muskets. Yeah, Uzi’s and tanks qualify.

    There are two types of people: armed and victims.

  • Cyberquill

    Clearly, the 2nd Amendment allows individual citizens to bear the kind of arms that would be a match against the kind of arms a potentially tyrannical U.S. government backed by its military could use against the people.

    But since (a) regular handguns are no match against the 21st century U.S. military and (b) it would be absurd to allow citizens to possess rocket launchers and anti-aircraft artillery powerful enough to take down drones en route to bombing their homes, the 2nd Amendment has become effectively useless. How are you supposed to fight the most powerful military in history with Glocks and hunting rifles?

  • Dustin Shadle

    why do we have a brit debating american lifestyles and amendments? didnt we kick them out of this country for trying to run our lives once before?

  • [email protected]

    no the second amendment was written with an over Zealous government in mind whether it be Britain’s or ours

  • Charlene Geren

    Well killers and robbers…you now know whose houses to go to…..just sayin’.duh…don’t come here… my dogs(uh hum cough cough) will be barkin’….lol

  • T.j. Bowerman

    Can you revoke a Genius Visa for lack of evidence?

  • Cynthia Ingraham

    Just another lib idiot.

  • mememe

    Piers is one of those people who thinks he’s much smarter and cooler than he actually is.

  • Cynthia Ingraham

    Alexandria@ awesome answer.

  • Don Turco

    So it would be okay if he shot his girlfriend with a musket? Which came in a pistol form by the by. Though they did have rifles then. Those rifles were on of the reasons the Americans won their war of independence.

  • Guest

    Our ancestors left England so we didn’t have to argue with obnoxious socialistic lymies. Why are we doing it now?

  • Jessica Grace

    You cannot take the guns from criminals or gangs,So why take them from people that are trying to protect themselves from these people?

  • Orpheus75

    With that logic in mind: I guess when they framed “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”, they didn’t have the internet in mind. So free speech and freedom of the press is not allowed on the internet, since the word “internet” is not in the Constitution. friggin morons.

  • Pdub420

    as is mentioned here…why does anyone care what this poofter pom has to say anyway? And as far as I know, if you have the cash and know a seller, you can own a tank…uzi’s are lame and who needs a nuke if ya have a tank?


    The 1st amendment was devised with printing presses in mind, not computers , satelitte tv and radio. Where do you think the ‘right to free speech’ has limits for individuals? Or don’t you?

  • brownsfan32

    Amazing how liberals can make the magic writing appear in the constitution when it is something they favor , say killing babies in the womb or forcing you into unwanted gov’t programs . But when it is something they are against, they suddenly can’t read what is clearly written . Is he saying that the people who were bright enough to write the greatest political document ever crafted , were too stupid to understand that weapons would continue to be improved through time . He assumes they did not see beyond the present . We should all assume he is an as s

  • $22639970

    When you’re as slow-witted as most of the hoplophobic cowards in the media, 18-24 hours is about how long it takes for them to read the Brady Center’s pamphlets.

  • Ray Valdes

    Piers had to use a lifeline to buy an answer…

  • James Gibbons

    The 1st Amendment was devised with the written and oral word in mind, not radio, TV, texts and the Internet..

  • Walter Warren

    I hate to detract from this intense discourse from two patently opposing viewpoints, but did anyone happen to notice that Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend / the mother of his child ?

    • Chris Clinkinbeard

      I actually had two (liberal) co-workers today tell me that he “probably” did this because of a concussion from playing football. I then suggested that football be banned. End of discussion.

  • Ferenczy

    Funny how every time a lib is confronted with violence they either A. Run away, B. Find a Conservative to protect them or, C. Die – Worth noting that every time this country needs volunteers to defend Her they are more than willing to give the volunteer a gun. Think on it – Criminals have guns and commit crimes with them. Citizens have guns and defend themselves with them. The police force is already fighting a losing war against the criminals, not the citizens. Take away the guns from the citizens and you will have accomplished nothing positive. A criminal will always look to commit the criminal act 1st. It’s their nature.

    Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
    Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

  • Dan Gambill


  • Jill Doerfler

    Once again..personal responsibility….the aggressor (Belcher)chose to kill someone and is the villain. Lets pray for his girlfriends family- especially the little 3 month old. And guns dont kill people, people kill people. Next time someone gets drunk and murders with his car debate about that and be the first to turn in your car….or stick the blame where it belongs…the killer!

  • Billy Martin

    Sir, First of all, I am not sure i would want the criminals to know I was opposed to the second amendment. To say that the amendment only referred to muskets is to miss the point of the amendment which was to have an armed citizenry for defense of the country and themselves since the government could not be present to protect each individual just as they cannot today. Ask Japan why they did not invade the U.S. during WWII.

  • Glenn Gonzalez

    Is Piers Morgan even a US Citizen? I’m not happy with Costas, but at least he’s a citizen. Piers if you’re not a citizen and you don’t like our liberty, feel free to leave. I for one will not miss you, and based on your ratings most other would not either.

    • R0nin

      No, he isn’t, and based upon his understanding of the Constitution, I doubt he could pass the citizenship test 😉

  • Larry Clifford

    The purpose of the second amendment was not to be able to hunt, it was to be able to protect yourself from a tyrannical Government… can we protect ourselves from a tyrannical Government unless we have equal weapons? Having equal weapons should be appreciated by the party of “fairness” on a “level playing field”!!

  • Right Wired

    He said:
    ‘America has 300 million guns and 11-12,000 gun murders a year. I think
    it’s time there was a serious debate about guns in the U.S.’

    So I said:
    @piersmorgan America has 254 million cars and 32,885 vehicle deaths this year. I guess it’s time for a serious debate about cars in the US.

    • Gallatin

      Oh don’t worry to shove us all on to public transportation is the libturd wet dream.

  • Gary Zambelli

    Rocks were the first weapons used as projectiles and instruments to bludgeon someone to death. Shall we confiscate all the rocks in the world and destroy them as a danger to the human race?

  • Joshua Caleb McBroom Smith

    “Does it authorise individual ownership of tanks, UZIs and nukes?”

    When the cost of owning such things with intent to use becomes feasible to the common citizen, then we can have this conversation. But when that time comes, i think we’ll have missed several other conversations…

  • mkreider

    She is good. Personally if someone is going to kill me, I would rather be shot than slashed, beaten, choked, drowned, etc. It would be quicker. The murder was horrible. Would it have been better if Kasandra Perkins was dispatched in a different way? Jovan had a history of violence with women. The murder truly was horrific but Jovan decided to kill her. Who could have stopped him?

    • R0nin

      She might have, if she’d been armed.

  • NoGuff

    I love it. He’s such a Libtard. He does their normal response. Instead of admitting he’s wrong, he changes the point of what he said earlier, which was blown out of the water. Gotta love the Libtards.

  • Fuji

    This is the defense of progressives and their way to attack gun ownership in America. The whole point is the 2nd amendment was written ahead of its time and the founding fathers knew that firearms will evolve much better and more powerful. Irregardless whether it was written with a musket in mind. At that time that is a firearm and it is what it is. There is no rule as to how and what you can own to defend your home and your rights. So long as you are a law abiding citizen. You can buy and own a gun. in the present time. So stop drawing a line as to what firearm it is. As long as it can defend my home and my right does it matter what kind and type it is? It is a firearm it shoots bullets and can kill people. that is it!

  • Robert S. Latimer IV

    Pierce, this is America and the founders intended the 2nd amendment to not only give its citizens the right to use, possess, and sell them, but to also ensure our ability to keep our own government in check as the 4th check and balance. If you bother to read what the original writers of the 2nd intended (in their own words) not found in the amendment, you will fully understand the concept. Some Texas towns passed laws that required every home to have a firearm, their violent crime rates went to 0%! That’s the point, if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them. Besides some of the guns they are looking to ban (multi shot shot guns, semi automatic rifles) are guns we use to hunt (I myself hunt with a muzzleloader, no registration or federal check required).

  • mhojai

    I still find it astonishing that thought it is known that every tyrant and dictator in history made gun control their first priority, the “progressives openly delcare it (along with abortion) to be theirs, without any flack whatsoever drawn to the correlation.
    They’re proud to admit they want power and control, and yet there are those who bellive “dialogue” is possible? Really?

  • Ellenw1881

    so he wants more people to just be stabbed to death like in Europe? OK cool, that’s much better. Wake up fella, people are going to murder people using whatever means they have. it’s life child. I also wish I lived in a made up world filled with lollipops and rainbows. In the grown up world though, weapons save lives. Ignorant people like you are trying to take away our defense. You don’t realize that not allowing us to be armed gets people killed. These criminals that murder people, do you really think they care whether or not their guns are legal, the guns that they already have, or can buy from other criminals who do own them? do they care that murdering people is illegal? obviously not. You have no idea what you are asking for. I wonder if any of this man’s body guards own guns, and why. Maybe because the criminals have guns. But I’m sure he’s right…I’m sure all the bad guys’ guns will magically disappear if we outlaw them. I’m sure he’s right…

  • Just Hugh in Ga

    we have a document that tells the goverment what it can not do and admendments that adds to that list but of all that only one the 2nd admendment is not a hold on the goverment?

  • Alaskacpu

    Michelle, did you see – where the rich are urinating on the poor – produced by teachers union of California – take a look – full of garbage!

  • David Spenard

    When someone commits a crime with a gun, you can’t blame them, it’s their damn hands. Off with the hands I say. And even if the gun was to blame, I think you could make the case that really the bullets are to blame. But then the bullets would just blame the cartridge, which in turn would just blame the gunpowder. It’s all so exhausting using liberal logic.

  • R0nin

    Piers is either ignorant or disingenuous.

    Ignorant, if he really isn’t aware of the recent Supreme Court ruling which clarified that the 2nd Amendment applies to self-defense (not just “hunting”).

    Disingenuous if he simply hopes his viewers and readers are ignorant of it.

    Really, to libs everywhere, what’s so hard to understand about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

  • moi2u

    Is Morgan an American citizen??? No? Wait for it …a Brit who has taken up residence in the US because he’s found an audience here?

    … Then what should the American people care about what he thinks??? Brits are notoriously against using guns for self-defense–and are, notably, FOR restricting possession of them by common citizens–which Is Exactly WHY the framers of the Constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment.

    Hey, Morgan…our forefathers here in the USA fought a War to rid us, who were fortunate to make it here, or to be born here, of your kind of oppressive thinking!

  • moi2u

    …from earlier on the board…

    -Alexander Hamilton

    Never Trust A British Subject [Piers Morgan] Talking About The Need For Gun Control In The United States Of America

  • Jon

    Law abiding Americans must have firepower commensurate to that of the criminals that live within America. The Germans learned this lesson in WWII when their bolt action Kar 98s couldn’t stand up to the firepower of the M1 Garand (which I am sitting next to right now). That is why they invented the Gewehr 43. You can’t uninvent the gun. When are the gun control activists going to figure this out? By the way Pierz, I would love to invite you to a WWII re-enactment so you can vocalize your rediculous rhetoric in front of real AMERICANS.

  • Dwayne Jackson

    The most important part of the Second Amendment is not the part that says, “Shall not be in-fringed,” but instead is “being necessary to the security of a free State.” This is why our found-ing fathers said gun rights shall not be infringed and recognized what keeps a Free Nation se-cure, the militia.

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~Samuel Adams

    “A militia, when properly formed, is in fact the people themselves …”~Richard Henry Lee

  • Grandma HeadInjury

    So should civilians own television networks? Should they be allowed to be internet providers? Should they be allowed to own radio stations? Where do we draw the line with this whole “freedom of speech” thing?

  • Dwayne Jackson

    Though it is unlawful too own firearms in England their murder rate has not gone down. I wish Mr. Morgan would explain this fact to us. Mr. Morgan if you do not like I laws then please by all means go back to where you came from.

  • andycanuck

    As commenters at Ace of Spades HQ pointed out… so this means that the 1st Amendment only applies to hand-set, cold metal typesetting with single-sheet manual presses and Piers Morgan can only use a megaphone and stand on a box to report as there was no TV in the 18th Century. So good analogy, Piers.

  • Dwayne Jackson

    Piers Morgans argument that the 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind is ridiculous but for sake of argument lets agree that muskets were what our founding fathers had in mind. Did muskets not kill? Were muskets not a means of protection? Heres a newsflash Piers whether shot with a musket or a 9mm the result is the same. Wether you are killed by firearm, knife, rock or tire iron dead is dead.

  • Bryansix

    Bob Costas worked with OJ Simpson. OJ’s ex-wife was murdered with a knife. Somehow after all these years, Bob still doesn’t know this.

  • bobbymike34

    Maybe Piers should look at Washington DC stats, since the handgun ban was lifted murder rates are way, way down. Its like people are protecting themselves or something. Yes Piers I am ready for ‘this debate.

    • AlmostaCowboy

      Or Chicago – or “Chi-thug-o” or what ever it’s called today.

  • Miguel Gonzalez

    It only takes 10 seconds to score a knockout, if it takes 18 hrs you’re probably dead. Your winner by KO; Carol Roth

  • Estuardo

    “I’d like fewer Americans to die from gun crime each day….” SO WOULD I…but the only way that will happen is with an armed citizenry looking after their own and each other! Relying on a ‘police force’ to come and take care of it, isn’t enough! When criminals have to wonder if the person they are about to rob (kill, rape, scare…) has a gun, then we will finally start to get to that dream of ‘fewer people dying from gun crime’.

  • Lin Jarvis

    If you give up your freedom for the illusion of safety, you deserve neither freedom nor safety.

  • Froi Vincenton

    Piers Morgan responded after 18 hours of liberal pondering…

    response: “My point, Ms Gun-Toting Heroine @caroljsroth is this: where
    do you think the ‘right to bear arms’ has limits for individuals? Or
    don’t you?”

    Does that mean the government’s right to limit people’s rights has NO limits?

    It has limits: the rights of others.

    as an upstream property owner cannot flood or destroy the property of a
    downstream property owner, a gun-toting property owner cannot also turn
    his house into a ‘nuclear facility’ or a Pentagonish weapons arsenal
    that could affect or destroy his neighbor’s life and property…

  • Jeff Coil

    Since muskets were the assault weapons of their day, that is a pretty lame argument.

  • Tom Elder

    “If we cannot laud guns for the lives they save, then don’t fault guns when a life is taken.”

  • AlmostaCowboy

    He probably had his entire staff working on that comeback! LOL!

  • AlmostaCowboy

    “I’d like fewer Americans to die from gun crime each day.”

    The nine states with the lowest crime rates are concealed carry states.
    Just sayin’.

  • Jake Hardin

    Can Piers please go back to England. We really do not need you in this country, telling us what rights we should have and not have. If that NFL player had not used a gun, he would of killed her some other way. As a former Law Enforcement Officer, I have seen different types of murder, either by blunt force trauma, hitting with a car, stabbing with a knife or screwdriver and manual strangulation. So please, shut up about gun owners, you know nothing of what you speak.

  • Paul Topete

    legalize all drugs, and watch gun crime plummet you elite-serving asshole piers MORGAN. obviously you shill for the elites. if you want to see less dead americants, then you will start demanding that all drugs are legalized. but i know you wont because the owners that own your network, well their cousins own the drug trade, so nothing is gonna change. So stop preaching your bullshit ad naseum.

  • Hired Mind

    The 2nd Amendment was crafted with cannons in mind – the most powerful weapons available at the time. That would imply that the Founders wanted people to at LEAST be authorized to own rocket launchers, if not nukes. I’d be willing to bend the 2nd Amendment so my neighbor couldn’t legally own nukes (after all, one mishap and the whole town is gone) but not other heavy weapons.

  • Grant Alexander

    I think too many here so wrapped in partisan crap miss the point Piers tries to make. Accepted is the 2nd Amendment and it is not going away. However, the laws already on the books do little to deter unqualified, underage, mentally unbalanced, criminally minded, or otherwise incompetent, irresponsible and dangerous persons from 1.acquiring with ease, and 2. doing massive harm to multiple persons. Columbine & Aurora, Congresswoman Griffith of Tucson jumps out, but DOZENS of multiple murders take place in AMERICA, every year because of ease of access, lack of background checks, non enforcement of laws. Criminal penalties hardly deter those in violation of gun laws, so the legal system is little help. No one is saying give up your weapons for self protection or the hunt, but why so many semi automatic ASSAULT weapons and handguns?

    If society FELT SAFE, then perhaps more would not resort to “policing themselves and the neighborhood”, but with criminals heavily and readily armed, the playing field had to be leveled. Both sides need to stop the name calling liberal this or right wingnut that, and understand the logic of why IDEALLY ONLY those in the military or policing agencies SHOULD have weapons mentioned, but these days, times and circumstances are just NOT ideal. Disarm the criminals, create safer living environments, stop encouraging violent behavior, and insist on proper registration just as one has for a car. After all, the Brits created this mess by abusing their authority of unarmed civilians. The genie is not going back in the bottle.

  • Bronco Destructo

    Roth’s initial comment to Morgan didn’t even make sense. He said the 2nd Amendment was designed with muskets “in mind;” he did not say the Constitution specifically stated that only muskets could be owned.

    It’s both amazing and frightening that so many people think Morgan got owned; it shows a serious lack of basic reading comprehension and logical thinking. Roth also failed to answer Morgan’s question about the limits she believes should or should not be placed on individual weapon ownership.

    She said NOTHING, basically, and to anyone with a semblance of intelligence, she looked rather ridiculous.