Piers Morgan wants the right not to be shot to death.
And he doesn’t want the legally blind to have the right to own weapons.
The British commentator and fierce opponent of the Second Amendment, one of the foundational rights of the country he now has the privilege of calling home, has taken his campaign against gun rights to new fronts, making sport of the idea of legally blind people to own a means of self-defense and calling for a constitutional amendment to protect his right not to be shot.
(Keeping his mouth shut would probably go a long way toward avoiding that, but since he’s probably constitutionally incapable of that, he’s trying to change ours.)
In the Twitter world Morgan’s asinine stance on a constitutional amendment “not to be shot” drew fire even from both sides of the Atlantic. (Imagine what would have happened if he’d called it a constitutional “right to life.) Here’s a sampling of the response:
Meanwhile, British author and National Review Online contributor Charles W. Cooke weighed in.
He also offered to take Morgan on mano a mano.
Intriguing as that sounds. The idea probably won’t get far. Morgan shows his level of debating skills with a tweet responding to conservative author Brad Thor.
Oh Brad… you silly little gun nut > RT @BradThor: Why does Piers Morgan hate dead children and “legally blind” Americans?
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 12, 2013
(If “silly little gun nut” is the best you can do, you’re just not in Charles Cook’s class — or Brad Thor’s.)
Now, check out the video of Morgan’s appearance on Thursday’s “Crossfire” on CNN. It’s no surprise that he gets schooled by conservative commentator S.E. Cupp, of course, but he actually makes Van Jones look sane.
Leave it to a cranky British radical leftist to make an American radical leftist at least sound American. (Sort of.)