Oh, Piers Morgan is such an embarrassment to any expat Briton with half a brain. How long as he been in the U.S.? Couple of years? People study the Constitution for decades and still differ with each other. As a naturalized American citizen, I think I know the Constitution better than Piers Morgan and it makes me feel more secure to know that there are many ex-military with weapons in our subdivision.

He´s a former liberal who´s been mugged just waiting to happen.

Twitted by a true "girly man"

The Second Amendment is about an armed populace....period.
It is so the citizens can resist tyranny.
Go back to the land of bad teeth and bad cooking Piers, you big pasty thing you.

Since the reason for the second amendment is the preservation of a free state, and the only force capable of taking away that freedom is an oppressive government or invading army, the case could be made that the definition of "arms" would include any hand portable weapons typically available to any army. I would exclude explosive projectiles and portable rockets as they could technically be considered artillery.

Hey Piers, if the 2nd Amendment doesn´t apply to revolvers and semiautomatics, does that mean that the 1st Amendment doesn´t apply to radio, television, or the Internet?

The British rifle of the time was a short barrel affair, heavy. The Americans had developed a longer barrel, twisted bore rifle for shooting squirrels. THAT is the reason(one of ´em) that we prevailed in the Revolution.
The 2nd Amendment was written with the VERY LATEST TECHNOLOGY in mind.
Piers Morgan is a J.O.

Morgan is such an idiot, he believes that not agreeing with him is an attempt to deny him his First Amendment rights. That is liberalism in a nut-shell.

The dunce was once given a first-hand education on the subject by Ted Nugent in front of a national television audience and he still doesn´t get it.

And I submit that #5´s replay above is actually better than that of @carolsjroth!

I wonder what he thinks about cannons? Idiot...

#4, in the oft cited but little explained Miller v Colorado case the ruling of the Judges mirrored your thinking except...

Since the second was meant to assure a civilian militia force it would reasonably only cover weapons capable of current military service. Weapons other than a military service type could be regulated by the state. The left latches on to the latter. The court ruled that since Millers sawed off shotgun was not a military weapon (even in 1930 they forgot WWI and the trenches). the state could regulate it.

They forget the part where the state coulkd not regulate or restrict ownership of military weaponry such as fully automatic machine guns and portable cannons.

Under that interpretation your AK-47, BAR, Grenade launcher and shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile could not be regulated. Granpas Italian sporting clays double barrel shotgun could be banned.

Lie-berals far too often use the ´´freedom of speech´´ as a weapon to shut down their opponents. It´s very effective, especially if they throw things like ´´racist´´ or ´´sexist´´ in with their diatribe.

And, far too often, conservatives let them do just that.

That is why they were able to destroy this republic on November 6th.