READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
An extraordinary thing happened on Wednesday's edition of "Piers Morgan Live" – the host supported the use of a firearm, but only because the situation was in accordance with what he believes to be the original intentions of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Welcoming both Ben Ferguson and Jeffrey Toobin to "The Grill," Piers Morgan reviewed a story out of Anaheim, Calif., in which a 72-year-old grandmother used a .357-magnum to ward off an intruder.
"If she wants to adopt another grandchild, I will [be] more than happy to go eat Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner at this grandmother's house. What a bad you-know-what," exclaimed the conservative radio host. "This is awesome. She's protecting her house, she's got a husband that's a World War II veteran, who's in – apparently from what I've been told – who's in a wheelchair. And she was able to defend and protect when the police unfortunately weren't there yet."
And this is when things got really weird:
"Ben Ferguson, let me stop you right there, because this is why I wanted to do this story when I knew that you were on tonight," revealed Morgan. "I completely and utterly agree with you. This is exactly what I think the Second Amendment is actually about."
Toobin, meanwhile, offered some historical context:
"In 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, by Sirhan Sirhan with a handgun, the reaction was the Gun Control Act of 1968, ban guns as much as possible," explained the CNN legal analyst. "The idea that more guns make us more safe is so deeply ingrained now, but I think it's worth pointing out it's a very different attitude than it used to be."
Watch the clip for more of Morgan's spirited – if not agreeable – edition of "The Grill" with Ferguson and Toobin.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram
Just to make it clear this is the reason the second ammend. was ratified
I think I am going to join the NRA AND NOT OWN a GUN.
REAL NRA MEMBERS ARE CONTENT, NO WORDS TO SPEAK. READY TO DEFEND.
I DO NOT NEED A GUN. WORDS MORE POWERFUL WHEN NEEDED.
DILEMMA FOR THE DEBATE !
This is a comment about intelligence collection. I grew up during the '50's and '60's, the era of the House Unamerican Activieties Committee. Those where the years of the fear of communism. The response to terrorism now is very comparable to those years. HUAC was given the power to investigate anyone and very often ruined the lives of totally innocent people by suggesting that they were communists or sympathizers. They were fired from their jobs and became pariahs. When I hear people now talk about giving up a little of their freedom to be safe from terrorism I think back on those years when our government was given a little freedom to protect us from communism. It terrifies me to think that the government will store this email somewhere and at some time in the future be able to selectively make it sound that I was unamerican and maybe a terrorist sympathizer. One of the sad things about people not learning about history is that we are condemmed to repeat it again and again. What is the difference if we give up freedom to our govenment or to foriegn terrorists? There has got to be a way to have our freedom and to still fight for our safety.
A very thorough,incisive post,Katy,thank you.
One-Winston Churchill,as I am,was convinced of a mechanism
wherein history was obliged to repeat itself,possibly along
the principle of Yin-Yang.
Two-America would require a Government as iniquitous(and leader)
as Vlad The Impaler to compare with the cutthroat
deluded rabble besieging us.
At worst,therefore,better the devil you know.
Piers do NOT kowtow to the gun rights movement over an anecdotal story.
So 1 lady fires a magnum and now America's gun debate is settled? Not by a long shot. Meanwhile across the country, MULTIPLE firearms homicides and suicides occurred. Guns are still very much a force for negative consequences.
I realize you need to soften your stance on guns to win back viewership, but trotting out exceptions, not the reality, is a bad way to do it.
Finally, the 2nd amendment IS NOT about protecting self and property. It makes no mention of self and property. Read it top to bottom. It is for a militia for national defense. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Army was founded in 1796. We delegated our national defense to the armed forces.
The 2nd amendment is a relic of history being warped by the NRA in order to sell more firearms and make money. Sadly, they care little about the world beyond lining their own pockets.
Peebles...There is no satisfying you gun grabbers...The 2nd amendment gives law abiding Americans the RIGHT to own,keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed on" and the supreme court.did not agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment...gun grabbers just love to twist the 2nd amendment to fit their agenda...and you know NOTHING about the NRA..learn the real facts before you start foaming.. 99% of gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens..In over 2 million times a year in this country a firearm is used in defense against a violent crime...with most of the time no shots fired, but just the presence of the gun was all that was needed...and by far, most of the shootings in this country is being done by criminal thugs shooting other criminals with illegal handguns. If somebody kills with a knife,bomb,car or whatever..the person is blamed ...but if somebody is killed with a gun the guns are blamed.??..Politicalizing gun violence doesn't solve the problem.
Who said anything about grabbing guns? In fact, who has proposed gun grabbing legislation? You are being intellectually dishonest if you feel any change to gun laws = a gun grab. NO ONE has proposed confiscation. The senate couldn't even pass a background check bill. You really have nothing to worry about.
Pro gun folks love the second part of the second amendment, but conveniently ignore the first part of it. It is not as cut and dry as you think it is. Further, the 2008 Heller and 2010 decisions regarding guns for self protection were not a blanket endorsement of the second amendment's implications for people to bear arms, but rather a clarification on a variety of issues, including the 14th amendment.
Thank you for posting:a point I would raise is no-one is attacking
universities or schools with anything other than high-caliber weaponry,
most gun-owners,and yourself,highly responsible,but the Nicky Lanzas
of this world concern me:we don't know WHOM the next one is...
Hi Mr Peebles,
A most astute poster,may I say,and enjoy your Twitter site:
a perfect example of the need for common sense on this issue
occurred in Missouri a few short months ago:a 92-year-old
farmer living on his own remotely was assailed two-in-the-morning
by 3 young men,unarmed but determined to rob him.
He hears them scratching around,they presuming(presumably)he
was abed.He wasn't:sat in his rocking chair waiting,shotgun he'd
owned for years pointed at the door leading from his non-armory
basement to his kitchen–he waits silently,Redcoat and his Bess...
running up the stairs...
He shoots the first dead,blasting him down on top of his friends,
a heap of them at the bottom in the non-armory–ONLY WEAPON
in the house discharged:they scarper,dragging their corpse of a
crony with them(good riddance),he calls the cops,who arrive
promptly,initially aggressive,but ascertain self-defense,and don't
press charges,the other two,if uncaught,never coming back.
Good on him.
A classic example,I feel,of the 2nd Amendment empowering
people without them thinking the Mafia are after them.
Let us fly to Austin...
I'll take your anecdote at face value. I'll also respond with a tactic pro gun advocates use: where do you draw the line?
If a handgun or shotgun is permissible for the elderly for defending their home, why not allow them assault weapons, too? Why not give them extended capacity magazines just in case they are losing sight and need a few extra shots?
The slippery slope goes both ways. I'm not as much anti-gun as I am violence prevention, which entails some form of gun control. So when I say we need to be careful how much access we give people to firearms, everyone screams at me claiming I'm pining for a gun grab. False.
Now, when people trot out stories about their cousin or friend-of-a-friend who defended themselves, they make the case there should be little limitation on firearms ownership. That is equally a slippery slope. I believe the debate is more nuanced but everyone is lined up at opposite sides of the room.
Your right, what the lady did to save her and her husband is why we have guns. But I want you to put this on a grant view now. The USA has been attack, they are here, they have beat our military back, and the cops are fighting for there lives. We are in a full out war. Now, do you understand? Ar15 is the gun for this job, a hand gun was right for the other job. It may never happen, but than 9/11 was never going to happen too. We need to stand ready.
Hi max,thanx for posting.
What is a grant view?
I'm afraid you need are refresher course on the Amendments. The 2nd Amm. is not about little old ladies protecting their husbands. It is about the right of the people to protect themselves from an abusive, intrusive tyrannical government. Hmmm....IRS targeting American citizens, government spying on US citizens. Wow, looks as if the founders had some serious foresight. Could it be they had lived through and crossed an ocean to escape this type of tyranny? I suggest your smug, caustic, arrogant self study your talking points before lecturing your audience.
Thanks for posting.
I cannot watch the show,I am flying,forever climbing,but he IS
known to be obstreperous,and caustic would be a fair word:
he has ALWAYS polarized opinion,and needs to let people speak.
Taylor. It's amazing how many don't remember why we have the second amendment.
just to clarify The 2nd Ammend. was ratified to preserve slavery
The Second Amendment was intended to protect US citizens,
and I wish you WERE mute.
Many people act in a juvenile way with this jaded opinion,but
they are scared,paranoid,and I understand that.
The criterion for me is any gun spitting bullets like apple-pips,
dum-dum or otherwise,needs to come in,owners given a full
refund in a buy-back scheme to buy alternative weaponry.
Most US Citizens an excellent shot with much dexterity,NRA
and their marksmen to train them in perhaps expanded ranges
where necessary,all playing in to people further empowering
theirselves which they NEED to do.
And the basement remains a basement.
Mr. Peebles, the New York State senate only this year were considering the confiscation of guns before the SAFE ACT was passed. In fact I believe California is currently considering a bill to confiscate all registered assault looking firearms from licensed owners. Furthermore, there are a number of federal politicians who are on record advocating confiscation. To say that no one has suggested this is bunk!
The only surprise to me is that Piers Morgan & I shared the exact same thoughts about the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment last night. Somehow I already knew what he planning to say before he said it. For anyone who missed it Piers said: " This is exactly what I think the 2nd Amendment is actually about.", He described the elderly couple who had the handgun that had been legally registered etc..then Piers said: " Isn't that what the founding fathers, Jeffrey, intended the 2nd Amendment to mean? " This was the same exact thought I had with the exception that I didn't include Jeffrey's name of course. Was it ESP that Piers & I shared the same brain wave length ? Possibly or maybe it's just that I've always known that Piers Morgan loves America and he only wants to help to make America a safer place to live.
How did you even get your last name? Sam Houston is rolling over in his grave right now after listening to your stupid fucin commentary!
I hope you read the anecdote from Missouri (the longer posting)
which corroborates what we've been discussing.
Piers Morgan ADORES the United States,we ALL do,but it's
Raging Bull on the ropes,yet we are tenfold better than Russia.
Which is why I remain optimistic!
A very good debate on this page,may I say,Max,brasstacs,Katy,
Taylor,Peebles,thanx for posting.
We'll get there.
Turn the wheel.
Piers Morgan should be deported. He is more than a trouble maker,he's an idiot.
Hi Bald Eagle Turning Into Firebird, I must say you have an interesting and rather creative username. Yes, I read the anecdote from Missouri.
To George: Piers Morgan should not nor will he be deported as you suggested in your post. Piers Morgan is not an idiot. He is very intelligent.
Actually, he is wanted in England...Why do you think he is even here? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hey Pierce and CNN...How come you aren't reporting AT ALL about all the terrible shootings and Deaths in Chicago? You know...POTUS's hometown! They have some of the strictist gun control laws in the country! Just goes to show you, that when you take all the guns away from law abiding citizens, all hell breaks loose! Also goes to show you... We don't need any stinkin BLOW HARD BRITS comming over here and telling us how to run our country! Don't any of you know what the American Revolution was about anyway? Get rid of that fuc!
It is very unfortunate that people like Pat is the reason we have problem communicating sensibly in this country today. Instead of attacking Piers Morgan reporting ideas only, he was also attacking him of being a "blow hard Brits" who came to this country to tell us how to live. How can we be serious about solving problems in this country if we continue to attack people instead of ideas?
Pierce I feel your wrong about attempting to push a gun control law at all, as you are not even a citizen of the USA but, correct me if I'm wrong, I remember you saying a few months ago, that you would leave this country if congress didn't pass new gun laws:...an attempt to push your political beliefs on the citizens of the USA, congress hasn't passed any laws and yet your still hear collecting your american dollar paycheck? The NRA stands behind their words to protect all legal gun owners rights Now keep yours.....
Lauren Green did it for Reza Aslan and Piers Morgan did it for Ken Hanson.
Piers doesn't understand the Zimmerman trial.
AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching
I don't think the problem is not gun control. I think the problem is parenting. I also think the problem goes much deeper. I think if
your not teaching your children the value of life and love and what it means to hurt someone that's when you start having problems. My
parents taught me the value of life and my dad taught me what happens when you screw up in life. Our younger generation is growing up
Just look at the Christopher Lane story 3 killers no fathers.
Sandy hook 1 killer divorced family lack of a father figure.
We need to start teaching our children what love is, we use the word to loosely.
Notify me of new comments via email.