How refreshing. I am reassured.
Of course, his argument that there is no reason that anyone should have access to an AR-15 is a little hollow. It might be the accent. Oh, yes, he addresses that in the article. (And he may want to go back and check the specs on the AR-15, since they only come in semi-auto and it is very difficult to shoot 100 round per minute on a semi-auto. Magazine changes alone will slow you down.)
Still, I am amazed at his depth of knowledge of our constitutional amendments. I mean, how horrible that the 22nd amendment exists. Perpetual
Still, I am in awe at his in depth knowledge of the 2nd Amendment. Apparently, we are all supposed to go form little militias in our local areas so that we can participate and earn the right to bear arms. Except that according to the US government, militias (along with veterans, activists, and our founding fathers) cannot be trusted and should be treated as terrorists. So, we can't relay on that interpretation, can we? And he goes further, citing 150 years of 2nd amendment interpretation. Interestingly, I have a nice thick book that encompasses those interpretations up until the late 80's. I don't see Mr Morgan's assertions in any way representative of that documentation. I believe he may be confusing it with the happenings in his own country, but I can't be positive.
So, I am glad to hear that Piers Morgan does not want to take away my guns. Except that AR-15...