Bob Costas, Piers Morgan, and Gun Control

Bob Costas took the opportunity, with God Bless America playing in the background, to call for the banning of handguns. He spoke of how guns "Don't enhance our safety, exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us to embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it."

Really? If that was true, why are not the streets of 39 states flowing with the blood of thousands of shootouts? Why did the violent crime rates of EVERY one of these states drop after the implementation of Shall-Issue CCW laws?

You see, Costas, and many like him, believe that gun owners need some sort of psychological crutch. They believe that you purchase a gun as this crutch. You need it to fill some sort of insecurity in your life. You couldn't possibly enjoy sending bullets down range in to the same hole over and over again. You want to go out and be John Wayne. Your thoughts of defense against people who want to do bad things is only a veneer for insecurity. That is why, without a gun, no one would ever approach a car in a connivance store with loud music playing. Why would you? Without guns, people never look for conflict. Would, as Costas said, these two people be alive if a gun was not available? If Jovan Belcher wanted to hurt or even kill someone there is very little anyone could do about it. He was a giant man of enormous strength and athletic ability. Not to mention a finely tuned aggressive instinct. Mr. Belcher could use any weapon he wanted to to kill his girlfriend. If no weapon would have been available, he could have just as easily used his body to do the deed.

Inanimate objects like guns, rope, knives, cars, etc can not do anything on their own. They are inanimate. It takes a human will to move them, use them, kill with them. It is the human being that decides. It is the human being that acts.

The next person to show a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution, and of the Framer's reasoning behind the Second Amendment is Piers Morgan. He took to Twitter to have the following exchange with Carol Roth:

Morgan touts out the old and tired argument that the Framers only had muskets in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. First, at the time, the musket WAS the military weapon of its day. In many cases in early American history, the individual was better armed than the regular army. This is beside the point... During the framing of the second amendment individuals could not only purchase the military arm of choice, they could also purchase cannon and other artillery pieces that the military used. In the beginning of The war of 1812 The United States Navy mostly consisted of Privateer ships, or armed ships that were owned and operated by PRIVATE citizens. These we not just merchant ships, some were full on Ships of the Line purchased and used to escort merchant fleets. To say that the Second Amendment was only about muskets shows a complete disregard for the history that the Amendment was drafted in.

Other than the history, how can we tell what the Framers were thinking? Hummm... FROM THEIR OWN WRITINGS!!!!!!!! Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all wrote that the Second Amendment was written for self defense of the individual against crime, invasion, and the GOVERNMENT. Madison went on to say that the individual should be able to obtain whatever weapon the military had in its arsenal.
These were men who were deeply distrustful of standing armies. It wasn't until after The War of 1812 that a standing American army was even proposed. These men believed that it was the job of the militia to defend American soil. To do so required the weapons that would match whatever military attempted invasion.
So, if the Framers had their way, they would not be working to limit guns, they would be pushing the extreme position that individuals should own tanks, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers.