CNN host Piers Morgan is well known for his outspoken anti-gun stance and is hardly a supporter of the Second Amendment. But Morgan took a shot at the Founding Fathers on Friday, saying the Second Amendment was “clumsily written” and calling for a debate to rephrase it.
Morgan spoke to an audience at the National Press Club and discussed his new book, “Shooting Straight: Guns, Gays, God and George Clooney.” The CNN host has gained notoriety for calling for more gun control, especially since the shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., and Morgan didn’t disappoint, addressing what he says is the evolution Second Amendment and the Constitution.
“That to me shows you how clumsily worded, and I say that with great respect for the Founding Fathers, that Second Amendment was,” he said. “The comma in the middle is perhaps the most dangerous comma ever written because it can be interpreted in different ways.”
The comma Morgan references creates the clause: “being necessary to the security of a free State.”
He pointed the evolution of the Second Amendment, saying when written by the Founding Fathers, it meant not the right to bear arms “in their own lives,” but to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. But, as the NRA rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s — when “very right-wing people took over” — and President Ronald Reagan took office, the Second Amendment was redefined.
“They redefined it as an individual’s right to bear arms, no longer as part of a well-regulated militia,” Morgan said.
But he didn’t stop there. Morgan went on to say the Constitution — like the Bible — is not a sacred document, but an evolutionary one. And because of that, he said, it’s time for a discussion to rephrase the Second Amendment.
“When you’ve got so many amendments anyway, you say it’s a sacred document, it’s fine but it’s a bit like saying the Bible is a sacred document. And I speak as a good Irish Catholic,” Morgan said. “…I think you just have to look at it not so much as a sacred document but as an evolutionary document, hence the amendments that have already taken place. I think there is quite the argument to have a debate … a debate on whether the wording of the Second Amendment should be rephrased.”