The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan
Most people would define treason as a betrayal of one's country or sovereign. In my book, the book of natural law, treason is properly defined as a betrayal of one's countrymen—and, in particular, the betrayal of the individual's right to life, liberty and property. (To your question, yes, this renders almost all politicians traitors by definition.)
A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life. If you cannot defend your property, you have no right of private property. And if you cannot defend your liberty, you are not a free man.
It follows that inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same rights.
Knowing full well that a mere ban on assault rifles would not give him the result he craved, our redcoat turncoat has structured his monocausal appeals against the individual's right to bear arms as follows:
1) The UK once experienced Sandy-Hook like massacres.
2) We Brits banned all guns, pistols too.
3) There were no more such massacres.
Were Morgan agitating for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution—I'd call him a patriot, although he'd be preaching against the Constitution. My Amendment bias, why? The Constitution itself, in places, undermines individual rights. Therefore, to the extent that the document comports with the natural law, to that extent the Constitution is a good thing; to the extent that it flouts natural justice, it is bad. Inescapably—and more often than not—natural justice therein has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.
Thus, it is not Piers' "attack on the 2nd Amendment" per se that makes him a traitor; it is that the 2nd Amendment is natural law, namely, it is based on a universally accepted, timeless moral principle. Because he is undermining this immutable principle, Morgan is suborning treason against his countrymen.
Conversely, the 16th Amendment—the number of the beast, I call it—is a species of law with which Piers and statists like him identify; it is legal positivism, or "man-made law." Put it this way: God's law the 16th Amendment is not. The tithe of Mosaic Law was a moral imperative; it was not backed by the power of a police state. "New Testament giving" is voluntary.
Nor does the 16th qualify as law rooted in reason, for this abominable amendment gives government a potentially limitless lien on a man’s property and, by extension, on his life.
To sum, the insufferably pompous Piers is intent on helping obliterate an American's right to self-defense (which the US Constitution so happens to affirm).
This week, the CNN host will be fulminating over the shortfalls of 23 new imperial orders against firearm owners and in furtherance of federal tyranny. Piers believes the president's extra-constitutional diktats don't go far enough to void what's left of the Constitutional scheme (to say nothing of the Hippocratic Oath. The Dear Leader has decreed that, “Doctors and other health care providers … need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms").
Last year, an admirably rebellious Egyptian people revolted against President Mohamed Morsy for issuing a single executive order. America's "King Tut" issued 23 such directives in one day! But—and by contrast—Piers thinks nothing of this "attempt by the [US] executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, seconds Sen. Rand Paul.
With the arrival on the CNN set of the purveyor of pop spirituality Deepak Chopra, Piers' peerless stupidity was almost usurped. "The 2nd Amendment didn't take into account assault weapons," chimed Chopra.
“When they passed the 2nd Amendment, they had muskets. It took 20 minutes to load one, and half the time, you missed, OK? The 2nd Amendment didn't take into account assault weapons, the fact that you can buy them through the secondary market or you can load up on ammunition through the Internet.”
By logical extension, should not the 1st Amendment too be contingent on the extent to which technologies can be used to the detriment of some? During the founding, I presume, there were no megaphones or loudspeakers. Is Chopra implying that as offensive speech got louder and more easily transmittable, the Founders would have reconsidered the right of free speech? Regulated the Internet? Is anyone suggesting that, had the framers foreseen today's particular technological innovations, they'd have written a different document?
The American Founding Fathers were sophisticated thinkers. Some were scientists and inventors. More so than Chopra—whose inspiration is eastern mambo-jumbo, and not philosopher John Locke—all were familiar with the idea of humanity's unstoppable progress.
The Bill of Rights is a timeless document of individual liberties, setting limits on government power. The document was never meant to recalibrate individual liberties in light of each era's technological innovations.
Alas, as reprehensible as Piers Morgan and his priestly cast of Hollywood and network twits are—and as much as he disgusts—we cannot shut this royal pillock up or deport him. We can only switch him off and wish him the worst.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.