Josh Boston takes on Piers Morgan (and does well, but misses an opportunity)
1) It seems likely that Morgan was respectful ONLY because Boston served in the military. Most people on the left have finally figured out that spitting in soldiers’ faces and calling them baby-killers is bad PR, so they bite their tongues. And maybe, in Morgan’s case, he has genuine respect . . . but it seemed very much like he wanted to lapse into his normal insufferable superciliously dismissive arrogance.
2) Generally speaking, Boston did fine, and even well at points. But he missed a big opportunity. I don’t fault him for it, because everyone seems to miss this point . . .
The Second Amendment was put into place not for hunting or self-defense or skeet-shooting, though all those things are implicit and understood. Rather, the amendment was put in place to provide the citizenry a means of defending themselves against a tyrannical government. That is its EXPLICIT purpose. This concept is explicitly stated in the amendment itself (“necessary for the security of a FREE state”); in the commentaries from the Framers on the subject; in the Federalist Papers; and in early acts of Congress defining the “militia” as an armed general populace.
Boston mentions this briefly, but what he needed to do was stand atop it, proudly. Because at that point, the question, “Why do people need assault weapons that can kill large amounts of people?” is answered simply by a proper understanding of the amendment. The Second Amendment is not there to give you the legal right to own a gun that can allow you to hunt geese. It is there to secure your right to own the kind of gun you’d need to fight a tyrannical government. With that understanding, AR-15s are entirely reasonable.
Needless to say, at this point, most people like Piers Morgan would immediately write you off as a wacko, but when doing so, they also have to write off James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and the rest of the gang. But at least it would end the stupid “Does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a gun that can kill so many people” debate. At that point, maybe we could get on to the much more interesting, and much more historically valid debate, “Does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own rocket launchers, attack helicopters, and fully functional tanks?”
Joshua Boston, the former Marine who sent an open letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein slamming her gun control proposal, appeared on CNN Tuesday to face a rather muted Piers Morgan. Boston believes that more guns, not more gun legislation, are the answer and Morgan pressed him on his logic, asking, “Where does that lead America, other than utter, Wild West hell?”
According to Boston, it won’t lead there because Americans are “smarter” than that and would know when to “hold their fire.” Boston said he wrote the letter because he was worried that under Feinstein’s proposal, his family would be “disarmed” after his death and wouldn’t be able to inherit his weapons. Throughout the interview, he explained that he believed that teachers should be armed, as well as average citizens, in order to protect themselves. Boston doesn’t think handguns or pistols are enough, however, and maintained that AR-15 rifles should not be banned.