Piers Morgan isn’t a fan of guns. By now, any of us familiar with the television host understands that. He’s long been on a crusade to try and make American gun laws mimic those of his beloved home country of England. Yet, once again, we pesky Americans refuse to disarm because some pompous Brit demanded it of us.

Yesterday on Twitter, however, Morgan illustrated just how little he understands our constitutional rights. Let’s take a look at these one by one. A special thanks to RedState‘s Sarah Rumpf who wrote up her own rebuttal to these, but also amassed the stupid in one place for us to enjoy.

If you need an AR-15 to hunt animals, you’re such a bad shot you shouldn’t be allowed a gun in the first place. https://t.co/nFFWuIFhKc

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 2, 2018

First, the Second Amendment never mentions hunting.

Further, the AR-15 is too big to hunt small game and too small to hunt big game. It’s not a hunting rifle because it’s too ineffective for human-sized game.

I know exactly how it works – I fired one on CNN. They’re light, easy to shoot & fire as fast as your finger can pull the trigger.
Let me expand my question: why does any civilian need ANY semi-automatic weapon? https://t.co/pdawtJp9W0

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 2, 2018

I’ve already addressed this. In short, my need, or lack thereof, doesn’t apply to rights as a general rule. You don’t need to have a television show, but the First Amendment protects your right to have one, even if the rest of us cringe at the thought.

The same is true on firearms. I don’t have to illustrate my need to have anything to you. I have to illustrate my right to have them. And make no mistake, the existence of restrictions on a handful of firearms that already exist doesn’t preclude my rights at this point.

Have you studied the history of 2A? Try reading up on it. It was never intended to mean an individual’s right to bear arms – outside of a ‘well regulated militia’. https://t.co/Xb6w9gGAbd

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 2, 2018

This argument about the intentions of the Second Amendment has to be one of the most ridiculous I’ve ever heard. The militia ultimately serves the nation or state in times of trouble. Why would we need to protect the government’s ability to be armed?

This is especially true when you remember thatm throughout the Bill of Rights, the mention of “the people” always refers to individual rights, something Morgan would probably support on every other amendment. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to pick or choose which rights to acknowledge. That’s not how any of this works.

However, now is also the time to make the obligatory reference to Heller vs The District of Columbia, which firmly found that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

So much for that argument.

I think ALL semi-automatic guns should be banned, just as automatic guns are banned.
No civilian needs one except to kill a lot of people very quickly. https://t.co/vvC5XGuPVq

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 2, 2018

Now, this is a far more fair tweet. Why? Because he certainly has a right to think such things. And that thinking is part of why we have the Second Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers understood that there would be people who felt the ownership of firearms should be restricted, so they wrote an amendment designed specifically to prevent the government from taking them away. They knew there would be people like Piers Morgan out there, and they wanted to stomp that crap out quickly.

Of course, Morgan didn’t stop there. He started getting personal with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, calling him short, as if that had any bearing on the arguments whatsoever.

Then again, what’s passing as “arguments” from Morgan weren’t really doing him any favors, so why not go all ad hominem? It certainly couldn’t do any more damage than his lack of understanding of the Constitution already has.