I have to give Piers Morgan -- host of a CNN show called, appropriately enough, "Piers Morgan Tonight" -- credit for his honesty.

In the wake of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Conn., Morgan has been on a nightly gun control rant, going on and on (and on and on and on) about the "insanity" of America's "gun culture."

Is this what liberals meant when they said now is the time to have a "meaningful conversation" about the issue of gun control? Because it's not going to be much of a conversation if it starts off with one side dismissing the other as "insane."

On one show (better make that "on at least one show"), Morgan suggested the possibility that the Second Amendment might be repealed.

I was about to dismiss Morgan as just some cheeky limey butting his snout into America's internal affairs when it occurred to me: He'd done Second Amendment advocates a favor.

For years, I've had the sneaking suspicion that so-called gun control advocates don't want to "control" guns at all. They want guns -- and the Second Amendment -- gone.

Morgan is one of the few gun control advocates to admit that. Most still insist on going with their lie that they just want assault weapons banned. They don't want to take away anyone's guns, they claim.

Oh, really now?

Let's say a new law is passed banning assault weapons. That would prevent, in theory at least, new assault weapons from being sold.

That should keep nutty, unstable, homicidal types like Adam Lanza from buying assault weapons. Now how would such a law keep the Adam Lanzas of America away from the estimated 2.5 million assault rifles already in the hands of American citizens?

Gun control advocates, I guarantee you, will want ALL those assault rifles turned in to either local, state or the federal government. So their goal is, precisely, to take away assault rifles from citizens that own them.

That's for starters. Their ultimate goal is repealing the Second Amendment.

But there's an inherent problem, isn't it, in advocating the repeal of an amendment you don't particularly like? Especially if the reason is to "protect the children" or for "public safety"?

Wouldn't we "protect the children" more effectively, or have even more safety, if we repeal most or all of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. Do we really need that? I mean, does it contribute to public safety?

Wouldn't the job of police officers be easier if they could just kick in the doors of homes, without warrants, and make their searches?

It'd sure as heck make rounding up all those assault rifles a lot easier.

In New York, where Enemy of Liberty Mayor Michael Bloomberg frequently gives his gun control rants, the Fourth Amendment has already undergone a kind of de facto repeal. A federal judge recently chided the New York City Police Department for having its officers engage in what the judge called "suspicionless stops."

Bloomberg's reaction? Why, to praise those suspicionless stops and the police making them.

The Fifth Amendment protects us against double jeopardy, from being deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law" and several other things.

I don't see how that one "protects the children" or contributes to public safety either. Better get rid of it.

The Sixth Amendment gives us the right to a trial by jury. After the way Americans reacted to the verdict in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, I'm surprised that one is still around.

Arguments can be made for putting the old kibosh on amendments seven, eight, nine and 10.

A word to those that would repeal the Second Amendment: Be careful of starting this business of repealing amendments you don't like. The ones you do like might get the axe as well.

Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.