Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   How do you identify 32,000 morons?   (usatoday.com) divider line 168
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

20964 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-24 10:55:37 AM  
Oh come on, there can't be that many TF subscribers.
 
2012-12-24 11:29:18 AM  
I don't know, how many adults post in the WWE thread again?
 
2012-12-24 11:37:47 AM  
Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech
 
2012-12-24 11:38:15 AM  

verbaltoxin: Oh come on, there can't be that many TF subscribers.


In fairness, most of them are alts
 
2012-12-24 11:43:04 AM  
1/2 of the crowd at a Steelers game?
 
2012-12-24 11:47:56 AM  

dj_bigbird: 1/2 of the crowd at a Steelers game?


Zing.
 
2012-12-24 11:58:19 AM  
Check their voter registration for the 'R.'
 
2012-12-24 12:01:42 PM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Is Morgan saying that he wants to leave? Is Morgan petitioning the government to allow him to leave?

Wow. I feel like the answer to those difficult questions is NO. It's almost like your tattered brain is lacking an adult's ability to think in even slightly abstract terms.
 
2012-12-24 12:01:52 PM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.
 
2012-12-24 12:05:08 PM  

kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.


Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

Vodka Zombie: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Is Morgan saying that he wants to leave? Is Morgan petitioning the government to allow him to leave?

Wow. I feel like the answer to those difficult questions is NO. It's almost like your tattered brain is lacking an adult's ability to think in even slightly abstract terms.


The fact that people are demanding that others be deported for the exercise of free speech should be quite unnerving. Doesnt matter what the message is; asking others to be deported because of words is completely idiotic
 
2012-12-24 01:16:04 PM  

cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.


I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.
 
2012-12-24 01:29:08 PM  

kxs401: cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.


Reread my original statement. I was talking about people speaking, invoking their free speech rights. No one can be convicted of treason for words. After that reread my reply. Look at my context and please respond in kind. Thank you.
 
2012-12-24 01:32:57 PM  

cman: kxs401: cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.

Reread my original statement. I was talking about people speaking, invoking their free speech rights. No one can be convicted of treason for words. After that reread my reply. Look at my context and please respond in kind. Thank you.


I was talking about the petitions being for two different things, ya doof. It was a false equivalency, which is a conservative's favorite kind of equivalency.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:13 PM  

kxs401: cman: kxs401: cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.

Reread my original statement. I was talking about people speaking, invoking their free speech rights. No one can be convicted of treason for words. After that reread my reply. Look at my context and please respond in kind. Thank you.

I was talking about the petitions being for two different things, ya doof. It was a false equivalency, which is a conservative's favorite kind of equivalency.


It's not a false equivalency. Subject matter is moot. It is about people speaking. People speaking. People speaking. People speaking. It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.
 
2012-12-24 01:54:50 PM  
I'm pretty sure Piers Morgan has many more regular viewers than that.
 
2012-12-24 01:57:11 PM  

cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.


Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.
 
2012-12-24 02:01:58 PM  

kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.


Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.
 
2012-12-24 02:05:38 PM  

cman: kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.

Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.


Yes. But not nearly as stupid as wanting to deport someone for talking about gun control.
 
2012-12-24 02:11:20 PM  

kxs401: cman: kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.

Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.

Yes. But not nearly as stupid as wanting to deport someone for talking about gun control.


You ain't getting the last word in this discussion
 
2012-12-24 03:38:14 PM  
I didn't think that there even were 32,000 Mormons.

/TMYK
 
2012-12-24 03:38:56 PM  
Ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. You are doing it wrong...
 
2012-12-24 03:39:24 PM  
I'd approve deporting Piers Morgan with or without his comments about gun control.
 
2012-12-24 03:39:34 PM  
They misspelled derport.
 
2012-12-24 03:40:08 PM  
Easy. Pick any 32,000 people.
 
2012-12-24 03:40:14 PM  
I prefer my redlit headline:

Gun nuts demand the derportation of Pier Morgan
 
2012-12-24 03:40:32 PM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


One of those groups is not like the other. If they want to leave, they should just farking DO IT!
 
2012-12-24 03:41:05 PM  
religiousfreaks.com
Yeah, let's get him and make hi....what? Oh. It's in the U.S.

Oh well. Same picture, same idiots.

You ever notice there's an equal amount of nutbag zealots spread world wide? Not you of course. Someone else.
 
2012-12-24 03:41:34 PM  
Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.
 
2012-12-24 03:41:56 PM  

cman: kxs401: cman: kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.

Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.

Yes. But not nearly as stupid as wanting to deport someone for talking about gun control.

You ain't getting the last word in this discussion


But wanting to deport Pier Morgan could be a crime against humanity, just ask someone in the UK.
 
2012-12-24 03:43:28 PM  

Wayne 985: Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.


He is kind of a prat.
 
2012-12-24 03:44:15 PM  
Really? Are there that many people out there with so little to do? I think we have bigger things to worry about then a B List Brit that is mildly annoying. We still have Madonna out there for krips sakes.
 
2012-12-24 03:46:19 PM  

marius2: I don't know, how many adults post in the WWE thread again?


+1

/there's roughly 30 of us I would guess
 
2012-12-24 03:46:24 PM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Let's deport EVERYONE
 
2012-12-24 03:46:33 PM  

tetsoushima: He is kind of a prat.


Well - he is British.
 
2012-12-24 03:46:55 PM  
Too bad.... there are at least 10 times that number in the UK who would sign a petition for you to keep the see-unt
 
2012-12-24 03:47:04 PM  
@JeremyClarkson
Americans. It took us 40 years to get rid of Piers Morgan. Please don't send him back.
 
2012-12-24 03:48:09 PM  

cman: kxs401: cman: kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.

Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.

Yes. But not nearly as stupid as wanting to deport someone for talking about gun control.

You ain't getting the last word in this discussion


You really want to spend all day arguing with a law person on Christmas Eve so you can win an thread on Fark? Oh my.
 
2012-12-24 03:49:31 PM  
Visit the politics tab?
 
2012-12-24 03:49:51 PM  
I think you'd have to be a moron to give Piers Morgan any attention at all. He's not exactly some kind of serious journalist, doesn't he report on celebrity fashion or some other crap?
 
2012-12-24 03:50:24 PM  

tetsoushima: Wayne 985: Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.

He is kind of a prat.


I agree. Where do I sign?

Can we send Nancy Grace and a Bill O'reilly too?
 
2012-12-24 03:50:41 PM  
The "Fark Liberal Brigade" has that many members?

Whoa.
 
2012-12-24 03:50:45 PM  
Morons are self-identifying. Just take names.
 
2012-12-24 03:51:20 PM  
Who is this guy? Seriously? Never heard of him. I saw the name and my first thought was, "Wasn't he the Remington Steel guy?".
 
2012-12-24 03:51:45 PM  

tetsoushima: Wayne 985: Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.

He is kind of a prat.


Kind of? They replaced him on America's Got Talent, and Howard Stern was the kinder, gentler judge. It boggles the mind.
 
2012-12-24 03:52:11 PM  

clutchcargo2002: Who is this guy? Seriously? Never heard of him. I saw the name and my first thought was, "Wasn't he the Remington Steel guy?".


I'm pretty sure he's a bank.
 
2012-12-24 03:52:20 PM  
This is just silly. And some thing to kill time on the news cycle. Carry on.
 
2012-12-24 03:53:13 PM  
In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

www.nbc.com
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
www.eonline.com

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.
 
2012-12-24 03:53:21 PM  
Your tv remote has a special button. On mine it's red. The number of people who get upset because SOMEONE said something on tv is baffling to me.

/who?
//don't even OWN a tv
///heh
 
2012-12-24 03:55:16 PM  
plus he's taken a job away from an American!
 
2012-12-24 03:55:40 PM  
Shouldn't;t we be holding him hostage in case the UK tries to send Madonna back?  "Oh yeah, well you have  to take this asshat back..."
 
2012-12-24 03:56:14 PM  
See if they voted Democrat.
 
2012-12-24 03:56:20 PM  
Does it just have to Morgan??? Can we add to the list like Justin Beiber, the Kardashians, Rosie O'Donnell, Honey Boo Boo...
 
pla
2012-12-24 03:57:08 PM  
I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

Then... We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights (petitioning the government for redress of grievances), to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right (freedom of speech and the press).

Alanis Morissette's head (ca. 1996) just blew up.
 
2012-12-24 03:57:28 PM  

SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.


Can't we just put then both in a barrel and throw it off something?
 
2012-12-24 03:57:43 PM  

clutchcargo2002: Who is this guy?


Interviewer on CNN. Similar theme to Larry King, his own show and whatnot. Great interviewer when you want to know what celebrities are like, brings out the real person, so to speak.

Bit of a zealot see-unt when it comes to politics(especially guns) though. He'll badger his guests in the fashion of Nancy Grace and Bill O'reilly. If it's someone like Micheal Moore who he agrees with, they get all out retarded in their back-patting denigration of other political views. Closest I ever came to wanting to throw something at the TV.

CNN has gone down-hill when it comes to remaining impartial, not much better than FOX news anymore.
 
2012-12-24 03:57:49 PM  

ultraholland: plus he's taken a job away from an American!


derp turk rr jrbs
 
2012-12-24 03:59:06 PM  
4-ps.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-12-24 03:59:46 PM  
Catch them reading USA Today?
 
2012-12-24 04:03:22 PM  

dognose4: [4-ps.googleusercontent.com image 627x374]


You're "special", aren't you?
 
2012-12-24 04:03:28 PM  

kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.


Talking about why the US should cede certain territory is about as treasonous as talking about whether the US should acquire certain territory; such discussions take place in real world situations those outside of any echo chambers call "context". Seriously the default position for any "patriot" isn't that the US must constantly be growing in geography; in fact I can think of quite a few scenarios where letting go of certain states/territories might be beneficial to the US.

Manifest Destiny was/some would say still is a huge part of our various national policies but it isn't enshrined in the Constitution.
 
2012-12-24 04:03:35 PM  

dognose4: [4-ps.googleusercontent.com image 627x374]


That's genius.

Old Man Winter: Shouldn't;t we be holding him hostage in case the UK tries to send Madonna back?  "Oh yeah, well you have  to take this asshat back..."


Seeing as how I kind of like the UK, we could both agree to send them all to Zimbabwe or something. Everyone wins.
 
2012-12-24 04:05:31 PM  

FunkOut: SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.

Can't we just put then both in a barrel and throw it off something?


www.safarilodges.com
Think this is big enough?
 
2012-12-24 04:07:14 PM  
We aren't allowed to deport someone if there is a strong likelihood that their lives will be endangered in their home country.
 
2012-12-24 04:09:02 PM  
I have an idea - we'll let the left do what they will to the 2nd Amendment so long as the right gets to tweek the 1st Amendment. Deal?
 
2012-12-24 04:09:48 PM  

SixPaperJoint: FunkOut: SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.

Can't we just put then both in a barrel and throw it off something?

[www.safarilodges.com image 608x450]
Think this is big enough?


Even better than Niagara.
 
2012-12-24 04:12:27 PM  
Check out the NRA membership list?
 
2012-12-24 04:12:41 PM  

pla: First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.


It started when the NRA abused their 1st Amendment rights to re-define the intent of the 2nd Amendment (a well regulated militia under the authority of the president and congress, to put down ibnvasions and rebellions). The recent SCOTUS opinion was just the final nail  in history's coffin.
 
2012-12-24 04:15:10 PM  
By the Democratic convention location?
 
2012-12-24 04:15:27 PM  

Wayne 985: You're "special", aren't you?


I'm guessing the irony eluded you.
 
2012-12-24 04:17:32 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Check their voter registration for the 'R.'


You meant the "D".
 
2012-12-24 04:19:05 PM  

havana_joe: The My Little Pony Killer: Check their voter registration for the 'R.'

You meant the "D".


You think Democrats want to deport Piers Morgan for saying America needs better gun laws?

You're not from around here, are you?
 
pla
2012-12-24 04:22:57 PM  
AssAsInAssassin : It started when the NRA

Er, no, sorry. It most certainly did not - The issue of whether or not to have a fully-armed populace predates the constitution itself. Read your Federalist papers before talking about what "well regulated militia" means - Most notably,

under the authority of the president and congress

It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.
 
2012-12-24 04:24:45 PM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


We're just offering those crybaby secessionists what they want. But, both sides are bad, eh?
 
2012-12-24 04:29:43 PM  

pla: I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.


Speaking your mind is not an abuse of the First Amendment. It's the whole farking point.
 
2012-12-24 04:31:17 PM  
Isn't there an entire politics tab for exactly this sort of useless bullshiat thread?
 
2012-12-24 04:32:10 PM  

SithLord: I have an idea - we'll let the left do what they will to the 2nd Amendment so long as the right gets to tweek the 1st Amendment. Deal?


But, you'd lose access to all that gay porn you secretly masturbate too when you think your wife is asleep.
 
2012-12-24 04:32:45 PM  
Well, let's see, Piers is a resident alien demanding a change in the US constitution and using his position as media figure to attempt to influence American politics(and getting a whopping 500K viewers). In other countries this is known as subversion or even espionage. He's can't be charged with treason, least of all because he's not an American citizen and bound by no oath to be faithful to the country, BUT he can be deported for all of those things if you want to get technical.
 
2012-12-24 04:34:02 PM  

Ed Grubermann: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

We're just offering those crybaby secessionists what they want. But, both sides are bad, eh?


Deportation and secession are not the same thing.

Asking to be allowed to secede is not treason.
 
2012-12-24 04:34:43 PM  

pla: I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

Then... We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights (petitioning the government for redress of grievances), to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right (freedom of speech and the press).

Alanis Morissette's head (ca. 1996) just blew up.


Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.
 
2012-12-24 04:34:50 PM  

yyrkoon: Ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. You are doing it wrong...


Oh look another person who doesn't understand what the first amendment is.
 
2012-12-24 04:36:21 PM  

pla: AssAsInAssassin : It started when the NRA

Er, no, sorry. It most certainly did not - The issue of whether or not to have a fully-armed populace predates the constitution itself. Read your Federalist papers before talking about what "well regulated militia" means - Most notably,

under the authority of the president and congress

It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.


"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

What was castrated was politicians who allowed this very clear meaning to be twisted into  "If'n we ain't got assault rifles, Big Brother is gonna get outta hand."
 
2012-12-24 04:37:24 PM  

kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.


Constantly amazed at how many Nationalists came out of the woodwork in 2008.
 
2012-12-24 04:37:44 PM  

Jarhead_h: Well, let's see, Piers is a resident alien demanding a change in the US constitution and using his position as media figure to attempt to influence American politics(and getting a whopping 500K viewers). In other countries this is known as subversion or even espionage. He's can't be charged with treason, least of all because he's not an American citizen and bound by no oath to be faithful to the country, BUT he can be deported for all of those things if you want to get technical.


^^^^^
THIS
 
2012-12-24 04:40:29 PM  
Moronic, but if you're not an American maybe don't talk so much.
 
2012-12-24 04:42:10 PM  
if we're talking morons...add one more for submitter
 
2012-12-24 04:47:27 PM  
They should deport him for being on that horrible show, America's Got Talent

/God I hate that show
//Even with Howard Stern on that show, the show still sucks
///Loyal Howard Listener
 
2012-12-24 04:47:54 PM  

cman: [...]and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech



Now hold on there. I've been told for the past decade that only US citizens are afforded the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Everyone else does not qualify.
 
2012-12-24 04:52:12 PM  

pla: It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.


Federalist #29

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
 
2012-12-24 04:52:49 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Ed Grubermann: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

We're just offering those crybaby secessionists what they want. But, both sides are bad, eh?

Deportation and secession are not the same thing.

Asking to be allowed to secede is not treason.


I never claimed it was. But, if they want out so bad... well, why not give them the push out the door they need.
 
2012-12-24 04:54:19 PM  
Deport Piers Morgan cuz his program is even worse than Larry King's program.
 
pla
2012-12-24 04:54:25 PM  
AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.
 
2012-12-24 04:56:30 PM  

kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.


Oh, another Alt.

>>>>>Secession is treason

Really?

From the US Constitution: "Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

From Wiki article on the meaning of the word: "Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity."

Please tell us how the act of withdrawing from the Union is "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

3.bp.blogspot.com
Your temper tantrum over the fact that a lot of people would rather not be a part of the National Clusterfark is amusing.
 
2012-12-24 04:58:21 PM  
RIP Pierce Brosnan

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-24 05:00:49 PM  

cman:

It's not a false equivalency. Subject matter is moot. It is about people speaking. People speaking. People speaking. People speaking. It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.


Except that it is a false equivalency. Now if Piers Morgan actually said "deport me", or expressed some other desire to leave the US, it would be equivalent, but he didn't. Deporting the secession petition signers is just to do what they're asking for, except they weren't actually serious about it. It only pissed them off because they were called on their bluff, which made them look like idiots.
 
2012-12-24 05:01:23 PM  

dj_bigbird: 1/2 of the crowd at a Steelers game?


I love you

/Ravens
 
2012-12-24 05:04:01 PM  
Glen Beck tweet followers?
 
2012-12-24 05:04:04 PM  

omeganuepsilon: dognose4: [4-ps.googleusercontent.com image 627x374]

That's genius.


But he missed all the sniper positions!
 
2012-12-24 05:05:20 PM  

SixPaperJoint: Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.


My whole family will sign! At gunpoint if need be.
 
2012-12-24 05:06:10 PM  

pla: I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

Then... We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights (petitioning the government for redress of grievances), to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right (freedom of speech and the press).

Alanis Morissette's head (ca. 1996) just blew up.


It is so cute that you don't understand the first half of the first amendment.
 
2012-12-24 05:08:40 PM  
I know his show sucks but if you deport him they will just hire Jay Leno to take his place.
 
2012-12-24 05:14:00 PM  
We should make him carry a gun everyday.
 
2012-12-24 05:14:01 PM  

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: You're "special", aren't you?

I'm guessing the irony eluded you.


Maybe he's referring to the silly strawman argument.
 
2012-12-24 05:22:02 PM  

pla: AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.


So you're saying that the well regulated militia  in the 2nd Amendment
1) is not the same militia as in the body of the constitution, and
2) requires unfettered access to asault rifles?

What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?
 
2012-12-24 05:24:49 PM  
I figured for sure, seeing only the headline, that the identification process would be via something more arcane, like, "All those who lined up for the latest bad movie," or whatever.

I had no idea the N.R.A. babies would make it so easy.

(Why can't we even TALK about it, you stupid pussies?)
 
2012-12-24 05:25:14 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: pla: First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

It started when the NRA abused their 1st Amendment rights to re-define the intent of the 2nd Amendment (a well regulated militia under the authority of the president and congress, to put down ibnvasions and rebellions). The recent SCOTUS opinion was just the final nail  in history's coffin.


Where does it say "under the authority of the president and congress"? Militias are supposed to be under local control. They aren't national armies. They are to protect their own communities from other communities. They are the ultimate expression of small, local governments. They don't fit in with how we define the concept of a modern country, but then the notion of a modern country would be foreign and probably inimical to the framers of the Constitution.
 
2012-12-24 05:26:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: yyrkoon: Ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. You are doing it wrong...

Oh look another person who doesn't understand what the first amendment is.


Oh look, another person who can't look up in a rainstorm without drowning.
 
2012-12-24 05:29:27 PM  

dj_bigbird: 1/2 of the crowd at a Steelers game?


Just the ones waving those stupid towels?
 
2012-12-24 05:37:36 PM  
I doubt many of that 32k really want to deport Morgan or even think its possible. Its an absurd petition which illustrates the absurdity of the White House petition website and the other petitions made there.
 
2012-12-24 05:39:32 PM  
Subby and his extended family?
 
2012-12-24 05:43:26 PM  
So, the White House petitions are cool when the FarkLibtards agree with the petition, but only morans sign the petitions the FarkLibtards disagree with. I get it. English people are black.

Am I doing this right?
 
2012-12-24 05:44:49 PM  
Oh, one more thing. You would think the FarkLibbies would be ok with this, since the person the morans are wanting to deport isn't black or brown.
 
2012-12-24 05:50:41 PM  
Nah. You Americans can keep him. I have no issues with his statements on gun control, but he IS a smug asshole.
 
2012-12-24 05:53:14 PM  

Tumunga: So, the White House petitions are cool when the FarkLibtards agree with the petition, but only morans sign the petitions the FarkLibtards disagree with. I get it. English people are black.

Am I doing this right?


No, not even close.
 
2012-12-24 05:53:41 PM  

Rich Cream: cman: [...]and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Now hold on there. I've been told for the past decade that only US citizens are afforded the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Everyone else does not qualify.


Who is the dumbass who told you that? Anyone under the jurisdiction of the US voluntarily enjoys all rights under the Constitution. Seeing as he is a resident alien, he has voluntarily subjected himself to US jurisdiction and is therefore entitled to all of the enumerated rights.

\Since minors cannot volunteer their jurisdiction, their rights can be curtailed. Same goes for enemy combatants.
 
2012-12-24 05:55:46 PM  

verbaltoxin: Oh come on, there can't be that many TF subscribers.


Done in one.
 
2012-12-24 05:55:59 PM  

FunkOut: SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.

Can't we just put then both in a barrel and throw it off something?


How about that thing that guy jumped out of recently that was a big deal. The parachute guy. Let's nail them in a barrel, float them into the stratosphere, and push them out.

I'm indifferent whether they get parachutes.
 
2012-12-24 05:58:51 PM  
I am all for deporting Peirs Morgan, but on account of him being a giant douchebag, not because of his position on gun control :).
 
2012-12-24 05:59:35 PM  
The irony of what is likely a group of the same people that will scream to the high heavens about the first amendment and free speech asking the government to censor an individuals right to speak his mind by deporting him is actually pretty funny.
 
2012-12-24 06:00:12 PM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


In all fairness, I'm pretty sure the 'deport the secessionists' side was trying to be very clearly flippant. Sure, it shouldn't have been said, but you'll never stop the internet from hyperbole.

/Hopefully so is this side...
 
2012-12-24 06:04:54 PM  
Ok, listen people. The Petition System works like this: You bring up an issue, the White House has to respond to it. It is not a referendum. It is not a popularity contest (well, I guess it is). Simply because 150k people signed a petition urging the WH to do something doesn't mean they will, only that they will respond to it.
 
pla
2012-12-24 06:10:25 PM  
AssAsInAssassin : What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?

The USSC has decided it (legally) means absolutely nothing (in the famous Heller case you should know - and hate - so intimately as a fan of gun control).

In the late 18th century (and even today, though as a less common use) it meant something akin to "trained and ready to do its thing", or less formally, "in proper working order". So keeping the militia "well regulated" meant they didn't just report to the town hall to pick up their guns from the armory once every 30 or so years if a foreign invader happened to drop by for a visit - It meant, literally, that it "being necessary to the security of a free State", people should maintain and stay in practice with using their guns.

A "well regulated" fish tank doesn't mean you have an official license to own and operate an aquarium. It just means your fish won't die from too high a pH.


tenpoundsofcheese : It is so cute that you don't understand the first half of the first amendment.

You can exercise a right without needing to do so directly against the body from which that right protects you, eh?

Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?
 
2012-12-24 06:17:45 PM  

EatenTheSun: pla: It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.

Federalist #29

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."


So, National Guard, then? There is no other militia that now functions in the way described. This annual or semi-annual review is certainly a government function, and certainly involves a review of what weapons are in whose possession and in what condition.
How often are you willing to be assembled for such a review?
 
2012-12-24 06:31:28 PM  
Let's just deport Obama.
 
2012-12-24 06:37:48 PM  

SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.


I don't think there's a person here who would be opposed to this.
 
2012-12-24 06:58:47 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: pla: AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.

So you're saying that the well regulated militia  in the 2nd Amendment
1) is not the same militia as in the body of the constitution, and
2) requires unfettered access to asault rifles?

What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?


The term "well regulated" referred to well trained and practiced when you look at the context of the day and the circa 1789 definition of the term.

Also militia were made up of ordinary citizens with their own firearms.

You do realize that actual assault rifles (not rifles that just happen to look like them) are in fact illegal to own in most instances.

Madison said it best:

(The Constitution)... preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

If you read the documents of the time the intent was clearly for an individual right to own firearms to protect against a runaway government. After all we had just fought a bloody rebellion against a tyrannical king.
 
2012-12-24 07:05:28 PM  

SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:


We deport him

IF

This guy goes too


Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.


Sign me up!
 
2012-12-24 07:22:20 PM  
The RNC
 
2012-12-24 07:24:11 PM  
What are people who ignore, Alex?
 
2012-12-24 07:26:35 PM  

cman: kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.

Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. MOST OF the American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.


I do not necessarily agree about those red states.
 
2012-12-24 07:33:10 PM  
pla: tenpoundsofcheese : It is so cute that you don't understand the first half of the first amendment.


Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?


did you forget to switch tabs?  why are you replying to something I wrote to PLA with "did you really just think I read..."

I give you a 2/17 for your trolling attempt and poor alt-management skills.
 
2012-12-24 07:33:16 PM  
Most of those petitions are Meh, some are No, and a few are Aww Hell No.  We need a way to voice our NO vote on some of these turkeys.

I've created a petition to do just that :)  Please visit it at  http://wh.gov/QXf9  and vote yes, I need 150 votes before it hits the front page.
 
2012-12-24 07:37:17 PM  
pla:

Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?

you wrote:  " We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right "

so yes, you don't understand the difference since no one is criticizing Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right.
 
2012-12-24 07:38:02 PM  

cman: kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.

Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

Vodka Zombie: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Is Morgan saying that he wants to leave? Is Morgan petitioning the government to allow him to leave?

Wow. I feel like the answer to those difficult questions is NO. It's almost like your tattered brain is lacking an adult's ability to think in even slightly abstract terms.

The fact that people are demanding that others be deported for the exercise of free speech should be quite unnerving. Doesnt matter what the message is; asking others to be deported because of words is completely idiotic


It could be argued that breaking up the country does give aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
2012-12-24 07:38:17 PM  

Snotnose: Most of those petitions are Meh, some are No, and a few are Aww Hell No.  We need a way to voice our NO vote on some of these turkeys.

I've created a petition to do just that :)  Please visit it at  http://wh.gov/QXf9  and vote yes, I need 150 votes before it hits the front page.


Stop trolling for votes.

Go somewhere else or start your own thread.
 
2012-12-24 07:51:25 PM  
\

radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.


Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.
 
2012-12-24 07:58:41 PM  

scandalrag: Since minors cannot volunteer their jurisdiction, their rights can be curtailed.


Oh, I have almost as big an issue with that statement as I do the statement that non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Because the definition of citizen under the 14th amendment was to make sure slaves were counted as citizens, too, and the rest of the amendment pertains to all people, which means minors, too, can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of laws. You can't treat minors like little adults, true, but you also can't treat them like slaves, either.
 
2012-12-24 08:04:56 PM  

smonter: You do realize that actual assault rifles (not rifles that just happen to look like them) are in fact illegal to own in most instances.


Unfortunately most of the populace is too naive when it comes to firearms that they don't know. If it looks like an M-16 burst fire or fully automatic they see in movies all of the time, it IS an evil instrument of killing. They don't quite get the concept that it's a single-fire automatic, and the only difference between that and a lot of varmint killing guns out there is purely aesthetic.

What's doubly annoying is people like Micheal Moore with that extreme naivete(As he did once on the Piers Morgan show) , acting outrageously when pantomiming what they think people do with guns. Yes, it's ridiculous when they do it, because they're farking morons.

All they conclusively prove is that they, as well as a good portion of society, shouldn't have guns, for everyone's safety. It is totally beyond their ability to handle them with responsibility. They have a stance born of very limited anecdotal evidence.

According to their absolute all-or-nothing style of logic, on account of their limited mental capacity, they would have us ALL wear Bicycle helmets 24/7, because retarded people need them.

smonter: Madison said it best:

(The Constitution)... preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

If you read the documents of the time the intent was clearly for an individual right to own firearms to protect against a runaway government. After all we had just fought a bloody rebellion against a tyrannical king.


This, This, and farking THIS!

Many of them got away from tyranny by running, and by the skin of their teeth. This is the origin of the US's stance on self defense, really. We shouldn't have to run, we should be able to protect our own. Hell, there's no where really to run to anymore, it's pretty much all taken.
 
pla
2012-12-24 08:25:57 PM  
tenpoundsofcheese : so yes, you don't understand the difference since no one is criticizing Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right.

You have a group of people asking for government intervention to silence a member of the press whom they disagree. The government, for its part, can't do that because of the first clause of the first amendment.

Getting tired of this, so would you kindly shiat or get off the pot? If the first part of the first amendment doesn't apply to that, well... You got some splainin' to do, Looshy!
 
2012-12-24 08:33:26 PM  
cman

The 1st amendment only applied to ink quill pens and printing presses and peaceful signs.

They never envisioned that you could talk into a magic box and stupify millions of people at one time with total crap. Ban high capacity television!
 
2012-12-24 08:35:14 PM  
Fact: Jeremy Clarkson once punched Piers Morgan in the face for being an insufferable twit.
...Twice.

/and He dumped a cup of water on him for ruining what was an otherwise enjoyable flight on the Concord.
/England won't take him back, we'll have to find someplace else.
/I suggest Antarctica. I hear its nice in the summer.
 
2012-12-24 08:42:37 PM  
The Force scatters sometimes.
 
2012-12-24 08:48:26 PM  
Can't we get rid of him using the laws against invasive foreign pests?
 
pc
2012-12-24 09:06:39 PM  
img541.imageshack.us
FTFY
 
2012-12-24 09:14:37 PM  

IlGreven: \radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.

Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.


So your profanity laden argument is that the United States Constitution applies to any person living within its borders or perhaps controlled territories?

I see. And you've come to this conclusion based on what exactly?
 
2012-12-24 09:26:27 PM  
Look on the Florida voters list under "Democrat"?
 
2012-12-24 09:28:51 PM  

pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY


Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"
 
2012-12-24 09:42:15 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY

Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"


I'd make an actual response, but I find its a waste of time to talk with people who can't read whole sentences.
 
2012-12-24 09:55:44 PM  

way south: AssAsInAssassin: pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY

Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"

I'd make an actual response, but I find its a waste of time to talk with people who can't read whole sentences.


Put up or shut up. Gun nuts are trotting this bogus quote all over the Internet, as if Obama actually said "guns make us less safe." I Googled it. The only instances I can find of this alleged quote are gun nuts pretending it's a real quote.
 
2012-12-24 09:56:57 PM  
Oh. Heh. Got me there. Yes, I didn't look at it again, because I thought it was the same inane crap I've already seen.

I'll slink away now...
 
2012-12-24 09:58:19 PM  

BokerBill: How often are you willing to be assembled for such a review?


"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

I'm totally down with taking a couple of weekends a year to do some firearms training. It would be nice to see some non gun owners show up too, to at least get some basic training in gun safety.
 
2012-12-24 09:59:18 PM  
He should be arrested for phone hacking.
 
2012-12-24 09:59:38 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY

Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"


I don't think you understand what was intended with the term "well regulated militia" especially considering the wealth of information showing that "regulated" meant practiced and not controlled.

Militia were meant to be ordinary people who brought their own gun to defend the country, just like the revolution.
 
2012-12-24 10:41:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: pla: tenpoundsofcheese : It is so cute that you don't understand the first half of the first amendment.


Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?

did you forget to switch tabs?  why are you replying to something I wrote to PLA with "did you really just think I read..."

I give you a 2/17 for your trolling attempt and poor alt-management skills.


You're grading out of 17? What is that, fingers and toes, teeth or IQ points?
 
pc
2012-12-24 10:43:43 PM  
Original:
4-ps.googleusercontent.com

Less subtle version:
img27.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 11:08:55 PM  
All my British friends say no, they don't want him back.
 
pla
2012-12-24 11:32:05 PM  
tenpoundsofcheese : did you forget to switch tabs? why are you replying to something I wrote to PLA with "did you really just think I read..."

Uhhh... Okay dude, you got me with that one. I have fark-all clue WTF you talkin' bout.

I (pla) wrote something, as "pla"; you (tenpoundsofcheese) responded to it. I (pla) wrote you back, as "pla". Where exactly do you have a problem with that?

One of us might have alt-issues, but... (checks mirror)... it ain't me.
 
2012-12-24 11:47:20 PM  
Morgan "is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment," the petition says. "We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

I dunno who Morgan is. Never heard of him.

I'm pro gun. But their argument is "He has no right to say what he believes, make him shut up and if he won't shut up, kick him out of the country".

So while they are screaming about attacks on the Second amendment, they are actively opposed to the First amendment. Personally, I'm in favor of both the First and the Second.
 
2012-12-25 12:17:05 AM  
Those petitions to the White House are amazingly effective, aren't they? The President goes right online every morning, collects them, and carries out their requests. It's a great system. You know, we eliminated the Taliban back in '01 with an online petition. When people see SO MANY signatures, they are powerless to continue on their present course.

Thank you, Baby Jesus...for PETITIONS!
 
2012-12-25 12:55:02 AM  

scandalrag: Rich Cream: cman: [...]and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Now hold on there. I've been told for the past decade that only US citizens are afforded the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Everyone else does not qualify.

Who is the dumbass who told you that? Anyone under the jurisdiction of the US voluntarily enjoys all rights under the Constitution. Seeing as he is a resident alien, he has voluntarily subjected himself to US jurisdiction and is therefore entitled to all of the enumerated rights.



www.setexasrecord.comi.huffpost.com



\Since minors cannot volunteer their jurisdiction, their rights can be curtailed. Same goes for enemy combatants.


You think what was done to "enemy combatants", without any proof other than someone's word, is a "curtailing" of someone's rights? Similar to the limitations placed on a minor's legal status?

I see.
 
2012-12-25 01:24:41 AM  

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


There weren't mass calls to deport secessionists.

Just a heartfelt sentiment of "Well, bye."
 
2012-12-25 01:32:55 AM  
I think there were MORE morons who wanted the WH to look into the building of the death star, than having dumbass Piers kicked out.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:30 AM  
So if Fark is to believed.

The petition signed by thousands and thousands and thousands of people to deport anyone who signed a succession petition was "amusing" in spite of the fact that you... can't deport an American citizen.

But the petition signed by thousands and thousands and thousands of people to deport somebody who could be legally deported is "moronic"

I'll give you a hint: The biggest morons signed the first one.
 
2012-12-25 11:06:59 AM  

radiobiz: IlGreven: \radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.

Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.

So your profanity laden argument is that the United States Constitution applies to any person living within its borders or perhaps controlled territories?

I see. And you've come to this conclusion based on what exactly?


...the fact that the only place where the Constitution specifically mentions citizens is when it defines what one is, so that unscrupulous post-Civil War racists can't claim that former slaves can't be citizens of the United States and thus aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. It was unnecessary to do it in the same amendment where they say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of laws." The only difference between a citizen and an non-citizen is that we have one more penalty we can impose on non-citizens: deportation.
 
2012-12-25 11:38:45 AM  

IlGreven: radiobiz: IlGreven: \radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.

Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.

So your profanity laden argument is that the United States Constitution applies to any person living within its borders or perhaps controlled territories?

I see. And you've come to this conclusion based on what exactly?

...the fact that the only place where the Constitution specifically mentions citizens is when it defines what one is, so that unscrupulous post-Civil War racists can't claim that former slaves can't be citizens of the United States and thus aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. It was unnecessary to do it in the same amendment where they say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of laws." The only difference between a citizen and an non-citizen is that we have one more penalty we can impose on non-citizens: deportation.


Uh-huh. So that's why we deal with the illegal alien problem, Gitmo, and other "non-combatants" the way we do right? Cause you know, all people on earth are covered by the US Constitution.
 
2012-12-25 12:06:52 PM  

dognose4: [4-ps.googleusercontent.com image 627x374]


And the only reason all those around the president have guns is because there are so many loose in the country.

/So his statement is true.
 
2012-12-25 03:04:02 PM  
Haha. The nice thing about petitions is: They Mean Nothing!!!
 
2012-12-26 12:58:29 PM  

radiobiz: IlGreven: radiobiz: IlGreven: \radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.

Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.

So your profanity laden argument is that the United States Constitution applies to any person living within its borders or perhaps controlled territories?

I see. And you've come to this conclusion based on what exactly?

...the fact that the only place where the Constitution specifically mentions citizens is when it defines what one is, so that unscrupulous post-Civil War racists can't claim that former slaves can't be citizens of the United States and thus aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. It was unnecessary to do it in the same amendment where they say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of laws." The only difference between a citizen and an non-citizen is that we have one more penalty we can impose on non-citizens: deportation.

Uh-huh. So that's why we deal with the illegal alien problem, Gitmo, and other "non-combatants" the way we do right? Cause you know, all people on earth are covered by the US Constitution.


As long as they're detained by or under the jurisdiction of the United States of America? You're damned right they are.
 
2012-12-26 01:26:26 PM  
Prisoners of war get treated differently from others. There are different rules. Not "no rules", but different rules.

"He is not a US citizen, so he has no rights at all" the way Radiobiz is claiming makes no sense.
 
Displayed 168 of 168 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report