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.

(The Daily Caller)   The First Amendment doesn't protect Piers Morgan from deportation, but it does protect him from finding a real job   (dailycaller.com) divider line 176
    More: Amusing, First Amendment, Piers Morgan, deportations, James Taranto  
•       •       •

11475 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 6:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-09 04:21:54 PM
And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.
 
2013-01-09 04:45:08 PM
White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a factually incorrect response Wednesday to the White House petition to deport British-born CNN host Piers Morgan, wrongly claiming that Morgan, who has launched repeated televised attacks on the Second Amendment, is protected from deportation by the First Amendment.

"Let's not let arguments over the Constitution's Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First," Carney wrote in response to the petition, which has collected more than 100,000 signatures from patriotic Americans.


While the First Amendment may not, as a technical legal matter, prohibit the Federal Government from deporting a foreign journalist based on the journalist's views, the spirit of the First Amendment certainly weighs against such a deportation.  Nothing "factually incorrect" about Carney's response.
 
2013-01-09 05:01:15 PM
But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?
 
2013-01-09 05:03:10 PM
For people who celebrate your right to say whatever you want, Republicans seem quite intent on making sure Piers Morgan is denied any ability to speak to the American people.
 
2013-01-09 05:32:21 PM

GAT_00: For people who celebrate your right to say whatever you want, Republicans seem quite intent on making sure Piers Morgan is denied any ability to speak to the American people.


They only recognize that particular right when the speaker is saying something they agree with.
 
2013-01-09 05:40:21 PM
I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?
 
2013-01-09 06:10:08 PM
When we get rid of the 2nd amendment we can work on repealing those pesky 1st and 4th ones.
 
2013-01-09 06:17:30 PM

OtherLittleGuy: But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?


Having your ratings drop is one thing, being threatened with deportation is entirely something else. But you already knew that

He's paid to offer opinions on newsworthy events. But you already knew that as well
 
2013-01-09 06:36:26 PM
Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.
 
2013-01-09 06:47:07 PM

edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.


Like the right to vote?
 
2013-01-09 06:48:20 PM
Big macho gun guys want the bad man to go away?

Man up, pussies.
 
2013-01-09 06:50:26 PM
So this deportation thing is real, not a joke?

Republicans are stupider than I thought.
 
2013-01-09 06:50:29 PM
Comically missing the point.

The point is to remind people that free speech is as much part of this countries' culture as 'free guns'. In fact, they even point out "SPIRIT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT", not "Constitutional interpretation of it".

Idiots write article, idiot wrote headline, idiot approved it. Idiocy all around.
 
2013-01-09 06:50:35 PM
The cited court case refers to some being denied entry on a temporary non-immigrant visa

Does this apply to somebody already living within the country on a permanent basis? Presumably, Piers Morgan has a permanent immigrant status.
 
2013-01-09 06:51:10 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: So this deportation thing is real, not a joke?


Yes. It's totally real. Like totally.
 
2013-01-09 06:53:00 PM
Damn ferriners are takin' our JERBS!
 
2013-01-09 06:53:03 PM
I think we can all agree that not letting someone into a country for their views is different to punishing someone inside the country for holding specific views.

2 wholly different situations
 
2013-01-09 06:53:05 PM

1000 Ways to Dye: The cited court case refers to some being denied entry on a temporary non-immigrant visa


Yes, but the reason to deny it was because of the political opinions of the journalist.
 
2013-01-09 06:53:52 PM
Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.
 
2013-01-09 06:54:30 PM

Although at this point, I'd be more comfortable keeping Piers here in America but deporting Alex Jones to Zimbabwe.


img706.imageshack.us

 
2013-01-09 06:54:33 PM

nigeman: I think we can all agree that not letting someone into a country for their views is different to punishing someone inside the country for holding specific views.

2 wholly different situations


Same effect really. "You have the wrong opinions, so you aren't allowed in this country." It's pretty farked up.
 
2013-01-09 06:56:01 PM
WAAAAAH!

THE GUY THAT TALKS FUNNY SAID SOMETHING WE DON'T LIKE!

MAKE HIM GO AWAY
!

WAAAAAAH!
 
2013-01-09 06:57:10 PM
This coming from the people who holler about being "silenced" by the media?
 
2013-01-09 06:57:42 PM
It's on the internet! It must be true!
 
2013-01-09 06:57:54 PM
"Your opinion is protected, your presence in the U.S. is not. See Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972)," Taranto replied to Morgan.

/true that. Just because you have something to say, doesn't mean you have the right to come in. Facts are facts. You can argue the "spirit" of the law all day.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:57 PM
This is... Faux News.
 
2013-01-09 07:00:28 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?


He probably thinks it is pretty dated as well? No one is alive from that time and so I don't think Brits really give a toss anymore.
Americans (Conservatives) seem to always have something to say about everyone elses politics. This is the problem. Republicans can only dish it, they can't take it. Babies.
 
2013-01-09 07:00:29 PM
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it now SHUT UP and GTFO!"
 
2013-01-09 07:01:39 PM
Save a seat for Simon Cowell on this deportation plane.
 
2013-01-09 07:04:07 PM
Some day The Daily Caller will be right about something, right?

/any day now, tards
 
2013-01-09 07:04:29 PM

duffblue: When we get rid of the 2nd amendment we can work on repealing those pesky 1st and 4th ones.


You forgot the 5th amendment has to go, can't let those criminals get away with not confessing their crimes, and who needs juries, anyhow?
 
2013-01-09 07:06:08 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: So this deportation thing is real, not a joke?

Republicans are stupider than I thought.


I find your lack of lack of faith disturbing.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:06 PM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.


Wow, I hope your joking.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:13 PM
Also, if Piers Morgan has a green card, which he probably does if he's working in the US, that ruling doesn't affect him. He has as much legal right to live in the United States as a citizen, the only difference being that that can be taken away in the event that he commits certain types of crime or leaves the country for a long period of time.

The ruling only applies to applications for entry, not people who already have permanent resident status.

/side note: I learned something I didn't know looking that up. Must notify USCIS of change of address within 10 days of moving. That... could be kind of useful to know for me. Yikes.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:38 PM

edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.

 
2013-01-09 07:09:49 PM

OtherLittleGuy: But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?


The law that the cite blocked a journalist from being allowed in the country. Which (while despicable) is not the same as deportation. Thia argument that Morgan can be deported is based more on truthiness than anything else as far as I can see.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:29 PM

Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.


Shot to death perhaps, however.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:31 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?


I'm sure the Brits are long over it. It was a few hundred years ago. My ex wife can hold a grudge like no one I've ever seen but a few hundred years is beyond even her capacity. Americans are no longer the upstart bootstrappy folks they envision themselves to be for the most part. There is entrepreneurial spirit all over the globe. It is not a uniquely American trait as some believe.

People have opinions. Americans hold the right to free speech as sacred from what I can tell. If I look at some of the supporting documents surrounding your independence a phrase comes to mind and that is "all men are created equal". It does not say American men. It says all. No country specified.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:47 PM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones


Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com
 
2013-01-09 07:12:23 PM

SpeedyBB: Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.

Shot to death perhaps, however.


Do it or shut up, tough guy.
 
2013-01-09 07:13:10 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.


Our Republican friends were perfectly comfortable weighing in on when it's time for regime change in Iraq.
 
2013-01-09 07:13:19 PM

DemonEater: Also, if Piers Morgan has a green card, which he probably does if he's working in the US, that ruling doesn't affect him. He has as much legal right to live in the United States as a citizen, the only difference being that that can be taken away in the event that he commits certain types of crime or leaves the country for a long period of time.


Don't tell jigger, it will give him a sad that he's a passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be.
 
2013-01-09 07:14:19 PM
Yeah, no. There's a huge chasm between saying the First Amendment requires the government to do something optional, such as letting an alien enter the country, vs. saying that it prevents the government from taking action against someone who's here.

If Morgan has permanent status, nothing he says that any American could say can get him kicked out. If he doesn't have permanent status, he's good till his visa expires. Then, well...
 
2013-01-09 07:14:30 PM
The Brits have no problem dealing with people who say things they don't like.

www.playscripts.com
 
2013-01-09 07:14:55 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.


Something tells me that you don't have the same problem when Mark Steyn talks about the Constitution, or people who have never left Davenport, IA fret over "Eurabia".
 
2013-01-09 07:15:47 PM
Funny how a Rupert Murdoch disciple is so completely embraced by the same Farkers who biatch about Fox.
 
2013-01-09 07:15:52 PM
The First Amendment doesn't protect him if he commits a crime, even if he uses speech to do it, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't done anything illegal. I have no kind words for the man's opinions and motives, but while he is wrong, he hasn't done wrong. Ergo, no grounds for deportation.
 
2013-01-09 07:16:59 PM

BSABSVR: SpeedyBB: Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.

Shot to death perhaps, however.

Do it or shut up, tough guy.


Seriously? From you? Sir.

*looks askance*

*)
 
2013-01-09 07:17:37 PM

Indubitably: BSABSVR: SpeedyBB: Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.

Shot to death perhaps, however.

Do it or shut up, tough guy.

Seriously? From you? Sir.

*looks askance*

*)


P.S. *arms akimbo*
 
2013-01-09 07:17:46 PM

DemonEater:

/side note: I learned something I didn't know looking that up. Must notify USCIS of change of address within 10 days of moving. That... could be kind of useful to know for me. Yikes.


For resident aliens/green card holders, I assume?
 
2013-01-09 07:18:35 PM

duffblue: When we get rid of the 2nd amendment we can work on repealing those pesky 1st and 4th ones.


Yes, it will definitely speed up that whole process.

We'll all be doubleplusgood subjects then.
 
2013-01-09 07:19:07 PM
Please don't send him back. Please, I beg you.
 
2013-01-09 07:19:19 PM
While Alex Jones is kind of a kook he had a lot of points that someone should have brought up to Piers a long time ago. Mexico is a gun free country and they have 50-60 thousand deaths a year from guns. Every day Piers goes to work he passes a security desk. Doesn't he wonder what that big gun looking thing is on their hip?
 
2013-01-09 07:20:16 PM
1. American laws apply to Americans
2. Of course he's not going to be deported, it was a stupid publicity stunt.
 
2013-01-09 07:22:55 PM
There is a difference, the DC is using the wrong issue. In that case the journalist was denied entry into the US which is different than deportation. In order to be deported, he would have to be in violation of his visa. To the best of my knowledge what he is currently doing is not a violation of the J visa.

Worked for INS back when it was INS
 
2013-01-09 07:25:03 PM

BSABSVR: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones

Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com


I'm an advocate for the 2nd Amendment. It is an essential part of our freedom to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

What I'm NOT an advocate is allowing private citizens to own an arsenal of whatever ordinance they can get their hands on. "2nd amendment advocates" seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.
 
2013-01-09 07:25:12 PM
Who said anything about the first amendment protecting people from deporation. It's the other parts. see "bill of attainder"
 
2013-01-09 07:29:26 PM

BSABSVR: OtherLittleGuy: But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?

The law that the cite blocked a journalist from being allowed in the country. Which (while despicable) is not the same as deportation. Thia argument that Morgan can be deported is based more on truthiness than anything else as far as I can see.


Kleindienst v. Mandel should still apply.

"In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien."

As an alien, Morgan can be excluded (deported) for acts of subversion. Arguably, advocating for abrogation of the Constitution is a subversive act.
 
2013-01-09 07:30:39 PM

Agatha Crispy: Funny how a Rupert Murdoch disciple is so completely embraced by the same Farkers who biatch about Fox.


How does a human paraquat like that get caught as a journalist hacking voicemails and then run to the U.S. and get the plum job at CNN? This in a profession where plagiarism will supposedly get you blacklisted for life.
 
2013-01-09 07:31:50 PM

The Lone Gunman: BSABSVR: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones

Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com

I'm an advocate for the 2nd Amendment. It is an essential part of our freedom to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

What I'm NOT an advocate is allowing private citizens to own an arsenal of whatever ordinance they can get their hands on. "2nd amendment advocates" seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.


Can you explain what you think is a reasonable arsenal for a private citizen to own?


Also, the word you're looking for is ordnance.
 
2013-01-09 07:32:07 PM
Of course... He stole a job from a hard working American journalist, it should have gone to a Peter Jennings type.

Okay, I don't know anymore journalists.
 
2013-01-09 07:33:51 PM
Please don't send him back, keep jones too. We don't want those farkers.
 
2013-01-09 07:34:04 PM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.


Yes, you're going to hold them off with your popgun-show firepower, against their CBW and attack choppers and thermonuclear devices and three-million-strong slave army.

Good luck with that.
 
2013-01-09 07:34:55 PM
The white house's comments on the issue didn't say the 1st amendment protected him from anything, it said that freedom of speech and the press are pretty damn important to this country.

To those 100k+ people who signed this petition, stop trying to get someone you disagree with thrown out of the country you fascists.

For a bunch of people who distrust the government so much, I fail to understand why they need the govt to solve a problem they could solve themselves by simply turning the channel. But the hate takes over I guess.
 
2013-01-09 07:35:00 PM

This text is now purple: BSABSVR: OtherLittleGuy: But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?

The law that the cite blocked a journalist from being allowed in the country. Which (while despicable) is not the same as deportation. Thia argument that Morgan can be deported is based more on truthiness than anything else as far as I can see.

Kleindienst v. Mandel should still apply.

"In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien."

As an alien, Morgan can be excluded (deported) for acts of subversion. Arguably, advocating for abrogation of the Constitution is a subversive act.


Piers Morgan is not arguing for "abrogation of the Constitution".  He is calling for restrictions on the right to bear arms (and remember that it's not certain that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is truly intended to protect the rights of individuals to own guns)  He is no more "abrogating the Constitution" than he would be if he argued in favor of libel law.

But HERR DURR HERP A DERP TRAITOR AND FERRNER
 
2013-01-09 07:35:07 PM
I think the actual point is that Piers Morgan saying things or having an opinion that people dislike is not, by itself, grounds to have him deported.
 
2013-01-09 07:35:09 PM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.


While the idea was protection from an intrusive government, that approach really no longer applies. The American military is so ridiculously advanced that Billy and Frank's rifle collection isn't going to protect them from anything. The only would be that troops would refuse to turn on their fellow countrymen, but even then you only need skeleton crew to take down even thousands of revolting citizens. When the law was written, the competition was basically fair between the soldier and the citizen, except perhaps for being outnumbered.

Now personal protection from intruders, wildlife, etc still makes sense. But don't point to gun rights as being necessary to a free state in 2013. The fed will simply drone strike your ass while drinking the morning coffee. Then they'll send a tank just to be sure. Conservatives are the ones always clamoring for a huge, bloated military, so they shouldn't be surprised at the results if they ever tried to take it on.

Also, your remark about there being a dearth of 2nd Amendment advocates is without a doubt the most asstarded thing I've read here today.
 
2013-01-09 07:35:40 PM

Millennium: The First Amendment doesn't protect him if he commits a crime, even if he uses speech to do it, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't done anything illegal. I have no kind words for the man's opinions and motives, but while he is wrong, he hasn't done wrong. Ergo, no grounds for deportation.


He hasn't done anything the British can mount sufficient evidence to charge him, yet. Hopefully something with more evidence than the Leveson Report comes along.

Murdoch, Morgan, and Brooks should be rotting in a British prison.
 
2013-01-09 07:42:42 PM

BSABSVR: SpeedyBB: Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.

Shot to death perhaps, however.

Do it or shut up, tough guy.


It's tempting...

But not for a silly TeeVee reporter. Many, many more deserving than this dude.

/ Waiting for a disgusted Pentagon to surround Congress and scare those cowardly millionaires into action. Think Curtis LeMay, Alexandra Haig.

// Pres takes a powder back to Kenya.

/// Sells Air Force One to the Somalis.
 
2013-01-09 07:43:01 PM
Every gang banger up from Juarez can run around shooting up East LA without a concern they could get deported back to Old Mexico. Meanwhile some Brit who likes to shoot off nothing more than his mouth has the entirety of the gun toting moron public demand he be deported. Which of these is the greater danger to American society? You can't write shiat like this up.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:14 PM

tyrajam: American laws apply to Americans


This isn't about laws, this is about the Constitution. The Constitution does not apply to Americans, it applies to the government. This is a critical distinction. The Constitution, since it applies specifically to the gov't, affects anybody who is subject to the jurisdiction of the gov't. Citizen, non-citizen, whatever, it matters not at all.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:20 PM
The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?
 
2013-01-09 07:46:37 PM
Why can't we see the petition as a sardonic publicity play and leave it at that?
 
2013-01-09 07:46:55 PM

IBelieveYouHaveMyStapler: While Alex Jones is kind of a kook he had a lot of points that someone should have brought up to Piers a long time ago. Mexico is a gun free country and they have 50-60 thousand deaths a year from guns. Every day Piers goes to work he passes a security desk. Doesn't he wonder what that big gun looking thing is on their hip?


Mexico is also a violent nation, culturally. Stats in other, less violence-prone nations (like Japan) are drastically less. The problem, as so many of us have been saying, is a combination of the inaccessibility to free or affordable mental health care, and the culture itself. That's why while any sort of gun ban can't really hurt, it's unlikely to have any measurable impact in a country like the USA.

However, Biden summarized it nicely by saying (paraphrased), "Just because we can't fix everything doesn't mean we're going to do nothing at all." I think that's a good approach and an acknowledgment that America is far, far too gone to actually rid ourselves of all gun violence.
 
2013-01-09 07:51:02 PM
Why anyone would pay attention to the opinion of Piers Morgan, "journalist", utterly escapes me.

/He is in reality, Ed Anger
//obscure?
 
2013-01-09 07:51:38 PM
Is there a petition to have Piers Morgan punched in the face by Clarkson on national TV?

/He is not helping with the gun control argument both because he is not American and because he can have a cock-like nature.
 
2013-01-09 07:56:39 PM
To deport
 
2013-01-09 07:57:06 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?


Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"
 
2013-01-09 07:57:47 PM
I think we should deport ALL angry, stupid, and well-paid people.
 
2013-01-09 07:58:46 PM

Indubitably: To deport


To meet quota
 
2013-01-09 07:59:13 PM

Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"


P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?
 
2013-01-09 07:59:39 PM

Indubitably: I think we should deport ALL angry, stupid, and well-paid people.


That's a farking excellent proposal.
 
2013-01-09 08:00:53 PM

Indubitably: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?


I'm not the author.
 
2013-01-09 08:01:05 PM

El_Perro: White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a factually incorrect response Wednesday to the White House petition to deport British-born CNN host Piers Morgan, wrongly claiming that Morgan, who has launched repeated televised attacks on the Second Amendment, is protected from deportation by the First Amendment.

"Let's not let arguments over the Constitution's Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First," Carney wrote in response to the petition, which has collected more than 100,000 signatures from patriotic Americans.

While the First Amendment may not, as a technical legal matter, prohibit the Federal Government from deporting a foreign journalist based on the journalist's views, the spirit of the First Amendment certainly weighs against such a deportation.  Nothing "factually incorrect" about Carney's response.


So the Libtards actually believe The Constitution is dead, and a ghost. I get it. He's black.
 
2013-01-09 08:05:52 PM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns?


Lawyers?

Cuz that's who is doing it now.
 
2013-01-09 08:07:52 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?


Uh, you realise that a lot of your country's constitution was drawn up by Britons right? And that they drew on the history of the Bill of Rights (1689), Magna Carta and so on?

They condensed several hundred years of tradition into a single document.

You are free to defend Alex Jones, but, on his performance in that interview, don't expect a lot of support. The man is farking insane.

And it's the only time that Piers Morgan has ever come across as being the better man.
 
2013-01-09 08:10:23 PM

Rambino: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns?

Lawyers?

Cuz that's who is doing it now.


The First Amendment (and for that matter, the Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, among others) has done far more to protect us from tyranny than the Second has.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:02 PM
THAT CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION!

There is a huge difference between entry and deportation. A potential alien can be denied entry at any time for any reason. There is no due process.

Once an alien has gained entry and remains in the United States, that alien DOES have some due process. I can't tell you whether he still has full first amendment protections, but that's not at issue here. What is at issue is that they have used a completely inapposite case.

I will say this: If Piers Morgan leaves the country and tries to enter again, he could be excluded from entry for what he has said. He better not take a vacation to Britain any time soon.
 
2013-01-09 08:19:15 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?


Guess that your constitution doesn't hold up to outside scrutiny...
 
2013-01-09 08:21:23 PM

Wangiss: edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.

Like the right to vote?


Yep, if you are eligible. What is your point?
 
2013-01-09 08:24:48 PM

The Lone Gunman: BSABSVR: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones

Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com

I'm an advocate for the 2nd Amendment. It is an essential part of our freedom to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

What I'm NOT an advocate is allowing private citizens to own an arsenal of whatever ordinance they can get their hands on. "2nd amendment advocates" seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.


Yes.
 
2013-01-09 08:24:48 PM

jigger: 1000 Ways to Dye: The cited court case refers to some being denied entry on a temporary non-immigrant visa

Yes, but the reason to deny it was because of the political opinions of the journalist.


Which still has nothing to do with this situation.
 
2013-01-09 08:27:49 PM

jake_lex: Rambino: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns?

Lawyers?

Cuz that's who is doing it now.

The First Amendment (and for that matter, the Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, among others) has done far more to protect us from tyranny than the Second has.


You are presuming that, given a choice between violence and spending time in court, big business and the government would always choose the less lethal option.

The Homestead Strike, The Battle of Matewan, and the Battle of Blair mountain suggest otherwise.
There is a pretty lengthy history of organized violence in the US simply because force is cheaper than negotiation... or so it seems, up until the people you tried to push around start shooting back. Then things get messy and you start to hemorrhage real money.

The threat of escalation is what keeps people negotiating in the courtroom, not just the words on paper.
 
2013-01-09 08:31:44 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Big macho gun guys want the bad man to go away?

Man up, pussies.


So we should just shoot him instead?
 
2013-01-09 08:34:45 PM

chumboobler: ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?

I'm sure the Brits are long over it. It was a few hundred years ago. My ex wife can hold a grudge like no one I've ever seen but a few hundred years is beyond even her capacity. Americans are no longer the upstart bootstrappy folks they envision themselves to be for the most part. There is entrepreneurial spirit all over the globe. It is not a uniquely American trait as some believe.

People have opinions. Americans hold the right to free speech as sacred from what I can tell. If I look at some of the supporting documents surrounding your independence a phrase comes to mind and that is "all men are created equal". It does not say American men. It says all. No country specified.


Yeah, well, they pretty much turffed that concept. See, despite the almost godlike reverence they have for some of their founding fathers, the declaration doesn't have force of law.
 
2013-01-09 08:39:12 PM

Ennuipoet: GAT_00: For people who celebrate your right to say whatever you want, Republicans seem quite intent on making sure Piers Morgan is denied any ability to speak to the American people.

They only recognize that particular right when the speaker is saying something they agree with.


What happened to the author of that youtube video?

Which party is fighting to take away the right to buy political ads from corporations, and individuals like sheldin adleson, but not unions?

Which party has the habit of storming stages or throwing pies at speakers they disagree with?
 
2013-01-09 08:41:37 PM

IBelieveYouHaveMyStapler: While Alex Jones is kind of a kook he had a lot of points that someone should have brought up to Piers a long time ago. Mexico is a gun free country and they have 50-60 thousand deaths a year from guns. Every day Piers goes to work he passes a security desk. Doesn't he wonder what that big gun looking thing is on their hip?


Mexico is a gun free country? Are you insane? Yeah, they have laws to that effect, but their rule of law broke down a long time ago. Protip* Had to do with corruption and money, not their laws.
 
2013-01-09 08:42:30 PM
Pierced Organ
 
2013-01-09 08:42:51 PM

Mike_1962: chumboobler: ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?

I'm sure the Brits are long over it. It was a few hundred years ago. My ex wife can hold a grudge like no one I've ever seen but a few hundred years is beyond even her capacity. Americans are no longer the upstart bootstrappy folks they envision themselves to be for the most part. There is entrepreneurial spirit all over the globe. It is not a uniquely American trait as some believe.

People have opinions. Americans hold the right to free speech as sacred from what I can tell. If I look at some of the supporting documents surrounding your independence a phrase comes to mind and that is "all men are created equal". It does not say American men. It says all. No country specified.

Yeah, well, they pretty much turffed that concept. See, despite the almost godlike reverence they have for some of their founding fathers, the declaration doesn't have force of law.


No it does not have the force of law. It does however, capture the spirit of things. If you adamantly revere the founding fathers thoughts within the constitution then you must respect their other work as well. It may not have binding effects like the constitution but these infallible gentlemen must be given their due. Not every American but all men. And that must mean that all men, if created equally, as the founding fathers say they are, can expect the protection that the constitution affords. This includes brits working in the USA. Free speech is not a sometimes thing. It is a right for all regardless of nation. Even if their own nations don't recognize it. If you do not believe that then you believe that governments can decide arbitrarily what we may view as a right.
 
2013-01-09 08:43:38 PM

The Lone Gunman: BSABSVR: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones

Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com

I'm an advocate for the 2nd Amendment. It is an essential part of our freedom to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

What I'm NOT an advocate is allowing private citizens to own an arsenal of whatever ordinance they can get their hands on. "2nd amendment advocates" seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.


This I can support.
 
2013-01-09 08:44:29 PM

tyrajam: 1. American laws apply to Americans
2. Of course he's not going to be deported, it was a stupid publicity stunt.


No. American laws apply to Americans and people in the USA. Americans can get in trouble for laws broken overseas, but they also apply equally to everyone in the country.
 
2013-01-09 08:47:53 PM

This text is now purple: BSABSVR: OtherLittleGuy: But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?

The law that the cite blocked a journalist from being allowed in the country. Which (while despicable) is not the same as deportation. Thia argument that Morgan can be deported is based more on truthiness than anything else as far as I can see.

Kleindienst v. Mandel should still apply.

"In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien."

As an alien, Morgan can be excluded (deported) for acts of subversion. Arguably, advocating for abrogation of the Constitution is a subversive act.


Arguable at a stretch maybe. He however explicitly mentioned his support for the 2nd amendment but objected to the popular interpretation of it.
 
2013-01-09 08:48:02 PM

Mike_1962: Wangiss: edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.

Like the right to vote?

Yep, if you are eligible. What is your point?


My point is that "all within the country" are not eligible for all constitutional rights.
 
2013-01-09 08:48:49 PM
Ah yes, another bunch of neandrethal wingnuts who can't grasp the concept of turning the channel if they don't like what they're watching.
 
2013-01-09 08:50:22 PM

Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?

I'm not the author.


And, Who is?
 
2013-01-09 08:50:57 PM

Wardrobe_Malfunction: Ah yes, another bunch of neandrethal wingnuts who can't grasp the concept of turning the channel if they don't like what they're watching.

To wingnut

 
2013-01-09 08:53:43 PM

Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"


Wow. That's a stretch...
 
2013-01-09 08:59:16 PM
Today I finally watched the segment where Jones and Morgan went at it.

What a hoot!

Morgan kept asking Jones if he knew how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in the UK in 2011 - flustering Jones.

Of course Jones' proper response would have been to ask Morgan how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in United States PRISONS in 2011.

Too slow.
 
2013-01-09 09:00:58 PM
Denying a visa isn't the same is deporting someone who already has one, without any legal justification.

I don't know what kind of powers the executive has to deport people who haven't broken any laws, but going after one guy like that sounds like a bill of attainder.
 
2013-01-09 09:03:55 PM

chumboobler: Mike_1962: chumboobler: ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?

I'm sure the Brits are long over it. It was a few hundred years ago. My ex wife can hold a grudge like no one I've ever seen but a few hundred years is beyond even her capacity. Americans are no longer the upstart bootstrappy folks they envision themselves to be for the most part. There is entrepreneurial spirit all over the globe. It is not a uniquely American trait as some believe.

People have opinions. Americans hold the right to free speech as sacred from what I can tell. If I look at some of the supporting documents surrounding your independence a phrase comes to mind and that is "all men are created equal". It does not say American men. It says all. No country specified.

Yeah, well, they pretty much turffed that concept. See, despite the almost godlike reverence they have for some of their founding fathers, the declaration doesn't have force of law.

No it does not have the force of law. It does however, capture the spirit of things. If you adamantly revere the founding fathers thoughts within the constitution then you must respect their other work as well. It may not have binding effects like the constitution but these infallible gentlemen must be given their due. Not every American but all men. And that must mean that all men, if created equally, as the founding fathers say they are, can expect the protection that the constitution affords. This includes brits working in the USA. Free speech is not a sometimes thing. It is a right for all regardless of nation. Even if their own nations don't recognize it. If you do not believe that then you believe that governments can decide arbitrarily what we may view as a right.


Infallible gentlemen? With all due respect (and the respect due is tremendous) they were not infallible and I suspect would be horrified to be so considered.
 
2013-01-09 09:04:49 PM
Question: If we abandon the Second, how should we expect to defend any other "right" that we may pretend to have?

Strongly worded letters?

Or have we already surrendered to the idea that we are subject to the whim of whoever happens to be in power, and reduced to praying to the invisible almighty that they don't treat us too badly?
 
2013-01-09 09:09:23 PM

Amos Quito: Today I finally watched the segment where Jones and Morgan went at it.

What a hoot!

Morgan kept asking Jones if he knew how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in the UK in 2011 - flustering Jones.

Of course Jones' proper response would have been to ask Morgan how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in United States PRISONS in 2011.

Too slow.


No doubt that figure would show that there's not much gun violence in places where only law enforcement is allowed to have guns, but I'm not sure that would've been helpful to Jones' argument.
 
2013-01-09 09:11:58 PM

IBelieveYouHaveMyStapler: While Alex Jones is kind of a kook he had a lot of points that someone should have brought up to Piers a long time ago. Mexico is a gun free country and they have 50-60 thousand deaths a year from guns. Every day Piers goes to work he passes a security desk. Doesn't he wonder what that big gun looking thing is on their hip?


Kind of? Alex Jones conspiracy theories:

1. 9/11 was an inside job.
2.. Obama is putting female hormones in the water supply to make children gay.
3. Sandy Hook might've been a hoax.
 
2013-01-09 09:13:23 PM

Mike_1962: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

Wow. That's a stretch...


Stretching is good for the circulation.
 
2013-01-09 09:13:29 PM

Amos Quito: Today I finally watched the segment where Jones and Morgan went at it.

What a hoot!

Morgan kept asking Jones if he knew how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in the UK in 2011 - flustering Jones.

Of course Jones' proper response would have been to ask Morgan how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in United States PRISONS in 2011.

Too slow.


Really, they both need to be deported. I don't care where. Actually I do, somewhere they cant get on my TV. And I even agree with Jones about some things.

btw, alternately, he could have asked Morgan how many murders were committed in the UK before and after their gun ban, and if it had any effect on the crime rate.
 
2013-01-09 09:13:41 PM

wildcardjack: Of course... He stole a job from a hard working American journalist, it should have gone to a Peter Jennings type.

Okay, I don't know anymore journalists.


Peter Jennings being Canadian. And dead.
 
2013-01-09 09:14:07 PM

Indubitably: Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?

I'm not the author.

And, Who is?


It was somewhere near the by line, I think.
 
2013-01-09 09:23:46 PM
For those folks who wish to believe not being a US citizen denies you constitutional protections once you have been given permission to enter the country, please refer to the ever popular 14th amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So even if he is a limey who was given permission to visit, he's on US Soil with US Laws. I know republicans have issues with the 14th since it keeps them from doing things to people because they are brown or a woman or what ever their hate fixation for the week is.

Want to prove how bad ass America is? Look at the mouthy limey, exercise your 1st ammendment rights, and go "meh, you nanny state folks forgot how to be responsible..." and go about your life as if he didn't matter.

Why? Because he doesn't... non citizen, can't vote, can't change the outcome of an election unless you let him persuade you to vote differently.  Oh, and to all of the vet's who are crying for his blood, remember you put you hand on the book and swore
"...To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America..." and this included all of the Amendments even the less popular ones or the less poplar people. You are the thin line that insure the many do not oppress the few for what is popular may not be what is right.

//Is the flag hanging at the right height behind me with he eagle flying?
 
2013-01-09 09:26:55 PM
You might want to read that part again.
 
2013-01-09 09:33:27 PM
Alex Jones: Bloomberg's undercover cops are trying to assassinate me because I debated Piers Morgan

Link
 
2013-01-09 09:34:25 PM

Mike_1962: ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?

Guess that your constitution doesn't hold up to outside scrutiny...


If it holds up to centuries of bickering and infighting like this shiat, it can hold up just fine to anything some foreigner can throw at it.
 
2013-01-09 09:36:39 PM

Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?

I'm not the author.

And, Who is?

It was somewhere near the by line, I think.


Your line?
 
2013-01-09 09:39:38 PM

OscarTamerz: The Brits have no problem dealing with people who say things they don't like.

[www.playscripts.com image 250x363]


Tommy Smothers is from England?
 
2013-01-09 09:40:51 PM

Indubitably: Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?

I'm not the author.

And, Who is?

It was somewhere near the by line, I think.

Your line?


I don't give out my number on the Internet.
 
2013-01-09 09:43:02 PM

Infobahn: wildcardjack: Of course... He stole a job from a hard working American journalist, it should have gone to a Peter Jennings type.

Okay, I don't know anymore journalists.

Peter Jennings being Canadian. And dead.


The Canadian part was the joke. I didn't know about the dead part.
 
2013-01-09 10:00:36 PM

Osomatic: Amos Quito: Today I finally watched the segment where Jones and Morgan went at it.

What a hoot!

Morgan kept asking Jones if he knew how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in the UK in 2011 - flustering Jones.

Of course Jones' proper response would have been to ask Morgan how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in United States PRISONS in 2011.

Too slow.

No doubt that figure would show that there's not much gun violence in places where only law enforcement is allowed to have guns, but I'm not sure that would've been helpful to Jones' argument.



Surprisingly, it seems that Jones' argument was quite valid. In the segment he referred to a Telegraph article regarding the extremely high VIOLENT (not gun) CRIME RATE in the UK;

This must be the one:

QUOTE:

"The total number of violent offences [in Britain] recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

[...]

"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So "Safe, sensible gun-free Britain" has an overall violent crime rate that is 4.3 times HIGHER than scary, irrational gun-laden America. And this is the example that Morgan wants us to follow?

Deportation or none, I suggest that Morgan hightail his quivering, tea-sipping, limey ass back to the UK.

And he might want to take a few guns along - "for protection, you know".
 
2013-01-09 10:00:39 PM

ITGreen: I love listening to British people weigh in on our Constitution.  I wonder how he feels about the Declaration of Independence?


Believe it or not, they've gotten over all that.
 
2013-01-09 10:02:35 PM

Wayne 985: Alex Jones: Bloomberg's undercover cops are trying to assassinate me because I debated Piers Morgan

Link



That's a LIE.

Bloomberg is only trying to assassinate the promoters of BIG SODAS.
 
2013-01-09 10:06:06 PM
I doubt if a journalist could be deported without cause, and by expressing opinions on the Second Amendment he has not violated US law, and therefore has not given just cause for deportation, which is a punishment. How can you punish him for exercising his free speech rights without ipso facto violating his free speech rights?

On the other hand, the precident cited could be overturned for this reason or any other.

For starters, depriving a journalist of a Visa to enter the US might not violate his free speech rights (if they are guaranteed abroad), but it does violate his right to free association and especially so if the journalist is already in the USA legally and is legally in contact with sources of information vital to his exercise of his free speech, free association, etc.

Either way, deporting a journalist for speaking freely on a matter of great national importance is not kosher, whatever any court might say. It is anti-democratic, anti-political rights, and unAmerican some might say. It violates the spirit of American freedoms, if not the letter, and the spirit is far more important than the nit-picking legalistic letter for ensuring freedom. As Scriptures say, "the spirit edifyeth and the letter killeth"--and that's a commentary on The Law (of God, aka The Torah), not just law. How's that for a legal precedent that would tie many conservative Christians in knots? I call this type of Christian "Old Testament Christians" because they prefer the legalism and cruelty of The Hebraic Law to the mercy and justice of The Holy Spirit, for example, when it comes to the treatment of women, children, slaves, homosexuals, strangers, Unbelievers, etc.

The spirt of Scriptures, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution may very well forbid many things that conservatives approve and approve many things conservatives reject. The First and Second Amendments are two well-known and well-tested examples, and they have yet to be turned into their exact opposites as so many conservatives wish.
 
2013-01-09 10:10:25 PM
Following with consistency my policy of not giving a shiat of homos like Piers Morgan, I had no idea the farking pile of dick was British. Now I hate him even more.


GTFO OF MY COUNTRY HOMO
 
2013-01-09 10:18:58 PM

brantgoose: I doubt if a journalist could be deported without cause, and by expressing opinions on the Second Amendment he has not violated US law, and therefore has not given just cause for deportation, which is a punishment. How can you punish him for exercising his free speech rights without ipso facto violating his free speech rights?

On the other hand, the precident cited could be overturned for this reason or any other.

For starters, depriving a journalist of a Visa to enter the US might not violate his free speech rights (if they are guaranteed abroad), but it does violate his right to free association and especially so if the journalist is already in the USA legally and is legally in contact with sources of information vital to his exercise of his free speech, free association, etc.

Either way, deporting a journalist for speaking freely on a matter of great national importance is not kosher, whatever any court might say. It is anti-democratic, anti-political rights, and unAmerican some might say. It violates the spirit of American freedoms, if not the letter, and the spirit is far more important than the nit-picking legalistic letter for ensuring freedom. As Scriptures say, "the spirit edifyeth and the letter killeth"--and that's a commentary on The Law (of God, aka The Torah), not just law. How's that for a legal precedent that would tie many conservative Christians in knots? I call this type of Christian "Old Testament Christians" because they prefer the legalism and cruelty of The Hebraic Law to the mercy and justice of The Holy Spirit, for example, when it comes to the treatment of women, children, slaves, homosexuals, strangers, Unbelievers, etc.

The spirt of Scriptures, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution may very well forbid many things that conservatives approve and approve many things conservatives reject. The First and Second Amendments are two well-known and well-tested examples, and they have yet to be turned into their exact opposites as so many conservatives wish.


despite the fact that real journalism has been dieing/dead in this country for the last 20 years, that you consider piers a journalist is comical. hes a talking head to stir up bs same as hannity.
 
2013-01-09 10:27:23 PM

Agatha Crispy: Funny how a Rupert Murdoch disciple is so completely embraced by the same Farkers who biatch about Fox.


I don't see any real evidence that Morgan is being embraced by Farkers who biatch about Fox News. We're just supporting his right to say what he wants without governmental interference. Governmental interference is exactly what these petitioners are asking for.

Before the kerfuffle I was peripherally aware that there was a talking head named Piers Morgan. But that's about all I knew. I really don't care enough about pundits to keep track of who's who.

Now I'm aware that there is a talking head named Piers Morgan who works at CNN who said something about gun violence. Also some of the people who claim they want less government intrusion are asking for the government to become more intrusive because of something someone said.

I still don't know much of anything about Morgan, but I will speak up in defense of his right to say what he thinks.
 
2013-01-09 10:35:53 PM

Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: Indubitably: Wangiss: HellRaisingHoosier: The Bill of Rights applies to anyone on United States soil, yea?

Like invading armies?
"You're under arrest!"

P.S. Your song in the other thread set to "Isn't It Ironic?" needed serious work, man. Did you just shoot that out of yer ass?

I'm not the author.

And, Who is?

It was somewhere near the by line, I think.

Your line?

I don't give out my number on the Internet.


I never wanted it...

To speak
 
2013-01-09 10:35:59 PM

Philbb: Agatha Crispy: Funny how a Rupert Murdoch disciple is so completely embraced by the same Farkers who biatch about Fox.

I don't see any real evidence that Morgan is being embraced by Farkers who biatch about Fox News. We're just supporting his right to say what he wants without governmental interference. Governmental interference is exactly what these petitioners are asking for.

Before the kerfuffle I was peripherally aware that there was a talking head named Piers Morgan. But that's about all I knew. I really don't care enough about pundits to keep track of who's who.

Now I'm aware that there is a talking head named Piers Morgan who works at CNN who said something about gun violence. Also some of the people who claim they want less government intrusion are asking for the government to become more intrusive because of something someone said.

I still don't know much of anything about Morgan, but I will speak up in defense of his right to say what he thinks.



Hear here, provided that others have the opportunity to expose him for the lying, agenda-driven asshat that he demonstrably is.
 
2013-01-09 10:40:28 PM

HappyGryphon: Why? Because he doesn't... non citizen, can't vote, can't change the outcome of an election unless you let him persuade you to vote differently.


What's hilarious is that as a permanent resident, I can contribute to political campaigns just fine, and can volunteer for them - in other words, I could (and in 2008, did - I was even part of the effort in Indiana, which only went blue by a narrow margin) go out and try to change the minds of many people who vote, and help to get out the vote, thus causing plenty more votes to be cast for candidates I like.

I just can't vote myself. Which is only one piddly little vote anyway.

Pointing this out to all the people who like to rub my non-citizen status in my face is a lot of fun.
 
2013-01-09 10:41:27 PM
You know who else spoke with a funny British accent and held freedom of speech as a highest ideal?
www.whitehouse.gov
 
2013-01-09 10:43:04 PM

PhilosopherFLX: You know who else spoke with a funny British accent and held freedom of speech as a highest ideal?
[www.whitehouse.gov image 452x255]


To President?
 
2013-01-09 10:44:44 PM

Amos Quito:
QUOTE:

"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So "Safe, sensible gun-free Britain" has an overall violent crime rate that is 4.3 times HIGHER than scary, irrational gun-laden America. And this is the example that Morgan wants us to follow?

Deportation or none, I suggest that Morgan hightail his quivering, tea-sipping, limey ass back to the UK.

And he might want to take a few guns along - "for protection, you know".


Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.
 
2013-01-09 10:47:22 PM

Rambino: Amos Quito:
QUOTE:

"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So "Safe, sensible gun-free Britain" has an overall violent crime rate that is 4.3 times HIGHER than scary, irrational gun-laden America. And this is the example that Morgan wants us to follow?

Deportation or none, I suggest that Morgan hightail his quivering, tea-sipping, limey ass back to the UK.

And he might want to take a few guns along - "for protection, you know".

Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.


Enough!~
 
2013-01-09 10:47:57 PM

Indubitably: Rambino: Amos Quito:
QUOTE:

"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So "Safe, sensible gun-free Britain" has an overall violent crime rate that is 4.3 times HIGHER than scary, irrational gun-laden America. And this is the example that Morgan wants us to follow?

Deportation or none, I suggest that Morgan hightail his quivering, tea-sipping, limey ass back to the UK.

And he might want to take a few guns along - "for protection, you know".

Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.

Enough!~


Next?
 
2013-01-09 10:57:37 PM

Rambino: Amos Quito:
QUOTE:

"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So "Safe, sensible gun-free Britain" has an overall violent crime rate that is 4.3 times HIGHER than scary, irrational gun-laden America. And this is the example that Morgan wants us to follow?

Deportation or none, I suggest that Morgan hightail his quivering, tea-sipping, limey ass back to the UK.

And he might want to take a few guns along - "for protection, you know".


Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.



It is?


/Words
//They mean
///Things
 
2013-01-09 10:59:43 PM
Deportation would shut him up how exactly?
 
2013-01-09 11:15:01 PM

The Lone Gunman: BSABSVR: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones

Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com

I'm an advocate for the 2nd Amendment. It is an essential part of our freedom to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

What I'm NOT an advocate is allowing private citizens to own an arsenal of whatever ordinance they can get their hands on. "2nd amendment advocates" seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.


To be fair--and I know I'm going to catch hell for this--I think the public, in a perfect world, *should* have access to any weapons available. One of the reasons we won the Revolutionary War is because we had the mini-ball and the Brits didn't. Technological advantage.

Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world and just like the first amendment, people have proven that they can't be responsible with the second amendment either. As with everything, the few have really farked it up for the many.
 
2013-01-09 11:16:25 PM
Piers Morgan comes over here then biatches that things are not like they are over there. It has yet to dawn on him why we left in the first place.
 
2013-01-09 11:23:42 PM

Alleyoop: Piers Morgan comes over here then biatches that things are not like they are over there. It has yet to dawn on him why we left in the first place.

To mis-Piers?


I.E. To mis-peer
 
2013-01-09 11:37:58 PM

PhilosopherFLX: You know who else spoke with a funny British accent and held freedom of speech as a highest ideal?
[www.whitehouse.gov image 452x255]


He also held the Second Amendment in as high esteem as the First.

/it's not an a la carte menu people
 
2013-01-10 12:05:32 AM
I came for all the derp, and am leaving satisfied.

/all of you
// yes even you
// and especially you
 
2013-01-10 12:06:52 AM
Piers Moron has always been a douchebag.
 
2013-01-10 12:08:36 AM

OtherLittleGuy: But I thought the First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences.

Didn't he do all this on his company's time?


He did. It's up to his employer to decide if there should be any consequences. It's none of the government's business.
 
2013-01-10 12:08:47 AM

LanceDearnis: Comically missing the point.

The point is to remind people that free speech is as much part of this countries' culture as 'free guns'. In fact, they even point out "SPIRIT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT", not "Constitutional interpretation of it".

Idiots write article, idiot wrote headline, idiot approved it. Idiocy all around.


I approve this comment

/vote for me in 2020
 
2013-01-10 12:12:35 AM

fusillade762: Damn ferriners are takin' our JERBS!


He took Larry King's job. Not much of a loss.
 
2013-01-10 12:23:38 AM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.


How many times have Americans used their Second Amendment rights to defend freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

Not in 1798 when the Sedition Act was passed.
Not in 1830s-50s when the Post Office resfused to deliver Abolitionist literature.
Not in 1918 when a new Sedition Act was passed.
Not in 1919-21 with the first red scare.
Not in 1940 when the Smith Act was passed.
Not in 1950s with McCarthyism and the black lists.
Not in 1954 when the Communist Control Act was passed.

There was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 which George Washington took care of.

American Patriots do occasionally make death threats against libtard journalists who say librul stuff, though.
 
2013-01-10 12:35:02 AM

1000 Ways to Dye: Does this apply to somebody already living within the country on a permanent basis? Presumably, Piers Morgan has a permanent immigrant status.


I'd say the 14th Amendment sort of says if they send Piers Morgan packing, they gotta 86 Mark Steyn too.
 
2013-01-10 01:08:24 AM

Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.


Feels more like...
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-10 01:09:48 AM

edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.


Nope.

Precedent, congress, or executive orders.
 
2013-01-10 01:50:01 AM

Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.


Oh, FFS. This illusion that the kind of arms and ordinance individual Americans (and even the relatively small and undisciplined "militia" that currently exist) could stockpile and effectively use would be of any use in defending against the actual application of the government's military might is incredible. I suppose it gives people comfort to think that they might be able to pick off a soldier or two if it came down to an actual revolution, but your guns are going to be practically inconsequential in any real conflict. The absolute best Americans could hope for is that the military would fragment into rival factions, leading to a civil war, with fingers crossed that neither side decides to indiscriminately target civilians. The Second Amendment is nothing more than false comfort.

Besides, the powerful folks in American society have no real need to use physical force to have their way. They use hegemony to influence policy and public opinion and to quell any serious dissent, while perpetuating a system of periodic elections to give people a sense that there's a popular, representative democracy at work. If you really want to prevent the excesses of an "intrusive government," stop buying guns and start buying books. But you don't really want change. As long as things are "good enough" for you and yours, and you and yours are comfortable enough with your consumer goods and your recreational pursuits, you have no complaints. But as soon as "the government" wants to limit your "inherent right" to do whatever the fark you want whenever the fark you want with no personal repercussions, they're intrusive and oppressive.
 
2013-01-10 01:58:09 AM

duffblue: The Lone Gunman: BSABSVR: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones

Says the guy comenting at gunporndaily.com

I'm an advocate for the 2nd Amendment. It is an essential part of our freedom to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

What I'm NOT an advocate is allowing private citizens to own an arsenal of whatever ordinance they can get their hands on. "2nd amendment advocates" seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.

Can you explain what you think is a reasonable arsenal for a private citizen to own?


Also, the word you're looking for is ordnance.


Honestly, I think one side arm and one long arm should be more than enough. Of course I think ownership should require some training, say a stint in the armed services. Make it compulsory for 18 year olds even. While that's a debate for another topic, it would train prospective owners the proper maintenance, use, and respect for fire arms.
 
2013-01-10 02:29:34 AM

misanthropologist: Mean Daddy: Amazing how many First Amendment advocates are out there, but few Second Amendment ones. Have you ever thought who would ensure the First Amendment rights if there were no guns? Oh that's right Harry Belafonte. It's only for hunting, not to protect us from an overly intrusive gubmint.

Oh, FFS. This illusion that the kind of arms and ordinance individual Americans (and even the relatively small and undisciplined "militia" that currently exist) could stockpile and effectively use would be of any use in defending against the actual application of the government's military might is incredible. I suppose it gives people comfort to think that they might be able to pick off a soldier or two if it came down to an actual revolution, but your guns are going to be practically inconsequential in any real conflict. The absolute best Americans could hope for is that the military would fragment into rival factions, leading to a civil war, with fingers crossed that neither side decides to indiscriminately target civilians. The Second Amendment is nothing more than false comfort.



Then why does the Federal government have a Zombie Task Force? Hmmmmmm?
http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zom b ie-apocalypse/
 
2013-01-10 02:56:05 AM
Piers Morgan says something unpopular and people want him deported? Don't hold your breath boneheads, that's not how law works. Civil debate is not an "attack on the Constitution" in any sense that remotely justifies punitive rebuke. What a complete farce and non-issue. No one can be so stupid as to claim that verbal argument is a crime.
 
2013-01-10 03:27:53 AM

Amos Quito: Osomatic: Amos Quito: Today I finally watched the segment where Jones and Morgan went at it.

What a hoot!

Morgan kept asking Jones if he knew how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in the UK in 2011 - flustering Jones.

Of course Jones' proper response would have been to ask Morgan how many murders had been committed WITH GUNS in United States PRISONS in 2011.

Too slow.

No doubt that figure would show that there's not much gun violence in places where only law enforcement is allowed to have guns, but I'm not sure that would've been helpful to Jones' argument.


Surprisingly, it seems that Jones' argument was quite valid. In the segment he referred to a Telegraph article regarding the extremely high VIOLENT (not gun) CRIME RATE in the UK;

This must be the one:

QUOTE:

"The total number of violent offences [in Britain] recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

[...]

"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So "Safe, sensible gun-free Britain" has an overall violent crime rate that is 4.3 times HIGHER than scary, irrational gun-laden America. And this is the example that Morgan wants us to follow?

Deportation or none, I suggest that Morgan hightail his quivering, tea-sipping, limey ass back to the UK.

And he might want to take a few guns along - "for protection, you know".


Actually, the article you cite talks only about "violent crime," which includes murders, but also burglaries, assault, and sexual offenses.  It says nothing about violence committed with guns, which is all I was talking about.  You said Alex Jones should have asked about gun violence in prisons.  It still doesn't seem like it would prove anything to his point.
 
2013-01-10 04:20:20 AM

wildcardjack: Of course... He stole a job from a hard working American journalist, it should have gone to a Peter Jennings type.

Okay, I don't know anymore journalists.


Jennings was Canadian.
 
2013-01-10 05:07:20 AM

Wangiss: Mike_1962: Wangiss: edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.

Like the right to vote?


Link
 
2013-01-10 05:12:31 AM

Amos Quito: Question: If we abandon the Second, how should we expect to defend any other "right" that we may pretend to have?

Strongly worded letters?

Or have we already surrendered to the idea that we are subject to the whim of whoever happens to be in power, and reduced to praying to the invisible almighty that they don't treat us too badly?


I don't think too many are suggesting we abandon the Second Amendment, only having a discussion about what should or shouldn't be restricted. As far as being "subject to the whim of whoever happens to be in power": Who put them in power in the first place?
 
2013-01-10 05:18:07 AM

HappyGryphon: For those folks who wish to believe not being a US citizen denies you constitutional protections once you have been given permission to enter the country, please refer to the ever popular 14th amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So even if he is a limey who was given permission to visit, he's on US Soil with US Laws. I know republicans have issues with the 14th since it keeps them from doing things to people because they are brown or a woman or what ever their hate fixation for the week is.

Want to prove how bad ass America is? Look at the mouthy limey, exercise your 1st ammendment rights, and go "meh, you nanny state folks forgot how to be responsible..." and go about your life as if he didn't matter.

Why? Because he doesn't... non citizen, can't vote, can't change the outcome of an election unless you let him persuade you to vote differently.  Oh, and to all of the vet's who are crying for his blood, remember you put you hand on the book and swore
"...To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America..." and this included all of the Amendments even the less popular ones or the less poplar people. You are the thin line that insure the many do not oppress the few for what is popular may not be what is right.

//Is the flag hanging at the right height behind me with he eagle flying?


I like the poplar people just fine, but I do prefer birches.
 
2013-01-10 05:23:05 AM

twiztedjustin: Following with consistency my policy of not giving a shiat of homos like Piers Morgan, I had no idea the farking pile of dick was British. Now I hate him even more.


GTFO OF MY COUNTRY HOMO


Seems there's quite a lot you don't know.
 
2013-01-10 08:26:01 AM

Bucky Katt: How many times have Americans used their Second Amendment rights to defend freedom of speech or freedom of the press?


How many newspapers hire private security protect themselves?

If we're going to include all the times weapons were used to fight against the law or to push back overbearing employers, we could be here a while.
Come for the anti-union violence and prohibition, stay for the modern drug and border wars.

Rambino: Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.


Amos Quito: /Words
//They mean
///Things


Of this I am unreassured...
 
2013-01-10 10:12:35 AM

way south: Bucky Katt: How many times have Americans used their Second Amendment rights to defend freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

How many newspapers hire private security protect themselves?

If we're going to include all the times weapons were used to fight against the law or to push back overbearing employers, we could be here a while.
Come for the anti-union violence and prohibition, stay for the modern drug and border wars.

Rambino: Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.

Amos Quito: /Words
//They mean
///Things

Of this I am unreassured...


A company hiring security to protect itself from crime is different from citizens protecting the first amendment from an overbearing government. Let's face it. In practice, citizens rarely use their second amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights against government intrusion.
 
2013-01-10 10:29:31 AM

Abacus9: Wangiss: Mike_1962: Wangiss: edmo: Laws are derived from the Constitution and they apply to all within the country , citizen or not. Why do people believe the rights within do not also apply? Of course they do.

Like the right to vote?

Link


"Only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in federal elections, and it is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election or to register to vote in one."

Okay.
 
2013-01-10 10:32:14 AM

Bucky Katt: way south: Bucky Katt: How many times have Americans used their Second Amendment rights to defend freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

How many newspapers hire private security protect themselves?

If we're going to include all the times weapons were used to fight against the law or to push back overbearing employers, we could be here a while.
Come for the anti-union violence and prohibition, stay for the modern drug and border wars.

Rambino: Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.

Amos Quito: /Words
//They mean
///Things

Of this I am unreassured...

A company hiring security to protect itself from crime is different from citizens protecting the first amendment from an overbearing government. Let's face it. In practice, citizens rarely use their second amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights against government intrusion.


Because no one is bearing arms? You're pretending deterrents don't work.
 
2013-01-10 10:44:36 AM

davidphogan: tyrajam: 1. American laws apply to Americans
2. Of course he's not going to be deported, it was a stupid publicity stunt.

No. American laws apply to Americans and people in the USA. Americans can get in trouble for laws broken overseas, but they also apply equally to everyone in the country.


Unless you are a foreign delegate...then the rules don't apply.
Diplomatic Immunity!
 
2013-01-10 11:06:30 AM

Indubitably: Indubitably: BSABSVR: SpeedyBB: Weaver95: And yet, I don't think he's getting deported any time soon.

Shot to death perhaps, however.

Do it or shut up, tough guy.

Seriously? From you? Sir.

*looks askance*

*)

P.S. *arms akimbo*


One of the better villains from Freakazoid!
 
2013-01-10 11:30:13 AM
blog.torgodevil.com
 
2013-01-10 03:20:09 PM
Yes, it does, you farking morons. I wish Piers Morgan would go back to being Rupert Murdoch's bag-boy so all the people I hate can be on the same side.
 
2013-01-10 11:14:27 PM
He's a Pons.
 
2013-01-10 11:23:01 PM

Wangiss: Bucky Katt: way south: Bucky Katt: How many times have Americans used their Second Amendment rights to defend freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

How many newspapers hire private security protect themselves?

If we're going to include all the times weapons were used to fight against the law or to push back overbearing employers, we could be here a while.
Come for the anti-union violence and prohibition, stay for the modern drug and border wars.

Rambino: Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.

Amos Quito: /Words
//They mean
///Things

Of this I am unreassured...

A company hiring security to protect itself from crime is different from citizens protecting the first amendment from an overbearing government. Let's face it. In practice, citizens rarely use their second amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights against government intrusion.

Because no one is bearing arms? You're pretending deterrents don't work.



Indeed.

If YOU had dictatorial / oligarchic fantasies, would YOU want an armed populace?


/I know I wouldn't
 
2013-01-11 06:38:02 PM

Amos Quito: Wangiss: Bucky Katt: way south: Bucky Katt: How many times have Americans used their Second Amendment rights to defend freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

How many newspapers hire private security protect themselves?

If we're going to include all the times weapons were used to fight against the law or to push back overbearing employers, we could be here a while.
Come for the anti-union violence and prohibition, stay for the modern drug and border wars.

Rambino: Yes, because getting hornswoggled in the mush while on the piss is exactly the same as a double-tap with an AR-15.

Amos Quito: /Words
//They mean
///Things

Of this I am unreassured...

A company hiring security to protect itself from crime is different from citizens protecting the first amendment from an overbearing government. Let's face it. In practice, citizens rarely use their second amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights against government intrusion.

Because no one is bearing arms? You're pretending deterrents don't work.


Indeed.

If YOU had dictatorial / oligarchic fantasies, would YOU want an armed populace?


/I know I wouldn't


To pair annoy, as in binary, as in fear is bullshiat, as in obey the law, as in don't steal, as in show respect, as in golden rule.
 
Displayed 176 of 176 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report