Petition to deport piers morgan

[Rapture]

Clearly.


And I assume Piers likes the United States, which is why he lives here. How you exaggerated "I disagree with this particular issue" to "I hate this nation" is beyond me. Then again, you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Clearly.


And I assume Piers likes the United States, which is why he lives here. How you exaggerated "I disagree with this particular issue" to "I hate this nation" is beyond me. Then again, you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

You sir are good for a laugh at all points.

[claud3]

you see what he has done P.MORGAN

divided people over an issue that they know more about than he does.... I mean if i went to the states and told how dangerous and evil and to much guns is stupid...

I would be hunted for my head

he has no right to try and preach to a nation that has the right to bare arms and think he knows what he is talking about.. He can research on the amendment all he fucking wants, he still would never understand the true meaning off it. Only American's know that

i have my opinions on this and we have argued about them... But i respect the fact that i clearly don't have a full acknowledge on the 2nd amendment, to have a balanced view or argument with my u.s friends on the forum

but P.Morgan really doesn't get this whole debate, because he is so stupid and has not done his research right

[John25]

Why should he be Deported for having an Opinion ??, he is a Citizen of your Country which means he has The same right to exercise The Constitution just like every American has The right to.

Just because he isn't an American doesn't mean he can't have an Opinion on your Laws, his Citizenship says he can & Neither do you have to Like every single Law in your Adopted country just to live there. You just have to Accept that they are There in "Said" Country. and will remain there until they are Changed or Removed i.e The Gun laws you have in the U.S.

[DeviousOne]

Why should he be Deported for having an Opinion ??, he is a Citizen of your Country which means he has The same right to exercise The Constitution just like every American has The right to.

Just because he isn't an American doesn't mean he can't have an Opinion on your Laws, his Citizenship says he can & Neither do you have to Like every single Law in your Adopted country just to live there. You just have to Accept that they are There in "Said" Country. and will remain there until they are Changed or Removed i.e The Gun laws you have in the U.S.

Well for me personally he just annoys me so its a personal thing he shouldn't be deported for having an unpopular opinion. I'd be shock if he actually does lmao

[Blacksite]

I agree with Rapture and John25, though just because someone (Piers Morgan or not) has the right to their opinion doesn't mean I agree with it.

[Tyrannicide]

The amount of hypocrisy and ignorance in Kwes' post is just mind boggling.
Yea, that second amendment is really working well for your country, isn't it?

[Vulgotha]

He shouldn't be deported, but he's a dirt bag pseudo intellectual running around throwing his opinions everywhere. I suppose it is just especially grating that he's leading a crusade against the 2nd amendment, while on US soil on a television program, while not actually being an American.

[Rapture]

The amount of hypocrisy and ignorance in Kwes' post is just mind boggling.
Yea, that second amendment is really working well for your country, isn't it?

This isn't about gun control; it's really concerning the violation's of a person's rights to express their opinion. Don't try to shift things to a gun debate, please.

He shouldn't be deported, but he's a dirt bag pseudo intellectual running around throwing his opinions everywhere. I suppose it is just especially grating that he's leading a crusade against the 2nd amendment, while on US soil on a television program, while not actually being an American.

Which is silly, this being a nation entirely born and made from immigrants. People are just unnecessarily butthurt over his opinion, or they just really dislike the man in general. It's ridiculous.

[Morganator]

Instead of deporting him. Let's repeal the laws and legislation that allows journalists to act as an arm of the propaganda machine. How about we do that instead of pushing to deport someone. Yes. As much as I detest those that would push an agenda that is contrary to the constitution, it is no better pushing an agenda to deport someone for something they say which ironically, is also contrary to the constitution. Elimination of moral hazard cannot begat by more moral hazard. Think before you type.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Deporting a man for stating his belief (that a foundational aspect of America's DNA is damaging the country) is retarded.

I've seen copious amounts of debates over the years, with arguments for and against what Mr Morgan is advocating. I've never lived in the good ole U.S of A, and probably never will, so I don't tend to get invested in such discussions . America's marriage with guns is something that will never agree with me. I would rather take my chances of future altercations without a firearm than to live every day in a culture where everyone can have a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people...but it's a lot easier to kill a person when all you have to do is point and squeeze...?

Anyway...back OT, deporting an unpopular opinion is a no no imho.

[R3D D3V!L]

I don't want Piers back in the UK because he's a grade A ass. However, he's entitled to his opinion like everyone else. Deporting him for that is ridiculous.

[Vulgotha]

This isn't about gun control; it's really concerning the violation's of a person's rights to express their opinion. Don't try to shift things to a gun debate, please.



Which is silly, this being a nation entirely born and made from immigrants. People are just unnecessarily butthurt over his opinion, or they just really dislike the man in general. It's ridiculous.

Except he isn't an immigrant. He's a British citizen. Whether or not the US is 'made up of immigrants' or not is immaterial, the dude is not here to settle. He's just here for the cash.

So I can appreciate that angle of irritation. To us he's a foreigner on a US TV show ripping us a new one.

[Rapture]

That wasn't my point. We're a nation of built on the backs and by the hands of outsiders, and the "There's us, and then there's them' mentality really doesn't play well here. (when does it ever?)

[Shibby]

Couldn't care less about his opinion, he's entitled to one. Can't we just deport him for being a cunt?

[keefy]

Couldn't care less about his opinion, he's entitled to one. Can't we just deport him for being a cunt?

Well then start packing your bags

[Completely Average]

The First Amendment exists for a reason, and it's much higher of a priority than the Second. This man has a right to voice his opinion freely just as anyone else. To say otherwise is just dishonest and cruel.

You have your priorities wrong. The Second Amendment exists so that "We the People" retain the ability to enforce the First. Without the Second Amendment you could be stripped of the rest of your rights any time the government felt it was convenient.

Also, your post reeks of hypocrisy. Surely if I have a right to voice my opinion and it is MY OPINION that he should be deported, then you trying to tell me or anyone else that we shouldn't say so would be a violation of our Free Speech. Free Speech works both ways, not just one. He has the right to say what he wants, and the rest of us have the right to call for his deporation.


I will take that a step further.

By saying we should get rid of or change the Second Amendment he has made himself an enemy of the Constitution, which means it is the duty of our military to remove him from the country, by force if necessary. In case you've forgotten, our military takes a sworn oath to defend THE CONSTITUTION, from ALL enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC. With his comments regarding the Constitution and his comments regarding requiring religions to accept gay marriage, he has contridicted Freedom of Religion and our Right to Bear Arms, thus making himself an enemy of the State and an enemy of the Constitution, both very valid reasons for his deporation.

The military has no oath to defend the government, it has an oath to protect the Constitution. It vows to take orders from the president, provided that those orders do not conflict with the Constitution or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If his order do conflict with either, the military is duty bound to refuse them. I feel it is time for the military to step up and defend the Constitution from this man's attacks by removing him from our country.

[Dave-The-Rave]

It took us a long time to get rid of him, but I agree Americans hide behind their damn amendments and constitutions way too much and they use it as an excuse for a lot of things.

[Yuuichi]

It took us a long time to get rid of him, but I agree Americans hide behind their damn amendments and constitutions way too much and they use it as an excuse for a lot of things.

I agree and so many amendments are misinterpreted. There more laws then just amendments and constitution.

[Rapture]

You have your priorities wrong. The Second Amendment exists so that "We the People" retain the ability to enforce the First. Without the Second Amendment you could be stripped of the rest of your rights any time the government felt it was convenient.

And without freedom of speech you would be a slave. My priorities are very much correct and wholly reasonable. The first Amendment is blatantly more valuable than the second. I do not, however, fail to see the benefits this second has in protecting the first. This does not change their individual importance whatsoever, though.

Also, your post reeks of hypocrisy. Surely if I have a right to voice my opinion and it is MY OPINION that he should be deported, then you trying to tell me or anyone else that we shouldn't say so would be a violation of our Free Speech.

All I've done is pointed out the hypocrisy of others. Please pay more attention to what is aforementioned.

Free Speech works both ways, not just one. He has the right to say what he wants, and the rest of us have the right to call for his deporation.

You're factually and logically incorrect in that statement. Freedom of speech is not a perfect concept that is infallible in its application; you have to protect freedom of speech in certain ways, otherwise it's then not protected. This case here is a prime example of that. Consider this notion: The only thing not protected under freedom of speech is the ruin of freedom of speech.

By saying we should get rid of or change the Second Amendment he has made himself an enemy of the Constitution, which means it is the duty of our military to remove him from the country, by force if necessary. In case you've forgotten, our military takes a sworn oath to defend THE CONSTITUTION, from ALL enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Then I suppose Thomas Jefferson was also a traitor to the constitution. He advocated for it to be changed every 19 years, and if I am allowed to use his words, "The dead should not rule the living." The Constitution was very much written in mind to allow for change, and those who lead the change should be the people. It is not and should never, ever be the obligation of the Government or military to remove a man for his opinion. That is entirely anti-American, unconstitutional, and on a social level it's just barbaric and backwards.

With his comments regarding the Constitution and his comments regarding requiring religions to accept gay marriage, he has contridicted Freedom of Religion and our Right to Bear Arms, thus making himself an enemy of the State and an enemy of the Constitution, both very valid reasons for his deporation.

An enemy of the state? Are you fucking serious? So if you disagree then you are an enemy? What the fuck kind of definition of freedom do you adhere to?

I swear to god, you people need to grow up.

The military has no oath to defend the government, it has an oath to protect the Constitution. It vows to take orders from the president, provided that those orders do not conflict with the Constitution or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If his order do conflict with either, the military is duty bound to refuse them. I feel it is time for the military to step up and defend the Constitution from this man's attacks by removing him from our country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

[Morganator]

I agree and so many amendments are misinterpreted. There more laws then just amendments and constitution.

Most laws can actually be nullified just through the state nullification process of states asserting their sovereignty and jurisdiction on certain matters over the federal government. In regards to the 2nd Amendment, almost every gun control law can be nullified by the individual because quite contrary to the federal and state governments, your right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon in any manner by any person or entity. The constitution wasn't made with the intent of placing limits, boundaries, stipulations, regulations or clauses on the rights of the individual. It was made with the express intent of placing the aforementioned on the government. Any law that does place the aforementioned on the individual is null and void and doesn't have to be obeyed.

[StevenW]

I can't bear Piers Morgan. We don't want him back in the UK being a bell-end.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[reasonable_doubt]

And without freedom of speech you would be a slave. My priorities are very much correct and wholly reasonable. The first Amendment is blatantly more valuable than the second. I do not, however, fail to see the benefits this second has in protecting the first. This does not change their individual importance whatsoever, though.

Actually, slave do have the right to speak their minds just like any natural born human being since birth. They sing, talk, and tell story to their families and each other all the time. It just that they didn't have the right to defend against their slave master every time they disagree with the 3'O Clock whipping time that was going on back then.

So most stop arguing with their slave master, I mean who the fuck want to speak their mind and get beaten, hang/kill afterwards...

Without the Second Amendment u would only have 5 minutes to exercise ur First Amendment before the person(dictator, slave master, oppressor, criminal?) kill u for disagreeing with them. Just ask the Jews and German who disagree with Hitler.

[Rapture]

You don't seem to understand my usage of the word 'slave', nor what freedom of speech actually is or what it entails. Freedom of speech does not literally mean the ability to talk and converse.

[keefy]

The first amendment seems to protect the press too much if you ask me it seems to allow their interpretation to mean they can skew the truth or massage the figures to suit their cause whatever it may be.
Doesn't it allow shows like oreily to be call themselves factual and be part of a news network yet it is mostly full of his opnion.