Petition to deport piers morgan

[Completely Average]

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.

You don't see how an armed population protects their rights and freedoms from government oppression?

I will be happy to buy you a ticket to North Korea so you can see first hand how important the Second Amendment is to protecting freedom. Or, if that thought scares you a bit, try looking up The Holocaust, to see how an unarmed population is unable to defend itself from it's own government.

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

What you've done is defended this man's right to speak his opinion, and then say others shouldn't be able to petition for his deportation, ignoring that it is their right to do so. If you weren't being a hypocrite you could defend the right of both sides, condemn both sides, or simply keep your mouth shut, but by taking one side you are trying to suppress and condemn the other when BOTH are exercising their right to Free Speech.

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.

I suppose that was your idea of a really clever way to take up a lot of web space saying nothing at all.

Consider this, if you REALLY believed in Free Speech then you would support the people expressing their OPINION that this man should be deported. By not supporting them you are favouring censorship of their Free Speech.

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.

Funny you should mention Thomas Jefferson. Shall we look at some of the other things he said?

The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government


Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.


And this one is very important since it directly relates to your "19 year change" comment.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

His 19 year limit was on government, NOT on the rights of the people. Or, as he himself put it, A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate

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.

You swear like a child and tell others to grow up? He is an enemy of the Constitution, PERIOD. He wants to deny We the People our rights as protected by the Constitution. He wants to force gay marriage on religious institutions, that is in direct violation of the Constitution. He wants to take away law abiding citizens guns, which is again a direct violation of the Constitution. He is an enemy, and he should be removed.

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

http://www.military.com/join-armed-f...y-service.html

[Vulgotha]

Explain the bit about 'forcing gay marriage on religious institutions' for me. I'm onboard with guns and rights, as I'm sure you're aware.

But you lost me a bit with the gay thing.

[claud3]

look morgan is a dick, we can either say stay, go, die or fuck up

i just think that he said the wrong thing in the wrong place....

This guy pleads for attention and got it and we are giving him even more, by talking about this

he is in the wrong place to preach about guns control and the wrong place to actually think he can change the minds off american's

so fuck him and let his head be given as an award when it's needed and until then. He will get even more attention

lets not give him the option

[sainraja]

Some of you guys need to grow a thick skin. You guys are talking about deporting someone over an opinion which you don't agree with. Really?

[jj03]

Don`t see anything wrong in piers expressing his opinion...much like everyone else who are expressing their`s...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[Rapture]

You don't see how an armed population protects their rights and freedoms from government oppression?

I do not, however, fail to see the benefits this second has in protecting the first.

I literally said that, right there, in the quote part that you responded to. How did you miss that?

What you've done is defended this man's right to speak his opinion, and then say others shouldn't be able to petition for his deportation, ignoring that it is their right to do so. If you weren't being a hypocrite you could defend the right of both sides, condemn both sides, or simply keep your mouth shut, but by taking one side you are trying to suppress and condemn the other when BOTH are exercising their right to Free Speech.

I criticized them for their hypocrisy and unfairness, which is entirely just in its intentions. I explained why it's not right to issue for this man's deport because of his opinion.

I suppose that was your idea of a really clever way to take up a lot of web space saying nothing at all.

Consider this, if you REALLY believed in Free Speech then you would support the people expressing their OPINION that this man should be deported. By not supporting them you are favouring censorship of their Free Speech.

You're not comprehending this, are you? What I stated is true. I would love to see you attest my argument there in a logical and reasonable manner, but I know you cannot. That's why you chose to circle around what I said and revert to tired excuses.

Funny you should mention Thomas Jefferson. Shall we look at some of the other things he said?

The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government

It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson is not a cliff unto which all opposing arguments may break. The fact remains that he still advocated for the Constitution to be changed to match the time and social context in which it currently holds law. By your reasoning this makes him a traitor.

TYou swear like a child and tell others to grow up? He is an enemy of the Constitution, PERIOD. He wants to deny We the People our rights as protected by the Constitution. He wants to force gay marriage on religious institutions, that is in direct violation of the Constitution. He wants to take away law abiding citizens guns, which is again a direct violation of the Constitution. He is an enemy, and he should be removed.

Swear like a child? I did? Your response is laughable. I've called you out on your selfish nature and you still defend it. No, you are the child. Your wanton fallacious reasoning has blinded you. You are too proud and stubborn, as many Americans seem to be. It seems to be a great foible of our society, unfortunately.


You are egregious in your perspective. You are cruel. You are unjust. Your arguments are empty and devoid of sensibility, and your opinions hold no sway to me or anyone else of sound mind. Sorry.

[keefy]

I have no idea which side Rapture and completely average are batting for. For or against.

[Fon]

I personally strongly disagree with Piers Morgan in regards to the second Amendment but not enough to warrant deportation. The notion itself is quite ridiculous really and hypocritical against the ones with such blind vanity to the American Constitution which was put in place to protect the unpopular voices.

[admartian]

He should be deported because he has his own opinion? That's unacceptable behavior, Kwes. It's horribly hypocritical to refrain the first amendment in favor of the second.

No one should be deported based on opinions or race/creed/religion. Especially not from within a country that is apparently based on "freedom" an "liberty"....

#waitingfortheyeahbutpostthatdoesntmakesense

[Rapture]

I have no idea which side Rapture and completely average are batting for. For or against.

It's pretty obvious. Complete Average is stating that he should be deported for his opinion. I'm saying he should not. Average's aligning his opinion with the Constitution, while I'm fitting between the rights of Constitutions and the sensibility of being a fair and decent human being.

#waitingfortheyeahbutpostthatdoesntmakesense

That seems to be a popular response on this forum from certain members.

[PeanutButterMunky]

No one should be deported based on opinions or race/creed/religion. Especially not from within a country that is apparently based on "freedom" an "liberty"....

#waitingfortheyeahbutpostthatdoesntmakesense

Yeah but...

[keefy]

It's pretty obvious. Complete Average is stating that he should be deported for his opinion. I'm saying he should not. Average's aligning his opinion with the Constitution, while I'm fitting between the rights of Constitutions and the sensibility of being a fair and decent human being.



That seems to be a popular response on this forum from certain members.

I see now.
Its just that you guys both kept dicecting each others posts for the last page.

[DayWalker]

these people would be hilarious if they weren't so sad...

[reasonable_doubt]

these people would be hilarious if they weren't so sad...

Why is it sad? Most of the thing he said is true, and u don't have to talk like an intellectual tard to tell the truth.

Coming from the left(Liberals) themselves.
http://thebostonliberal.com/fact-che...-morgan-78918/

[Ixion]

these people would be hilarious if they weren't so sad...

Alex Jones can be over-the-top, but the majority of what he said should be considered. His point about violent crime being much higher in the UK is correct. His point about assault weapons making up a very low percentage of gun murders is correct. His point about the vast majority of shootings involving psychiatric drugs is correct. And so on.

It was clear that Piers' questions would have tried to box in Jones, so Jones knew to take control from the start. Say what you want about him, but if he just gave a 'civil' debate, this would not have caused a ripple.

Ron Paul is one of the most civil and respectful people around, yet still the media doesn't take him seriously.

[StevenW]

He made some great points, but I lost interest as soon as started acting like a 10 year old and doing a mock English accent.

It's all about drugs and minds, not guns and knives (does that rhyme, sort of?)

Piers is a devious git so he kind of deserved to be shouted out, but don't think Jones done himself any favours. And...as a conspiracy theorist it surprises me that he's a born again Christian when religion is the biggest conspiracy of them all. Hypocrite.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

I thought exactly the same. Alex Jones didn't do himself any favors, especially putting on the english accent. He came off as irate and erratic. Having said that, he made valid points.

[claud3]

look Piers morgan will not be deported, he is catering to the way the top media are wanting and that is shit on t.v

[keefy]

Oh look another loud shouty American.

these people would be hilarious if they weren't so sad...

[Ixion]

All you can do is criticize his behavior, but not what he said.

[Shibby]

Oh look another loud shouty American.

oh look another condescending Brit

[Vulgotha]

And nobody here thinks that allowing Jones on the air to defend gun rights wasn't a calculated move to try and make gun owners look insane? The dude is a renowned conspiracy wing nut- he's completely insane (or just a complete liar out for a quick buck).

What he has to say about guns, crimes and statistics are fairly accurate.. But the man himself.. As a law abiding gun owner I'm kind of insulted that this is the best CNN could come up with to combat Morgan on the air. I mean really?

[Ixion]

What he has to say about guns, crimes and statistics are fairly accurate.

There you go.

If you're going to discredit him because of his other conspiracy theories, then that's exactly what CNN wanted. When Piers had nothing else to say, he brought up 911 in order to make him look loony.

Alex Jones should be considered just like every other media source, and just like every other media source he is biased and should not be taken as gospel.

Most of the articles on infowars.com are valid topics that the mainstream media doesn't bring up. But for every five valid articles, there's a stupid article or something that reaches.

[DayWalker]

And nobody here thinks that allowing Jones on the air to defend gun rights wasn't a calculated move to try and make gun owners look insane? The dude is a renowned conspiracy wing nut- he's completely insane (or just a complete liar out for a quick buck).

What he has to say about guns, crimes and statistics are fairly accurate.. But the man himself.. As a law abiding gun owner I'm kind of insulted that this is the best CNN could come up with to combat Morgan on the air. I mean really?

... I think Alex Jones was brought on to Piers Morgans show... b/c Alex Jones started a white house petition and has campaigned to have Piers Morgan deported...

... that fact that he's a nutjob that can be used to further gun control advocates goals was just a delightful bonus

and yes, "fairly accurrate" would be how I described his stats as well.

There you go.

If you're going to discredit him because of his other conspiracy theories, then that's exactly what CNN wanted. When Piers had nothing else to say, he brought up 911 in order to make him look loony.

Alex Jones should be considered just like every other media source, and just like every other media source he is biased and should not be taken as gospel.

Alex Jones brought up 911... not Piers.
Nobody need try to make Jones look looney. Just hand him a mic

[Ixion]

"fairly accurrate" would be how I described his stats as well.

What did he say that was inaccurate?

Alex Jones brought up 911... not Piers.

No he didn't. Watch it again.

Nobody need try to make Jones look looney. Just hand him a mic

And yet Piers Morgan and his guests joked the next day about shooting Alex Jones.