"I may deport myself" says Piers Morgan, if we don't change "crazy gun laws"

reply to post by beezzer

I think most here would fight for free speech for anyone! But if the Morgan guy whines, "I'm leaving if the US Constitution doesn't change" then why shouldn't we enjoy his self-important verbal vomit?

His freedom here and the protections of our Constitution are too valuable to his liefstyle and income to ever leave.
He will NEVER go away; it would mean giving up American freedoms and protections for which he has no alliegance or personal obligation to support in exchange for a life of government-driven subservience to a monarchy and feudalism. The "Lords" will take his money to serve their stupid agendas bleeding the UK and Brits dry, while offering substandard services and imposing draconian restrictions upon the lifestyle to which he feels entitled.

jw.

Piers Morgan was a horrible replacement for Larry King. If he leaves, I won't miss him. I cannot stand to watch him anyway.

He has this self righteous attitude that is extremely off putting, and he reeks of arrogance half of the time with his guests.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

because he's not a citizen. it is illegal for foriegn press to voice their opinion about the constitution when they are not citizens while in the us.

Hes a legal resident therefore it applies to him

Once again, ignorance of a wrtiien constitution prevents you from grasping differences recognized in our courts. not all constitutional protections apply to everyone within our borders; some apply to "citizens," some to "persons," and some to "people."

See the recent Guizar decision for bit of enlightenment.

Certain constitutional rights do apply to illegal immigrants within our borders. Take the Fifth Amendment. It provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Due process rights (to deportation hearings, for example) are constitutionally required -- even for illegal immigrants.

But the Second Amendment doesn’t use the word “person.” It uses the word “people.”

And this, the court concluded, is what distinguishes due process rights from the right to bear arms.

"'The people’ protected by the Second Amendment refers to a class of persons with sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community,” the court reasoned. “People,” in other words, has a narrower meaning than “persons,” constitutionally speaking.

rapidcityjournal.com...

The Court said this about Alien’s rights. “Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization.

This ascending scale of constitutional rights is elaborate. An alien outside the country has fewer rights than one within, e.g., an alien held at the border has no right to a deportation hearing. ..An unlawfully present alien has fewer rights than one lawfully here; an illegal alien generally has no right to assert a selective-enforcement claim to thwart deportation. A lawful alien here fewer than five years can be denied enrollment in Medicare, unlike one here for, say, a decade... A temporary resident alien has fewer rights than a permanent resident alien; the former, for example, may be barred from making campaign contributions…Likewise, a lawful permanent resident has fewer rights than a citizen, since a state can form a citizens-only police force. ..Finally, one right is limited to natural born citizens: eligibility to run for president.”

secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com...

The Uk sounds like an ideal for you and PM to stay. There, the government tells you what your "rights" are, not a written Constitution.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Not only that but hes actively demonizing and dehumanizing law abiding citizens who are exercising not only their constitutional rights, but their natural rights.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by beezzer

 

I read the entire article linked by the OP and didnt find where he said or anything close to that.

He said the constitution was ambiguous and makes people think they can have military style weapons when a simple handgun or revolver would be enough for protection.

Since when does a foreign, disgraced pretend-journalist decide what is "enough for protection" in this country, or in my house?
Regardles of the liniked story, PM has been outspoken for quite some time about his beliefs and disdain for American rights (of which he is all too eager to take advantage).

The guy isnt even anti gun hes anti assault type weapons in the hands of the public

What gives him ANY authority to opine what weapons belong "in the hands of the public?"
Journalist and pundits have often referred to "high-powered rifles," and "assault style weapons" without any regard for the truth or actual meanings of the phrases.

As we speak, the UK is considering long knves as "assault weapons" given the huge increase in violent crimes since the ban oin handguns went into effect.
Morgan can't even correctly describe the firearm he claims to have used. He has no credibility.

And you have nothing but your beleif to say what HE believes.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


From the comments:

I have always appreciated the UK but you, Sir, I have had enough of. Go home. Leave. Let Clarkson teach you some proper manners when you get back.

Golden.

Im from the UK: trust me we hope he doesn't come back, we only just got rid of the stupid buffoon!

reply to post by jdub297

Morgan has used his position to harangue, bully and ridicule American guests whose views he and your neighbors disagree with.

I watched the interview that started all this and I didnt see anything wrong or unique in what he did or said.
His insult at the end came out of frustration and to be honest I dont blame him, the guy was an idiot and in my opinion so is anyone else who feels the problem of gun massacres can be solved by having more guns around.

In the interview in question he didnt use stats just common sense

Perhaps if he had a bit less hubris and actually attempted rational discussion instead of nonsensical ravings and rants, "freedom loving members" would give him a bit more respoect. He'll never have any credibility. Why should we permit foreign visitors and aliens, including pretend-journalists such as PM, the "freedom" to inflame and antagonize on our airwaves solely to drive their egos and ratings higher with imaginary "news" and "facts" drawn from thin air and their personal biases, demons and delusions?

Who are you to decide what his motivations were? sounds like your being a bit biased and maybe even delusional. He simply stated his views which Im guessing is a part of the program like many other American journalists or show hosts do.
Your comment that "Hell never have any credibility" shows that you have preejudged him and makes your opinion basically invalid

You reveal a complete lack of understanding how a written Constitution functions, or of the responsibilities attendant to the freedoms recognized thereunder.

Can you point out in the 1st Amendment or constitution where it says legal residents arent entitled to the same rights? In my ignorance and lack of understanding the constitution says the rights are self evident and god given not applicable exclusively to people whos mothers happen to birth them on US soil.

You're all a group of subservient, inbred pawns.

Im Australian not English, my gov is a lot less restrictive and intrusive than yours but since we arent allowed easy access to guns I doubt you see it that way.

Once again, ignorance of a wrtiien constitution prevents you from grasping differences recognized in our courts. not all constitutional protections apply to everyone within our borders; some apply to "citizens," some to "persons," and some to "people." See the recent Guizar decision for bit of enlightenment.

Modern interpretations of an ancient document, could easily have been interpreted a different way. Hes not an illegal.
If it can be reinterpreted so can the 2nd but since that wouldnt suit your preferences you wouldnt agree with that.

The big article you quoted, I fail to see how it applies to this situation, so me something that applies to the right to free speech coz thats what were talking about, not medicare or illegal aliens.

The Uk sounds like an ideal for you and PM to stay. There, the government tells you what your "rights" are, not a written Constitution.

Once again Im Aussie and your gov doesnt dictate what rights your entitled to?
Patriot act!!!! You have no rights if your gov decides so and its right there in writing for anyone to see.
Congrats on your "Freedom"

Since when does a foreign, disgraced pretend-journalist decide what is "enough for protection" in this country, or in my house? Regardles of the liniked story, PM has been outspoken for quite some time about his beliefs and disdain for American rights (of which he is all too eager to take advantage).

Get your facts straight, 1 Right not Rights plural and anyone who isnt blinded by an unhealthy love of guns would agree there is no reason for the average citizen to have a high powered rapid fire weapon in their home.

What gives him ANY authority to opine what weapons belong "in the hands of the public?"

How about common sense?

Journalist and pundits have often referred to "high-powered rifles," and "assault style weapons" without any regard for the truth or actual meanings of the phrases.

Are you calling for these other journalistrs or pundits to be silenced? sounds like the only thing hes done wrong or differently is being English.
I would say high powered or assault style applies to weapons that spit a ridiculous amount of shots in a short spurt. As is probably obvious I know bugger all about guns, the only thing I know for certain is they are a weapon whos sole purpose is to kill, they are not a "tool" unless you count killing as a use/purpose.

As we speak, the UK is considering long knves as "assault weapons"

LMFAO
No its not, your talking about the 5 year old article posted on here recently
Your quoting of this as fact takes away from your credibility

As of 09:32 PST the count is 93,127

Come on folks, let's push this petition to 100,000


A guy like this craves attention. So let's give him what he wants.

Piers, go home to your safe and secure country before the big bad boogie gun is found hiding under your bed.

Can I help you pack?

i hope his next interview is with a hand grenade

[can i say that?]

The guy is a complete moron, do us ALL a favor.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by beezzer

 

I read the entire article linked by the OP and didnt find where he said or anything close to that.

He said the constitution was ambiguous and makes people think they can have military style weapons when a simple handgun or revolver would be enough for protection.

The guy isnt even anti gun hes anti assault type weapons in the hands of the public

With respect on this contentious issue,,,,,

Piers Morgan needs to take a course on the U.S. Constitution. He's obviously so ignorant of how our system functions, he's a menace in his position as a conveyor of "truth" in any form on TV where it deals with this topic.

The Constitution is a living document. It changes. One body on Earth determines that change and that's the Super Court. The Document is merely a starting point and over 200 years of case law and precedent from their lofty chambers is the OTHER half one MUST read or at least be aware of in a functional way to INTELLIGENTLY discuss Constitutional Law and what is actually applicable today, in 2012.

Simply reading the original Constitution as it sits on display and NOTHING more and saying "Doh! Doesn't say military gun! ha ha" like he and some of his compatriots in the news seem to do so often ....shows how overpoweringly IGNORANT they are of the whole process.

I'm being exceptionally KIND to the American media...Piers may get a pass for ONE part. American media..usually..have a college degree. Since starting college myself, I now see what is 100% base legal REQUIREMENT to receive a degree in the United States. It could be an Associates in Basket Weaving Theory and that makes NO difference. That course on the Constitution at this level? They all still took it and passed it if they completed their education recently...like, the last 10+ years at least.

Originally posted by Mrgone
As of 09:32 PST the count is 93,127

Come on folks, let's push this petition to 100,000


A guy like this craves attention. So let's give him what he wants.

Piers, go home to your safe and secure country before the big bad boogie gun is found hiding under your bed.

Can I help you pack?

Hey bro, where can I sign this petition?

reply to post by jdub297


All I can say is good riddance!
And the door will hit you on your way out!!!

reply to post by Mrgone


Didnt you read that the UK was glad to see
him leave and dont want him back??? He is
now a man without a country!!!

sweet.. a bonus reason to keep the gun laws what they currently are! bye bye piers.. maybe canada will take you in next.. we all know ur home doesn't want you...

reply to post by rangersdad


he should buy a boat, never leave it, and sail to the middle of the ocean.

everyone wins!

reply to post by jdub297


He should deport himself to prison for tapping into peoples phones.
Really, he should be kicked out of the US and not let back in the UK, send him to Siberia, although I would feel sorry for the Eskimos, but at least they can stick a spear up his....

I hope he leaves! Get the hell out!

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

watched the interview that started all this and I didnt see anything wrong or unique in what he did or said.

Of course you wouldn’t.
Clearly, you don’t read what you post. His Daily Mail article, with his “promise” to leave,
relied upon more made-up “statistics” and imaginary “facts,” not his self-aggrandizing “interview.”

The guy was an idiot and in my opinion so is anyone else who feels the problem of gun massacres can be solved by having more guns around.

Regardless of your opinion, it’s already been proven that the “idiots” are those who believe banning guns will end violent crime:

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent) … .
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
And, this from today’s Mail:

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US

Who are you to decide what his motivations were? sounds like your being a bit biased and maybe even delusional. He simply stated his views.

A bit contradictory, no? "He stated his views!"
He states his motivations quite clearly.

Your comment that "He’ll never have any credibility" shows that you have preejudged him and makes your opinion basically invalid.

It’s not my opinion, nor is there any need for pre-judgment. The Mirror has already established his dishonesty, and fired his lying ass!

Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake.
In a statement the Mirror said it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and that it would be "inappropriate" for Morgan to continue.
The Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR) said the Mirror had endangered British troops by running the pictures.

Editor sacked over 'hoax' photos

In my ignorance and lack of understanding the constitution says the rights are self evident and god given.

At least you admit your ignorance.The Preamble to the Constitution sets forth the reasons for crafting rules limiting government interference in American freedom. The specific limits are the Constitution, which nowhere contains the phrases you misquote/misrepresent.

Im Australian not English, my gov is a lot less restrictive and intrusive than yours but since we arent allowed easy access to guns I doubt you see it that way.

Here’s what I see:

Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime. Ovral, Australia's violent crine increased 42 percent.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html#ixzz2GZ4TFXiS[/url]

I know bugger all about guns, the only thing I know for certain is they are a weapon whos sole purpose is to kill, they are not a "tool" unless you count killing as a use/purpose.

Poisons, insecticides, herbicides and anti-biotics exist solely to kill other things. You have no point..

As we speak, the UK is considering long knives as "assault weapons"

No its not, your talking about the 5 year old article.

WRONG! This was published 26/12/12:www.ijreview.com...

deny ignorance
jw