White House denies petition to deport...

White House denies petition to deport Piers Morgan

There are 61 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Jan 10, 2013, titled White House denies petition to deport Piers Morgan. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

Editor's note: I know this isn't "gay" related to most people, but when it comes to deporting someone who excercises their right to free speech in this country, I have to take a stand. As a gay man Ibeg everyone not to blame us for the bigotry of bigots and fools.

The White House has responded to the petition seeking the deportation of Piers Morgan with a statement from press secretary Jay Carney explaining the First Amendment.

The petition, which received well over 100,000 signatures (25,000 are required for a White House response) was led by conservative radio host Alex Jones.

He wrote, "British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#47 Jan 12, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
"White House denies petition to deport Piers Morgan"
The white house likes homosexuals. Why would they not like Piers Morgan?
El Segundo, even LAX complains about the stench and noise.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#49 Jan 12, 2013
Little Blue Alien wrote:
<quoted text>
The Yewnited States of Ishrael.
One for all the only one.
Arbeit macht Frei, Adolph?

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#50 Jan 12, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Protection from OTHER governments, not our own. They made other provisions in the Constitution for changing our own government. The whole point of the Revolution was to form our own government, and throw off a foreign government.
NO ! Read some American history. The Second Amendment was adopted SPECIFICALLY to protect the citizens FROM a tyranical U.S. government (Which is what we have now).

And btw, SCOTUS ruled decades ago, that a U.S. citizen has the RIGHT to use deadly force AGAINST an agent of the government, i.e. a police officer, or other government law enforcement agent, to PREVENT oneself from an illegal arrest.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#51 Jan 12, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Arbeit macht Frei, Adolph?
How can you be SO STUPID as to be unable to spell the simple name "Adolf" correctly ?!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#52 Jan 12, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
NO ! Read some American history. The Second Amendment was adopted SPECIFICALLY to protect the citizens FROM a tyranical U.S. government (Which is what we have now).
And btw, SCOTUS ruled decades ago, that a U.S. citizen has the RIGHT to use deadly force AGAINST an agent of the government, i.e. a police officer, or other government law enforcement agent, to PREVENT oneself from an illegal arrest.
I don't suppose you have any sources of authority on those two statements, do you? That is besides the part of the statement referring to our government as tyrannical (which you spelled incorrectly, by the way). That part is just your usual wild-eyed conjecture.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#53 Jan 12, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't suppose you have any sources of authority on those two statements, do you? That is besides the part of the statement referring to our government as tyrannical (which you spelled incorrectly, by the way). That part is just your usual wild-eyed conjecture.
1. Read the history of the Second Amendment.

2.“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

https://groups.google.com/forum/... #!topic/lawmen/QjGUZfmyAdk

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#54 Jan 12, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT'S THW WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT ! TOPROTECT US FROM THE GOVERNMENT ! Don't you know ANYTHING about American history ?! We fought an ARMED, VIOLENT, BLOODY, REVOLUTION, WHERE WE KILLED PEOPLE WHO WERE AGENTS OF THE LEGAL GOVERNMENT OF THE TIME.
The Second Amendment was NOT written to protect hunters, or homeowners from intruders. It was written to protect us FROM the government !
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... "

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#55 Jan 12, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Read the history of the Second Amendment.
2.“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
https://groups.google.com/forum/... #!topic/lawmen/QjGUZfmyAdk
That citation is entirely apocryphal, and does not appear in ANY Court documents.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#56 Jan 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... "
And when that was written, the "militia" were ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years. And when the militia was called up, you were required to provied your OWN arms and ammunition to defend your community. Look it up. Read a little American history for a change.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#57 Jan 12, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
And when that was written, the "militia" were ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years. And when the militia was called up, you were required to provied your OWN arms and ammunition to defend your community. Look it up. Read a little American history for a change.
On that much we are not in opposition.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#58 Jan 12, 2013
Except ... I think the age was 17, though I doubt in actual practice.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#60 Jan 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
On that much we are not in opposition.
There's a political cartoon on Page 9A of today's USA TODAY I am going to describe here because I think it's appropriate to do so here.

It is written and illustrated by Tom Stiglich of the Journal Register of Philadelphia, PA.

The caption reads: "Weapon of choice as the Second Amendment is ratified in 1791..." and the illustration below shows an 18th century flintlock pistol.

The next caption reads: "Weapon of choice as we uphold the Second Amendment..." and the illustration below shows a 21st century semi-automatic weapon similar to an AR15.

The implication being that the Founders NEVER intended the Second Amendment to apply to such weapons.

Now following that logic, then the FIRST AMENDMENT should NOT apply to magazines, radio, television, the internet, the world wide web (Which many people mistakenly believe is another name for the internet, which it is NOT), nor any other electronic means of communication.

CLEARLY, MOST Americans, particularly liberals, would be apoplectic if someone seriously suggested that the First Amendment does not apply to modern communications including the means I mentioned.

Just as the First Amendment protects modern means of communication, then do does the Second Amendment apply to modern semi-automatic wepaons.

Now if you REALLY do NOT want the Second Amendment to apply to semi-automatic wepaons, and other modern weapons, then why don't you either:

A. Work to repeal the Second Amendment entirely.

or

B. Work to change the Second Amendment to SEPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE from it's protections the semi-automatic weapons and other modern weapons tht you believe should not be possessed by average Americans.

Why don't you liberals do that ?

I can tell you why you do not do that. It is because doing so is CLEARLY "out of the mainstream", and has NO popular, nor political, support WHATSOEVER.

The Founders never intended the U.S. Constitution's protections to be limited ONLY to 18th century technology.

Individual Americans are currently legaly allowed to posses sem-automatic weapons, automatic weapons, such as the M1 .50 caliber machine gun, 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns, and cannons and howitzers. These are CLEARLY military weapons, and there is no legal barrier to private Americans owning these weapons.

I recently saw a tv show dedicated to these weapons where the M1 .50 caliber machine gun was demonstrated AND a fully automatic 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun was demonstrated. I contacted the company who owned these particular weapons and they assured me that they had obtained the proper federal licenses for such weapons and told me whome to contact in the federal government to verify this fact.

And as far as howitzers and other similar cannons are concerned, some ski centers in the west, particularly Colorado, use such weapons for avalanche control.

(I'm currently bidding on a bazooka on ebay, but haven't been successful yet.:()

"From my cold dead hands....."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#61 Jan 13, 2013
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, and a past organizer of a number of LGBT shooting clubs.

Do you imagine that the 2nd protects my right to own my own nuclear armaments?

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#62 Jan 13, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you be SO STUPID as to be unable to spell the simple name "Adolf" correctly ?!
Sorry, I apologize to your EXCELLENTLY honed Nazi spelling skills, won't happen again, Herr FaFoxy.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#63 Jan 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, and a past organizer of a number of LGBT shooting clubs.
Do you imagine that the 2nd protects my right to own my own nuclear armaments?
Oh, you and that slippery slope! Next they will be taking away our nerve gas and super viruses and stuff like that! I mean a weapon is a weapon, isn't it?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#64 Jan 13, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, you and that slippery slope! Next they will be taking away our nerve gas and super viruses and stuff like that! I mean a weapon is a weapon, isn't it?
"They can have my Sarin when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!"

ROFL!!

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#65 Jan 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, and a past organizer of a number of LGBT shooting clubs.
Do you imagine that the 2nd protects my right to own my own nuclear armaments?
I never said that there were NO limits. But the limits are certainly NOT where the crazy Dems & libs want to draw them !

While I believe people should be allowed to own (and some do), semi-automatic weapons, automatic weapons, howitzers & cannons, I do NOT believe people have teh right to own hand grenades, landmines, and weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons and nuclear weapons.

Satisfied ?

:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#66 Jan 13, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that there were NO limits. But the limits are certainly NOT where the crazy Dems & libs want to draw them !
While I believe people should be allowed to own (and some do), semi-automatic weapons, automatic weapons, howitzers & cannons, I do NOT believe people have teh right to own hand grenades, landmines, and weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons and nuclear weapons.
Satisfied ?
:)
No.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#67 Jan 14, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... "
the gun nuts never want to hear that.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#68 Jan 14, 2013
Actually, I heard on agood argument on tv the otehr day by a Second Amendment supporter who says there are NO LIMITS that may be placed on the people's RIGHT to bear arms.

His argumen is the plain texts says "The Right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." To "infringe" mains you place "a limit". The plain text says that congress can NOT do that. Therefore, no limits whatsover.

If you're a literlaist and a textualist, then you have to agree wit him. If you have NO regard for what teh U.S. constitution says at all, then you don't have to agree with him.

For the record, I BELIEVE in SOME limits as do almost everyone else in the U.S. what THE ARGUMENT is about is WHERE you draw those limits.

I draw them at landmines, chemical weapons, biological wepaons, and nuclear wepaons. Other than that I think everything else is fine for people to own.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 5 min Prosperity Fundie... 208
News Chelsea Clinton Blasts the GOP Platform's Suppo... 6 min Frankie Rizzo 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 23 min Frankie Rizzo 14,986
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min Frankie Rizzo 38,646
News Malloy's Hollywood moment at the DNC 1 hr Orlando 1
Afternoon Delight Cafe 1 hr Orlando 6
News Clooney's restraining order 2 hr stoned luck aka ... 29
More from around the web