Petition to deport Piers Morgan hits 31,400

Dec 24, 2012 Full story: KSDK-TV Saint Louis 666

More than 31,400 people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun-control views.

Full Story

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#350 Jan 7, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> After doing some research he's right. A criminal is 22x more likely to get hurt in a home with a gun than an unarmed home. Crawling in the window of defenseless victims is much much safer than the window of an armed victim.
This guy sure got injured. Too bad he didnít die.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-...

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#351 Jan 7, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact anyone can start a petition is part of the problem? Who should be allowed to start an opinion? One of our rights addressed by the first amendment is the right to petition the government. Shall we limit that?
Canít find it? Really? Did you try?
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-...
What does Bush have to do with any of this? I donít recall seeing petitions on the White House page when Bush was in office. That doesnít mean there were no petitions. I just donít know.
The online petitioning website is a first in US history. No other administration has offered an online method of submitting petitions to the White House. Prior to the Obama administration, an American citizen had to mail petitions to the White House.

The new system makes it a whole lot easier to garnish signatures and submit petitions.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#352 Jan 7, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
The online petitioning website is a first in US history. No other administration has offered an online method of submitting petitions to the White House. Prior to the Obama administration, an American citizen had to mail petitions to the White House.
The new system makes it a whole lot easier to garnish signatures and submit petitions.
Too bad it does not really do anything except distract people from actions that work. In the real world it's called a pacifier.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#353 Jan 7, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the video tapes do not speak for themselves. No indication the NRA is at fault for anything.
Your first link implicates our government.
The second is a Brady Campaign illustration of a private sale.
The third show the police and BATF shutting down a gun show because non-dealers were selling to inappropriate people.
The fourth again is about private sellers.
The fifth again is more about a private sellers at a gun show.
Once again, where is your evidence the NRA is responsible for Columbine?
Well done , facts over emotion.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#354 Jan 7, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad it does not really do anything except distract people from actions that work. In the real world it's called a pacifier.
I can't argue with that statement, however; name one that does.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#355 Jan 7, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't argue with that statement, however; name one that does.
Well one comes to mind. At one time the citizens would tar and feather corrupt politicians. I would think that would be a good start. Second, the public stop paying for politicians security. A politician that has no armed guard is more likely to want to keep the people they represent happy. Third, no exemptions under law. ALL laws must be followed by all including Obama care. The politicians exempted themselves from it (telling me it must not be that good if even they don't want it). We have created a second class in this country and it's not the rich and poor. It's the people and the politicians. They make laws that they don't have to follow. They abuse the trust of their office. Corruption is no longer punished or even frowned on but rewarded.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#356 Jan 7, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
The fact anyone can start a petition is part of the problem? Who should be allowed to start an opinion? One of our rights addressed by the first amendment is the right to petition the government. Shall we limit that?
There's no Constitutional right to publish a petition on an official government website; this is populist demagogy, not free speech. Piers Morgan has the right to present his opinion without threat of deportation.

.
eternal cynic wrote:
Canít find it? Really? Did you try?
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-...
Thanks, now I see it. I tried to search for 'impeach' but only found petitions to impeach a Senator and the entire congress.

.
eternal cynic wrote:
What does Bush have to do with any of this? I donít recall seeing petitions on the White House page when Bush was in office. That doesnít mean there were no petitions. I just donít know.
I'll tell you; Bush didn't have petitions calling for the deportation of a political commentator on his official website. He believes in free speech.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#357 Jan 7, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Well one comes to mind. At one time the citizens would tar and feather corrupt politicians. I would think that would be a good start. Second, the public stop paying for politicians security. A politician that has no armed guard is more likely to want to keep the people they represent happy. Third, no exemptions under law. ALL laws must be followed by all including Obama care. The politicians exempted themselves from it (telling me it must not be that good if even they don't want it). We have created a second class in this country and it's not the rich and poor. It's the people and the politicians. They make laws that they don't have to follow. They abuse the trust of their office. Corruption is no longer punished or even frowned on but rewarded.
So, you advocate tar and feathering ALL crappy politicans? I wonder how one would begin to develop the criteria for that?

With no secret service, you would be hard pressed to find ANY politician who would take office (I sure wouldn't).

Always remember - you are one individual only - the American system of democracy was designed for the majority, not the minority. In other words, it's what you can live with rather than always getting your way.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to live in a perfect world, but unfortunately it is far from perfect. In politics, the best and only choice is the lesser of two evils.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#358 Jan 7, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you advocate tar and feathering ALL crappy politicans? I wonder how one would begin to develop the criteria for that?
With no secret service, you would be hard pressed to find ANY politician who would take office (I sure wouldn't).
Always remember - you are one individual only - the American system of democracy was designed for the majority, not the minority. In other words, it's what you can live with rather than always getting your way.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to live in a perfect world, but unfortunately it is far from perfect. In politics, the best and only choice is the lesser of two evils.
Maybe but a hell of a lot of feathers would let the president know the will of the people more than a little web site. The American system was designed to protect the rights of minorities from the will of majorities while at the same time allowing the majority not to be over ruled by any minority. Checks and balances. Sometimes if you can't please both then don't do it at all. Growing up I was taught if my brother and I could not agree on one thing or another we got neither. It promoted cooperation and worked very well.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#359 Jan 7, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Maybe but a hell of a lot of feathers would let the president know the will of the people more than a little web site. The American system was designed to protect the rights of minorities from the will of majorities while at the same time allowing the majority not to be over ruled by any minority. Checks and balances. Sometimes if you can't please both then don't do it at all. Growing up I was taught if my brother and I could not agree on one thing or another we got neither. It promoted cooperation and worked very well.
It's fairly hard for me to comprehend an analogy of a two brother family compared to 330 million people. Nowadays it's not a clear cut choice of good versus bad or black versus white - there is usually a miriad of choices - and everyone's is important. And when it comes to the nation, neither (or rather ignoring the problem) is usually not the wise choice.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#360 Jan 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no Constitutional right to publish a petition on an official government website; this is populist demagogy, not free speech. Piers Morgan has the right to present his opinion without threat of deportation.
.
<quoted text>Thanks, now I see it. I tried to search for 'impeach' but only found petitions to impeach a Senator and the entire congress.
.
<quoted text>I'll tell you; Bush didn't have petitions calling for the deportation of a political commentator on his official website. He believes in free speech.
Didnít suggest there was a constitutional right to publish a petition on the White House website. I stated one of our rights protected by the first amendment is the right to petition the government. The website simply makes that easier.

I applaud our government for making the petition process easier. You instead attack.

Finally you got it right. Piers does indeed have the right to offer his opinion without fear of deportation. But, again you miss the point of the petitions on the website. Would you prefer the website be heavily censored?

Do you really think the petition to deport would be taken seriously by the administration? Let the people vent, let them think theyíre doing something.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#361 Jan 8, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>Do you really think the petition to deport would be taken seriously by the administration? Let the people vent, let them think theyíre doing something.
He is a foreign citizen - he has no "unalienable rights" under the Constitution, including free speech, in this country, IMO.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#362 Jan 8, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a foreign citizen - he has no "unalienable rights" under the Constitution, including free speech, in this country, IMO.
Where does ďunalienable rightsĒ appear in the US Constitution?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#363 Jan 8, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a foreign citizen - he has no "unalienable rights" under the Constitution, including free speech, in this country, IMO.
The US Constitution imposes limits on the government, not the people. Anyone on our soil has protected free speech.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#364 Jan 8, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution imposes limits on the government, not the people. Anyone on our soil has protected free speech.
Especially when they claim diplomatic immunity, right?

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#365 Jan 8, 2013
14th Ammendment (first paragraph):

ďAll 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."

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#366 Jan 8, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution imposes limits on the government, not the people. Anyone on our soil has protected free speech.
Well, now you've hit on the whole enchilada!

The US Constitution also is the framework for duly enacted laws of thee land; i.e., the previous gun ban. Laws are eventually deemed constitutional via the judicial branch.

Free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment (among other guarantees) is certainly pertinent. Laws deemed constitutional moderate absolute free speech via legal and civil consequences. Free speech and free expression is "channeled" or modified by the method of medium, and oversight of the practices (FCC, industry practices and ratins boards, etc.).

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own and bear firearms. THE PEOPLE have the right to determine via the governmental framework any limitations of the type of firearm and related equipment or materiel to personally own and bear. The 2nd Amendment as a component of the Constitution is not in anyway "threatened" until modified by additional amendments and ratification of same.

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#367 Jan 8, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Maybe but a hell of a lot of feathers would let the president know the will of the people more than a little web site. The American system was designed to protect the rights of minorities from the will of majorities while at the same time allowing the majority not to be over ruled by any minority. Checks and balances. Sometimes if you can't please both then don't do it at all. Growing up I was taught if my brother and I could not agree on one thing or another we got neither. It promoted cooperation and worked very well.
This tar and feather vigilante justice your obsessed with should be examined:

"In a typical tar-and-feathers attack, the mob's victim was stripped to his waist. Hot tar was either poured or painted onto the person while he was immobilized. Then the victim either had feathers thrown on him or was rolled around on a pile of feathers so they stuck to the tar. Often the victim was then paraded around town on a cart or wooden rail. The aim was to inflict enough pain and humiliation on a person to make him either conform his behavior to the mob's demands or be driven from town. The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but rather a form of vigilante attack.
A more brutal derivation, called pitchcapping, was used by British forces against Irish rebels during the period of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Sometimes only the head was shaven, tarred and feathered; at other times, a match was held to the feathers to light them and the tar on fire to inflict pain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_and_feather#...
----------

Sometimes the politicians or local officials were "in on the game" and/or "the good citizens" of the community would mete out this less fatal lynch-mob justice. The target could be a duly appointed or elected official to whom 'the good citizens" would "teach a lesson". Federal tax agents were targets of citizens in the Whiskey Rebellion of the early days of our country under Geo. Washington.

Would be used as punishment in army and navy contexts to instill discipline. Used against prisoners of opposing sides in conflicts.
The clergy were favored targets occasionally including the Mormon leader Joseph Smith.

And lets highlight:
"In 1917, during an incident known as the Tulsa Outrage, a group of black-robed Knights of Liberty tarred and feathered seventeen members of the IWW in Oklahoma.[8]
In the 1920s, vigilantes opposed to IWW organizers at California's harbor of San Pedro, kidnapped at least one organizer, subjected him to tarring and feathering, and left him in a remote location.
This was a relatively rare form of mob punishment for Republican Negroes in the post-bellum U.S. South, as its goal is typically pain and humiliation rather than death (as in the more common lynching and burning alive).[9] There were several examples of tarring and feathering of Negroes in the lead-up to World War I in Vicksburg, Mississippi.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_and_feather#...

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#368 Jan 8, 2013
I believe our founders intended that government should be chained in the basement, cowering in fear of the people. What else could they have meant?
nope

Santa Fe, NM

#369 Jan 8, 2013
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a foreign citizen - he has no "unalienable rights" under the Constitution, including free speech, in this country, IMO.
the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

These internet constitutional "scholars" prove daily they really don't know anything about the bill of rights.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
True or False Game 4 min AmyFaith 389
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 5 min DILF 17,797
'Mystery Man' Flies Past Plane at 3K Feet 5 min Parden Pard 3
OSCAR PISTORIUS - your opinion> 6 min DILF 10
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min JM_Brazil 120,941
Who are some of your favorite people on the off... (Dec '13) 8 min AmyFaith 97
Air Force Member Arrested After Giving Minnesot... 9 min Parden Pard 2
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 44 min Sublime1 149,022
You know it's over when... (Aug '12) 1 hr -CatCiao- 1,397
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 34
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 2 hr DILF 39

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE