Petition to deport Piers Morgan hits 31,400

[From]

More wrote:

<quoted text>
crackpot arrogance

You.

[eternal cynic]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>That's not what I wrote; I wouldn't force people to not boycott or to boycott. I'm just pointing out boycotts aren't civil discourse; you don't seem to dispute that opinion.
.
<quoted text>Price and need means you enjoy their products (they fulfill need) and you can afford the price. We should all make economic decisions based on enjoying products and buying what we can afford. Again, you don't seem to dispute the point; we want good products not products provided by people forced to share our politics.
.
<quoted text>Your right; I made a mistake and posted a link to a Canadian court instead of a US court. Let me try to correct that:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/file/forms/petit...
Instructions for Filing
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C.§ 2241...
.
<quoted text>They are abridging our freedom to petition with their usage policies. Further, if they offer a petition to impeach where only Congress has the right to impeach, they are misdirecting the people.
.
<quoted text>I oppose demagogy; you defend Obama's sham petition process; this is where we differ.
.
<quoted text>Again, sorry for the mistake. Isn't it interesting that our law, like Candada's is based on the same principles? Now you know, "the judiciary is the only branch of government that is always obligated to consider and respond to petitions submitted to it."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution #!/amendments/1/essays/141/fre edom-of-assembly-and-petition

You clearly stated you were against boycotts. That would indeed indicate you would force someone to do business with a company with opposing ideology. A boycott usually is a very ineffective method to force a company to do anything. Few boycotts do anything more than make a few people feel like they’re doing something constructive. How many boycotts have caused economic harm as you’ve claimed?

Price and need do not mean I enjoy their products. I don’t care about the price and I want the product, I don’t need it.

Now you’re comparing submitting a writ with petitioning the government? Two entirely different actions.

If you really believe they’re misdirecting the people then you’re easily misdirected.

Doesn’t matter if Canadian law is based on the same principles. It’s irrelevant when discussing US law. But, we’re not really discussing law. We’re discussing first amendment rights. The White House hosting a method to submit petition in no way violates the first amendment.

[eternal cynic]

Richard_ wrote:

Adam Lanza did not use any assault rifle to kill anyone:
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/502084...

How is an early incomplete report evidence of anything?

[Video from inside to the]

Village Mystery wrote:

That people think that a Subject coming from another country and actively campaigning against the Rights of US Citizens in this country is protected by the First Amendment is an indicator of how unAmerican the population of this country has become.
What a bunch of ignorant fools.
It's called conspiracy but only in a society that gives a damn about Liberty and the protection of it.
I'm not saying he should be deported - hopefully his hyper-emotional, anti-philosophical, whining frightened ass will feel unwelcomed enough to just leave - but I AM saying that the BILL OF RIGHTS does not protect someone who actively seeks to undermine its' very purpose.
That would be absurd wouldn't it? There are no moral or legal protections in this country for those who seek to "transform" it from a federalist Republic to a sterile, centrally planned UK-style anthill. None. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me. Go study philosophy if you don't believe me - an no, marxism, tribalism, collectivism, and nihilism are not philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[milwaukee69]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
How is an early incomplete report evidence of anything?

You're very much correct.

A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered at the school, along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun. A shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven to the school. At home, Lanza had access to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle.

The weapons were legally owned by Lanza's mother, who was a gun enthusiast. Police said Lanza used the Bushmaster rifle against most of the victims. According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot multiple times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_hill_shoot...

[Richard_]

No rifles were used to kill anyone at Sandy Hook, the president is simply using lies to make an end run on the Constitution. He's got absolutely no chance of getting any anti-gun legislation passed, the proof in the pudding is the lack of congress's ability to pass a budget.

[milwaukee69]

LMFGDAO!!!

And the Easter Bunny is real and Bigfoot is real and UFO's are real...

[Tray]

milwaukee69 wrote:

LMFGDAO!!!
And the Easter Bunny is real and Bigfoot is real and UFO's are real...

Hey these are from "government" sources. I wonder why 2 different story's from the same source. But they also refuse to release any video from inside. Strange being as they almost always play the video to death yet in this case NO ONE has gotten a look at it. But we know the current administration don't lie to promote gun control or would create a false situation to imply a gun problem (fast and furious).

[Denny Crain]

Richard_ wrote:

No rifles were used to kill anyone at Sandy Hook, the president is simply using lies to make an end run on the Constitution. He's got absolutely no chance of getting any anti-gun legislation passed, the proof in the pudding is the lack of congress's ability to pass a budget.

The Democrats remember the last time they passed a useless Assault rife ban. They were vote out of office. I hope they go for in. Old Harry in the senate has already said they won't bring it up till it passes in the house.

[Denny Crain]

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> Hey these are from "government" sources. I wonder why 2 different story's from the same source. But they also refuse to release any video from inside. Strange being as they almost always play the video to death yet in this case NO ONE has gotten a look at it. But we know the current administration don't lie to promote gun control or would create a false situation to imply a gun problem (fast and furious).

The same Obama that want to ban guns protects Eric Holder who is responsible for breaking our gun laws resulting in the death of hundreds

[Another]

Denny Crain wrote:

<quoted text>The same Obama that want to ban guns protects Eric Holder who is responsible for breaking our gun laws resulting in the death of hundreds

lie

[eternal cynic]

Richard_ wrote:

No rifles were used to kill anyone at Sandy Hook, the president is simply using lies to make an end run on the Constitution. He's got absolutely no chance of getting any anti-gun legislation passed, the proof in the pudding is the lack of congress's ability to pass a budget.

Incorrect, Lanza used the Bushmaster during the killing spree.

[eternal cynic]

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> Hey these are from "government" sources. I wonder why 2 different story's from the same source. But they also refuse to release any video from inside. Strange being as they almost always play the video to death yet in this case NO ONE has gotten a look at it. But we know the current administration don't lie to promote gun control or would create a false situation to imply a gun problem (fast and furious).

I’m not surprised the video hasn’t been released. Imagine the backlash of doing so.

[eternal cynic]

Denny Crain wrote:

<quoted text>The Democrats remember the last time they passed a useless Assault rife ban. They were vote out of office. I hope they go for in. Old Harry in the senate has already said they won't bring it up till it passes in the house.

You raise a good point. Many of them were voted out of office after the 1994 ban.

The reality in the case of Sandy Hook. Blame belongs to Lanza’s mother. She knew the potential danger her son presented and failed to secure her weapons.

[Richard_]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Incorrect, Lanza used the Bushmaster during the killing spree.

In correct, the Bushmaster was left out in the car, Lanza used four handguns. That's why handgun rounds got limited to 7 in New York, because even the new Yorkers know it was handguns that killed those kids.

[eternal cynic]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>In correct, the Bushmaster was left out in the car, Lanza used four handguns. That's why handgun rounds got limited to 7 in New York, because even the new Yorkers know it was handguns that killed those kids.

The initial report indicated what you claim. Later reports indicate it was a shotgun left in the car, not the Bushmaster.

NY, that’s actually a bit humorous. In their rush to pass stricter legislation they inadvertently created a situation where many law enforcement officers are in violation of the new law.

It wasn’t just handgun magazines limited to seven; the new legislation limits all magazines to seven rounds.

[hroola]

youtube.com/watch...
On goes Life lets deport and remove this burden

[milwaukee69]

The Bushmaster was the main weapon used in the massacre.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5755941...

[milwaukee69]

It doesn't sound like a handgun to me...

"Lanza stopped shooting between 9:46 a.m. and 9:49 a.m., after firing 50 to 100 rounds. He reloaded frequently during the shooting, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty round magazine.

[Clinton Reno baby killers]

Obama's main interest in Sandy Hook was to make sure one of his Fast and Furious firearms wasn't used by Adam Lanza.

Can you imagine the implications if that were the case?