Piers Morgan "slams" down U.S. Constitution, says "Your little book" while getting baked.

page: 16
91
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Piers Morgan seems fairly intelligent and definitely knows what he's talking about


Really?? You think so??




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe
I argue that this country was founded on the principal that ALL ideas should be given the time of day. Most of us do cherish the constitution and all that it stands for, however, it is not un-American to disagree with that sentiment. Let the man be heard. His point is a little unlearned, but there is some wisdom in it. Politicians do often ignore the constitution - can you argue that?


There's more than a little wisdom in it. On a conspiracy-orientated board, the idea that the FF's created the constitution to deceive the riff-raff into thinking they had liberty, knowing that one day its vagueness and ambiguity would be used by existing govts to foment unrest, is hardly as out there as some stuff I've read.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Of course, there's no denying he's definitely intelligent, but that doesn't mean he's right on anything, and quite frankly all he's saying is basically one of the long sought after treasures of the centrist and far left groups, banning assault weapons. I right now don't see any reason to believe that will actually happen, get that through congress, THEN start to worry about the 2nd.
edit on 12-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

1. ok, link your 'proof' please.
2. see #1
3. no clue but it's certainly not your forte
4. sure have but you keep avoiding mine, why is that ?

whatever, it seems there is a small plane crash on the grounds of one of our college campuses ... have to do this laters. bye.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Did you think that was also the reason JFK was assassinated?


Somebody just watched "Dark Legacy."

Can we please stay -somewhat- on point? This isn't a forum about who killed Kennedy or which president is involved in the NWO, it's about the debate on gun laws between Piers Morgan and his guest.
edit on 12-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)


Yah you just got hired as a MOD right? To tell us all here how to behave? I can find a dot to connect everything. I say Piers is a tool of the NWO and Reagan was not shot to get polling numbers up. (and besides that you were the one who brought up Reagan in this thread, as if he himself supported gun control, then someone asserted the attempt on his life was merely for polling numbers, which is pure bunk)
Who watched Dark Legacy? I never heard of it to be sure.
Strange how the assassinations of Presidents and the attempted assassinations never seemed to result in the media demanding gun control, but mass shootings in schools did. Or at least if they did I never heard it.
People are just getting their conspiracies mixed up. No attempted assassinations to get poll numbers up. More likely to be eliminations of people getting in the way of the NWO plans.
Gun Control is purely an agenda of disarming citizens so they don't get in the way of the NWO. It's pretty much all from the same rule book.

And one more thing about Piers, he is just another tool of the Left to eradicate the Constitution and decimate it till it is completely unrecognizable as it is practiced in precedent and law. The Left has to attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because it stands in the way of their Totalitarian agenda.

Maybe Reagan's stance on gun control can be cleared up, as Reagan supposedly ran on support of the 2nd Amendment and gun control was not the big issue then as it was in the Clinton era(and gee I wonder why)


In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: “In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea.”


Reagan’s stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Reagan on May 19, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional.

The National Rifle Association and other pro gun groups lobbied for passage of the legislation, and it was generally considered favorable for gun owners. Among other things, the act made it easier to transport long rifles across the United States, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as the gun were properly stored.



civilliberty.about.com...


So let's not do like Saul Alinsky people and try to turn a pro 2nd Amendment Prez into a gun control advocate.
edit on 12-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 





On a conspiracy-orientated board, the idea that the FF's created the constitution to deceive the riff-raff into thinking they had liberty, knowing that one day its vagueness and ambiguity would be used by existing govts to foment unrest, is hardly as out there as some stuff I've read.


It's definitely "out there" and definitely bogus. Sorry. it's a no go conspiracy wise. You would be hard pressed to find evidence that even the Freemasons had that in mind.
Here is the simplest argument against that idea. Those very men who crafted the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution put their lives on the line and fought an entire war for freedom. Whey then would they craft a document which would pretend at liberty?

edit on 12-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lolita64
Another reason to deport that piece of garbage Morgan... he's not even a citizen and yet he's talking against the founding document of the country!

How is he not classified as a foreign agent trying to destroy the US?? He should be arrested and sent to Guantanamo for his BS... there he'll learn what government tyranny is that or deport him to North Korea where he can fully live what happens when everybody is disarmed and psychopaths take over.
edit on 11-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)


Ack...i'm in full disagreement with Morgan, but what is with this sudden obsession people have with wanting to deport foreigners, legally in this country for expressing their views? Would it suddenly make everyone feel better if he had to wake up at an odd hour to broadcast his piece live at the same time slot? We're not under an iron curtain (though obviously many are clamoring for us to be) - it doesn't matter where he is located, we have satellites. He could say the same thing from Sudan and it would still show up on televisions for people to go into an "I DON'T WANT TO BE HEARING HIS OPINION!" fit.

Calm down, people. Why the terror over someone speaking their mind? And then to throw the "if you don't think like me, you're a terrorist" kind of W-Bush/1984/PATRIOT Act nonsense in to boot is just plain embarassing.

He says what he wants to say, and so what? Why are people cowering in fear over some guy's opinion? I just disagree and plain don't give a damn what he says.

Sorry, but I just can't believe I keep seeing this same type of comment so often now whenever someone speaks a contrary opinion. Why it bothers me most is that it shows pure cowardice and small-mindedness.
edit on 1/12/2013 by dogstar23 because: stupid touch-screen typo



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

1. ok, link your 'proof' please.
2. see #1
3. no clue but it's certainly not your forte
4. sure have but you keep avoiding mine, why is that ?

whatever, it seems there is a small plane crash on the grounds of one of our college campuses ... have to do this laters. bye.


I know I said I wouldn't respond, but I can't help myself

1. In Australia, murder rates involving guns have been cut in half or more since the restrictions on firearms were put into effect.

Australia — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law
www.gunpolicy.org...

In Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2010: 0.1319
2009: 0.1619 17
2008: 0.13
2007: 0.13
2006: 0.20
2005: 0.07
2004: 0.07
2003: 0.2719 22 17
2002: 0.23
2001: 0.24
2000: 0.3022 17
1999: 0.26
1998: 0.30
1997: 0.43
1996: 0.57
1995: 0.37
1994: 0.4322
1993: 0.36
1992: 0.55
1991: 0.49
1990: 0.46
1989: 0.48
1988: 0.74

or

Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (%)

2010: 0.9719
2009: 1.1919 17
2008: 1.1719 20 17
2007: 1.02
2006: 1.23
2005: 0.98
2004: 0.82
2003: 1.40
2002: 1.48
2001: 1.55
1999/00: 1.620 17
1998/99: 1.7
1997/98: 1.6
1996/97: 1.6
1995/96: 1.6
1994/95: 1.8
1993/94: 1.820
1992/93: 1.9
1991/92: 1.8
1990/91: 1.9
1989/90: 1.8

2. See #1

3. Semantics is the interpretation of meaning. What I say needs no interpretations, because I make my very best effort to say it in a way which is directly to the point. So no, I'm not good at semantics, because to me it's just philosophical garbage that isn't worth the effort. It takes away from the questions at hand when we focus too much on the meaning of specific words.

4. What am I supposed to answer? You haven't asked me a single question.

Feel free to PM me when you get back if you wish to continue this debate.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by lolita64
Another reason to deport that piece of garbage Morgan... he's not even a citizen and yet he's talking against the founding document of the country!

How is he not classified as a foreign agent trying to destroy the US?? He should be arrested and sent to Guantanamo for his BS... there he'll learn what government tyranny is that or deport him to North Korea where he can fully live what happens when everybody is disarmed and psychopaths take over.
edit on 11-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)


Ack...i'm in full disagreement with Morgan, but what is with this sudden obsession people have with wanting to deport foreigners, legally in this country for expressing their views? Would it suddenly make everyone feel better if he had to wake up at an odd hour to broadcast his piece live at the same time slot? We're not under an iron curtain (though obviously many are clamoring for us to be) - it doesn't matter where he is located, we have satellites. He could say the same thing from Sudan and it would still show up on televisions for people to go into an "I DON'T WANT TO BE HEARING HIS OPINION!" fit.

Calm down, people. Why the terror over someone speaking their kind? And then to throw the "if you don't think like me, you're a terrorist" kind of W-Bush/1984/PATRIOT Act nonsense in to boot is just plain embarassing.

He says what he wants to say, and so what? Why are people cowering in fear over some guy's opinion? I just disagree and plain don't give a damn what he says.

Sorry, but I just can't believe I keep seeing this same type of comment so often now whenever someone speaks a contrary opinion. Why it bothers me most is that it shows pure cowardice and small-mindedness.


It's really always been that way, and the only feasible answer is fear, nationalism, and to an extent - racism. Haven't you heard the term "go back to Africa" before? It's no different than "go back to the British Isles."

And indeed, it is about people not wanting to hear any opinion of their own. And more often than not, those same people who claim to defend the constitution - the very document which gives us the right to say what we like (to an extent) regardless of opinion - that call for a deportation of those who don't agree with them.
edit on 12-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Dark Legacy is a documentary that links Prescott Bush, his superiors, and his cronies to the assassination of JFK. It actually raises many legitimate points, and backs them with solid evidence. It's on Netflix. I don't disagree with you, but again, this isn't about the shadow gov't. It's about Morgan and his guest.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by lolita64
Another reason to deport that piece of garbage Morgan... he's not even a citizen and yet he's talking against the founding document of the country!

How is he not classified as a foreign agent trying to destroy the US?? He should be arrested and sent to Guantanamo for his BS... there he'll learn what government tyranny is that or deport him to North Korea where he can fully live what happens when everybody is disarmed and psychopaths take over.
edit on 11-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)


Ack...i'm in full disagreement with Morgan, but what is with this sudden obsession people have with wanting to deport foreigners, legally in this country for expressing their views? Would it suddenly make everyone feel better if he had to wake up at an odd hour to broadcast his piece live at the same time slot? We're not under an iron curtain (though obviously many are clamoring for us to be) - it doesn't matter where he is located, we have satellites. He could say the same thing from Sudan and it would still show up on televisions for people to go into an "I DON'T WANT TO BE HEARING HIS OPINION!" fit.

Calm down, people. Why the terror over someone speaking their kind? And then to throw the "if you don't think like me, you're a terrorist" kind of W-Bush/1984/PATRIOT Act nonsense in to boot is just plain embarassing.

He says what he wants to say, and so what? Why are people cowering in fear over some guy's opinion? I just disagree and plain don't give a damn what he says.

Sorry, but I just can't believe I keep seeing this same type of comment so often now whenever someone speaks a contrary opinion. Why it bothers me most is that it shows pure cowardice and small-mindedness.


It's really always been that way, and the only feasible answer is fear, nationalism, and to an extent - racism. Haven't you heard the term "go back to Africa" before? It's no different than "go back to the British Isles."

And indeed, it is about people not wanting to hear any opinion of their own. And more often than not, those same people defend the constitution - the very document which gives us the right to say what we like (to an extent) regardless of opinion.
edit on 12-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)


I agree that Morgan isn't the devil, he has some valid and legitimate opinions. I don't see the reason why people hate him viciously, he's just one of the many lefties in the states with a broadcasted opinion, and he's not the only one speaking publicly about the ban on assault guns. Although I do think the petition to deport him is quite funny and surely hurts him lol.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 





On a conspiracy-orientated board, the idea that the FF's created the constitution to deceive the riff-raff into thinking they had liberty, knowing that one day its vagueness and ambiguity would be used by existing govts to foment unrest, is hardly as out there as some stuff I've read.


It's definitely "out there" and definitely bogus. Sorry. it's a no go conspiracy wise. You would be hard pressed to find evidence that even the Freemasons had that in mind.
Here is the simplest argument against that idea. Those very men who crafted the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution put their lives on the line and fought an entire war for freedom. Whey then would they craft a document which would pretend at liberty?

edit on 12-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


So, you'd prefer to believe that the group of politicians/power seekers who helped draft the Constitution were the first and last honest govt ever, or do you think this inherent goodness continued unabated for a long time afterwards? Care to point me to the last time period when a govt was trustworthy?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 





but what is with this sudden obsession people have with wanting to deport foreigners, legally in this country for expressing their views? Would it suddenly make everyone feel better if he had to wake up at an odd hour to broadcast his piece live at the same time slot? We're not under an iron curtain (though obviously many are clamoring for us to be) - it doesn't matter where he is located, we have satellites


Well, you are quite right that our freedom of speech does differentiate us say...from the former German empire, or Mussolini's Italy, or perhaps some Marxist guerilla dictatorship in South American or Africa. Also, Prez Wilson did introduce the Sedition Act.

Most Americans just don't think that condemning the Constitution is cool, that is unless you are far left leaning...



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I think Piers is a helmet but I do agree with his views and I think he won this argument and the other guy was an even bigger helmet.

I think the other guy sides with lunatics like James Yeager...

CEO threatens to 'start killing people'



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
Well his belittling of the constitution is quite justified. It's outdated and treated like no one would be free without it. It could be destroyed today and there would be no difference, if anything it's a hindrance because it blinds people from reality while they protect their "freedom".



Ding Ding Ding.....we have a winner. Most Inane quote of the week. Thanks for playing.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 





So, you'd prefer to believe that the group of politicians/power seekers who helped draft the Constitution were the first and last honest govt ever, or do you think this inherent goodness continued unabated for a long time afterwards? Care to point me to the last time period when a govt was trustworthy?


I don't recall saying that, but then I don't consider our Founding Fathers power seekers; they were men who wanted freedom and liberty for themselves and their families. They wanted the right to rule themselves in a Representative govt rather than the tyrannical rule of a Monarchy. For the most part it was the first concept of it's kind ever, though based on some historical Democratic govts and thought systems. It was somewhat of a novel experiement, and there are many who are set to destroy it for their Totalitarian agenda.
edit on 12-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dogstar23
 





but what is with this sudden obsession people have with wanting to deport foreigners, legally in this country for expressing their views? Would it suddenly make everyone feel better if he had to wake up at an odd hour to broadcast his piece live at the same time slot? We're not under an iron curtain (though obviously many are clamoring for us to be) - it doesn't matter where he is located, we have satellites


Well, you are quite right that our freedom of speech does differentiate us say...from the former German empire, or Mussolini's Italy, or perhaps some Marxist guerilla dictatorship in South American or Africa. Also, Prez Wilson did introduce the Sedition Act.

Most Americans just don't think that condemning the Constitution is cool, that is unless you are far left leaning...


Although, I'm conservative (duh), I do have to say that the country wasn't always too keen to completely leave the 1st amendment alone, think about the communist scare directly after ww2, freedom of speech was heavily tightened, maybe legitimately......but it's not like the 1st was always upheld throughout history.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
What i think is strange is in this debate is that no one brings up the fact that about 60% of the homicides in the US are directly linked to the DRUG trade.
Dealers/gangs
Users doing crime to support there habits.
People under the influence.
People with fried brains from drugs (mentally ill)

There should be laws that if you are under the influence of illegal hard drugs (not MJ)and found with guns its a automatic 5 years.
And felons with firearms should also get 20 years.
In calif its 16 months or two or three years in the California State Prison with time off for good behaver.

If you are a illegal immigrant or legal alien it should be a automatic deportation.

Knowingly selling a firearm or ammo giving a firearm or ammo to a felon. 10 years. (this targets gang members passing guns and ammo around. ) this should be under a federal RICO statute.
If you are a known gang member without a felony record and acquire(buy or steal) a gun or ammo and supply it to another gang member with a felony.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 12-1-2013 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 





Although, I'm conservative (duh), I do have to say that the country wasn't always too keen to completely leave the 1st amendment alone, think about the communist scare directly after ww2, freedom of speech was heavily tightened, maybe legitimately......but it's not like the 1st was always upheld throughout history.


I hear what you are saying, truly. I don't think our Founding Fathers mixed up the concept of freedom of the press with the right to do or say anything without consequences, as we know that even with our focus on liberties, we do not as a general rule have the right to murder people without it being a matter of self defense. Even then we have to prove our lives were in danger.
Prez Wilson was bordering on fascism and was quite Progressive as Presidents go.
I myself am convinced that leftists and Communist agitators use our own freedoms against us to move their agendas forward, but I am certain they would like to eliminate them altogether.
Communism is a system, at least as practiced in most countries it has been tried, which employs a method of forcing people to comply in a most violent and brutal way, whereas socialism attempts to get people to agree with the positions more voluntarily, but still in a forced environment, as with legislation such as EPA regulations against business to disrupt the free market.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


FFs................THEY WERE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES!

These friggin people need to STOP parroting that they are ASSUALT rifles they are NOT assault files!




A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use


they are semi automatic rifles........with a different COVER then a wooden stock.........THATS IT!

If people who are pro gun would start correcting this freaking false terminology then MAYBE we could get an honest damn discussion


Now.. I haven't really looked into Sandy Hook. I don't look into any massacres, because I can't do anything about them. But if I'm not mistaken, I've heard he used an AR-15, right?

Doesn't that stand for Assault Rifle 15?





top topics
 
91
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join