Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 25
91
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
If you read through these 'gun threads' you would be forgiven for thinking that America is full of rapists and thieves, mostly rapists it would seem, and that unless your packing heat your gonna get raped and robbed and goodness knows what else.

Apparently McCarthyism was correct and if your an advocate for gun control your worse than the KKK and the NAZIs.

Also, it seems that being an advocate for gun control makes you a communist which is something that Piers Morgan is...there was me thinking he was a self centered capitalist...how wrong was I?!?

The whole raising a militia to over throw tyranny argument for owning personal weapons is silly. I think from a modern stance it does mean a lot with regards to privatising your armed forces, tyranny WILL come from that. But, at present, your armed forces are full of US Citizens like yourselves and would surely defend their neighbours.. (or is it that they are all rapists and robbers too?)

I am amazed that the intelligent pro-gun guys are so quiet,there is some, I seen them posting on other threads and putting forward some decent arguments. And there are many good arguments and reasons for owning firearms it just seems for some reason you only choose to put them forward about 1% of the time. I understand the pro-gun guys must be embarrassed to speak up because of all these idiots, I empathise fully with that given the behaviour of my countrymen at the moment, but come on fellas, Deny Ignorance!




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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.


It's a well known fact that the red scare was a tool used by government agencies to take away the rights of it's own citizens. If I want to talk smack about my own government, what's the problem? Should I be tossed out of the country because people don't like what I'm saying, even though I have no plans to take radical/extremist action?


I don't agree. I wouldn't say the post ww2 administration for the next 20 years did consciously want to take away rights. there was legitimate fear of the communist, or to be fair to the lefties, stalinist communist ideology sweeping into the states. Even pre ww2! killings, agitations, assassinations, it all happened, in the name of communism and a bolshevist style revolt. the government at the time only reacted to it, granted, in a pretty harsh way, but think about what COULD have happened if they weren't tight on the reds.


Nothing?
And no, it wasn't legitimate. American-born citizens had their rights taken away to advance political careers.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

still seeking to prove a non-existant point eh ?
hmmmm, and you mistakenly believe that less firearm crime is equal to 'less violent crime', do ya ??
ok then, you are free to believe it.

such twisted statistics are abounding, please pick the right group that applies to your argument, as stated ...

You obviously can't look here, because there are no statistics

don't even say i'm putting words in your mouth, either.


"That experience in Australia is dwindling" Well that's just blatantly incorrect. Link your source.
ok, here's a couple.

link 1

The Australian Bureau of Criminology states its murder rate in 2006 with firearms was the highest ever at 16.3 percent. The ban started in 1997.

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery 6.2 percent, sexual assault/rape 29.2 percent and overall crime rose 42.2 percent
thanks but i'll take my chances here.

link 2

Even the head of Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards.

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%.

all of which appear to be quite contrary to your statement here ...

However, statistics prove that gun prohibition works. Look at Australia

and since you can't seem to recall correctly, here's what i have actually said.

[color=amber] a gun is and can be leverage ... even without pulling the trigger

besides, impingement is still impingement regardless of the gender being impinged.
now, if you wish to discuss facts, i'd be happy to oblige, otherwise, enjoy your delusion



Hmmm..

Your blog, or my official Australian poll...

Wonder which is more credible..




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Thank you for your reading recommendations...i will put them on my list. You're signature caught my eye...My squadrons Commanding Officer in the NAVY had a plaque on his desk that stated..." Too err is human...but to forgive is not my policy."



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
"Shapiro did an amazing job of putting Morgan in his place. One thing I would've done differently in the interview if I were Shapiro is when Morgan asked why any citizen needed a military-style assault weapon, Shapiro stated that sometimes governments go tyrannical. And while that is true and why the Second Amendment was written, I would've also stated that while citizens may not necessarily need assault weapons, it is their right to keep and bear them if they so choose. "


I agree with you 110%. What Piers did was crazy and dumb. You can't just poke at the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

hmmmmm, looks more like your opinion poll vs quote from the head of Australian BCS.
{you know, those ppl who keep the statistics you claim favor your opinion}

i mean really, which makes more sense ?
your poll or this statement ... "the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime."



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Not particularly keen to reply are you?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


"the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime."


Except for that small, niggling little fact that we haven't had a mass murder since the gun restrictions



How many has America had in the last 20 years?
edit on 15/1/2013 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Pierce drowned in this interview like he does in so many others. He cant even answer the mans questions. He does that "I know you are but what am i" kinda thing and man it just doesn't work for him. Its not a left or right thing though there is obviously a problem with gun control in the country i live somewhere where there were like 4 murders in a community in less than a month. I am an avid gun enthusiast and my family owns numerous firearms, (no assault weapons though but if they had the money they would lol) we go hunting and we use pistols to arm ourselves. And yes we believe in protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government. But even we all know (not believe) there is a problem. A man walked into a wells fargo bank the other day on my side of town while i was getting money wielding a snub nose 38 in his HAND not his pocket or a holster his HAND. He looked the part of a mental health patient "major balding on the top of his head with a few strands combed over the spot, Thick glasses, pot belly, fanny pack on the front of him, hawaiin shirt and he was sweating) He sat down in front of the lady that was sitting in the waiting area and she didnt notice until he sat down that he had a gun when she realized she gasped and he held up his free hand while holding the pistol by his side and told her to quote "Relax" after that instantly two police officers came from opposite ends of the building and arrested him. WTF. I almost shat my pants.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tdk84
Dear god... a 24 page thread about Piers Morgan. His rating in the US must be massive.

Do what we did in the UK and ignore him, he went away.

The guy is trash.


His ratings at CNN are in the toilet.

Fox News is #1
MSNBC is #2
CNN is last. Nobody watches CNN.

History is on our side.

Keep the 2nd Amendment to confront and repel the chance of tyranny.
Piers Morgan is hoping that we live in a society of chronic amnesiacs.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Honor93
 


Not particularly keen to reply are you?

reply to what ?? could you be specific please ?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


"the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime."


Except for that small, niggling little fact that we haven't had a mass murder since the gun restrictions



How many has America had in the last 20 years?
edit on 15/1/2013 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

that's misleading at best and not the topic of this thread.

what does mass murder have to do with gun restrictions anyway ??
WACO was the government with guns.
Ruby Ridge, same thing.
Wounded Knee, rinse and repeat.

guns aren't necessary to commit mass murder and most of those on record were committed by governments so i really don't follow your point.

so, what does the arrogant, disrespectful and horrid behavior depicted on Piers broadcasts have to do with mass murders anyway ?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I said it in the other thread, which I'm positive you saw, but I'll say it here too. The last few days of posting my opinion on gun control on ATS has left me feeling swamped by the mountain of negativity aimed at me. I am bowing out of the gun control debate altogether.

Some will take this as a sign of defeat, and they would be wrong. There is only so much mocking, insulting, hounding and outright being lied about that one person can take so I feel it is best that I now leave the subject for you to debate amongst yourselves to your hearts content.

Have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 

yes indeed, 200years of this smack down is plenty.
yes, 4 continuous weeks of this gun control nonsense is sickening and contradictory to independence.

and lastly, i gotta stop by that other thread and give Wrabbit a star ... he called it alright

have a nice day.
don't fret too much, our guns aren't really your or Piers' problem, are they ?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 

Really?..I never watch Fox news. They are as bad as CNN.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

are you serious ??
did it ever occur to you that i chose to avoid such nonsense ?

since you replied with specifics, here ya go ... just don't make a habit of it, ok ?
from your first link ...
1. what does it matter ?
those who have been offensive to their host ended up like Daniel Pearl.

2. again, what does that matter ?
are any Americans in the UK demanding the Magna Carta be re-written ?
no ?? then what makes it ok in the USA ? and by a Brit of all ppl.

3. noooo, not a one

{don't let the avatar info fool ya}

4. yea, so ??
which of those statements (although rude) are untrue ?

and lastly, which American journalists are pissing all over the population hosting them ????
please, any name will do.
and since it's not likely you'll find one, can't we just offer Piers to Poseidon and let them work it out ??

********************************

2nd link -- Piers doesn't deserve a stage simply because he doesn't respect it or his audience or his host country or his guests.

after considering the above, his platform is kinda irrelevant.
he doesn't speak to me so i don't tune in ... it's a simple remedy.

and with this ...

You remind me of Islamic extremists who decry and protest against teddy bears being called Mohammed etc
what is the point of responding to your kind at all ??

you remind me of Piers

double-talking, back-stabbing, B#ter of the highest order who would toss his own mother under the bus for a paycheck.

when have i 'denied' or suggested 'denying' him his opinion ???
please, link it and good luck cause we both know it doesn't exist.

so, since you're from England, what do you think would happen to me if i were a BBC talking-head hell bent on dissing the monarchy and demanding they give up claim on Ireland and all territories not contained on the mainland ???

how long do you think i'd be employed at BBC or a guest of England ?

***************************

now, i do hope your curiosity is satisfied, however, i truly don't see how any of the points you relayed even apply to the topic at hand.

your last link isn't worth addressing.
if you don't know the answers to those questions, why are you posting as if you do ??

until you can comprehend what a "Constitutional attitude" is ... you might want to refrain from using terms beyond your ability.


seem to be doing your best in turning him into a martyr with your irrational and unconstitutional attitude towards him.

a. he's alive and he'll never be popular enough to be a martyr
b. i'm not turning him into anything (that's beyond my ability)
c. your irrational understanding of the situation isn't my failure
d. please, show some respect, for my country and the Constitution that defines it.

you can 'not like it' all you want, that doesn't give you any right to demand such a schmuck be tolerated ... shipped out, absolutely within our rights ... like i said, let Poseidon settle it for all i care ... that man is soooo full of hot air, he'd never sink anyway.

look, if i were to "pull the platform punch" as you infer ... i'd remove ALL of the political pundits
(exclusions not on purpose -- to me they all fit the same evil agenda) and their side-kicks.
from Anderson to O'Reilly, Beck to Huffington, Coulter to Stewart and those in between.

your mistake is believing i give a rats pattuti about Piers' platform.
yes i disagree with it but that is secondary to the problems he presents as a mouth-piece.

he is a disgrace to his home country and he isn't improving while he's here.
what good reason/argument can you present to NOT boot his arse out ??

edit on 16-1-2013 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Sorry, just saw your reply.

Yes he threatened AJ, and that was wrong, I had forgotten about that. But, that is reasonable grounds for deportation. I'm glad you brought that up, as I've been looking through various threads and responding in most of them. So, you seem to be correct, as he did (along with others) make a threat towards Jones, even if it was a joke, it was in poor taste, and such things shouldn't be joked about. Was it a joke, or a Freudian Slip played off as a joke? The laughter seemed a bit nervous to me, either way, I think it would constitute a threat, and therefore be grounds for deportation. I had forgotten about that and was thinking of the petition to deport Piers Morgan which had garnered the bulk of it's signatures before he joked about "popping" Alex Jones. However, that is not to say that he shouldn't stand trial. Everybody deserves a fair trial.

likewise, been busy and in other threads.
without repeating myself, please read the reply to freeborn above

currently, this 'threat' is the biggest issue for me.
joke or not, in this country ... 3 or more (as it was in this case) can be perceived as a 'conspiracy to commit murder' and plenty of ppl have been convicted on less.

now, not saying the FCC or any 'authority' should step in, unless a proper complaint is filed, however, INS doesn't require such a 'conviction' to commence deportation processes.

when our children are being arrested/suspended/punished for making mere hand gestures
... these guys really need to set a good example, wouldn't you agree ??
{yes, the treatment of the kids is overboard but what mssg are we sending them if nothing is done or it's fluffed off as a 'joke' ?}

don't get me wrong, i'd bet many of them didn't see it on tv, but it's been in the news and all over the net for weeks now, they are hearing about it from one source or another, so, how do we explain the blatant conflict to them ??
edit on 16-1-2013 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

hmmmmm, looks more like your opinion poll vs quote from the head of Australian BCS.
{you know, those ppl who keep the statistics you claim favor your opinion}

i mean really, which makes more sense ?
your poll or this statement ... "the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime."


Statistics. Period.

Empirical evidence is always stronger than someone's words backed by 0 evidence. Especially when there IS evidence to the contrary.

Opinion means squat while talking fact.

edit on 16-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


"the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime."


Except for that small, niggling little fact that we haven't had a mass murder since the gun restrictions



How many has America had in the last 20 years?
edit on 15/1/2013 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

that's misleading at best and not the topic of this thread.

what does mass murder have to do with gun restrictions anyway ??
WACO was the government with guns.
Ruby Ridge, same thing.
Wounded Knee, rinse and repeat.

guns aren't necessary to commit mass murder and most of those on record were committed by governments so i really don't follow your point.

so, what does the arrogant, disrespectful and horrid behavior depicted on Piers broadcasts have to do with mass murders anyway ?


No. He's right. It isn't misleading.

You admit to believing whatever you want, despite evidence represented blatantly before you.

You're the worst type of ignorant.





new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join