It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
ok, here's a couple.
"That experience in Australia is dwindling" Well that's just blatantly incorrect. Link your source.
link 1thanks but i'll take my chances here.
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
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.
now, if you wish to discuss facts, i'd be happy to oblige, otherwise, enjoy your delusion
[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.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
"the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime."
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.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Honor93
Not particularly keen to reply are you?
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)
what is the point of responding to your kind at all ??
You remind me of Islamic extremists who decry and protest against teddy bears being called Mohammed etc
seem to be doing your best in turning him into a martyr with your irrational and unconstitutional attitude towards him.
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.
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."
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 ?