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

Pier got owned! SF

i dont agree with Morgan but you should be able to deport some one for talking Ish or starting a discussion, god damn you sound like a bunch of children.

reply to post by FuturePeace


Starting a discussion? No. For threatening our constitution, you better believe it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by FuturePeace

 

Starting a discussion? No. For threatening our constitution, you better believe it.

Why is the Constitution sacrosanct? It wasn't written with that in mind. Thus the number of amendments.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by FuturePeace

 

Starting a discussion? No. For threatening our constitution, you better believe it.

Why is the Constitution sacrosanct? It wasn't written with that in mind. Thus the number of amendments.

I dont believe it is. I do believe that no foreigner, however, should be allowed to challenge it. If we want change in this country, it is up to US, and we should not let those that are not governed by it to challenge it this way.

Now, I dont think anything morgan has done merits deportation. I DO, however, think that its asinine that this man is allowed to continually disparage the constitution.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


So you're saying that if he was a natural born American you would have no problem with his stance?

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

I was not talking about a British Constitution. I was talking about British Common Law:

English law is the legal system of England and Wales,[1] and is the basis of common law[2] legal systems used in the Republic of Ireland and in most Commonwealth countries[3] and the United States except Louisiana (as opposed to civil law or pluralist systems in use in other countries). It was exported to Commonwealth countries while the British Empire was established and maintained, and it forms the basis of the jurisprudence of most of those countries. English law prior to the American Revolution is still part of the law of the United States through reception statutes, except in Louisiana, and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies, though it has no superseding jurisdiction.

en.wikipedia.org...

My bad I misread.Maybe Americans passion for their rights leads from a clear Constitution and Bill Of Rights. From which we can interpert the meaning.Now people will not always agree on those interpertations thus the passion of the debate.

Now I am curious how clear do the British and Canadiens know their rights? Do you have as much passion
when one of your given rights are challgened?Not trying to be mean I just don't know your system that well.I do not want to step into a issue and give a comment. On something I have not lived or don't know about.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

So you're saying that if he was a natural born American you would have no problem with his stance?

I have no problem with his stance anyway. I dont agree with it, but I absolutely defend his right to state it. Where my issue comes in, though, is that this man openly admits that it is 'our' constitution, not his. It has nothing to do with being 'natural born' and everything to do with being a part of this country. he is a foreign journalist who favors his home country over the country he reports in.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


I'd love to answer that but it would be off topic. I'll start a thread on it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I have no problem with his stance anyway. I dont agree with it, but I absolutely defend his right to state it. Where my issue comes in, though, is that this man openly admits that it is 'our' constitution, not his. It has nothing to do with being 'natural born' and everything to do with being a part of this country. he is a foreign journalist who favors his home country over the country he reports in.

We've got exactly the opposite. Mark Steyn:

en.wikipedia.org...

Seems to hate his own country for another. Please..... keep him.

Piers ancestors did not come to America. The first Americans were a special breed of human. Ones that like freedon and will die to keep it. Rebls and hell raisers. Freedom was why they got on ships and left europe and they and their decents turned around and fought Peirs ancestors who where to afraid and squishy inside to fight tyrrany like most of our ancestors did. We are indeed different than Piers. Many of us carry on the traits passed on to us by our hell raising, freedom loving ancestors, unlike Piers, he will never "get it". He dont fit in here. He would like to turn America back 200 years. It wont happen and he can go to He double tooth pick

reply to post by intrepid


Last on that topic.

If you do start one I will read about it.Learn about it.Ask people who live by it before I star voicing a opinion about it.Or it just may be none of my busness because I don't live there.

Originally posted by SinMaker
Ben did a remarkable job in that interview. I call him Ben, because I consider him a friend now. His debating ability made Morgan seem pathetic. I sure hope Ben is on the front line of this issue; as he brings crystal clear credibility to the table.

except he kept calling them assault rifles......and they are not......

The liberal left uses terminology to set precidence.......and they are doing it with this......

They want to get those black rifles banned, so they call those rifles assault rifles, and they arent...

They know that if they change the word, if they skew the definition, and repeat it enough even if its wrong , soon everyone will be and then they can put the motion in place to do just that......

And its working..........even conservative commentators are calling them assault weapons.......stupid....stupid.......stupid

it just goes further to prove that they arent after anything less then a complete taking of guns ............all guns

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Posted it here. Please ask any questions.

reply to post by intrepid

Nah I thought about it and realized.I don't live there so your constitution is none of my business.

THE DUDE ABIDES

Why doesnt anyone bring up the fact that in order to affectively defend ourselves against the government handguns wont work?

How dare an immigrant come our country and challenge our way of life. Especially an immigrant who came from the country we had to fight a war against.

I cant stand Piers Morgan hes an idiot. Who is payng this guy to act like that?

Originally posted by onequestion
How dare an immigrant come our country and challenge our way of life. Especially an immigrant who came from the country we had to fight a war against.

2 actually if you properly include the War of 1812. What about the wars that you fought side by side? WW's 1 & 2. Korea. The War on Terror.

reply to post by intrepid


Thats true but hes challenging the constitution which is a product of the war from the government of the country he came from.

I think i said that right.

I swear to god... I've never in all my life heard a more retarded argument than the one that Shapiro and other Gun lovers keep repeating.


"We need Assault Rifles and AR-15's just in case a tyrannical government, years down the road, tries to get us."


I swear to god.... I've heard people spout the same crap on ATS.


THE most PARANOID nation on the planet.

reply to post by blupblup


What?

You have deny ignorance on your avatar yet everything you just said?

I thought he made a logical argument concerning tyranny. The only argument i have read against it is baseless. You are using your argument as support for your argument without drawing upon logical conclusions to support it.