Petition to have Piers Morgan deported

[LordRectum1]

I think it is about time the public does something about this arrogant snob.
http://www.kirotv.com/ap/ap/entertainment/us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31400/nTd2K/

[LibertyHarkness]

Lol to funny . Hardly see him getting deported though

[Dino Velvet]

Deport him off the TV with bad ratings. I've never tuned in once. He seems like an arrogant condescending prick with a face made for a fist. We've shouldered dodgier foreigners in this country.

[runround04]

Already signed, he needs to head back across the pond like the last batch of Redcoats. (No offense to those from the UK, I love TopGear.)

[Dino Velvet]

Didn't we give them Madonna? She's way more obnoxious as far as I'm concerned.

[yourdaddy]

Where do I sign?

Next we'll get the damn French who are escaping the new socialist's high taxes.

[runround04]

Didn't we give them Madonna? She's way more obnoxious as far as I'm concerned.

They can both, unless the breed, then the world is fucked.

[Dino Velvet]

They can both, unless the breed, then the world is fucked.

Oh God, imagine if those two had a baby. Horrible thought.

[runround04]

Oh God, imagine if those two had a baby. Horrible thought.

Exactly why we need guns, that beast wont die easy!

[Dino Velvet]

Exactly why we need guns, that beast wont die easy!

If you show him a gun he might try to have a conversation with it. Seems to be with the crowd that actually yells and wags his finger at the steel itself.

[Jericho]

Fuck you all, we don't want him back...Have it! :hide-1:

[loren]

with a face made for a fist

Funny, I'm gonna have to start using that one.

[GroobySteven]

I think it is about time the public does something about this arrogant snob.
http://www.kirotv.com/ap/ap/entertainment/us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31400/nTd2K/

Ahhhh bless!
Boo-hoo - you don't like he's taking a stand on the madness of your gun laws?

[magus13]

Unfortunately no American has the balls or common sense to adress the isuue of gun violence in our countrty. Morgan takes a stand and people want him deported. Every day more of our citizens die and we are the only industrialized contry who has this problem on such a large scale. I hope no one loses a loved one to guns. This is not a second ammendmant issue. No high capacity clips, no semi -automatics and background checks at gun shows. Not to controversial unless your the NRA or a fucking right wing tea bagger.

[Willie Escalade]

So there's a petition to have Piers Morgan deported due to his views in gun control.

Whooptie do!

Hmm...it's free speech until someone says something people don't like. That goes for EVERYONE, right and left; elephant and donkey.

What did he say that's so threatening to the security of this country that should require him to be deported? Has he said anything an American citizen HASN'T said?

I mean, seriously...have any of you heard the crazy shit Ann Coulter has said? Oops, I forgot...she's an American citizen...unfortunately...

[Castor_Troy05]

As much as i dislike Morgan, and I think he is an odious little man, I cannot understand why they're willing to abandon his first amendment rights, to protect their version of the second.

Also the UK doesn't want him back, ever

[Dino Velvet]

I agree that the 1st Amendment is the most important element here. Toss him out with the clicker. Deporting him seems un-American to me unless I'm wrong.

[Quiet Reflections]

I hated him long before that interview but still would never sign a silly petition because of that. Plus we all know that the chance of him getting deported is about the same as gun laws getting changed.

[Prospero]

This is the first time in my life I find myself supporting piers. He spoke wise words and was 100 percent right in attacking the lunacy is the US gun lobby. I, wish some high profile American commentators were brave enough to speak out against the evil of guns and the NRA.

[loren]

As I've pointed out before, more Americans are killed from car crashes than firearms. Also, many more Americans die in hospital beds form MALPRACTICE and hospital related INFECTION than are shot.


No high capacity clips, no semi -automatics and background checks at gun shows.

Firstly, what is your definition of a high capacity magazine (not a clip, clips are something else), I ask because liberals can't agree on how many rounds are "too much". Some say 30 rounds is high capacity, others say 10 rounds, hell obama is saying five rounds is high capscity. Secondly are you saying that we should only be allowed to have single shot firearms? Last, but not least, they already do background checks at gun shows. (I take it from your post, that you've never been to one, much less bought a firearm from a gun show.)

[GroobySteven]

As I've pointed out before, more Americans are killed from car crashes than firearms. Also, many more Americans die in hospital beds form MALPRACTICE and hospital related INFECTION than are shot.



Pathetic.
More people die of old age than car crashes ... so fucking what?
Absolutely pathetic argument. Purile and shows the level you and others using it, really are at.

[Chaos]

Yes....Let us deport people for OPINIONS....sigh...
Makes ME wish I could be deported...

[chuzzwuzzer]

Dont give a fuck what this prick thinks.Another Piers Morgan publicity stunt.Keep the little fucker.We dont want him back over here.

[loren]

Absolutely pathetic argument.

It just makes perfect sense to me. You're saying that there should be more restrictions/a total ban on firearms because too many people are being killed. So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?

My argument is just as pathetic (or sound) as yours.

[bluesoul]

I mean, seriously...have any of you heard the crazy shit Ann Coulter has said? Oops, I forgot...she's an American citizen...unfortunately...


maybe we can start a petition to have a citizenship revoked. anytime there is a problem, we should just start a petition to end it.

[Prospero]

The number of pro gun assholes is astounding. Wayne LAPierre who branded police as storm troopers after the Oklahoma bombing by a right wing nut job now wants guns in schools. Hooray. I say give mental patients and prisoners guns too as they are all sitting targets if a gunman breaks into where they are locked up. They deserve the right to protect themselves.

[timxxx]

It just makes perfect sense to me. You're saying that there should be more restrictions/a total ban on firearms because too many people are being killed. So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?





Equating firearms with automobiles. :screwy

[Jericho]

So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?

Most automobile deaths are accidental.
Better training would reduce the number of fatalities.

Can you say the same about firearms?

[zocco]

funny that people want to deport him when he is only saying what the majority of Americans are saying in every survey

[Dino Velvet]

funny that people want to deport him when he is only saying what the majority of Americans are saying in every survey

Even if the majority or practically all disagreed we're Americans and should never fear voices of dissent. We're better and tougher than that.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Oh lord..we live in America..not China! Get off it

[loren]

Most automobile deaths are accidental.
Better training would reduce the number of fatalities.

Can you say the same about firearms?
True, more training would reduce the number of fatalities (both with automobiles and firearms). As for the number of murders involving firearms; people who want to kill other people are still going to kill, if not with firearms, then with knives, clubs, even rocks.

Yes America has more murders with firearms then the rest of the West, however one has to remember that America has one of the highest populations of the West. As for your gun-grabbing countries, I want to see the data involving stabbings and beatings.

[Jericho]

True, more training would reduce the number of fatalities (both with automobiles and firearms).


Yah, nice try Loren, stop being obtuse.
Is obfuscation really the only thing you have in your armory?

Your last post comes across like a monkey throwing feces.
Truly, I'm disappointed...I expected better from you.

[last_stop]

Yes America has more murders with firearms then the rest of the West, however one has to remember that America has one of the highest populations of the West.

No shit Sherlock. And guess which Western country leads by a landslide in per-capita homicide by firearms.


As for your gun-grabbing countries, I want to see the data involving stabbings and beatings.

To illustrate what point exactly? Are you seriously trying to equate the use of firearms to stabbings & beatings? Maybe you didn't hear the news story about a madman in China who went on a stabbing spree (on innocent children) around the same time the Newtown massacre occurred. Want to venture a guess on the number of fatalities?

[muh_muh]

Yes America has more murders with firearms then the rest of the West, however one has to remember that America has one of the highest populations of the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_ country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

yeah shame that isnt the least bit true

[altarica]

Never ever ever thought I would defend that smug prick Piers Morgan, but he's right.

Here's a question for you. Why do people want or think they need guns?

[fred41]

Never ever ever thought I would defend that smug prick Piers Morgan, but he's right.

Here's a question for you. Why do people want or think they need guns?

Do you mean all guns?...or just high powered assault weapons?

[fred41]

...................

[altarica]

Do you mean all guns?...or just high powered assault weapons?

I mean any guns at all.

[Odelay]

I mean any guns at all.
Fear of death. They equate owning and using a gun as a tool to ward off death.

I think people who have reconciled their own deaths, whether from sickness, accident, or otherwise, generally aren't that hung up about guns.

[fred41]

I mean any guns at all.

I respect your view. The only thing you might want to think about though is that not everyone lives in a place like Bournemouth...( seriously...it seems like a great place to live when I looked it up).

I posted my personal view (and personal views are subject to change)in this thread - http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=73106&page=10

[Ben]

They can both, unless the breed, then the world is fucked.

Ha ha ha! :) I doubt it'll happen.

Banned! Piers Morgan forbids Madonna from both his US and UK shows as he welcomes her to Twitter:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2121561/Piers-Morgan-bans-Madonna-US-UK-shows.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXG2Jv6XRY

[Ben]

Keep Piers Morgan in the USA:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/keep-piers-morgan-usa/cbpHr9R2?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[Ben]

Didn't we give them Madonna? She's way more obnoxious as far as I'm concerned.

Dino, nobody seems to like Madonna...

1) Angelina Jolie still hates Madonna, and their bitch-fight will go down at the Globes (http://www.celebitchy.com/199761/angelina_jolie_still_hates_madonna_and_their_bitch-fight_will_go_down_at_the_globes/)

2) LadyGagaMocksMadonnaOnStage,FeudExplodes (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/08/madonna-lady-gaga-feud-rivalry-born-way-express-yourself-a-prayer-music-helsinki)

Madonna and Elton John: Inside their decade-long feud:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57489855-10391698/madonna-and-elton-john-inside-their-decade-long-feud/

[Dino Velvet]

Dino, nobody seems to like Madonna...

1) Angelina Jolie still hates Madonna, and their bitch-fight will go down at the Globes (http://www.celebitchy.com/199761/angelina_jolie_still_hates_madonna_and_their_bitch-fight_will_go_down_at_the_globes/)

2) LadyGagaMocksMadonnaOnStage,FeudExplodes (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/08/madonna-lady-gaga-feud-rivalry-born-way-express-yourself-a-prayer-music-helsinki)

Madonna and Elton John: Inside their decade-long feud:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57489855-10391698/madonna-and-elton-john-inside-their-decade-long-feud/


I've jabbed you enough about her. You still call her Madge? Keep dishin' the dirt, copy 'n' paste Jeanne Wolf.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pXgcDqfiYqk/0.jpg

[loren]

No high capacity clips, no semi -automatics and background checks at gun shows.

Firstly, what is your definition of a high capacity magazine (not a clip, clips are something else), I ask because liberals can't agree on how many rounds are "too much". Some say 30 rounds is high capacity, others say 10 rounds. Secondly are you saying that we should only be allowed to have single shot firearms? Last, but not least, they already do background checks at gun shows. (I take it from your post, that you've never been to one, much less bought a firearm from a gun show.)

[Prospero]

In your world view Loren Liberals appear to terrify you for, perhaps, you see that your views are craven and the majority loath guns. Little man behind your big shooter, you and your ilk are sheerly pathetic

[Stavros]

I respect your view. The only thing you might want to think about though is that not everyone lives in a place like Bournemouth...( seriously...it seems like a great place to live when I looked it up).

I posted my personal view (and personal views are subject to change)in this thread - http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=73106&page=10

Hmm...Bournemouth....take my advice, Fred -try Alaska instead, you might not be so disappointed.

Piers Morgan is convinced he is important, whatever his opinions on guns, Europe, or Madonna. But the truth is he isn't important, he is just a poseur who left this country because his stewardship of a national newspaper was discredited and he still has questions to answer on phone hacking, and anyway he can earn lots of money in the US (but which bank account is his salary paid into, I wonder?)

Probably best to send him to Canada, then he will disappear from the news, like everyone else who goes there. If the argument on gun control is properly debated you won't need Morgan's views to resolve it.

[loren]

In your world view Loren Liberals appear to terrify you for, perhaps, you see that your views are craven and the majority loath guns. Little man behind your big shooter, you and your ilk are sheerly pathetic

Wow, what a way to address my questions. (FYI liberals do not frighten me one bit.) The old 'I have no answers that can be used to further my lies, so I'm going to attack you on an individual level. I think one of your fellow brits said it, I expected better from you.

[thombergeron]

Firstly, what is your definition of a high capacity magazine (not a clip, clips are something else), I ask because liberals can't agree on how many rounds are "too much". Some say 30 rounds is high capacity, others say 10 rounds. Secondly are you saying that we should only be allowed to have single shot firearms? Last, but not least, they already do background checks at gun shows. (I take it from your post, that you've never been to one, much less bought a firearm from a gun show.)

Perhaps you're not afraid of liberals, but it seems that you are not acquainted with any, since all you've offered here is a caricature.

For instance, I would describe myself as politically liberal, meaning that I prefer a broad and liberal application of civil liberties, civic institutions that are highly responsive to the citizenry, and an expansive and well-funded social welfare regime. I don't see what any of those classically liberal positions have to do with rational public safety regulations. Indeed, it appears that my position on gun control is quite similar to that of Piers Morgan, who is plainly not a “liberal” in any sense of the word.

So you seem to be using the word "liberal" as just an epithet to hurl at people you imagine you disagree with. Thus, I think you likely have no idea whatsoever whether "liberals" agree or disagree on what constitutes a high-capacity magazine.

For me, I can't imagine any civilian application of a 30-round magazine. I would say that 10 rounds is a reasonable capacity for a detachable handgun magazine, but civilian rifles should not have detachable magazines, period. A clip-fed fixed magazine of no more than 8 rounds is entirely adequate for any reasonable sporting application of a rifle, and a rifle is the wrong weapon for home defense anyway.

I’m not sure what state you’re in, but generally speaking, you are mistaken regarding background checks at gun shows. Private firearm sales, including those at gun shows, are entirely unregulated under federal law. Thus, the regulation of private firearm sales is relegated to the states. Thirty-three states have no laws at all covering private firearm sales. Only six states require universal background checks on all gun show sales. A 1997 study estimated that about 40% of firearm sales in the U.S. were not subject to background check regulations, and since then, essentially unregulated Internet sales of firearms have skyrocketed.

That’s why they call it the “Gun Show Loophole.”

[maxpower]

It just makes perfect sense to me. You're saying that there should be more restrictions/a total ban on firearms because too many people are being killed. So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?


Nobody said anything about a total ban on firearms. Stop equating one with the other and putting words in people's mouths.




It just makes perfect sense to me. You're saying that there should be more restrictions/a total ban on firearms because too many people are being killed. So, in the interest of public safety, why not place harsher restrictions or even a total ban on automobiles?


Seanchai is right. That's a ridiculous, specious argument. Automobiles aren't banned because, although they are unfortunately involved in some deaths, the function of a car is transportation. It's not a weapon of warfare whose only function is to kill a large number of people quickly, as is the semi-automatic asault rifle - a weapon with no civilian application other than to fulfill an individual's Rambo fantasies.




True, more training would reduce the number of fatalities (both with automobiles and firearms). As for the number of murders involving firearms; people who want to kill other people are still going to kill, if not with firearms, then with knives, clubs, even rocks.


How do you know? Maybe the fact that they know they can kill with impugnity from 30, 50, 100 feet away is what does it for them. They might not want to get up close and personal with a knife or other instrument, when the chance of reciprocal damage is greater. I'm not saying that the homicidal mind doesn't desire what it desires, but do we need to make it so fucking easy for them?

[loren]

Nobody said anything about a total ban on firearms. Stop equating one with the other and putting words in people's mouths.

Have you read the purposed "Assault Weapons Ban"? (I'm assuming not) For example, my .40 cal pistol would be classified as an assault weapon, the STANDARD magazine holds 11 rounds. One has to keep in mind, that it is unlawful for Congress to pass ex post facto laws. Not to be dissuaded, the liberals believe they have a way around this. They purpose to allow lawful American citizens, to keep the newly classified assault weapons they already own, provided they apply for and obtain a Federal permit.


...a weapon of warfare whose only function is to kill...

Umm, actually no. Military firearms (I'm speaking of shoulder weapons and pistols) are designed to cause wounds rather than death. This is true from the earliest hand cannons, which were more dangerous to the user than the recipient, all the way up to the M16. The thought process behind that is to take more men out of the fighting line at the critical moment. If you kill an enemy soldier, he will just simply lay there. If you wound him, his friends are likely to remove him to an aid station, which would take at least two soldiers to do; therefore, with one bullet, you could effectively remove between three and five soldiers. Granted, up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a soldier had about a 40% chance of death from the wound between two hours and three days after being shot.

[trish]

Oh, that's all right then. It's perfectly fine to have people on the street, in shops and schools to secretly carry weapons explicitly designed to maim, wound, cripple and decommission armored soldiers.

[thombergeron]

Have you read the purposed "Assault Weapons Ban"? (I'm assuming not) For example, my .40 cal pistol would be classified as an assault weapon, the STANDARD magazine holds 11 rounds. One has to keep in mind, that it is unlawful for Congress to pass ex post facto laws. Not to be dissuaded, the liberals believe they have a way around this. They purpose to allow lawful American citizens, to keep the newly classified assault weapons they already own, provided they apply for and obtain a Federal permit.

So you acknowledge that Feinstein's proposal does not actually ban the very silly penis substitute that you currently possess? That what you are referring to as a "ban" does not actually remove any of the 300 million firearms in the U.S. from private ownership?

It is not unlawful for Congress to impose retrospective regulations. Congress cannot retrospectively criminalize prior acts, but Congress has passed, and the Supreme Court has upheld, many regulations with retrospective effects. The sex offender registration is one such regulation with retrospective effects.

Feinstein's proposal is entirely prospective simply because a retrospective ban is a political non-starter. So even the most rabid anti-gun "liberal" in the U.S. Congress acknowledges that it is not possible to ban firearms already in private possession. And still, gun nuts like you insist that someone out there is scheming to take away your very silly penis substitute.


Umm, actually no. Military firearms (I'm speaking of shoulder weapons and pistols) are designed to cause wounds rather than death. This is true from the earliest hand cannons, which were more dangerous to the user than the recipient, all the way up to the M16. The thought process behind that is to take more men out of the fighting line at the critical moment. If you kill an enemy soldier, he will just simply lay there. If you wound him, his friends are likely to remove him to an aid station, which would take at least two soldiers to do; therefore, with one bullet, you could effectively remove between three and five soldiers. Granted, up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a soldier had about a 40% chance of death from the wound between two hours and three days after being shot.

This is incorrect, and really, laughably so. While the debilitating effect of battlefield wounds on unit cohesion is one aspect of modern infantry tactics, a rifleman's job is to kill the enemy, period. It's been 20 years, but I can assure you that all of my weapons training, from HMG to rifle to bayonet, was focused squarely on putting my enemy down so that he did not get up again. DoD's original spec for the 5.56x45 cartridge was that it be capable of penetrating a Soviet steel helmet at 500 yards. Trust me, when an infantryman fires his rifle at the enemy, he's not trying to hurt his feelings.


As for the number of murders involving firearms; people who want to kill other people are still going to kill, if not with firearms, then with knives, clubs, even rocks.

I'll leave you with this thought. For an individual who wants to use a firearm to kill as many human beings as possible, a fully automatic weapon is going to be the most effective choice. But fully automatic weapons are banned from civilian possession in the U.S. (and yet somehow, the Republic endures). And thus, spree killers don't use fully automatic weapons, because they can't get them. Certainly, had Adam Lanza gotten his hands on an M249 SAW, he could have put down a lot more first-graders. But he had to settle for an .223 Bushmaster with a 30-round magazine, so he could only kill 20 of them. That crazy knife-wielding Chinese person that mouthbreathers are currently obsessed with wounded 22 schoolchildren, but managed to kill none. That seems an important distinction to me.

No one is arguing that it's possible to end all murder, but logically and empirically, if a society limits the killing capacity of weapons that are available to murderers, then murderers won't be able to murder quite as many people.

[thombergeron]

Umm, actually no. Military firearms (I'm speaking of shoulder weapons and pistols) are designed to cause wounds rather than death.

Thinking further on this absurd idea that you got from somewhere: if it were true that a wounded soldier is more debilitating to a military force than a dead soldier, why do soldiers wear body armor at all? By your logic, command would rather have a dead soldier than a wounded one. So why issue helmets and kevlar? DoD has spent tens of billions of tax dollars on improving battlefield survival of wounded personnel. You're saying that all that effort is counterproductive?

This is one of those things that seems like a clever, counter-intuitive insiders view, until you think about it for a minute and a half.

[notdrunk]

I don't like jumping into gun debates because there are mouth breathers on both sides. However...



But fully automatic weapons are banned from civilian possession in the U.S. (and yet somehow, the Republic endures).

Civilian possession of fully automatic weapons isn't banned in this country. There is a lot of red tape; however, you (individual) can own one that was built and registered before May 1986. Most states allow ownership of these fully automatic weapons too. Before the Hughes Amendment of 1986, there were 100,000+ fully automatic weapons owned by individuals. If you want a nifty new automatic AR (e.g., TAR-21), just become a class three dealer. Your only buyers of those weapons would be local and federal agencies though.

So, if you have the cash and patience, you can own a M16A1.

[loren]

So you acknowledge that Feinstein's proposal does not actually ban the very silly that you currently possess? That what you are referring to as a "ban" does not actually remove any of the 300 million firearms in the U.S. from private ownership?

Feinstein's proposal is entirely prospective simply because a retrospective ban is a political non-starter. So even the most rabid anti-gun "liberal" in the U.S. Congress acknowledges that it is not possible to ban firearms already in private possession. And still, gun nuts like you insist that someone out there is scheming to take away your very silly penis substitute.
:fu:Did you actually read the first part of my post? I guess not, feinstein's plan WOULD ban my specified pistol, along with most of the rifles I own. I would only be allowed to keep them if I was able to obtain a federal for them.


penis substituteI actually do own some dildos and vibes. Which come to think of it, the smallest of which is at least twice as big as the pathetic, little dicket that you have.:fu::fu:

[loren]

Does anyone remember how well that worked out?

[trish]

Hitler also believed one plus one equals two, used modus ponens in his arguments and pushed for the development of an atomic bomb, as did we. Regardless of what Ghandi or Hitler or Julius Caesar did, firearm regulation is a good idea. As far as registration goes, all we need is NRA’s membership list, which I’m sure is easy to hack.

[Prospero]

With all this nonsense from the pro gun lobby I'd like to make two observations.

One. A reminder that the second amendment talks about a "well regulated" militia and not a geNeral free for all. So that should allow for rules without infringing anyone's constitutional rights.

Two. If we accept the argument that it is people and not guns that kill people then it is equally valid to argue that guns make it far easier for those people to kill people. As Trisha mentioned a couple of weeks ago on the same day as the killings in Connecticut, a man attacked a group of children in China at a schhol. None of the Chinese died. If their attacker had used a gun the result would have been very different.

So the argument is really irrefutable. Guns make it far easier for people to kill people. And the constriction clearly allows for their regulation.

So go to it America and begin to curb this madness.

And in response to Loren's remark about expecting better fro me, I'd simply say that someone of his rabid attitudes deserves nothing better.