Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
acidhead

US calls for Piers Morgan deportation

143 posts in this topic

I thought those were rights given to you by the creator... Did he only give Americans those rights?

Hey if it was up to me, as much as id like to puke on his shoes, he would have his speech protected while visiting. But just cause I or you or anyone thinks something should be a certain way, doesnt make it so. Lawfully the constitution cant protect someone who isnt a citzan. And in a way, it makes sence. What if, and it seems so, he as a foriegner wanted to use his influance to represent the will of another group or country? Lets say he hated America and was looking to use his influance to say destroy the second amendment, or any amendment. Heck England refuses to even let certain people in thier country cause of conflicting political beliefs.

The constitution does not only protect Americans but everybody legally living on American soil.

Then how is it they cant lawfully buy a gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please don't we thought we'd got rid of him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey if it was up to me, as much as id like to puke on his shoes, he would have his speech protected while visiting. But just cause I or you or anyone thinks something should be a certain way, doesnt make it so. Lawfully the constitution cant protect someone who isnt a citzan. And in a way, it makes sence. What if, and it seems so, he as a foriegner wanted to use his influance to represent the will of another group or country? Lets say he hated America and was looking to use his influance to say destroy the second amendment, or any amendment. Heck England refuses to even let certain people in thier country cause of conflicting political beliefs.

Then how is it they cant lawfully buy a gun?

Any legal immigrant, US citizen or not, can buy a gun, the only limitation is the time to make the background check unless they have been living long enough in the US. As far as guns the only limitations I know of is carry permits and the purchase of a silencer, and that only in a few states, where some prohibit it outright and some limit it to US citizens (which probably would not uphold in court if challenged) . Massachusetts has tried to forbid guns to legal immigrants but that was thrown out in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I stand corrected. I know a guy in NY that was refused permition to buy a shot gun cause he wasnt a citizan. He was a good friend of mine, who I wanted to take hunting. I just assumed it was the same every where. Course I should have looked into it further. NY is famous for violating the second amendment all the time. Even to Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I stand corrected. I know a guy in NY that was refused permition to buy a shot gun cause he wasnt a citizan. He was a good friend of mine, who I wanted to take hunting. I just assumed it was the same every where. Course I should have looked into it further. NY is famous for violating the second amendment all the time. Even to Americans.

Some of the terrorists over here were known to purchase some guns from the US.. It was well known..It was easier for them to get them in places like the US, and ship the illegally on a boat elsewhere .I guess it depends on who your connections are? .

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha ha...

Well, nobody likes to be lectured to. Especially by someone outside of the situation.

Can you please borrow piers for a bit longer though. :P

If I lived in America, especially outside of a big city, I'd probably have a gun too.

Although, whilst I get the 'I want a gun to protect me from other nutters with guns'. reasoning, some of the other core arguments seem unlikely...

Like, defend yourself from the government- if a civilian group ever got into conflict with the government they'd be crushed, surely? I guess that made sense in times when the hardware was a more level field, but in these days of air support, satellite surveillance, and drones, really can't see a bunch of guys sat behind sandbags with rifles fighting off the US army.

Anyway, someone was saying we never had the situation in the UK but we kinda did... in the 19th century there were a lot of guns, particularly with those that flooded in from after the Napoleonic wars. I think we had a similar 'right to bear arms' statute. That was when legislations started to be changed, but it took about a hundred years for the guns to filter out of society. Because it's not like you can go door to door and collect everyone's guns just because you changed the legislation...

But whatever. Calling for piers's deportation just because he's an idiot seems excessive lol

Edited by ad hoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any legal immigrant, US citizen or not, can buy a gun, the only limitation is the time to make the background check unless they have been living long enough in the US. As far as guns the only limitations I know of is carry permits and the purchase of a silencer, and that only in a few states, where some prohibit it outright and some limit it to US citizens (which probably would not uphold in court if challenged) . Massachusetts has tried to forbid guns to legal immigrants but that was thrown out in court.

http://www.vrolyk.org/guns/alien-laws.html

Some States may have changed their laws but apparantly under Federal law non American Citizens can own and carry a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha ha...

Well, nobody likes to be lectured to. Especially by someone outside of the situation.

Can you please borrow piers for a bit longer though. :P

If I lived in America, especially outside of a big city, I'd probably have a gun too.

Although, whilst I get the 'I want a gun to protect me from other nutters with guns'. reasoning, some of the other core arguments seem unlikely...

Like, defend yourself from the government- if a civilian group ever got into conflict with the government they'd be crushed, surely? I guess that made sense in times when the hardware was a more level field, but in these days of air support, satellite surveillance, and drones, really can't see a bunch of guys sat behind sandbags with rifles fighting off the US army.

Anyway, someone was saying we never had the situation in the UK but we kinda did... in the 19th century there were a lot of guns, particularly with those that flooded in from after the Napoleonic wars. I think we had a similar 'right to bear arms' statute. That was when legislations started to be changed, but it took about a hundred years for the guns to filter out of society. Because it's not like you can go door to door and collect everyone's guns just because you changed the legislation...

But whatever. Calling for piers's deportation just because he's an idiot seems excessive lol

Tell that to the insurrectionists in Afghanistan. Tell them they can't effectively resist foreign entities emerging onto their lands that have the most advanced technology in the world. Tell them to flee because a couple of AK-47s won't match against a fighter jet or a tank. Go ahead and tell that to them, but then go ahead and ask the Soviet Union and the United States if it was a good idea to wage war against them?

Guns in the hand of determined people - who are fighting for their freedom, can beat the most powerful armies in the world. The US militias showed this when they defeated Britain, the military giant and empire of the world at the time. Afghanistan showed this with Russia, and the US for the past ten years.

Saying AK-47s can't beat a jet or tank is a gross understatement.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the insurrectionists in Afghanistan. Tell them they can't effectively resist foreign entities emerging onto their lands that have the most advanced technology in the world. Tell them to flee because a couple of AK-47s won't match against a fighter jet or a tank. Go ahead and tell that to them, but then go ahead and ask the Soviet Union and the United States if it was a good idea to wage war against them?

Guns in the hand of determined people - who are fighting for their freedom, can beat the most powerful armies in the world. The US militias showed this when they defeated Britain, the military giant and empire of the world at the time. Afghanistan showed this with Russia and the US - for the past ten years. Saying AK-47s can't beat a jet is a gross understatement.

Yep, granted- those examples did occur to me as well. The British one is exactly what I was thinking about when I said 'Makes more sense before the days of modern tech' So I'm not too sure that's a good example now.

As for Afghanistan, I think there is a difference between an invading force like that and a civil uprising in a rich western country. The US government would have the entirety of its infrastructure and information to bear on its citizens, and no option of backing out of the situation ever... which is why for instance Northern Ireland's rebellion failed. It was too much 'home soil' for the UK and there was no option of ever backing out for the government- plus all the infrastructure and info of dealing with part of the UK was power to its elbow.

So in the end, the rebellion just fizzled out... because, short of being systematically displaced and starved, you're not going to do a Palestine.

Then again, you might take the view that that's exactly what your government might do to you. I can't see it myself, but hey. Anything's possible.

Edited by ad hoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, granted- those examples did occur to me as well. The British one is exactly what I was thinking about when I said 'Makes more sense before the days of modern tech' So I'm not too sure that's a good example now.

As for Afghanistan, I think there is a difference between an invading force like that and a civil uprising in a rich western country. The US government would have the entirety of its infrastructure and information to bear on its citizens, and no option of backing out of the situation ever... which is why for instance Northern Ireland's rebellion failed. It was too much 'home soil' for the UK and there was no option of ever backing out for the government- plus all the infrastructure and info of dealing with part of the UK was power to its elbow.

So in the end, the rebellion just fizzled out... because, short of being systematically displaced and starved, you're not going to do a Palestine.

Then again, you might take the view that that's exactly what your government might do to you. I can't see it myself, but hey. Anything's possible.

You would be fair to say there is a difference between rich Western countries and countries like Afghanistan.

Let's also include the fact that on top of guns, the Taliban have Soviet surplus stingers and RPGs.

Any insurrection would be taken care of relatively fast - but that is in part because the US is so heavily monitored.

And as you pointed out, one's own infrastructure and land versus foreign landscapes is a different setting entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is this thread about again :whistle: getting him fired is one thing deported is another. Guns is yet part of 15 other threads going on right now unless good old Morgan is planning on starting his own none american organized melitia in the state of new york lol.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be fair to say there is a difference between rich Western countries and countries like Afghanistan.

Let's also include the fact that on top of guns, the Taliban have Soviet surplus stingers and RPGs.

Any insurrection would be taken care of relatively fast - but that is in part because the US is so heavily monitored.

And as you pointed out, one's own infrastructure and land versus foreign landscapes is a different setting entirely.

In any case, guess the possibilities aren't totally clear-cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic..

This man doesn't know when to shut up and listen.

It's called a discussion. Someone says one thing, the other one listens. Vice versa.

By this man I mean Piers.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piers is a douch bag..... How ever how many stories can we find that states gun owners stop mass killings due to the 2 nd amendment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, guess the possibilities aren't totally clear-cut.

Especialy when you consider that a good % of the military would fight on the peoples side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especialy when you consider that a good % of the military would fight on the peoples side

If i was a serving soldier,i would never fire on my own countrymen,regardless of the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i was a serving soldier,i would never fire on my own countrymen,regardless of the consequences.

In a civil war you are always shooting your countrymen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones versus Piers Morgan

Monday Jan. 7th, 2013

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a civil war you are always shooting your countrymen.

He said if he was a serving soldier. Soldiers don't have to shoot in a civil war. And no, general truths about civil wars don't tell you what he's going to do personally. Plenty of Americans didn't shoot anyone in our Civil War; if a serving soldier was shaddow134, he would have quit the army and likely moved out west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best quote of the video comes at the very end when Alex says to Piers, "Go back to where they took the guns if you don't like it".... CLASSIC.

Alex Jones versus Piers Morgan

Monday Jan. 7th, 2013

[media=]

[/media]

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones versus Piers Morgan

Monday Jan. 7th, 2013

[media=]

[/media]

What a loose cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a loose cannon.

All facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, if only everyone could kick out those who hold different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All facts.

Maybe, but not necessarily a complete picture and representation of the facts. Why? Because he wouldn't let Piers Morgan present his side. All it was was Alex Jones ranting away nonsensically and unreasonably.

He'd probably be better received if he could present his points calmly and courteously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.