Anti-Piers Morgan Petition Tops 65K Signers

[Wizard777]

If I apologise profusely on behalf of the knobhead Piers, will you please keep him?


Please.

Let's see, a Brit attacking our second amendment and demanding that we disarm. The man is obviously insane. He's a danger to himself. Like a redneck that goes to the NAACP's Million Man March to try to set the world record for calling people the N word. We're shipping that bloody tosser back to you in a straight jacket before he hurts himself.

[WKDWZD]

Let's see, a Brit attacking our second amendment and demanding that we disarm. The man is obviously insane. He's a danger to himself. Like a redneck that goes to the NAACP's Million Man March to try to set the world record for calling people the N word. We're shipping that bloody tosser back to you in a straight jacket before he hurts himself.

Okay, I can see that you're gonna play hard to get, name your price, what'll it cost me for you to keep him there.

[Wizard777]

Okay, I can see that you're gonna play hard to get, name your price, what'll it cost me for you to keep him there.

A Led Zeppelin reunion and US tour with Prince Harry on the drums or no deal.

[soulflower]

Let's see, a Brit attacking our second amendment and demanding that we disarm.

Kind of ironic given that our laws are inspired by English law

[cprenegade]

Kind of ironic given that our laws are inspired by English law

The second amendment was definitely inspired by English law.

[Wizard777]

Kind of ironic given that our laws are inspired by English law

The second amendment was definitely inspired by English law.

More precisely it was inspired by British soldiers. That's both here and in England. To those who say the Second Amendment has nothing to do with taking back our government. WRONG! The right to bear arms and form militias is, first and foremost, a deterant and counter to the tyranny of the standing armies of an oppressive government. It was King James II that disarmed England and maintained standing armies. The people of England overthrew James II to restore their right to bear arms. This was also one of the reasons cited for our Second Amendment.

[Hexexis]

...To those who say the Second Amendment has nothing to do with taking back our government. WRONG! The right to bear arms and form militias is, first and foremost, a deterant and counter to the tyranny of the standing armies of an oppressive government. ...

Wow! Thank you, Professor Hyperbole!

The 2d Amendment is the product of a period here when there was no gov. but local, & it sure waren't oppressive. Unless maybe you truly believe that compelling every male ages 16 to 60 to own a musket & to know how to use it is "oppressive."

Because that was the case in the colonies, c. 1640 to c. 1775. (& To participate in the political processes of the day, males also needed to be members in good standing of a church congregation.) Back in the day, Indian raids on villages were the over-riding concern; so those lusty males zipped into town once a month musket in hand for some close-order drills on the village square, called "training day" (this coincided w/ monthly "court day"); hence the phrase "well-regulated militia."

Any other wacky reason is mainstream media hokum & public edu. propaganda; of which you're evidently a big fan.

[flyboy56]

Wow! Thank you, Professor Hyperbole!

The 2d Amendment is the product of a period here when there was no gov. but local, & it sure waren't oppressive. Unless maybe you truly believe that compelling every male ages 16 to 60 to own a musket & to know how to use it is "oppressive."

Because that was the case in the colonies, c. 1640 to c. 1775. (& To participate in the political processes of the day, males also needed to be members in good standing of a church congregation.) Back in the day, Indian raids on villages were the over-riding concern; so those lusty males zipped into town once a month musket in hand for some close-order drills on the village square, called "training day" (this coincided w/ monthly "court day"); hence the phrase "well-regulated militia."

Any other wacky reason is mainstream media hokum & public edu. propaganda; of which you're evidently a big fan.

And why did so many leave England? To get away from a repressive English parliament. They didn't come to America looking for the same thing they left behind.

[Wizard777]

Wow! Thank you, Professor Hyperbole!

The 2d Amendment is the product of a period here when there was no gov. but local, & it sure waren't oppressive. Unless maybe you truly believe that compelling every male ages 16 to 60 to own a musket & to know how to use it is "oppressive."

Because that was the case in the colonies, c. 1640 to c. 1775. (& To participate in the political processes of the day, males also needed to be members in good standing of a church congregation.) Back in the day, Indian raids on villages were the over-riding concern; so those lusty males zipped into town once a month musket in hand for some close-order drills on the village square, called "training day" (this coincided w/ monthly "court day"); hence the phrase "well-regulated militia."

Any other wacky reason is mainstream media hokum & public edu. propaganda; of which you're evidently a big fan.

No, the Second Amendment is derived from the English Bill of Rights which restored the right to bear arms after King James II was overthrown. The acceptance of the English Bill of Rights was part of the deal for the Coronation of William III and Mary II. We know from The Federalist that the Second Amendment being a protection against the tyranny of standing armies, like those maintained by James II and even Oliver Cromwell, was discussed at Constitutional Conventions. It was definately discussed at the Constitutional Convention held in Annapolis.

[soulflower]

No, the Second Amendment is derived from the English Bill of Rights which restored the right to bear arms after King James II was overthrown. The acceptance of the English Bill of Rights was part of the deal for the Coronation of William III and Mary II. We know from The Federalist that the Second Amendment being a protection against the tyranny of standing armies, like those maintained by James II and even Oliver Cromwell, was discussed at Constitutional Conventions. It was definately discussed at the Constitutional Convention held in Annapolis.

The right to self defense was always assumed to be an individual right. It didn't need to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights just as most other individual rights aren't mentioned.

The 2nd amendment deals with the importance of having a militia to defend against foreign or domestic threats to the states.

Basically, the government can't take away your right to defend yourself because you might have to defend your homeland.

[Wizard777]

The right to self defense was always assumed to be an individual right. It didn't need to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights just as most other individual rights aren't mentioned.

The 2nd amendment deals with the importance of having a militia to defend against foreign or domestic threats to the states.

Basically, the government can't take away your right to defend yourself because you might have to defend your homeland.

The British believed self defense to be a natural right. But we codified that as a legal right under the second amendment. Basically we recognize three divinely bestowed and inalienable natural rights that were set forth in the Declaration of Independence. They are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which is probably why self defense was codified as a legal right to perserve the natural right to life.

[MithrilKnight]

65,000?
You could probably get 65,000 Americans to sign a petition to for an Amendment to name Philly Cheesesteaks the "national sandwich".

Then get another 65,000 to sign one saying "No person should be allowed to have a monicker named: The Shadow.

[WKDWZD]

65,000?
You could probably get 65,000 Americans to sign a petition to for an Amendment to name Philly Cheesesteaks the "national sandwich".

Then get another 65,000 to sign one saying "No person should be allowed to have a monicker named: The Shadow.

In the UK I would have to petition 100,000 signatures to get a motion to, refuse to have Piers Morgan refused re-entry to the UK, read in Parliament.

[SalisburySage]

89,401 signatures so far.

[WKDWZD]

89,401 signatures so far.

Not even enough to get a reading in The Houses of Parliament.

[SalisburySage]

Not even enough to get a reading in The Houses of Parliament.

If you pay me I'll vote to keep him here.

[Pauliseum]

BFD...you can get a million signatures and it's not going to do you any good. I guess you feel like you're doing something when you sign those boneheaded things, but nothing could be further from the truth.

[Hexexis]

The British believed self defense to be a natural right. ...

But the thread is about the anti-Piers petition. So ... the British believed, but Piers does not? In any case, the argument here seems to be we fought this revolution v. the British to gain independence; then proceeded to fall in love all over again w/ British-English rights ... which we ... didn't have, so we ...?

You have made an outstanding case that those popular "Founding Fathers" were a band of confused loonballs that we've managed to mythologize for lack of coming up w/ anything better than a 250-yr-old Constitution, of which only that 2d Amendment, according to press releases, seems to have any value.

...But we codified that as a legal right under the second amendment. Basically we recognize three divinely bestowed and inalienable natural rights that were set forth in the Declaration of Independence. They are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which is probably why self defense was codified as a legal right to perserve the natural right to life.

Thanks for the standard party line, but I fail to see anything natural about rights or their codification. You've basically reduced the work of the Founding Fathers & their progeny to meaningless w/ the "natural" b^11s^!t.

All that may've been popular in the 17th, 18th centuries, but WWII & the atomic bomb put it to rest; unless of course you'd like to peddle the notion of WWII as oh, so natural.

It's really time to cease harping about those deified Founding Fathers & get to work on something that shows we're aware that 2 centuries-+'ve passed since muskets & horse-drawn carts.

[Wizard777]

But the thread is about the anti-Piers petition. So ... the British believed, but Piers does not? In any case, the argument here seems to be we fought this revolution v. the British to gain independence; then proceeded to fall in love all over again w/ British-English rights ... which we ... didn't have, so we ...?

You have made an outstanding case that those popular "Founding Fathers" were a band of confused loonballs that we've managed to mythologize for lack of coming up w/ anything better than a 250-yr-old Constitution, of which only that 2d Amendment, according to press releases, seems to have any value.


Thanks for the standard party line, but I fail to see anything natural about rights or their codification. You've basically reduced the work of the Founding Fathers & their progeny to meaningless w/ the "natural" b^11s^!t.

All that may've been popular in the 17th, 18th centuries, but WWII & the atomic bomb put it to rest; unless of course you'd like to peddle the notion of WWII as oh, so natural.

It's really time to cease harping about those deified Founding Fathers & get to work on something that shows we're aware that 2 centuries-+'ve passed since muskets & horse-drawn carts.

No, it's a recognition of their work that you obviously need to learn more about. The complaints set forth in the Declaration of Independence were mainly complaints against the tyranny of King George against the colonists. Not English Common Law which the founder thought to be a good system that was in need of some improvement. Those improvements were based on the recognition of natural rights which we now refer to as human rights. The only real difference between natural rights us that natural rights are deemed to be God given and human rights are derived from simply being human. It's a secular version of natural rights.

In framing the US Constitution, especially the bill of rights, it was pretty much a best of the state Constitutions kinda thing. Maryland's Constitution was just one of the State Constitutions that influenced the Federal Constitution. To this very day Marlanders are entitled to the protections of English Common Law. Also at times in deciding matters arising from the US Constitution, SCOTUS will delve into English Common Law.

I'm not a Techno Anarchists and the US Constitution does not provide for technology based anarchy. Back in the 1980's and 1990's there was an attempt in Congress to give rise to Techo Anarchism in the area of computers. The main vehicle of Techno Anarchism is what I call the Our Poor Stupid Forefathers Argument and it goes like this, Our Forefathers could have never possibly envisioned the computer and Email. So therefore the US Constitution does not and cannot be applied to computers and Email. So Emails do not have the Constitutional protections that letters have. So the government can search Emails without a warrant. What renders these arguments of Techno Anarchy a falacy is that because the US Constitution is Founded in human rights. What the Founders protected in the Constitution was Constants. Things that will always exist for as long as humans exist such as Communications and a need of Privacy. Now, because Emails are essentially written communications just like a letter. Those communications are afforded the constitutional protection of Privacy.

So in making an argument that because the Founders weren't aware of or did not foresee assault weapons or high volume magazines. The Second amendment cannot be applied to them and you may therefore deny the people their right keep and bear these arms. That my friend is Techno Anarchism. How we keep the Constitution from becoming anachronistic and keep it current is in applying it to new inventions and technologies. The Preamble gives the duty to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

[Sprightly]

"In conclusion, I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me," he wrote. "Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2387985.html

I don't care about the guy one way or another. However, who the heck cares if he "deports" himself? Go home! Earn your living in your country of citizenship. This country will struggle to go on without you!