On a side note, after reading every post here, it is refreshing to see a few new converts. Some, who have previously disavowed most or all religion have suddenly felt the touch of the Lord's hand on their heart--or at least to the extent that He exists, considering how many have mentioned free speech is a God ordained right versus a constitutionally guaranteed right. Hallelujah and Amen Brothers! See ya all in church tomorrow..
Wont catch me saying that, or seeing me in church ( unless im working on their network or something.. ).
Yes, of course. I was actually trying to help Boonie out there.
Just because we may disagree on something, that doesn't mean I have to be rude about it. Besides, Boonie is a good guy.
Wasn't trying to be rude. (I even included the smiley to try to show that my comment was on the lighter side and I assumed by your smiley that yours was as well)
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 12-30-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:23 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I scanned this, mostly, so here's my opinion, possibly already covered.
quote
Originally written and ratified by People much smarter than me (from memory):
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice and ensure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is the Preamble of a contract between a government and its Citizens. It applies to every one of us who have been natural born or legally naturalized in/to the United States of America.
Amendment One, paraphrased: The US Government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion not the free speech of its Citizens or its press.
Amendment Two, paraphrased: The US Government must allow its Citizens to arm themselves.
The parties to this Contract are the US Government and its Citizens. Foreign Nationals have contracts with their own respective governments. The US Government can, in fact, restrict the speech and movement of foreign nationals. At worst, the USA does not have to guarantee any right to the foreigner. We may, as a courtesy to a friendly government, but there is no requirement.
quote
Spoken by all American Presidents, according to Article Two of the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Not that he will, but POTUS should be taking action on this petition, which is now over 90K signatures.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: This is the Preamble of a contract between a government and its Citizens. It applies to every one of us who have been natural born or legally naturalized in/to the United States of America.
Amendment One, paraphrased: The US Government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion not the free speech of its Citizens or its press.
Amendment Two, paraphrased: The US Government must allow its Citizens to arm themselves.
The parties to this Contract are the US Government and its Citizens. Foreign Nationals have contracts with their own respective governments. The US Government can, in fact, restrict the speech and movement of foreign nationals. At worst, the USA does not have to guarantee any right to the foreigner. We may, as a courtesy to a friendly government, but there is no requirement.
The problem is with how the SCOTUS has ruled based upon the wording of the 14th Amendment section 1.
quote
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Because the writers chose to use "person" rather than "citizen" in that part of the amendment, the SCOTUS has ruled that " any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". So while the preamble may read as a contract between the government and it's citizens (which is basically what it is), the protections it gives have been ruled to apply to more than just citizens.
IP: Logged
12:56 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Now I only skimmed through this lengthy thread, I'm wondering how much of of what Piers Morgan said was "dictated" by CNN? That's my question and if CNN has a stated position on this.
Granted, that's a bit off the main speech topic going on, but seeing as the media always seems to have a bias one way or the other, whos agenda is CNN trying to support?
Now I only skimmed through this lengthy thread, I'm wondering how much of of what Piers Morgan said was "dictated" by CNN? That's my question and if CNN has a stated position on this.
Granted, that's a bit off the main speech topic going on, but seeing as the media always seems to have a bias one way or the other, whos agenda is CNN trying to support?
I've watched some of Piers Morgans shows after the shooting he clearly stated it was his opinion and referenced his own experience in Britain. I thought he stated the reasons for his being upset and adamant about the issue very well. There are usually transcripts of such shows I'll see if I can find some for you.
Also this is in the news "The CNN host became an outspoken critic of current gun policy after the Newtown shooting, which took the lives of twenty children. Morgan made another deeply personal appeal in a Daily Mail column published Sunday.
He compared the Newtown shooting to the Dunblane school shooting of 1996, in which sixteen children and one adult were shot and killed in Scotland. "It was a slaughter so senseless, so unspeakable, that it reduced even hard-bitten news reporters, including me, to tears," Morgan recalled.
He described his own reaction to gun advocates' response to tragedy in Newtown as "blind rage," and tore into those who have argued that more guns is the answer. Morgan also turned to the recent petition calling for his deportation from the U.S., and cited his own experience as a father.
"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."
But you know I'm sure he just hates freedom.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-31-2012).]
IP: Logged
10:35 AM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18186 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
Actually, he does. Him and all of the gun control advocates hate my freedom to own and bear my arms that they want to take it away.
I hope he does "deport" himself. I would not want him living in a country where he is afraid for his daughter's safety in the posh private school that he will send her to. Amazing how these limozine liberals cry out about safety in public school while they send their own children to elite private schools. Anyone want to bet there is armed security at the school President Obama sends his children to?
IP: Logged
11:29 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Actually, he does. Him and all of the gun control advocates hate my freedom to own and bear my arms that they want to take it away.
I hope he does "deport" himself. I would not want him living in a country where he is afraid for his daughter's safety in the posh private school that he will send her to. Amazing how these limozine liberals cry out about safety in public school while they send their own children to elite private schools. Anyone want to bet there is armed security at the school President Obama sends his children to?
I don't know about that I think restrictions on people being able to carry what they want where they want make sense but some see ANY regulation on anything as an infringement on their rights. Of course that would be very few people as MOST love restrictions on all kinds of things, hell that's why the Prison population in the U.S. is so high.
Increasingly, "free speech" means expressing an opinion that one's detractors want to hear.
Is that the way it's supposed to work?
If he was an American, yes. But he is not, hes a guest in this country. Guests should not bash their hosts and expect to remain welcome to visit.
No one has suggested to restrict his speech, just that he is no longer welcome here to visit us. He can go back home and bash the US as much as he likes.
IP: Logged
12:04 PM
PFF
System Bot
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
UK Government: Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America
Petition by hackergate
We got rid of him once and why should we have to suffer again. The Americans wanted him so they should put up with him. We washed our hands of him a long time ago.
If he was an American, yes. But he is not, hes a guest in this country. Guests should not bash their hosts and expect to remain welcome to visit.
No one has suggested to restrict his speech, just that he is no longer welcome here to visit us. He can go back home and bash the US as much as he likes.
You do realize he is hosting a talk show and being paid to give his opinion, correct?
Also I think lots of people should be upset that those children and other innocent people were murdered no matter if you think changing gun control laws is a correct way to react or not. Attacking those who want a solution isn't too productive IMO.
You do realize he is hosting a talk show and being paid to give his opinion, correct?
Also I think lots of people should be upset that those children and other innocent people were murdered no matter if you think changing gun control laws is a correct way to react or not. Attacking those who want a solution isn't too productive IMO.
He's attacking this country ( who was kind enough to host him ) and what we are founded on, so screw him and any suggestion he has. Deporting him would be more productive than listening.
I could care less what his job is. He can do it somewhere else.
He's attacking this country ( who was kind enough to host him ) and what we are founded on, so screw him and any suggestion he has. Deporting him would be more productive than listening.
I could care less what his job is. He can do it somewhere else.
This is my country too, and I don't see what he was doing as an attack. Actually, he was being a good American. Speaking up when you see something wrong.
It may not have been what you wanted to hear, but he does seem to care. Probibly more then some americans. Like robbers, gang-bangers, etc.
Remember, criminals don't want gun control anymore then some of you do.....most of them depend on your gun supply.
Eventually, this arms race between The good guys & The bad guys will not be about who has a gun, but who is faster getting it out. Knowing this, the criminal will just come in 'execution style'. "First to spray gets first say."
Both armed equally, and trained equally, (the end result of the arms race I mentioned, if both sides are committed to it), the criminal will always have the upper hand. Unpredictable and he gets first move.
But I personally hope we DO arm everyone. We will be able to answer this question once & for all.
"Is a well-armed society a safer (crime-wise) society?"
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-31-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:03 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
No, as hes not an American. We as Americans do have the right to complain about the rules, he not being an American does not. His only right is to accept our system or be kicked out due to being a subversive. ( he agreed to this legally to on entry btw... )
And we aren't going to agree on this... which is a shame.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-31-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:34 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
You said a safer society "crime-wise". So are we going to limit "crime-wise" to specifically gun related crimes? If so why? If you have a society with very strick gun control laws, of course the gun related crimes are going to be less versus a society with much more liberal gun laws. However, the baseball bat related crime data will inevitably be more in the former and less in the latter. Just because a society with very strict gun laws has less gun related crime does not diminish the crime they do have as being lesser. It's obvious a disamred society has more to fear from crime, versus an armed society. That's what it shows, which is what I took your question as. If that isn't what you wanted as an answer, I'm sorry.
IP: Logged
07:35 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
You said a safer society "crime-wise". So are we going to limit "crime-wise" to specifically gun related crimes? If so why? If you have a society with very strick gun control laws, of course the gun related crimes are going to be less versus a society with much more liberal gun laws. However, the baseball bat related crime data will inevitably be more in the former and less in the latter. Just because a society with very strict gun laws has less gun related crime does not diminish the crime they do have as being lesser. It's obvious a disamred society has more to fear from crime, versus an armed society. That's what it shows, which is what I took your question as. If that isn't what you wanted as an answer, I'm sorry.
Um, in the "arms race" senerio I was speaking about, guns are kind of an integeral part of that......
IP: Logged
07:39 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
No, as hes not an American. We as Americans do have the right to complain about the rules, he not being an American does not. His only right is to accept our system or be kicked out due to being a subversive. ( he agreed to this legally to on entry btw... )
You do know I was saying he was acting like a good American, right? I mean, I know he is not "American".
quote
Originally posted by User00013170: And we aren't going to agree on this... which is a shame.
I don't think it's a shame at all. We all want the same something. Something that will keep our children safe. Agreeing on what that something is, that's the only divide.
No shame in that.
IP: Logged
07:47 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Um, in the "arms race" senerio I was speaking about, guns are kind of an integeral part of that......
That may be but it does not negate the fact that England has a higher crime rate among a severly disamred populace compared to America with it's more armed populace. If the argument is a disarmed populace will make gun related crimes go down, that's fine but one must look at the result wholly. Yes gun related crime is reduced, but other criime increases on the whole. Which do you want, more crime and less guns, or more guns and less crime albeit some of that crime gun related?
IP: Logged
07:54 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
That's all I was talking about. I see countries that do well without guns everywhere, as well as countries that are flooded with them. I wasn't saying anything about either.
Just wondering what this country would be like.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-31-2012).]
IP: Logged
08:05 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Originally posted by newf: Also I think lots of people should be upset that those children and other innocent people were murdered no matter if you think changing gun control laws is a correct way to react or not. Attacking those who want a solution isn't too productive IMO.
And just who do you think is not upset?
Of course one attacks stupid ideas that do nothing to solve a problem. Just because some of us are unwilling to roll over and pee in the air and give up our rights so the weak and stupid can feel better does not mean we do not care.
