PDA

View Full Version : Republicans try to overturn the 1st Amendment...again.



Awryly
12-25-2012, 09:13 PM
The latest effort is a petition to have Piers Morgan, the host of a CNN opinion show, deported from the US because they don't like what he says. About guns, of course. I had the misfortune to see his rant.


By DYLAN BYERS (http://www.politico.com/reporters/DylanByers.html) | 12/24/12 6:29 AM EST


A petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl) calling on President Obama to deport CNN anchor Piers Morgan from the United States has passed the 25,000-signature threshold needed to require a response from theWhite (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/the-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-152730.html#) House.

(Also on POLITICO: Top 10 media stories of 2012 (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/top-10-media-stories-of-2012-85449.html?hp=t1))
The petition against Morgan is based on his criticism of gun advocates in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, which the authors describe (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/the-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-152730.html#) as an attack on the Second Amendment, and therefore as an attempt to "undermine the Bill of Rights."
"British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment," the authors write. "We demand (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/the-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan-152730.html#) that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

Last Tuesday, Morgan interviewed (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/piers-morgan-calls-gun-advocate-dangerous-stupid-idiot-152415.html) Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners for America, and called him "dangerous," "stupid," and "an idiot." The next night he told (http://central.washingtonexaminer.com/2012/12/20/piers-morgan-berates-another-pro-gun-advocate-on-his-show-calls-john-lott-a-liar/) John Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime that he needed "to stop repeating a blatant lie about what happens in other countries."

Frankly, I totally agree that Pratt was a prat; aka "stupid", an "idiot", and "dangerous" to most Americans.

But that's not the point. The point is whether the right to own guns (which is a dumb right and about 200 years out of date) should trump the right to unfettered free speech - which is not quite so dumb.

It seems Obama is likely to use the petition to wipe up Bo's, er, "mistakes" on the Oval Office floor.

But it's an interesting insight into the mentality of Republicans. Their rights, it seems, are more important than anyone's else's rights. Even when those rights are "enshrined" in a deeply flawed constitution.

Peter1469
12-25-2012, 09:18 PM
The US should only allow immigrants US citizenship if those immigrants want to be Americans. If an immigrant is trying to bring their country to the US, deport them.

Awryly
12-25-2012, 09:35 PM
The US should only allow immigrants US citizenship if those immigrants want to be Americans. If an immigrant is trying to bring their country to the US, deport them.

What the fuck does that mean? Immigrants should not be allowed to speak their mind? Unless they speak "nicely"?

Your so-called constitution only applies to people with American citizenship?

And anyway, you are all immigrants. Even you. Though I realise you left anything of value in the places from whence you came.

Calypso Jones
12-25-2012, 09:40 PM
The latest effort is a petition to have Piers Morgan, the host of a CNN opinion show, deported from the US because they don't like what he says. About guns, of course. I had the misfortune to see his rant.



Frankly, I totally agree that Pratt was a prat; aka "stupid", an "idiot", and "dangerous" to most Americans.

But that's not the point. The point is whether the right to own guns (which is a dumb right and about 200 years out of date) should trump the right to unfettered free speech - which is not quite so dumb.

It seems Obama is likely to use the petition to wipe up Bo's, er, "mistakes" on the Oval Office floor.

But it's an interesting insight into the mentality of Republicans. Their rights, it seems, are more important than anyone's else's rights. Even when those rights are "enshrined" in a deeply flawed constitution.

do you have a link showing that the signers of the petition are republicans? You don't really know that. And for someone supposedly on the other side of the world you sure do spend a lot of time thinking about and critiquing America from your easy chair, in your jockey shorts, scratching your brain between your legs.

ptif219
12-25-2012, 09:48 PM
What the fuck does that mean? Immigrants should not be allowed to speak their mind? Unless they speak "nicely"?

Your so-called constitution only applies to people with American citizenship?

He is not a US citizen so he is not covered by the constitution in my view

Peter1469
12-25-2012, 09:57 PM
What the fuck does that mean? Immigrants should not be allowed to speak their mind? Unless they speak "nicely"?

Your so-called constitution only applies to people with American citizenship?

And anyway, you are all immigrants. Even you. Though I realise you left anything of value in the places from whence you came.

It means, for example, if an immigrant from the UK wants the US to be like the UK, stay in the UK.

Awryly
12-25-2012, 10:03 PM
do you have a link showing that the signers of the petition are republicans? You don't really know that. And for someone supposedly on the other side of the world you sure do spend a lot of time thinking about and critiquing America from your easy chair, in your jockey shorts, scratching your brain between your legs.

Some guy called Kurt N started it. He was not brave enough to tell us who his sponsors are.

As for my brain, yes, I have more grey matter between my legs than you have between your ears.

Awryly
12-25-2012, 10:04 PM
It means, for example, if an immigrant from the UK wants the US to be like the UK, stay in the UK.


Mmm. So the 1st Amendment is as much of a joke as the rest of your constitution? As further amended by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan?

Calypso Jones
12-25-2012, 10:06 PM
Some guy called Kurt N started it. He was not brave enough to tell us who his sponsors are.

As for my brain, yes, I have more grey matter between my legs than you have between your ears.

Thats from waiting too long between washes, dude.

Peter1469
12-25-2012, 10:11 PM
Some guy called Kurt N started it. He was not brave enough to tell us who his sponsors are.

As for my brain, yes, I have more grey matter between my legs than you have between your ears.

Link?

Calypso Jones
12-25-2012, 10:18 PM
Link?

you REALLY don't want to see that.

Awryly
12-25-2012, 10:33 PM
Link?

For Kurt N or your grey matter?

Awryly
12-25-2012, 10:54 PM
Link?

Missing. Though you might qualify.

So free speech is not for Hispanics or dem freed niggas?

Carygrant
12-26-2012, 03:36 AM
We all know here how impossible it is for the Hilly Billy part of the people to listen and act on good advice .

But this is a nation desperate for love not advice -- however accurate and beneficial .
These people have been increasingly laughed at for the last forty years ----both politically and most clearly in the realm of culture and particularly popular fashions in culture .
They are desperate for a complete make -over , but , may be Piers , You , and I ought to be a little easier on them.
Their frustration and anger is getting out of control .They need to be brain cuffed ( perhaps brain and hands )-- cleverly and quietly . for all our safety
Look at some of them here --- like very naughty children who have never had their bottoms tanned and mouths taped up .
Fostering will not work . They need adopting .

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 03:36 AM
What the fuck does that mean? Immigrants should not be allowed to speak their mind? Unless they speak "nicely"?

Your so-called constitution only applies to people with American citizenship?

And anyway, you are all immigrants. Even you. Though I realise you left anything of value in the places from whence you came.

Bingo!!!! YOu got it! It is the American Constitution.

You would not have the right to own a firearm in our county, You would not have the right to petition the governemnt, and technicaly would not have the right to a trial by jury.

While we choose to extend these rights at times to our guests, they do not ahve those rights, until they become citizens.

And I totally understand you stance on the 2nd amendment. You made a statement in another post that really made it cleat to me.

You talked about capitalist in your country heading toward her majisties prisons????

You are still subjects, while we are a free people! And that is the difference, a subject would never be granted the right to keep and bare arms

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 03:45 AM
Missing. Though you might qualify.

So free speech is not for Hispanics or dem freed niggas?

10 points on your liberal score card , You may even qualify for bonus points for using race when backed into a corner.

To answer you question, Free Speach is for citizens of the United States, that right is protected in the US constitution.

I will bet that if I was in your country on business and did not file all that sill paperwork you governemnt makes us go through
they wold arret me for having my firearms with me.

When I told them that the second amendment protected those rights they would laugh me out of the courtroom (or do you still use go before the queen)
Because you do not live under the US constitution.

As for CNN and Piers I would sign a petition to make sure he was on at least 12 hours a day. He is one of the best things to ever happen to the gun rights movment. As he shows just how radical the left is.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 03:47 AM
Bingo!!!! YOu got it! It is the American Constitution.

You would not have the right to own a firearm in our county, You would not have the right to petition the governemnt, and technicaly would not have the right to a trial by jury.

While we choose to extend these rights at times to our guests, they do not ahve those rights, until they become citizens.

And I totally understand you stance on the 2nd amendment. You made a statement in another post that really made it cleat to me.

You talked about capitalist in your country heading toward her majisties prisons????

You are still subjects, while we are a free people! And that is the difference, a subject would never be granted the right to keep and bare arms

And you, my friend, are what makes America look moronic.

Do you tell your tourists that they may not speak of ill of the dead who still walk?

Under penalty of hideous penalties under the US constitution?

And are you yourself moronic enough to think we are subjects of that shrivelled hag that mounts the throne of England?

patrickt
12-26-2012, 03:49 AM
It's not pretty watching the idiot melt down. Doesn't New Zealand have publicly-funded mental health services?

Awryly
12-26-2012, 03:50 AM
It's not pretty watching the idiot melt down. Doesn't New Zealand have publicly-funded mental health services?


We do. Come here and try them.

Assuming you can convince NZ immigration you are not nuts.

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 03:54 AM
And you, my friend, are what makes America look moronic.

Do you tell your tourists that they may not speak of ill of the dead who still walk?

Under penalty of hideous penalties under the US constitution?

And are you yourself moronic enough to think we are subjects of that shrivelled hag that mounts the throne of England?

You were the one that talked about Her Majesties prisons???? Not ME!

I am sorry that I have gotten your dander up. Looking at all the facts at just how insignificant your country is, must be hard, but the truth is better than you believeing that everything your leaders are doing is correct.

You need to question authority, not eat up everything that they are trying to sell you.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 04:00 AM
You were the one that talked about Her Majesties prisons???? Not ME!

I am sorry that I have gotten your dander up. Looking at all the facts at just how insignificant your country is, must be hard, but the truth is better than you believeing that everything your leaders are doing is correct.

You need to question authority, not eat up everything that they are trying to sell you.


You saying I shouldn't believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Or that "Mission Accomplished" Dubya was so fond of?

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 04:08 AM
You saying I shouldn't believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Or that "Mission Accomplished" Dubya was so fond of?

??????????????????????????

What???? How does this work with your statement "her majesties prisons"

Awryly
12-26-2012, 04:32 AM
??????????????????????????

What???? How does this work with your statement "her majesties prisons"
.

Oh dear. You are going to warble on about an honorary title that means zip, nada, zilch.

But back to the main course. You probably don't know that the Christiane Amanpour is British? Just like Piers Morgan.

You gonna deport her too for saying stuff you don't wanna hear?

But you have confirmed the 2nd amendment trumps the 1st. Which makes a nonsense of your constitution. Especially as the 2nd amendment was constructed at a time when you had credible external enemies and the "arms" in question were muskets.

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 04:43 AM
.

Oh dear. You are going to warble on about an honorary title that means zip, nada, zilch.

But back to the main course. You probably don't know that the Christiane Amanpour is British? Just like Piers Morgan.

You gonna deport her too for saying stuff you don't wanna hear?

But you have confirmed the 2nd amendment trumps the 1st. Which makes a nonsense of your constitution. Especially as the 2nd amendment was constructed at a time when you had credible external enemies and the "arms" in question were muskets.

I do not want either one of them deported, I want it made manditory that piers be on 12 hours a day.

I was just stating that the constitution is for American citizens, not people that are green card immigrants. That is a fact just as yoru constitution or laws apply to your citizens. While both countries can extend these rights to immigrants, it is not required.

And the second amendment exists to protect the first, not abolish it.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 05:12 AM
I do not want either one of them deported, I want it made manditory that piers be on 12 hours a day.

I was just stating that the constitution is for American citizens, not people that are green card immigrants. That is a fact just as yoru constitution or laws apply to your citizens. While both countries can extend these rights to immigrants, it is not required.

And the second amendment exists to protect the first, not abolish it.

So:

immigrants can't carry guns, can't speak stuff you don't want them to speak, can't get a jury trial, but can be tried for treason and have to pay taxes?

Have I got that right?

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 05:53 AM
So:

immigrants can't carry guns, can't speak stuff you don't want them to speak, can't get a jury trial, but can be tried for treason and have to pay taxes?

Have I got that right?

You are correct in principle

The US constitution is a document that is designed to be the law of the land for Americans.

Just as the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to bare arms in your country.

Now we extend these right, even 2nd amendment rights to immigrants. But the constitution does not require it?

For example in Mexico our neighbors to the south, immigrants are not allowed to become involvend in political speach. or they are deported.

We extend this right to others, but if we have someone calling for the overthrowing of the government we do not have to extend this right.

As far as Piers I am all for it.

hanger4
12-26-2012, 07:24 AM
Tell me something Awryly, how are Piers Morgan's 1st amendment rights being abrogated via deportation ??

patrickt
12-26-2012, 07:29 AM
Tell me something Awryly, how are Piers Morgan's 1st amendment rights being abrogated via deportation ??
They aren't, of course, but the nitwit from New Zealand has either never read the U.S. Constitution or hasn't had it explained to him. Of course, that puts him in the same pew as the U.S. liberals.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 08:20 AM
Tell me something Awryly, how are Piers Morgan's 1st amendment rights being abrogated via deportation ??

Let's see. You want to inflict punishment on Morgan for speaking freely by having him deported.

That about covers it.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 08:22 AM
They aren't, of course, but the nitwit from New Zealand has either never read the U.S. Constitution or hasn't had it explained to him. Of course, that puts him in the same pew as the U.S. liberals.

You have the intellectual capacity of a grasshopper and no ability to know it, so you can go and join him in my hole.

Chris
12-26-2012, 08:29 AM
Tell me something Awryly, how are Piers Morgan's 1st amendment rights being abrogated via deportation ??


Let's see. You want to inflict punishment on Morgan for speaking freely by having him deported.

That about covers it.

The question remains, how does deportation affect his right to free speech? Do try and answer.

hanger4
12-26-2012, 08:49 AM
Let's see. You want to inflict punishment on Morgan for speaking freely by having him deported.

That about covers it.

Cute dodge, but how will deportation abridge his 1st amendment rights ??



OOPS sorry Chris, didn't see your nearly identical question.

Chris
12-26-2012, 09:08 AM
Cute dodge, but how will deportation abridge his 1st amendment rights ??



OOPS sorry Chris, didn't see your nearly identical question.

I'm sure many would like to see an intellectually honest answer out of awryly.

Consider, from dictionary.com, "de·port ... to expel (an alien) from a country; banish."

So say Piers is deported, expelled from the US. That doesn't affect his right to free speech, he still has that unalienable right, he is still free to speak out.

This connection between deportation and free speech is a red herring, iow, a troll.

Mainecoons
12-26-2012, 09:11 AM
You just give an asshole like Piers credibility by deporting him. No one watches CNN anyway, best to just ignore the whole thing.

GrumpyDog
12-26-2012, 12:27 PM
The Native Americans should have deported the Puritans before the Puritan wave of immigrants could displace the Native Americans.

With the Puritans established, having displaced the Native Americans further westward, the French should have been deported immediately, before they could ally with the Native tribes to try and deport the Puritans again.

With the French and Native tribes defeated, the Puritans and English Tories should have immediately begun deporting any colonists showing signs of rebellion against monarchy rule.

With defeat of the Tories, the New Americans, should have started deporting Irish, German caucasians as well as deny African American slaves being "imported". Thus Civil War with Northern Americans trying to deport (to the afterlife) Southern Americans, and vis versa, could have been avoided. Possibly. Then again, the New Americans, loving their new rifles as they did, probably not.

Peter1469
12-26-2012, 01:17 PM
The Native Americans should have deported the Puritans before the Puritan wave of immigrants could displace the Native Americans.

With the Puritans established, having displaced the Native Americans further westward, the French should have been deported immediately, before they could ally with the Native tribes to try and deport the Puritans again.

With the French and Native tribes defeated, the Puritans and English Tories should have immediately begun deporting any colonists showing signs of rebellion against monarchy rule.

With defeat of the Tories, the New Americans, should have started deporting Irish, German caucasians as well as deny African American slaves being "imported". Thus Civil War with Northern Americans trying to deport (to the afterlife) Southern Americans, and vis versa, could have been avoided. Possibly. Then again, the New Americans, loving their new rifles as they did, probably not.

The native Americans should have deployed their naval fleet to prevent the Europeans from landing in the first place, and should that have failed they should have used their armies to push the newcomers into the sea.

Oh, wait. They couldn't. They were Stone Age dead-enders. They lost.

bladimz
12-26-2012, 01:36 PM
They aren't, of course, but the nitwit from New Zealand has either never read the U.S. Constitution or hasn't had it explained to him. Of course, that puts him in the same pew as the U.S. liberals.The Second Amendment has been with us since we've been a nation, but it hasn't always been interpreted as it is now. And the NRA lobby (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/192535/how-one-nra-meeting-in-1977-changed-everything-about-the-second-amendment/) had almost everything to do with it:

How one NRA meeting in 1977 changed everything about the Second Amendment

The Constitution says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But Toobin points out:
"The courts had found that the first part, the 'militia clause,' trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."

It sort of sounds like semantics, but the right of “the people” in general to form armed militias was seen as different than the right of each individual person to arm himself.

So where along the way did it change? According to Toobin, it started changing where lots of laws do: At the board meeting of lobbyists—in this case, the N.R.A.

Toobin writes:
"A coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power. …The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill battle."
But it was a battle won...
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/192535/how-one-nra-meeting-in-1977-changed-everything-about-the-second-amendment/It's important to remember that nothing is as it was 250 years ago. Personally i interpret the 2nd amendment to say that a well-regulated militia is the key phrase here. Well-regulated means a trained and experienced unit (or units) of people, kind of like National Guard units. What it doesn't mean is a random bunch of individuals, experienced or inexperienced, trained or untrained, owning any type of weapon they care to own.

bladimz
12-26-2012, 01:42 PM
The native Americans should have deployed their naval fleet to prevent the Europeans from landing in the first place, and should that have failed they should have used their armies to push the newcomers into the sea.

Oh, wait. They couldn't. They were Stone Age dead-enders. They lost.So i don't want to hear any whining from you when an alien army finally overtakes our planet only to suck it dry of it's resources, destroying it's locals while they're at it. :shocked:

Chris
12-26-2012, 01:48 PM
The Second Amendment has been with us since we've been a nation, but it hasn't always been interpreted as it is now. And the NRA lobby (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/192535/how-one-nra-meeting-in-1977-changed-everything-about-the-second-amendment/) had almost everything to do with it:
It's important to remember that nothing is as it was 250 years ago. Personally i interpret the 2nd amendment to say that a well-regulated militia is the key phrase here. Well-regulated means a trained and experienced unit (or units) of people, kind of like National Guard units. What it doesn't mean is a random bunch of individuals, experienced or inexperienced, trained or untrained, owning any type of weapon they care to own.

Rust never sleeps and truth never changes so too do principles, like those expressed in the 2nd, ever stop being applicable.

hanger4
12-26-2012, 02:00 PM
The Second Amendment has been with us since we've been a nation, but it hasn't always been interpreted as it is now. And the NRA lobby (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/192535/how-one-nra-meeting-in-1977-changed-everything-about-the-second-amendment/) had almost everything to do with it:
It's important to remember that nothing is as it was 250 years ago. Personally i interpret the 2nd amendment to say that a well-regulated militia is the key phrase here. Well-regulated means a trained and experienced unit (or units) of people, kind of like National Guard units. What it doesn't mean is a random bunch of individuals, experienced or inexperienced, trained or untrained, owning any type of weapon they care to own.

When did the words "militia" and "the people" become synonyms ??

bladimz
12-26-2012, 02:38 PM
When did the words "militia" and "the people" become synonyms ??

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Why even mention anything about a well-regulated militia in the amendment, if it has no place? Why not just rewrite it to say "In order to ensure the security of a free state, all citizens will be free to keep and bear arms." That's apparently the popular interpretation, isn't it? If it is, why not "amend" the amendment?

C'mon; help me out here. Why is the "well-regulated militia" phrase even in there??

Agravan
12-26-2012, 03:04 PM
Why even mention anything about a well-regulated militia in the amendment, if it has no place? Why not just rewrite it to say "In order to ensure the security of a free state, all citizens will be free to keep and bear arms." That's apparently the popular interpretation, isn't it? If it is, why not "amend" the amendment?

C'mon; help me out here. Why is the "well-regulated militia" phrase even in there??

Because the people are the militia.

bladimz
12-26-2012, 03:13 PM
You're response and Hanger4's response (Post #40) diametrically oppose each other. And yet you both are trying to argue my stance... You guys need to get together on this.

Agravan
12-26-2012, 03:22 PM
You're response and Hanger4's response (Post #40) diametrically oppose each other. And yet you both are trying to argue my stance... You guys need to get together on this.

What does it mean for the militia to be well-regulated? Here’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffvir.htm). From Query IX:

“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. …. In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. …. The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”

Chris
12-26-2012, 03:25 PM
Blad, this history of the second ammendment as it was revised in Congress is informative of original intent:


James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[87]
On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[88] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[89] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[90]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[91]
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[92] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:


A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[93]
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.[94] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:


A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[95]
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


The question here however is how deporting Piers would or even could take away his right to free speech.

Deadwood
12-26-2012, 03:34 PM
The latest effort is a petition to have Piers Morgan, the host of a CNN opinion show, deported from the US because they don't like what he says. About guns, of course. I had the misfortune to see his rant. Frankly, I totally agree that Pratt was a prat; aka "stupid", an "idiot", and "dangerous" to most Americans. But that's not the point. The point is whether the right to own guns (which is a dumb right and about 200 years out of date) should trump the right to unfettered free speech - which is not quite so dumb. It seems Obama is likely to use the petition to wipe up Bo's, er, "mistakes" on the Oval Office floor. But it's an interesting insight into the mentality of Republicans. Their rights, it seems, are more important than anyone's else's rights. Even when those rights are "enshrined" in a deeply flawed constitution.


There's a reason I have you on ignore. This thread is bullshit... there is NOT ONE shred of evidence a Republican is even involved in this let alone that it is a Republican campaign as the OP suggests.

There is certainly NO evidence this in any way provides "insight" into anything more than a diseased, hateful, anti-American mind that wants to debase all things it doesn't understand....which leave less than an iota...

There is NOT one shred of evidence that this move has anything to do with the first amendment.... There is EVERY indication this is a stupid, idiotic attention whore idea by a bunch of wacko nut bars wanting to make mischief with Obama's stupid petition idea. And there is every indication the nut bar, foreign OP is making a crass attempt to distort the facts and play propagandist in her own attention whoring, making wholesale judgements on a culture a half a world away and which is only known to her by the mainstream media and movies.

Enlightenment doesn't seem to have any application here.




:owned:

bladimz
12-26-2012, 03:48 PM
I recognize that the thread is whether Morgan has the right to freedom of speech, but i do need to respond to your post.

Of all the proposed variations considered by congress, they all carry a common phrase: "A well-regulated militia". What is the definition of "well-regulated", and why isn't it defined in the amendment? There must be a very particular reason for keeping that phrase in every single variation. What do you suppose it is?

Deporting Morgan is a stupid idea, but doing so doesn't restrict his freedom of speech.

Peter1469
12-26-2012, 04:00 PM
So i don't want to hear any whining from you when an alien army finally overtakes our planet only to suck it dry of it's resources, destroying it's locals while they're at it. :shocked:

That is the point, Blad. If someone can take this land, it is theirs.

Peter1469
12-26-2012, 04:01 PM
I recognize that the thread is whether Morgan has the right to freedom of speech, but i do need to respond to your post.

Of all the proposed variations considered by congress, they all carry a common phrase: "A well-regulated militia". What is the definition of "well-regulated", and why isn't it defined in the amendment? There must be a very particular reason for keeping that phrase in every single variation. What do you suppose it is?

Deporting Morgan is a stupid idea, but doing so doesn't restrict his freedom of speech.
That is an incorrect reading of the 2nd Amendment. Go back to my prior posts on the topic, and learn.

Chris
12-26-2012, 04:03 PM
I recognize that the thread is whether Morgan has the right to freedom of speech, but i do need to respond to your post.

Of all the proposed variations considered by congress, they all carry a common phrase: "A well-regulated militia". What is the definition of "well-regulated", and why isn't it defined in the amendment? There must be a very particular reason for keeping that phrase in every single variation. What do you suppose it is?

Deporting Morgan is a stupid idea, but doing so doesn't restrict his freedom of speech.

They all also carry the phrase the right of the people to bear arms.


The point about the topic was not just for you but to point out how a troll works when his first idea isn't trolling enough then start bringing in all sorts of other extraneous stuff to start a fight about and bury how wrong he was.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 05:57 PM
Cute dodge, but how will deportation abridge his 1st amendment rights ??

OOPS sorry Chris, didn't see your nearly identical question.

Obtuse bunch, aren't you? If you deport someone for exercising free speech you don't like, you are imposing a penalty on non-citizens for using free speech you don't like inside the US. Even the threat of applying such a penalty operates against the use of free speech.

And, for the sophists among you, it is no help to your argument that he can use free speech wherever he happens to be after the penalty of deportation has been applied. That just avoids the question.

But now we turn to the reason why you are so keen to have it believed that black is white.

Are you so besotted with your flawed constitution that either (a) you believe nothing is wrong with it? or (b) nothing critical should be said about it?

Take your time. :yo2::yo2::yo2:

Chris
12-26-2012, 06:30 PM
Obtuse bunch, aren't you? If you deport someone for exercising free speech you don't like, you are imposing a penalty on non-citizens for using free speech you don't like inside the US. Even the threat of applying such a penalty operates against the use of free speech.

And, for the sophists among you, it is no help to your argument that he can use free speech wherever he happens to be after the penalty of deportation has been applied. That just avoids the question.

But now we turn to the reason why you are so keen to have it believed that black is white.

Are you so besotted with your flawed constitution that either (a) you believe nothing is wrong with it? or (b) nothing critical should be said about it?

Take your time. :yo2::yo2::yo2:

Again, the evasive begging the question, filled with well poisonings and ad hom and made up inflammatory nonsense, all to hide you cannot explain how deporting affects his right to free speech.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 06:49 PM
Again, the evasive begging the question, filled with well poisonings and ad hom and made up inflammatory nonsense, all to hide you cannot explain how deporting affects his right to free speech.

Oh, well done! I could not have manufactured a sentence containing so many expletives.

Explain each in turn:


how was I "evasive"
how did I "beg the question"
how was I "well-poisoning"
how was I "ad hom"
how, to any reasonably sane person, was I "inflammatory"
where was the "nonsense"?
As you can see, I've numbered my supposed sins. Please be careful to address each with concision and clarity.

Take your time. :yo2:

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 07:00 PM
Why even mention anything about a well-regulated militia in the amendment, if it has no place? Why not just rewrite it to say "In order to ensure the security of a free state, all citizens will be free to keep and bear arms." That's apparently the popular interpretation, isn't it? If it is, why not "amend" the amendment?

C'mon; help me out here. Why is the "well-regulated militia" phrase even in there??

This might help you out, The constitution and the bill of rights are filled with the words "the people"

In each and every case those words refer to the populations fo the country, not the government. The founding faters took great care in the writing of the document, and it would seem very odd, if the only time the words the people" refered to the government, was in the second amendment. Thjerefore we can conclude that those words refer to the general population, If not then those words could mean the government everywhere else and that would end the rights to speach, privacy ect.

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 07:04 PM
Obtuse bunch, aren't you? If you deport someone for exercising free speech you don't like, you are imposing a penalty on non-citizens for using free speech you don't like inside the US. Even the threat of applying such a penalty operates against the use of free speech.

And, for the sophists among you, it is no help to your argument that he can use free speech wherever he happens to be after the penalty of deportation has been applied. That just avoids the question.

But now we turn to the reason why you are so keen to have it believed that black is white.

Are you so besotted with your flawed constitution that either (a) you believe nothing is wrong with it? or (b) nothing critical should be said about it?

Take your time. :yo2::yo2::yo2:

First let me state that I do not want him deported. But for this discussion lets say that he is depoerted.

It would not violate his first amendment rights, because he is not a citizen, therefore the constitution does not apply to him, just as your constitution does not apply to me?

Awryly
12-26-2012, 07:07 PM
Why even mention anything about a well-regulated militia in the amendment, if it has no place? Why not just rewrite it to say "In order to ensure the security of a free state, all citizens will be free to keep and bear arms." That's apparently the popular interpretation, isn't it? If it is, why not "amend" the amendment?

C'mon; help me out here. Why is the "well-regulated militia" phrase even in there??


It means that there should be a militia/militias, consisting of able-bodied men equipped with muskets, ready to repel the British should they land again. (Which they did.) Or the Indians should they not want you to occupy, Israeli style, their traditional lands.

It does not mean, except in the warped mind of your supreme court, that every nutter should be able to run round with an AR 15.

Chris
12-26-2012, 07:09 PM
Oh, well done! I could not have manufactured a sentence containing so many expletives.

Explain each in turn:


how was I "evasive"
how did I "beg the question"
how was I "well-poisoning"
how was I "ad hom"
how, to any reasonably sane person, was I "inflammatory"
where was the "nonsense"?
As you can see, I've numbered my supposed sins. Please be careful to address each with concision and clarity.

Take your time. :yo2:


I think you might want to look up the meaning of 'expletive'.


I've numbered my supposed sins.

Here's the difference between your post #51 and my response. You attack people you disagree with personally, calling them names and such. I, otoh, didn't attack you but your message and all the logical fallacies contained in it, all, as I said, to hide not answering a simple question. So I congratulate you on being able to list the fallacies of your post, but why blame me for what you posted?


Admittedly, you do in post #51 change words, from deportation to penalty. But that is all you do, change words to merely repeat your claim, rather than address how the deportation penalty affects his free speech. IOW, if you clear away the obfuscation of your post, we're left with this...

Here's the petition:


Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

The fact.

Here's the thread's claim:


Republicans try to overturn the 1st Amendment...again.

Your conclusion.


What possible logic connects the fact to your conclusion?

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 07:12 PM
AW You mentioned that we are stuck with our constitution? So I thought that I would read yours

It is really amazing that you do not like our constitution, and yet yours reads almost the same???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act

Now ours was written in 1776 and yours was in 1990??? and you could not find a more updated constitution to copy???

Just wondering

Awryly
12-26-2012, 07:13 PM
First let me state that I do not want him deported. But for this discussion lets say that he is depoerted.

It would not violate his first amendment rights, because he is not a citizen, therefore the constitution does not apply to him, just as your constitution does not apply to me?


So you are saying that the millions of Hispanics who are not citizens also do not have the right of free speech? Or the millions of tourists who go to your country?

What other constitutional rights don't they have? The right to a jury trial? Do they just get locked away in Guantanamo Bay?

Chris
12-26-2012, 07:18 PM
It means that there should be a militia/militias, consisting of able-bodied men equipped with muskets, ready to repel the British should they land again. (Which they did.) Or the Indians should they not want you to occupy, Israeli style, their traditional lands.

It does not mean, except in the warped mind of your supreme court, that every nutter should be able to run round with an AR 15.

As long as you want to continue this distraction, that is not what the 2nd amendment says, as a simple lesson in English grammar will show:

http://i.snag.gy/x3OUX.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute


In English grammar, a nominative absolute is a free-standing (absolute) part of a sentence that describes or modifies the main subject and verb. It is usually at the beginning or end of the sentence, although it can also appear in the middle. Its parallel is the ablative absolute in Latin, or the genitive absolute in Greek.

One way to identify a nominative absolute is to add a verb; one can always create a sentence out of a nominative absolute by adding one verb (generally a form of to be).

Their manes flowing, the horses ran from the burning barn.
Nominative absolute: Their manes flowing.
With a verb added: Their manes were flowing.

Stephen, his mind taxed, searched frantically for a dictionary.
Nominative absolute: his mind taxed
With a verb added: His mind was taxed.

Similarly, one can break the absolute off, add a verb and make two sentences. For example, Stephen searched frantically for a dictionary. His mind was taxed.

A prominent example of a nominative absolute is the sentence composing the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

As that diagram demonstrates and the explanation clarifies, neither right of the people collectively or individually shall be infringed.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 07:21 PM
AW You mentioned that we are stuck with our constitution? So I thought that I would read yours

It is really amazing that you do not like our constitution, and yet yours reads almost the same???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act

Now ours was written in 1776 and yours was in 1990??? and you could not find a more updated constitution to copy???

Just wondering

The Act you have found is just one part of our constitutional framework. There are a number of others including the Treaty of Waitangi, written in 1840 (when NZ became a British colony) to define the relationship between Maori and the British crown.
http://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/node/68

Note we do not have an automatic right to bear arms. Nor is there a prohibition on our doing so. Except insofar as the government decides from time to time, for example, that handguns and assault weapons are to be banned. Which they are.

The US is unique in still letting people carry whatever arsenal they fancy on the grounds that high tech weaponry is required to be held by all citizens in order to defeat invasions by the British, Canadians or Mexicans. Perhaps all three at once in the more paranoid minds. And the Spanish and French, I forgot the Spanish and French.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 07:22 PM
As long as you want to continue this distraction, that is not what the 2nd amendment says, as a simple lesson in English grammar will show:

http://i.snag.gy/x3OUX.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute



As that diagram demonstrates and the explanation clarifies, neither right of the people collectively or individually shall be infringed.


I am constantly amazed at the lengths Americans will go to in order to try to defeat the obvious.

Chris
12-26-2012, 07:28 PM
I am constantly amazed at the lengths Americans will go to in order to try to defeat the obvious.

And all you can come up with is another inflammatory insult--the very thing you criticize doing just above--and all to hide the fact you cannot answer a simple question and defend your claim.

GrumpyDog
12-26-2012, 07:36 PM
The native Americans should have deployed their naval fleet to prevent the Europeans from landing in the first place, and should that have failed they should have used their armies to push the newcomers into the sea.

Oh, wait. They couldn't. They were Stone Age dead-enders. They lost.

Missed the point again?

Which is: Deportation of people you do not like is a sign of mental illness. The kind of mental illness that would lead one to believe that even small children are an "enemy".

As much as I find some on this forum, to be complete morons, with completely regressive views that I find insulting, never have I called for someone to be banned. Likewise, never would I call for someone to be deported from the land of freedom as a means of punishment for exercising his right to free speech.

That is the kind of crap they did in Nazi Germany, and the kind of krap that McCarthy conservatives tried to do. Rather appalling that in 2012, they try it again. But heck, nothing to lose now, cause the Rep party and regressivism is a dying, and soon to be extinct political dinosaur.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 07:43 PM
Missed the point again?

Which is: Deportation of people you do not like is a sign of mental illness. The kind of mental illness that would lead one to believe that even small children are an "enemy".

As much as I find some on this forum, to be complete morons, with completely regressive views that I find insulting, never have I called for someone to be banned. Likewise, never would I call for someone to be deported from the land of freedom as a means of punishment for exercising his right to free speech.

That is the kind of crap they did in Nazi Germany, and the kind of krap that McCarthy conservatives tried to do. Rather appalling that in 2012, they try it again. But heck, nothing to lose now, cause the Rep party and regressivism is a dying, and soon to be extinct political dinosaur.


McCarthyism is an apt parallel.

Soon they will be hunting free speakers down and dragging them in front of congressional kangaroo hearings. Before they deport them.

Which, of course, means the 1st amendment does not protect "unhealthily" free speakers from intimidation designed to gag them.

The Nazis were a bit less subtle. They just burned their books and put bullets in their heads.

But the principle is the same.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 08:09 PM
Ah, another expression of free speech:


A newspaper's publication of the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in two New York counties has sparked online discussions and a healthy dose of outrage.
The Journal News, a Gannett Co. newspaper covering three counties in the Hudson Valley north of New York City and operating the website lohud.com, posted a story Sunday detailing a public-records request it filed to obtain the information.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10856243

I too would like to know what morons there are in my 'hood.

And which ones were clinically mentally ill.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 08:28 PM
Oh, what fun.


Following a groundswell of support in America for demands to expel Piers Morgan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/piersmorgan) from the country and deport him back to the UK over his views on US gun controls, it seems that any return home for the chatshow host would not be greeted warmly by everyone.The White House has yet to respond to an online petition calling for the TV presenter to be marched to the nearest American exit, but it has not stopped UK citizens from launching a pre-emptive strike against any such move.
The petition to "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)" had nearly 600 signatures by Wednesday night, far from the 25,000 signature threshold necessary to prompt a White House response.
It was created in response to the petition "Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD)", which had attracted more than 73,000 supporters. "Kurt N" in Austin, Texas, created the petition following Morgan's repeated calls for increased US gun control (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/24/piers-morgan-petition-cnn-anchorman-deported) in the wake of the Newtown shootings.

I had been awaiting, with thrilled anticipation, for a British petition to keep Morgan in the US. I see it is slowly girding loins. I doubt they would want him back.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/26/petition-us-piers-morgan-uk

ptif219
12-26-2012, 08:34 PM
Brits Petition Government: We Don’t Want Piers Morgan Back (http://www.prisonplanet.com/brits-petition-government-we-dont-want-piers-morgan-back.html)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/brits-petition-government-we-dont-want-piers-morgan-back.html

Awryly
12-26-2012, 08:38 PM
Brits Petition Government: We Don’t Want Piers Morgan Back (http://www.prisonplanet.com/brits-petition-government-we-dont-want-piers-morgan-back.html)


http://www.prisonplanet.com/brits-petition-government-we-dont-want-piers-morgan-back.html


Morgan is a flash Harry. There is no doubt he is highly adept at interviewing Americans on TV and exposing them for what they are. He can, in this pursuit, be highly entertaining.

But he has a history as an underhand editor of British tabloid newspapers. I am sure the Brits would want the Yanks to keep him.

zelmo1234
12-26-2012, 09:17 PM
So you are saying that the millions of Hispanics who are not citizens also do not have the right of free speech? Or the millions of tourists who go to your country?

What other constitutional rights don't they have? The right to a jury trial? Do they just get locked away in Guantanamo Bay?

No the constitution is for the citizens of the United States, just like you constitution is for the citizens of NZ. The rights may be extended, but they do not have to be extended. We do not let non citizens vote for example.

I do not expect your country to honor our 2nd amendment when I visit your country, I have to obey their rules. You for example are not allow to own a gun in our country, because you are not ,a citizen.

It might suck and sound cruel but the constitution does not apply immigrants?

Awryly
12-26-2012, 09:26 PM
No the constitution is for the citizens of the United States, just like you constitution is for the citizens of NZ. The rights may be extended, but they do not have to be extended. We do not let non citizens vote for example.

I do not expect your country to honor our 2nd amendment when I visit your country, I have to obey their rules. You for example are not allow to own a gun in our country, because you are not ,a citizen.

It might suck and sound cruel but the constitution does not apply immigrants?


Um. We have free speech here. Even for Yankee tourists.

Who manage to pass immigration.

PS: it's not cruel. Just absurdly stupid and not remotely true. Morgan will continue to crucify you despite your silly petition.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 09:42 PM
The native Americans should have deployed their naval fleet to prevent the Europeans from landing in the first place, and should that have failed they should have used their armies to push the newcomers into the sea.

Oh, wait. They couldn't. They were Stone Age dead-enders. They lost.

So you murdered them.

Contrast that with the way we treated Maori. We signed a treaty with them whereby the British crown would guarantee them their lands and their own sovereignty and, what appealed to them most, protection from the feuding Maori tribes who had wiped out a third of their population with European muskets before the British crown took over.

There were later "wars" about land. But hardly anyone was killed, let alone wiped out.

bladimz
12-26-2012, 10:56 PM
They all also carry the phrase the right of the people to bear arms.


The point about the topic was not just for you but to point out how a troll works when his first idea isn't trolling enough then start bringing in all sorts of other extraneous stuff to start a fight about and bury how wrong he was.I apologize. There was conversation earlier about the 2nd amendment, and i just picked up on it. It's too bad that you see it as some kind of fight; just stating my opinion. Whether i'm wrong or not is subjective.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 11:01 PM
I apologize. There was conversation earlier about the 2nd amendment, and i just picked up on it. It's too bad that you see it as some kind of fight; just stating my opinion. Whether i'm wrong or not is subjective.


The fellow you have just admonished sees everything as a fight.

Don't mention the 28th amendment.

bladimz
12-26-2012, 11:12 PM
Well, he did, in a later post, actually supply a graphic that takes the 2nd amendment and creates a sentence diagram of it. It proves nothing of course. But he did continue the 2nd amendment conversation. I don't see it as trolling, though. It's not inflammatory, or destructive. He's just trying to back his point, is all.

Awryly
12-26-2012, 11:15 PM
Well, he did, in a later post, actually supply a graphic that takes the 2nd amendment and creates a sentence diagram of it. It proves nothing of course. But he did continue the 2nd amendment conversation. I don't see it as trolling, though. It's not inflammatory, or destructive. He's just trying to back his point, is all.

Did he indeed?

To what extent do you think he succeeded?

bladimz
12-26-2012, 11:47 PM
Did he indeed?

To what extent do you think he succeeded?
He did succeed in supplying a diagram, and not much more.

zelmo1234
12-27-2012, 02:56 AM
So you murdered them.

Contrast that with the way we treated Maori. We signed a treaty with them whereby the British crown would guarantee them their lands and their own sovereignty and, what appealed to them most, protection from the feuding Maori tribes who had wiped out a third of their population with European muskets before the British crown took over.

There were later "wars" about land. But hardly anyone was killed, let alone wiped out.

They signed a treaty with the British Crown??? I thought you sand that you were not subjects????

when did they sign a treaty with you????

zelmo1234
12-27-2012, 03:03 AM
Um. We have free speech here. Even for Yankee tourists.

Who manage to pass immigration.

PS: it's not cruel. Just absurdly stupid and not remotely true. Morgan will continue to crucify you despite your silly petition.

First I have agreed with you that this petition is silly, but would be part of Free Speach and the rights to petition the government in both of our countries. You can't stop the idiots they have their rights too?

But just the opposite is true for me, I want him to reach more people, his program on CNN

The problem is he is viewed as an idiot and nobody watches him, which for my side is not a good thing

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cnn-primetime-ratings-20-year-low-piers-morgan-327771

CNN is at a 20 year low and his show has the worst ratings of all of them. I suspect that his deportation will have to do with the fact that he losses his job, and not this silly petition.

Awryly
12-27-2012, 03:58 AM
They signed a treaty with the British Crown??? I thought you sand that you were not subjects????

when did they sign a treaty with you????

"We" being the British crown of the time. But voila, you finally stumbled on the truth that, yes, we are not subjects today.

Got that? Don't make me repeat it.

Awryly
12-27-2012, 04:02 AM
First I have agreed with you that this petition is silly, but would be part of Free Speach and the rights to petition the government in both of our countries. You can't stop the idiots they have their rights too?

But just the opposite is true for me, I want him to reach more people, his program on CNN

The problem is he is viewed as an idiot and nobody watches him, which for my side is not a good thing

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cnn-primetime-ratings-20-year-low-piers-morgan-327771

CNN is at a 20 year low and his show has the worst ratings of all of them. I suspect that his deportation will have to do with the fact that he losses his job, and not this silly petition.


You read too much Fox News.


Last night, Piers Morgan (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Piers+Morgan) beat all his CNN colleagues in total viewership during the primetime hours. His colleague Anderson Cooper (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Anderson+Cooper), however, won the network’s night in the key 25-54 demo.Morgan’s 556k total viewers was enough to beat out his next-best colleagues in Wolf Blitzer (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Wolf+Blitzer)(543k) and Cooper (501k).
Over on MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Lawrence+O%27Donnell) (309k) beat his Fox competitor Greta Van Susteren (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Greta+Van+Susteren)(230k) in demo viewership. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Rachel+Maddow) (388k) also beat her Fox competitor Sean Hannity (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Sean+Hannity) (285k) in the demo. However, Van Susteren and Hannity beat their competitors in total viewership.

Chris
12-27-2012, 05:52 AM
He did succeed in supplying a diagram, and not much more.

Yes, I did, demonstrating the meaning of the second amendment in English, hoe the grammatical construction implies a right both collectively and individually to the people that shall not be infringed.

I don't see you or anyone else presenting a counterargument. So it stands against mere personal opinion. Here it is again. Come up with a counterargument if you can:

http://i.snag.gy/x3OUX.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute


In English grammar, a nominative absolute is a free-standing (absolute) part of a sentence that describes or modifies the main subject and verb. It is usually at the beginning or end of the sentence, although it can also appear in the middle. Its parallel is the ablative absolute in Latin, or the genitive absolute in Greek.

One way to identify a nominative absolute is to add a verb; one can always create a sentence out of a nominative absolute by adding one verb (generally a form of to be).

Their manes flowing, the horses ran from the burning barn.
Nominative absolute: Their manes flowing.
With a verb added: Their manes were flowing.

Stephen, his mind taxed, searched frantically for a dictionary.
Nominative absolute: his mind taxed
With a verb added: His mind was taxed.

Similarly, one can break the absolute off, add a verb and make two sentences. For example, Stephen searched frantically for a dictionary. His mind was taxed.

A prominent example of a nominative absolute is the sentence composing the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

As that diagram demonstrates and the explanation clarifies, neither right of the people collectively or individually shall be infringed.

zelmo1234
12-27-2012, 06:11 AM
You read too much Fox News.

Nice I am sure that there internals are what they want everyone to here, But what they are not telling you is that over on Fox the regulars are on vacation???

The nelson ratings that I posted are what advertisors use to set rates.

Piers may enjoy a little up tick until they return, but you will notice that even with the scrubs in your article states that Hanity and Van Sustrin beat them in total viewership????

bladimz
12-27-2012, 12:06 PM
Yes, I did, demonstrating the meaning of the second amendment in English, hoe the grammatical construction implies a right both collectively and individually to the people that shall not be infringed.

I don't see you or anyone else presenting a counterargument. So it stands against mere personal opinion. Here it is again. Come up with a counterargument if you can:

http://i.snag.gy/x3OUX.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute



As that diagram demonstrates and the explanation clarifies, neither right of the people collectively or individually shall be infringed.In the diagram, the individual subject, as shown, is tied to the collective subject, suggesting that the primary reason for citizens to keep and bear arms is to have them close at hand in case there is need to quickly gather together a militia. A well-regulated militia.

This is a concept that is so far removed from the current interpretation, few people would even consider it. That's ok with me. As long as the phrase, "a well-regulated militia" remains in the amendment, i will accept that it's there for a specific reason.

Chris
12-27-2012, 12:20 PM
Blad, the diagram and wiki explanation doesn't say you can rewrite x, y verb as x is reason for x verb. It says you could rewrite as x verb and y verb. Invthis case the collective right shall not be infringed and the individual right shall not be.

Seems to me you've got your conclusion and want to twist grammatical facts to fit your conclusion.

Try again. A counterargument needs to be logical.

zelmo1234
12-27-2012, 12:54 PM
In the diagram, the individual subject, as shown, is tied to the collective subject, suggesting that the primary reason for citizens to keep and bear arms is to have them close at hand in case there is need to quickly gather together a militia. A well-regulated militia.

This is a concept that is so far removed from the current interpretation, few people would even consider it. That's ok with me. As long as the phrase, "a well-regulated militia" remains in the amendment, i will accept that it's there for a specific reason.

You are really not going to like what they meaning of the word regulate was back then, especially in this case.

bladimz
12-27-2012, 12:59 PM
You are really not going to like what they meaning of the word regulate was back then, especially in this case.Educate me. I'm here to learn.

bladimz
12-27-2012, 01:19 PM
Blad, the diagram and wiki explanation doesn't say you can rewrite x, y verb as x is reason for x verb. It says you could rewrite as x verb and y verb. Invthis case the collective right shall not be infringed and the individual right shall not be.

Seems to me you've got your conclusion and want to twist grammatical facts to fit your conclusion.

Try again. A counterargument needs to be logical.You're right. I've reached my conclusion, and i doubt a sentence diagram was used as a guide to the Supreme Court's decision in 1977.

Consider this: (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html)


SO YOU THINK YOU KNOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party....The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Remember pre-1977? I wasn't alone then, and the amendment hasn't changed. So what has, and why?

GrumpyDog
12-27-2012, 01:41 PM
And as soon as Trump proves Obama is an illegal alien, deportation bill will be introduced by House speaker.

ptif219
12-27-2012, 03:26 PM
Morgan is a flash Harry. There is no doubt he is highly adept at interviewing Americans on TV and exposing them for what they are. He can, in this pursuit, be highly entertaining.

But he has a history as an underhand editor of British tabloid newspapers. I am sure the Brits would want the Yanks to keep him.

He is a scum bag nobody wants

Awryly
12-27-2012, 03:44 PM
Educate me. I'm here to learn.

Fact is the conservative interpretation of the amendment, which is the interpretation that has won out, has produced an Orwellian society that has appeared in no other developed country.

Chris
12-27-2012, 06:27 PM
You're right. I've reached my conclusion, and i doubt a sentence diagram was used as a guide to the Supreme Court's decision in 1977.

Consider this: (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html)

Remember pre-1977? I wasn't alone then, and the amendment hasn't changed. So what has, and why?

First off, thank you for a rational argument in support of your opinion.

Now, we already know by what I've posted that what Tobin says is false, the amendment is not ungrammatical. It is identified as a nominative absolute (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm): "A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a sentence. The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. Most nominative absolutes contain a participle or participial phrase which modifies the noun or pronoun."

And we know by the history of the amendment as it went through Congress that that was the original intent, not that of living document judges nor the NRA--Scalia's decision in the Heller case was a terrible one, he is no originalist.

I will leave the next part of the argument to zelmo1234.

zelmo1234
12-27-2012, 08:24 PM
Educate me. I'm here to learn.

A lot of people today think that the founding fathers wanted the firearms to be register, and controled? Not the case.

The discussion and the adding of the words Well Regulated? Was the way of saying that the populations should be well armed, or equip with the state of the art weapons of the day? Not only would they be against the Assult weapons ban, but they would want to see the populations have the state of the art weapons of our time. Regulated meaning armed. As well armed Militia

Peter1469
12-27-2012, 08:29 PM
In the Founder's day, registration of firearms would have been redundant. Via the militia acts (that were not altered at all after the adoption of the Constitution), all able bodied males between the ages of 15 and 45 were legally required to own and maintain the common infantry weapons of the day.

Chris
12-27-2012, 08:32 PM
A lot of people today think that the founding fathers wanted the firearms to be register, and controled? Not the case.

The discussion and the adding of the words Well Regulated? Was the way of saying that the populations should be well armed, or equip with the state of the art weapons of the day? Not only would they be against the Assult weapons ban, but they would want to see the populations have the state of the art weapons of our time. Regulated meaning armed. As well armed Militia


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

@ The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment (http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm)

Chris
12-27-2012, 08:32 PM
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[83][80]

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:


Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84]
While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[85][80]

By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:


Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[86]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Ratification_debates

GrumpyDog
12-28-2012, 07:21 AM
For a party which keep stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual, it certainly is hypocritical to be suggesting deportation, voting restrictions, limitations on womens choice, and declaring caucasian patriarchial determinism is the order of the universe, which the individual must be subservient to.

Chris
12-28-2012, 07:50 AM
For a party which keep stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual, it certainly is hypocritical to be suggesting deportation, voting restrictions, limitations on womens choice, and declaring caucasian patriarchial determinism is the order of the universe, which the individual must be subservient to.

What party?

The petition cites harm as cause for deportation.

GrumpyDog
12-28-2012, 10:33 AM
What party?

The petition cites harm as cause for deportation.

The party which is always stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual, at the same time suggesting voting restrictions, limitations on womens choice, and declaring caucasian patriarchial determinism is the order of the universe, which the individual must be subservient to.

Chris
12-28-2012, 10:44 AM
The party which is always stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual, at the same time suggesting voting restrictions, limitations on womens choice, and declaring caucasian patriarchial determinism is the order of the universe, which the individual must be subservient to.

What party is that--seriously--that stresses individual freedom? You mean the Libertarian Party?

Besides, the petition wasn't created by a Party.

Awryly
12-28-2012, 06:39 PM
For a party which keep stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual, it certainly is hypocritical to be suggesting deportation, voting restrictions, limitations on womens choice, and declaring caucasian patriarchial determinism is the order of the universe, which the individual must be subservient to.


I see that Piers still infests CNN with an enthusiasm that must drive Republicans nuts.

I would commend the US government to use their domestic drones to buzz the homes of the petitioners and drive them into an even more desperate wilderness than the one they already seem to inhabit.

Would that be against that constitution thingy, the NDAA or homeland security in general?

GrumpyDog
12-28-2012, 09:38 PM
I see that Piers still infests CNN with an enthusiasm that must drive Republicans nuts.

I would commend the US government to use their domestic drones to buzz the homes of the petitioners and drive them into an even more desperate wilderness than the one they already seem to inhabit.

Would that be against that constitution thingy, the NDAA or homeland security in general?


Well, they tried to silence Big Bird, and that failed. So Piers becomes the new bird on the street, in the cross hairs of the Gun Obsessed People.

Peter1469
12-28-2012, 09:43 PM
Well, they tried to silence Big Bird, and that failed. So Piers becomes the new bird on the street, in the cross hairs of the Gun Obsessed People.

Nobody tried to silence Big Bird. We only suggested that if he got off the government dole (PBS) he could be one of the 1%.

GrassrootsConservative
12-28-2012, 09:48 PM
Well, they tried to silence Big Bird, and that failed. So Piers becomes the new bird on the street, in the cross hairs of the Gun Obsessed People.

We're not the ones who are obsessed with guns, you are. You're the party trying to make them into a huge issue every time there is a shooting. You're the ones OBSESSED.

Awryly
12-28-2012, 09:49 PM
Well, they tried to silence Big Bird, and that failed. So Piers becomes the new bird on the street, in the cross hairs of the Gun Obsessed People.

Romney missed from that range?

http://hollywoodleek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/mitt-romney-kills-big-bird-by-shooting-him.jpg

GrassrootsConservative
12-28-2012, 09:51 PM
Romney missed from that range?

http://hollywoodleek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/mitt-romney-kills-big-bird-by-shooting-him.jpg

That picture shows Big Bird with a bullethole in his forehead, and to an ignorant ramrod like you, it's seen as a miss.
Funny. Please stop screwing sheep and get yourself an education.

Awryly
12-28-2012, 10:38 PM
That picture shows Big Bird with a bullethole in his forehead, and to an ignorant ramrod like you, it's seen as a miss.
Funny. Please stop screwing sheep and get yourself an education.


Then why does Bird Bird live and Romney is dead?

Awryly
12-30-2012, 09:57 PM
Well, they tried to silence Big Bird, and that failed. So Piers becomes the new bird on the street, in the cross hairs of the Gun Obsessed People.

I have a suddenly acquired power. God knows how that happened. Maybe Grasshopper relented.

Have some points.

Awryly
12-30-2012, 10:28 PM
I would not credit Piers Morgan with too many standards beyond the ratings he gets from his shows. The British (for example) don't want him back.

But his standards - low as they are - appear to be streets ahead of other people on this forum.

At least, that's what he likes to say.

I would recommend you keep him. He could teach you a thing or two.

GrumpyDog
12-31-2012, 04:13 PM
One picture of Big Bird getting assassinated, and Awryly gains 1183 pts, up from -1 just last week.

So:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FpjdQ6Nt1GQ/TR_gBhCE2TI/AAAAAAAAAD0/07cWQyMS0IU/s400/gangster+teletubbies.jpg

F U 2 from Gangsta Teletubbies.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 05:22 PM
One picture of Big Bird getting assassinated, and Awryly gains 1183 pts, up from -1 just last week.

So:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FpjdQ6Nt1GQ/TR_gBhCE2TI/AAAAAAAAAD0/07cWQyMS0IU/s400/gangster+teletubbies.jpg

F U 2 from Gangsta Teletubbies.

Could have been Romney with the gun thing.