Aww: Poor widdle Piers Morgan has a case of the sads over petition to deport him

Heh. A petition created on the White House website yesterday calls for the Obama administration to “Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment.” There are over 5,000 signatures.

Musket Morgan is beside himself over this assault on his First Amendment rights. Evidently he still doesn’t get how these constitutional amendment thingies work.

Did Piers not consider that maybe, just maybe, the petition uses the First Amendment to highlight the absurdity of his ignorant attacks on the Second Amendment? Whether intended that way or not, the petition did a bang-up job. Piers continues to demand that we defend his freedom of speech (read: don’t criticize him) while he engages in selective attacks on the Bill of Rights.

Self-awareness is so very hard.

Here’s the text of the petition:

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.

It’s also worth noting that Musket Morgan is awfully panicky at the mere suggestion of being sent back to the U.K. Could it be that things are pretty darn swell here in America where we have the Bill of Rights?

At any rate, looks like they’re not particularly eager to get him back across the pond:


Why, oh why, is Musket Morgan trampling Ann Coulter’s First Amendment rights by suggesting there are reasons to deport her?

Update: The deportation petition has now received enough signatures to elicit a response from the White House.

  • GJersey

    Piers Morgan, ugh. The petition process goes to the dogs.

    Here’s a serious petition that would be worth signing, for the sake of American business:

  • don3ham

    Do you think Obama will say “we hear you” to this petition too?

    • lainer51

      he may broadcast the dispute on C-Span; you know, like he promised in the first campaign…. still waiting for that transparency!!!

  • TocksNedlog

    Gee, what’s that other pesky part of the 1st Amendment, Piers? Oh yeah — “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
    Congratulations, buddy! You are now OFFICIALLY a “grievance”.

  • stuckinIL4now

    Ah yes, the petition I can believe in. And we all have The Donald to thank for Pinhead Morgan being here in the States. Morgan won the Celebrity Apprentice a few years ago which insidiously inserted him into American television.

    • lainer51

      another “Einstein” show on television.

    • Ariadnea

      Next will be Maddow or is it Madcow? Those immigrants who have problem with US constitution and could not abide by it, should have not come in the first place and must be petitioned out.

      • Raymond Davis

        Ariadnea you stupid twit! Rachel Maddow an Immigrant???You expose yourself as a fool everytime you open your ignorant yap!
        “Maddow was born in Castro Valley, California. Her father, Robert B. “Bob” Maddow, is a former United States Air Force captain who resigned his commission the year before her birth
        SOOoooo she not only is NOT an immigrant her Daddy is a vet !

        • Hello Jerry (D)

          Thank you Captain Obvious.

  • killdozerd11R

    Hit The Road Jack and don’t come back…you think the UK is all that wtf are you doing here…Trying to make my country like yours …No Thanks ..So go Back where you came from and take some liberal people with you CNN is just full of your kind along with most of the MSM and HolleyWood that way you won’t be lonely

  • TocksNedlog

    “I demand the 1st Amendment right to criticize the 2nd Amendment! Furthermore, I demand the right (not sure which number it is; still trying to convert from metric) to NOT be criticized by other people attempting to use their 1st Amendment rights to criticize me over my criticism of the 2nd Amendment!”

    • Raymond Davis

      OR try ” I demand the right to call it inappropriate to demand my deportation because you disagree with me.

      • TocksNedlog

        Yeah well, it’s too bad that instead of calling it “inappropriate” he made it sound like his 1st Amendment rights were being infringed upon.

  • Joe W.

    As a British Subject, and NOT a U.S. Citizen, Piers does not benefit from the 1st Amendment Privileges or any other right that American Citizens enjoy under the Constitution. He needs to be run out of town, tarred, feathered and on a rail, just like we did with his Limey ancestors back in the day.

    • RblDiver

      Beat me to it! First Amendment’s for Americans bud!

    • Steve_in_RR

      Unfortunately that’s not true. If you’re IN the US, you get the benefits. If not, then there wouldn’t be illegals coming here making anchor babies.

      • RblDiver

        Well, that’s not so much “visitors get the privileges” as it is a loophole “creating” citizens. In theory, the babies get the privileges but the parents are still illegal.

      • Joe W.

        The “Anchor Babies” are natural born citizens, but their parents are still wetbacks. They are NOT entitled to protection from the Constitution. Neither is Piers Morgan.

      • dmacleo

        courts this week ruled against an illegal immigrant saying hes not covered under the first as hes not citizen

    • Mark Langlois

      The Bill of rights refers to protecting rights the precede and supersede the constitution of the United States. By any real measure, all people everywhere, no matter what laws they are subject to by force, have those rights that are given to them by God, and not by benefit of citizenship of the USA.

      • Joe W.

        That is true, Mark, but advocating the destruction of the US Constitution is grounds for a foreigner to be deported. At least, it ought to be. Otherwise, someone should excercise their 2nd Amendment privilege upon Mr. Morgan.

        • fivebyfive

          Concider it outside insurection

      • Penmar

        Try telling that to the Aussies who had their guns banned.

        • ozconservative

          Yeah….the only decision I disagreed with John Howard on. Although you can still get guns here, your choices are severely limited.

    • Tom Nelson

      The First, Second etc.. Amendments are not privileges They are not grants….
      We are born with these rights, like it or not, which means so is this AssHat. He can come from the moon for all I care, as a human he has all the same right as we have. It just so happens that here in the US we have a document that says the government must respect and not infringe on our rights. To believe otherwise would mean that the the Bill of Rights is something the government can take away and that is not the case and never has been.
      I think its sad that people do not know this…. another failure of our education system.
      I will say that it is ironic that he thinks the 1st Amendment is untouchable while the 2nd is…..But then again he was educated in the UK.

      • Joe W.

        My point is that as a foreigner, he treads on thin ice when he attempts to rally others to the assault of the very document that protects him while he is here. We call such thigs “treason”, and we used to deal with it harshly.

        • ozconservative

          How about you guys and the Brits do a deal??? You send Musket Morgan back and they’ll send back Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow???

          • Joe W.

            The Brits can have ’em all…

      • Timothy Noonan

        None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. There are limits to free speach, the classic is you can not yell fire in a movie theater. We suspend the 4th amendment when we travel by air. Restricting further, what arms we can bear does not infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

        • Tom Nelson

          Rights are Absolute.The only reason one would believe they are not is if they have given them up to some government to decide. I am born with all rights, provided the right does not infringe on another human.
          So is yelling fire in a theater illegal? No, only if your actions violate someone else rights by causing harm. If you are restricting arms that someone can have, you damn well are violating my rights. Our forefathers made this very clear. Basically, If our military can carry an AR15, so should a citizen, its as simple as that. Of course this is not limited, if a citizen wanted to own a gun that was better than anything the military had, they have that right, since the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizen to be able to protect themselves from their own government and to preserve the natural right of self defense.

          Also, no one gives up their 4th Amendment rights, that is not an option. IF that were the case, why not suspend other rights. I choose not to fly and won’t as long as my rights are being violated. Sooner or later it will end up in court and they will lose.

          • Timothy Noonan

            No right is absolute. If were free to say what I want, I could not be sued for defamation. The arms i could bear would include everything from revolver to nuclear weapon.

            “Also, no one gives up their 4th Amendment rights, that is not an option. IF that were the case, why not suspend other rights. I choose not to fly and won’t as long as my rights are being violated.”

            You admit then your 4th amendment rights are violated whether you fly or not.

        • progressoverpeace

          “There are limits to free speach, the classic is you can not yell fire in a movie theater.”
          Classically incorrect. Movie theaters are private property. You have no 1st amendment rights on someone else’s private property. Why do people always bring up this ridiculous, and clearly INCORRECT, example?

          • Timothy Noonan

            Why? Because it is correct. Our speech is not free to say impetuous or malicious things. You can not defame anyone with speech that is false.

          • Chuck Harding

            The First Amendment enjoins the GOVERNMENT from limiting our speech. On your own private property you can say whatever impetuous or malicious things you want, and the government can do nothing about it. Your neighbors, or the target of your maliciousness on the other hand, have recourse in the courts to sue for slander. So private citizens can type a demand for Musket Morgan to be deported on a private computer site like Twitter, and that’s just too bad for him. He is showing his ignorance as to what the First (and Second) amendments do, as are a lot of the commenters here on Twitchy, *also* a private site.

          • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

            I was just going to say, maybe Piers should actually READ what the first amendment says. Just because you have a right to say something, doesn’t always mean you should. In any event, I still see no government agency threatening to shut him down for his ignorance.

          • progressoverpeace

            Oy. You are not allowed to even TALK in most movie theaters, let alone scream about fires or anything else. You have NO RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH in a movie theater because it’s someone’s private property. You have no right to ANY SPEECH in a movie theater. How difficult is this for you to understand? Stop with the idiotic and incorrect example. I know that a SCOTUS justice first said it, but it’s stupid and wrong.

          • Ronald

            I think hate speech is another example limited free speech, correct? For example, you could not write and publish a book calling for the killing, mistreatment, etc of *pick a group.

          • mhojai

            I take it you missed the books and movies about assassinating George Bush…

          • Ronald

            That’s horrible. I’m not sure what the legal definition of hate literature is, but those books/movies sound hateful. Maybe it needs to target a group, not an individual???

          • aebjr

            well said. I forgot that argument

        • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

          Reread the 1st amendment.

          Also, just because you CAN say something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Case in point: Yelling fire in a movie theater. In some ways, critical thinking goes hand in hand with opening your mouth. Too bad most people are lacking in the first attribute, and possess too much of the second.

        • aebjr

          That “fire” in a crowded theatre, is old, and weak. And it probably falls under endangering the public. What part of NOT be infringed, do you NOT understand? Besdides, it’s you choice, to go to a movie, or fly on a plane. Not my choice to be mugged, or my wife raped, or submit to tyranny. The “Bill of Rights” codified “inalienable, natural” rights.

      • ssenecal5000

        The juristiction of the US Constitution concerning human and civil rights does not extend into Britian or any of it’s subjects , no matter where they go .

        For instance, green card holders can not vote, they do not have access to guns, ….because they do not have the rights of Americans.
        We have graciously allowed foreigners to espouse their views, but that does not mean that made them a US citizen. Morgan doesnt’ even have a “right” to be in the US, he can be deported at any time

    • Timothy Noonan

      Under EO 12333 he is considered a US Person and has all rights and privileges any US citizen does.

      • Joe W.

        then we ought to change that Executive Order, should we not??

        • Timothy Noonan

          No. It was signed by Reagan in 1981, and reaffirmed by every US President since, and was born out of the abuse of US intel agencies spying on Americans.

          • Joe W.

            I don’t care who signed it or why. I am tired of foreign a holes and middle eastern muzzies coming here and talking crap about us and then working to undermine or culture and social order. You can approve all you wish, pal. Count me out.

          • Timothy Noonan

            Okay, just realize the EO 12333 protects you too.

          • Joe W.

            I’m not worried, pal. I keep to myself, and have nothing to hide. I can protect myself just fine, too. I’ve managed quite well for 64 years…

          • Timothy Noonan

            I am sure you have as have I. Without it though, you, as have all of us, through secondary and tertiary correspondence, are linked to those would like to do harm to the US and those data are collected. Luckily, those data can not be held for long period of time, otherwise you would have people like the person who sullied my last name and intel folks under Nixon keeping that information ready to malign people like you and me.

          • Joe W.

            Whatever, dude. I just have a major issue with foreign nut jobs trying to usurp my rights from the megaphone of the MSM. I certainly didn’t want to get in a whole discussion about legal crap that the cretins in the government do and do not do. I have more basic issues to concern myself with. My religion is being attacked, my right to self defense is in jeopardy, I have precious little left to protect, except my little place, my animals and wife. Nothing else, my friend. And there is no way that I will allow anyone to attempt to mess with any of it.

          • Timothy Noonan

            I have not heard anything from anyone that will usurp your rights. In no way will your access to a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle be denied. Your religion is just fine and having a wife and animals to protect is a lot more than a little. Cheers!

          • Joe W.

            NY Gov. Cuomo has advocated for confiscation. That is their goal, James. It will not end well. Cheers to you and Merry Christmas, my friend…

          • Timothy Noonan

            Confiscation of what? Cheers and Happy Holiday to you.

          • Joe W.

            Guns, my friend. I thought that was what we were speaking of…check out the discussion of Gov. Cuomo’s thoughts of Hot AIr…

          • Timothy Noonan

            Specific guns to be confiscated I was asking. “Could be” is a far cry from definitely and. IF it were, it would be assault weapons. Your Handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles are quite safe.

          • Joe W.

            That would only be the beginning and you know it. Define “assault weapon”…

          • Timothy Noonan

            We’ll start with what was banned during the previous ban and take it from there.

          • Joe W.

            No we won’t, sir.

          • Timothy Noonan

            We will. Cheers.

          • Joe W.

            Not here in Texas we won’t, Jimmie. Like to see y’all come and try. Trust me…it will not be pretty and will not end well for anyone attempting to regulate ou 2nd Amendment in ANY fashion. But, give it a whirl, cupcake…Bless your little heart…

          • robcrawford2

            “We will.”

            Molan labe.

          • Darth_Venomous

            “The previous ban”, Mr. McCarthy, was/is unconstitutional. How about we start from there instead?

          • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

            It’s not an assault weapon until you assault someone with it. Just like my car. Or any of the various bowling balls I have.

          • Raymond Davis

            ARE YOU REALLY THAT FOOLISH??? Certainly a weapon whose only utilitarian function seems to be to kill large numbers of people Is NOT most accurately described as a”target rifle”,regardless of whether you have taken advantage of it’s capability just as an Atomic bomb is NOT a doghouse just because you keep it in your back yard with your pitbull tied to it.

          • kenai

            The 2nd isn’t about hunting, moron.

          • Raymond Davis

            NO it’s about the government having access to military RESERVISTS , I.E. A MILITIA: Militia is defined: noun mə-ˈli-shəDefinition of MILITIA
            a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service
            : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
            See militia defined for English-language learners »
            See militia defined for kids »
            Origin of MILITIA
            Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
            First Known Use: 1625

          • kenai

            The people who WROTE the 2nd amendment made it quite clear who constituted the militia and it wasn’t, for damned sure, ‘military reservists’. The militia, both the organized and the unorganized militia, were the people with no other qualifiers or restrictions. Please try to imagine my indifference to your new age definition of ‘militia’ since the English language has no words to adequately express it.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Incorrect. The writings of the Founders themselves prove that false, as well as findings of Congressional reports and SC decisions.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Must have missed where the amendment was about hunting rifles – care to point that out for us?

          • Timothy Noonan

            Of course, it states “bear arms”, we already restrict what arms we can bear. Do we not?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Nice attempt at a dodge. Unfortunately for your argument, I didn’t ask you what could or couldn’t be banned, I asked you for proof to support your implication that the amendment is about hunting rifles.

            Try again.

          • Timothy Noonan

            Not a dodge at all. The 2nd amendment is about all arms, Arms are revolvers to nuclear weapons. Is not a hunting rifle an arm?

            Try thinking.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            The 2nd amendment is about all arms

            And the reason for having arms? Find that bit about hunting, yet?

            Arms are revolvers to nuclear weapons

            No. Nukes would be ordnance, not arms…but thanks for showing that you don’t *really* know of what you speak.

            Try thinking

            You first.

          • Timothy Noonan

            Nukes are ordnance you say – I guess we need to change this Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or were we limiting shotguns. Ordnance, my friend, is a type of arm. Think.

            When the amendment was written the arms they were referring to were the muskets they used to hunt that had the secondary use of warfare. So let’s go back to what the Founders knew of arms. Think

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Nukes are ordnance you say – I guess we need to change this Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or were we limiting shotguns. Ordnance, my friend, is a type of arm.

            So, you’ve got nothing but lame quips? Sounds about right. You *are* aware that the Founders *did*, in fact, talk in separate terms of “arms” and “ordnance”, yes?


            For someone that keeps exhorting others to think, you seem to do remarkably little of it yourself.

            When the amendment was written the arms they were referring to were the muskets they used to hunt that had the secondary use of warfare.

            You mean the SAME arms that were used by the British Army?


            There you go again, demanding others do what you refuse to.

            But, yes…let’s go back to what the Founders knew of arms…

            Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Delegate to the Continental Congress

            Yes, I can see where they were talking about hunting muskets…. /s

          • robcrawford2

            “Try thinking”, Jimmy? I have; you have not.

            Why do you assume people who disagree with you are mindless?

          • Raymond Davis

            Just as soon as you point out what assault weapons were Hancock , Franklin and the rest running around at this point in History, SO NO they did NOT include language about things they could not have known about-UH, DUHHHH!!!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            SO NO they did NOT include language about things they could not have known about

            So, you’ll be turning in your phones and computers and going back to quill pens and ink, since the Founders couldn’t have known about them – right?

            -UH, DUHHHH!!!

            Yes, that *does* seem to aptly describe for what passed for thought processes in your case.

          • robcrawford2

            “In no way will your access to a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle be denied.”

            Curious phrasing, that — “hunting rifle”. Where’s that in the 2nd Amendment?

          • AimToMisbehave

            You seem to conveniently forget the same actions under Nixon’s predecessor. I’ll give you a hint, it starts with LBJ…

    • Tabitha Bliss

      Well BHO is bringing terrorists from GIT MO to the US to stand trail & have their ‘constitutional rights’ observed sooo….. Of course it’s ironic considering how many rights he’s stripped from Americans & how he despises the constitution. I guess he favors it for non citizens but not for Americans.

  • Scott

    As a US citizen I petition to stop non citizens from using OUR constitution until they become full citizens, until then they should only have basic human rights, they can go to the UN and whine for their rights since they are so in love with those idiots also. Fortunately the UN doesn’t have jurisdiction on us…… YET!

  • Conrad2010

    Morgan is not a citizen of the USA. Therefore the constitution does not pertain to him. Is this true?

    • Mark Langlois

      Any rights a GOVERNMENT gives you, the SAME government can take away if it wishes. US law as a judge sees it, would be the LAW gives you the rights, however the Bill of Rights were included in the constitution to protect rights that preceded any LAW written by man, and are given to ALL men by GOD. READ THE BILL.

      • kcvegas10

        Thank you for so eloquently stating this… Our rights do not come from government, they come from GOD. Even though the dictator in the White House thinks otherwise..

    • robcrawford2

      The Bill of Rights is a set of limits on what the government can do that could violate the rights all people are born with. He has the right to free speech just like anyone else.

      HOWEVER, the protections afforded foreign nationals are much, much lower. They are not allowed to take part in our elections, for example.

      Piers is clearly involved in political campaigning; he has violated our laws. He should be imprisoned and then sent back to his homeland.

    • Raymond Davis

      NO this is NOT true ‘All men are created equal,that they are endowed , by their creator, with certain inalienable rights”

  • Red Fred

    Calling for Bill O’Reilly. He got a Marine back, so perhaps he can get a foreigner out.

  • BlueGood

    LMAO…Morgan left U.K. because it is so Fupped Duck…has the HIGHEST rate of Violent Crime in the western world, and is over run with Sharia Fanatics…and he wants America to become same!


    • Raymond Davis

      Sorry North America has the highest stats of violent crime AND mass killings

  • Ariadnea

    Why did Piers came to the US knowing US Constitution’s second amendment?
    If he does not like to live with and by it, time for this sanctimonious
    dullard to move back to where he came from. I have heard gun crimes
    and all other crimes in Britain is increasing ( even with its gun
    control laws), that there are even no “go zones” for such a small country.

    • robcrawford2

      He came to the US because no one in the UK would hire him. He published some fake photos and claimed they were of UK troops committing war crimes. The uniforms were wrong and the unit represented by the insignia hadn’t even left UK soil.

  • dmacleo

    courts recently ruled non-citizens NOT covered under first amendment

    edit: the ruling was about second amendment, not first.
    sorry about that

  • Just Another Guy

    Let’s consider “Free Speech RIghts” in the UK:

    To wit:

    “United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[62] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[63][64]incitement,[65] incitement to racial hatred,[66] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[65][67] glorifying terrorism,[68][69] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[70][71] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[72] sedition,[72] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[73] defamation,[74] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[75][76] prohibition of post-trial interviews withjurors,[76] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[76][77] time, manner, and place restrictions,[78] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

    UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant.”

    • Watcher

      What u r saying is that MM can’t open his mouth without going to prison. Makes perfect sense to go to a country that lets u have freedom of speech.

  • Steve_J

    Piers Morgan once a hack(er) always a hack(er).

  • dmacleo
  • Danny Wheeler

    Piers wouldn’t have that trouble if he thought before he attacked 2nd Amendment supporters.

    • disqus_VeR4n2K6i6

      Piers is incapable of thought. He can only emote!

  • Guest

    The problem with Piers Morgan is that he believes he’s intellectually superior to Americans. Yet every time he opens his mouth his stupidity shines like like a beacon in a bell tower. Deport the yank!

  • K-Dubya

    The problem with Piers Morgan is that he believes he’s intellectually superior to Americans. Yet every time he opens his mouth his stupidity shines like a beacon in a bell tower. (Two if by night.) Deport the yank!

    • Raymond Davis

      A YANK is slang for an American.

      • K-Dubya

        Should have said “jerk-off” instead. My bad.

        • Hello Jerry (D)

          That or A** hole.

  • Gallatin

    piers we’re not trying to take away your 1st Amendment rights, we’re just using ours to request that you be sent back to your own country.


    The problem is the drugs, not the firearms.
    These drugs were developed by black bag ops groups to be able to cause callousness in troops. They sought to deprogram the natural inhibition to NOT kill another human being. When the DOD realized troops hesitated, they sought to fix that.
    The drugs and the shooters handlers are to blame for these events.
    Morons like P.M. and others use these staged events to attack our FREEDOMS.
    Socialists and Marxists, you know, the media and beltway types, exploit these events

  • louisiana_mom

    The Progressives love the First Amendment except for that part about Religious Freedoms or when the First gives Conservatives the same right of Free Speech. And they truly believe that just because they are guaranteed free speech we must agree with what they said…

    • Raymond Davis

      Louisiana MOM you seem to have stumbled in front of a mirror .BTW your “Religious Freedom” is not about your right to force your religious views on others.
      I have a friend who once said “Having a religion is like having a penis. We’re all glad that you can enjoy yours but that doesn’t mean we give you the right to whip it out and wave it around in the town square and PLEASE refrain from trying to ramm it down everyone’s throat.

      • mike_in_kosovo

        And yet, you whip out your atheism, wave it around the town square and ram it down everyone’s throat… hypocrite much?

  • lainer51

    Harry Reid praises guns in 2010: ‘I carried a gun every place I went’. Same Guy Who
    Now Wants To Restrict Your Right To Own Guns

    Diane Feinstein
    in 1995 on her concealed carry permit: ‘I know the urge to arm yourself because
    that’s what I did’ – Now She Is Leading The Charge To Restrict Your Right To Own

  • Major Jim

    From the majority opinion in Heller:

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
    that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
    are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
    constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
    Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
    e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
    849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
    forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
    35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
    facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
    even those that were not in existence at the time of the

    Perhaps Musket Morgan does not possess sufficient intellect to function in our Country. His view that the Second Amendment protects only muskets and such is certainly not an informed nor intelligent view.

    • Raymond Davis

      SOOOOooo QUESTION : IF any and ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms are covered this obviously covers missiles , biological and chemical agents, So why did we even bother concerning ourselves with weapons of mass Destruction if we believe any and all Americans have rights to these same things????

      • mike_in_kosovo

        Because it doesn’t cover missiles, biological and chemical agents – they’re too indiscriminate to be readily usable as a defensive weapon.

  • radicallyalyssa

    EL OH EL. Over three thousand new signatures since I checked this at 11:00 am. Too funny.

  • MaryUKtheScot

    I am going to start a counter petition for him to STAY there!!! Keep him!!!

    • Lisa Dean

      Since neither of us want him (those in UK and US) can we all start a petition to send him to another country?

      • fivebyfive

        I hear there’s an opening in Benghazi Libya

        • robcrawford2

          Why not Zimbabwe?

  • Stephanie Warren

    well I hope they DO deport this guy! He’s a creep!

  • Joseph Phillips

    If you don’t like it get the hell out. We’re not about to change our US rights for your British whims. And while you’re going, why not take about 47% with you?

    • Raymond Davis

      What exactly do you do to make your millions?? Pig Manure salesman?

      • mike_in_kosovo

        Don’t have to make millions to make enough to pay taxes… looks like you’re more the ‘ignorant bitch’ than Joseph is.

      • Hello Jerry (D)

        You are no doubt a manure salesman.


    Piers, please leave the U.S. You are not a friend of real America; just an old print reporter that is incapable of understanding true journalism because of the liberal you are.

  • Michael Dorstewitz

    Using Morgan’s own “musket” argument, the framers never envisioned Internet petitions when they drafted the First Amendment,; accordingly, it doesn’t apply in this case.

    • robcrawford2

      Nor could they have predicted cable television. Clear the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect his calls to violence.

  • Banksters_Rule_the_World

    There would be a campaign to deport Mr. Morgan for ‘attacking any Amendment rights’ – is my right to arms not protected under the 2nd Amendment, Mr. Morgan?

  • fivebyfive

    Hey you used up british douche bag, You and YOU especially do not get to PICK AND CHOOSE what admendments to follow in MY COUNTRY!
    if you don’t like it F.N. LEAVE

  • vino veritas

    I support it just to give this insufferable twit a taste of his own medicine. Did ban ’em boy ever agree to a time for that debate with Coulter or is he still making up excuses?

  • Steve_J

    Not quite sure of the point of his tweet since he can be deported and Coulter can not. Musket doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp of many things American.

  • Rulz

    “Ironic U.S. gun rights campaign to deport me for ‘attacking 2nd Amendment rights’ – is my opinion not protected under 1st Amendment rights?”

    It’s debatable as to whether or not the Constitution applies to foreign citizens and if so in what capacities.

    I have no problem with Piers advocating a point of view, I just wish he’d realize what a disaster gun control has been for both American and Europe.

  • aegean1

    Piers has God given rights, or rights from Nature, however you wish to word it, but our constitution and gov’t doesn’t actively protect his rights, so his complaints are irrelevant. But whatever. I’ve gotten to the point where I treat loud mouth celebs the same as loud mouth customers. Smile and nod. Clock out, forget alllll about them.

  • Elena0412

    Obama is attacking the 2nd amendment…Kenya?? Indonesia?? Anybody??

  • maplebob23

    Does England even have the 1st Amendment?

    • Steve_J


  • GTFOBigGovt

    I wonder if he’s only here on a work visa. Making his uninformed loud mouth trolling about 1000 times more infuriating.

  • Jules

    Our forefathers fought a costly and bloody war against Great Britain in order to protect our Rights, freedoms, and liberties. We are hardly going to stand by and allow some loud-mouthed Brit, like Piers Morgan, to attack our Constitution, Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment, our country, and our citizens. Deport his sorry a$$….now.

  • BeeKaaay

    I love it!

    The UK does not want him back either. HAHAHAAHAHA

  • 3seven77

    Pierce Morgan doesn’t get the 1st Amendment. Yes, it protects his right to free speech – he can say whatever he wants. What the 1st Amendment does NOT do is protect him or his opinion from ridicule or criticism. Sorry Pierce, you stepped in it. Now deal with it.

    • Michelle

      This has been explained to him countless times. He still insists on confusing opposition to his opinion as attempts to deny him freedom of speech. He really is that dense.

  • ajs3176

    having willingly given up your 2nd amendment rights, how are you going to assert your 1st amendment rights when someone/something comes after those? see how that works moron?

  • RightThinking1

    Piers Morgan isn’t a U.S citizen. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous of him to self-righteously lay claim to rights conferred to U.S. citizens? Oh, (snap!) , I forgot, self righteousness is one of the defining characteristics of the Left.

  • John Kerry’s Forehead

    Pierce Morgan is a limey dousche bag piece of shit

  • V the K

    “The whole car shimmies. It’s like a little shiver of excitement, the kind of feeling you would get if someone suddenly gave you permission to set fire to Piers Morgan.” – Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear

    • Lisa Dean

      Nice Top Gear quote! Love Jeremy Clarkson.

  • robcrawford2

    From what I recall, if he were involved in politics like this in, say, Mexico, they’d have booted him from there ASAP.

    So why not just send him to Mexico for a while; they have the gun control he says he likes, so he can live with that for a while and see how he likes it.

  • edward cropper

    ck. blog for my take on Piers Bore-gan

  • William Ellis

    Basic common courtesy: Don’t go to another’s home and try to make the rules. Pisses off the homeowners.

  • William Ellis

    As far as the Bill of Rights, they were enumerated in the bill…not granted.

  • Renny

    Umm, where exactly are ‘they’ supposed to deport Ann Coulter? She was born in the USA. Stupid Morgan. Lame retort.

  • BeautifulAmerica

    No, Mr. Morgan. You are a temporary guest in our country, and the rights which your country we fought for do not pertain to anyone who speaks against them. Time to go back to England…voluntarily. Before our right to make you leave is exercised..

  • BeautifulAmerica

    No, Mr. Morgan, you are just a guest in our country; our rights do not pertain to you. Time to return to England before you are forced to because of your own ungracious conduct.

  • 20thCenturyVole

    A guest who sees fit to insult his host shouldn’t be surprised if he’s handed his hat and shown the door.

  • John Leon

    Mr. Morgan, The second ammendment makes the first possible. And stop hiding behind OUR constitution when you routinely humiliate your guest as they discuss THEIR rights.

  • Michelle

    Morgan’s relentless pursuit to change our 2nd Amendment, his constant whining about it, etc. while a guest in our home is much like this: I invite myself to be a guest in your home. As a self-invited guest in your home, I decide I don’t like how you run your home and start voicing my opinion on how you run your home. Instead of simply leaving your home and returning to my own, I stand firmly planted in your living room and relentless whine and moan about how you run your home and demand you change the way things are run. Now, does this make sense to ANYONE? When you are a self-invited guest in someone’s home and you don’t like how that home is run, then…go home. Mr. Morgan, in your home there are the kind of gun laws you are a fan of. Why not return there?

  • aebjr

    Piers Morgan has violated, and betrayed his Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States. He should be encouraged to self-deport of his own volition, or start swimming.

  • radicallyalyssa

    25k signatures! HAHAHHA! This country rocks.

  • GunForHire

    Piers Morgan, Have you seen the tally yet? Start packing. Oh wait you cannot return home you are wanted on phone tampering charges. The wiki leaks fa&&ot could use a room mate!

  • medicinewomantwo

    Bye, Bye…….now when he shows up on the telly change channels.

  • toreilly

    ummm…. Britain just called and they don’t want him either.

  • Mike Johnson

    Does he not realize we ran the British out of this country once already for attempting to impose their will on us?

  • Hello Jerry (D)

    Make it a package deal, send his BFF Barack with him too.

  • Raymond Davis

    It tickles me silly that so many of these backwoods in breds think that listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck along with a few drunken rants between them and some other middle school drop out while sitting in a hunting blind qualifies as a Masters class in Constitutional law!! Having a belief different from Goober qualifies as Treason–Only Americans have God given rights–OR the BEST ONE so far:The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is so YOU BILLY JOE BOB should have guns TO USE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES .. I just might PISS MYSELF!!!!! The second Amendment 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.”
    Militia is defined: noun mə-ˈli-shə
    Definition of MILITIA
    a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service
    : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
    See militia defined for English-language learners »
    See militia defined for kids »
    Origin of MILITIA
    Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
    First Known Use: 1625

    So it would seem that the purpose of the second amendment would be to have military reserves available for emergencies but most definitely UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE U.S. MILITARY. So your delusion that the founding Fathers were somehow providing the loud and ignorant with the opportunity to brandish their handguns every time some one says something they don’t care for is most likely something you heard from the bottom of a moonshine jug and NOT anything you read in the Constitution!

    • Hello Jerry (D)


  • Raymond Davis

    If I stay on this site much longer I too may become a cretin. I can literally feel these losers tugging at my I.Q.!!!

    • mike_in_kosovo

      Given your postings, you were a cretin well before you ever showed up here.

    • Hello Jerry (D)

      HuffPo will welcome you back with open arms

  • Michael Burris

    There is a petition on to counter those who should seek to embarrass Piers Morgan for exercising his rights to free speech. Please sign this petition as a show of support for those who think that the first amendment is equally worth supporting as the second amendment regardless on your viewpoint on guns and gun control.

  • Saddlebum


    69,139 signatures and counting………..

  • Saddlebum

    12/26/2012, 10:20 pm Mtn time
    80,123 signatures and counting

  • lainer51

    and that drooling accent that seems fake… just too much to take before bedtime.

  • Raymond Davis

    Do you only get HOT for big macho fur cover types macombman ?sounds it

  • Hello Jerry (D)

    You like girls who look like men, see Rachel Madcow