On Deporting Piers Morgan: But We Don’t Want Him Back!

The British have responded to a petition calling for the deportation from the United States of CNN host Piers Morgan with one of their own: “Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America.”

The counter-petition, addressed to Theresa May, Home Secretary, is a direct response to the 70,000 Americans who have signed a petition calling for Mr. Morgan to be deported from the United States because of his strong gun-control views. The UK petition, posted on change.org reads as follows: “We got rid of him [Piers Morgan] once and why should we have to suffer again. The Americans wanted him, so they should put up with him. We washed our hands of him a long time ago.”

When it comes to the question of violent crime, the British are fairly smug. Why? Because, well, there’s less of it in Britain than in America. Bunch of cowboys over there, right?

Wrong. Per the Daily Mail:

Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries. The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiraling violence.

In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute. According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.

Should Piers Morgan be Allowed to Stay in US?

  • He needs to go
  • He should be allowed to stay
  • Who is Piers Morgan and Why Should I Care?

  1. Dallas says:

    He should stays. We should embrace, retain smart people such as Piers who contribute to the national dialogue on important issues even you don’t agree with him. In addition, he has a right to say whatever the hell he wants afforded to him by the 1st amendment.

    We should mandate the stupid ass, NRA sheeple that want Piers deported to take and pass a 4th grade Civics class to raise their average knowledge of the Bill of Rights and who they’re for,

    • Bailout Bob says:

      And Liberals need to learn the Constitution, take that 4th grade class. Not trample all over it then cry like a baby when it suits YOU.

      • StayedIN says:

        Name calling and guessing at other’s intelligence is a very ineffected try at turning anyone to your point of view.

        Now, you dumb bastard read the Constitution you refer to and maybe you’d realize it’s your tears that should be falling.

        While you at, look around at the world outside of your living room. It’s a lot more complex and compelling than you’ve imagined.

        Is this the response you were trolling for? 🙂

    • spsffan says:

      Anyone who accuses his opponent of being an idiot rather than addressing the issue isn’t that smart.

      Of course, he has a right to say whatever he wants. So does Wayne LaPierre. Unfortunately, the NRA spokespeople often seem to come off as halfwits too, and an awful lot the membership seems to fit in that category as well. So much so that I often cringe at the pronouncements made by a civil rights organization that I belong to. But, as a practical matter, just as the Democratic Party is the only thing that the 99%ers have to work with, the NRA is the only thing that supporters of the right to keep and bear arms has to work with.

      But, to answer the question posed above, my until this I heard replay of this exchange, I didn’t know who Piers Morgan was either. He works for CNN, which, as one who refuses to pay for television, I don’t watch.

    • juandos says:

      Yet another clueless anti-gun nazi…

      • Dallas says:

        Well , I own a gun and believe in the 2nd amendment ! The difference with you is, I don’t worship guns, think assault rifles don’t belong in the streets and want to help prevent another loon from accessing an assault weapon.

        Why do Teapublicans worship weapons intended to kill people?

        • LibertyLover says:

          If they start taking away the big ones, only they will have the big ones and then they’ll come for the small ones.

          • Dallas says:

            Yes, of course , the slippery slope argument that gets applied to every issue. Sheesh .

          • LibertyLover says:

            As we’re quoting cliche’s.

            “If the shoe fits . . .”

        • Bailout Bob says:

          @Dallas – Congratualtions for not being a victim. So you own a gun, but it is not intended for self-defense. You must then use it for sport, am I correct?

          Because if it’s for self defense, and you point it at someone, you better be prepared to kill that person.

          As well, law-abiding people who want to own an assault rifle for self defense, should be allowed to do so. And I agree assault rifles don’t belong in the streets, and I have no problem if it’s registered and I am required to show that I can safely own it. But as a veteran, and ex- Federal law enforcement officer….that shouldn’t be necessary.

          • Dallas says:

            Well I suppose we agree then.

            Yes, I own it for self defense because there’s plenty of food where I live. The marvels of grocery stores.

            Yes, I will blow away the mofo without hesitation.

            Yes, you need a license and annual head exam to own your tommy gun. Doesn’t matter to me if and when you served.

        • Bailout Bob says:

          Cute, but “Tommy Guns” are illegal. Since 1936.

          I’ll take it one step further…I am willing to bet you own a semi-automatic pistol. Probably a 9mm. Am I correct? Most people don’t own revolvers for self-protection these days.

          Well an AR15 is also semi-automatic. It just looks to the uneducated like a machine gun, it is not. So why are you being snide?

          • Dallas says:

            I own a 38 spec revolver my uncle gave me a long time ago. He was somewhat of a gun nut and he upgraded to a tommy gun.

            So you lost the bet but didn’t provide terms of the outcome. What will you forfeit now that you lost the bet?

          • Dallas says:

            BTW, you can ignore Pedro like I do. He’s like my closeted gay paparazzi.

            Every once in a while I make him feel relevant with a smack down.

          • Bailout Bob says:

            Ah a .38 Special, the murderer’s choice, (no offense).

            Leave no brass behind.

    • msbpodcast says:

      Yer raght…

      Its at times like this you have to ask yourself: What Would John Wayne do?

  2. Carlos says:

    You should keep Piers. With his head so far up his own butt, he’ll fit in well with Barry’s agenda.

  3. TooManyPuppies says:

    Didn’t we fight a war against asshats like this red coat? Maybe we should still be….. j/k

    There’s actual established law and cases of the US deporting foreigners (non-citizens) for subversion that came here preaching Communism and trying to get people to give up constitutional rights. What Morgan has stated as his sole reason for being here is no different, demanding we give up a constitutional right. And thinks he’s “superior” to that of a US citizen for being British according to his own tweets.

    Fuck him, not only deport him, send him to Antarctica with nothing but a pocket knife.

  4. birddog says:

    Dear Piers Morgan, quit saying you have a first amendment right in the United States while trying to destroy the second, the way I see it you don’t. Go back to your own country and leave our fights to us.

    “people” or “person” is defined in the first sentence of the Constitution. “We the People of the United States…” So, in order to be a person of the United States, you need to be a citizen.

    Amendment I applies to everybody, except as to the last clause of it, which expressly mentions the “people”, implying only the people of the United States (this is given further weight after considering the context provided by the Preamble: “We the People”).

    Any part of the Bill of Rights that gives reference to the “people” is therefore only meant for citizens, however, several parts do not make this qualifier, preferring instead “persons” or the “accused”, which obviously has no implication of applying only to the people of the United States, so it applies to all.

    Therefore, in the same vein as the last clause of the First, the Second and the Fourth also apply only to citizens. Birddog

  5. Limey Dave says:

    We weren’t too sad to lose him, so why not keep him?

  6. noname says:

    All these “deporters” are truly clueless about what it means to be an American!

    So, sensitive, afraid and cultist these people are, and so easily upset and afraid of “other” ideas! That is not being an American! I did not fight to defend these blind cultists, these “See No Evil, Hear No Evil” people. These NRA “political correctness” Nazis should be the ones deported if anyone!

    Isn’t this “forcibly deport them” idea the same the south had in the 1800’s?

    These people are trying to discourage civic engagement at a time when debates over gun murder should make American’s parents pay more attention, not less.

    Encouraging civic engagement in our own governance is what it means to be an American!

    • Bailout Bob says:

      Again ????????. I don’t know what chicken-shit outfit you “fought” in…but you took an oath to defend the Constitution. The Supremes upheld it, and until that changes, its still the law.

      You don’t see any Americans going over to the UK and
      bitchin about their system, they need to keep their damned opinions to themselves, same with the Chinese Communists, unless of course you agree with them as well.

      You probably do.

      • birddog says:

        Well said.

      • noname says:

        Yeah, you probably wished America kicked out Alexis de Tocqueville, the Beatles, Churchill, …. too!

        How do you not get hoarse asking “-Would You Like Freedom Fries With That?” all hours of the day?

        Why do conservative not know what makes America great?

        One of the things the Supreme upheld was the 1st Amendment!

        Sad, you probably think CNN needs to clear all activity through Fox News first!

        Also, name me one “chicken-shit outfit Americans have“fought” in”?

        Why don’t you go back to your commie homeland!

  7. scandihoovian says:

    He’s a talking head with an accent that makes him sound smarter than he really is. Stupid subservient Americans sure do like to revel in the the culture that persecuted their founding fathers.

  8. Nogunsnoballs says:

    Charlie Cooke and the National Review? Yup, the leading ideologues for the crew who just lost the election. That is – for the segment who passed the 6th grade.

    Yobbos whining about accents? Guess folks who quote NR never heard ol’ William F. Buckley who sneered at people who work for a living in several languages. All with proper Yale smugness.

    Xenophobia never ceases to amaze – especially as practiced by folks who think they need firearms to feel safe from their fellow ‘Muricans. Don’t see any contradiction, eh?

    • scandihoovian says:

      Dissociative often times religious geriatrics finally kicking the bucket so life can move past the 1940’s? I can’t wait.

  9. DogEars says:

    Smug, arrogant, narcissistic. The kind of guy who you hate when you disagree with him, and embarrassed when you agree with him.
    We are having a domestic disagreement, and nobody likes an outsider sticking their noses into their domestic problems.

    • Dallas says:

      Outside points of view are often valuable and necessary. This topic is particularly well suited for outside points of view.

      Why do Teapublicans like to drink each other’s bath water?

  10. Ken says:

    I’m not in favor of deportation, but I’d love to see him deport himself to North Korea. He’d fit in well there.

  11. Martin says:

    I don’t care if he leaves the U.S.A. or goes home where he can bow and scrape to his beloved Queen and her “citizens can’t have guns” policy. But, CNN needs to replace him because his show is plan bad (horrible). He needs to leave cable television so someone, maybe a 4th grader, could take his place and improve the show.

    Such a shame, he’s all CNN could find to replace Larry King. Is Larry available for at least a couple of show a week?

  12. andrewa says:

    UK citizens ARE allowed guns……….as long as they are non self loading shot guns. As a South African resident it is possible to sit in a packed UK train with people standing and have no one sit next to you. It must be either the eyes and attitude or the smell.

  13. AnAside says:

    Only recently has the SC ruled that the 2nd Amendent protects (inavertant pun) the right to bear guns outside of a Militia. But, this decision can be reversed by a future SC. Or the admendent could be repealed. It’s not a GOD given right. It’s a privledge granted by ‘We the People’.

    In additon, the right to Free Speech is essential for a free (thinking) society, and that right, is one I’d be willing to pick up a gun (torch, phone, pen, etc.) to secure. But if it gets to the point where hand guns and assult rifles are needed…our Democracy is S.O.L.

    At a point where ‘We the People’ have to rely on the NRA minions to guard America’s freedom is a nightmare I don’t want to conceive.

  14. birddog says:

    Home defense gear to consider acquiring for future emergencies where police are overwhelmed
    (Check your state and local laws before acquiring any of these items. Not all items are legal in all areas.)
    • Bullet-proof vests for citizens: http://www.BulletProofMe.com
    • Tactical hearing protection: http://www.ProEars.com
    • Ruggedized tactical flashlights: http://www.SupplySource.com
    • Heavy duty bear spray: http://www.CounterAssault.com
    • Night sights for firearms: http://www.MEprolight.com

    • Skeptic says:

      The stats quoted in the article are biased and skewed to the argument at hand. Quoted stats are compared between “violent attacks”, “violent crimes”, and just “crimes” in general depending on whom they are referring to. Also there are no sources.

      How American is it to stomp on the rights of this man just for his opinion on guns? Yeah America!

      • bobbo, one lib-tard spanking right wing retards for years says:

        Thanks. I was wondering about that. Stats that compare country to country are rife with apples to oranges comparisons being called fruit.

  15. kmfix says:

    I believe that we have the right to the guns that were available at the time the constitution was written.

    • LibertyLover says:

      Then you need to stop using the internet to practice your free speech. It didn’t exist then.

      • bobbo, one lib-tard spanking right wing retards for years says:

        Not so. It is Ironic that the increase in fire power is based on what a militia would need to be a functional reserve power—then citizens can arm themselves with weapons NOT used by the reserve power or full time power and has nothing to do with the militia.

        Like it or not…”fact is” when the Right was crafted the only weapons available were single shot–ie being of limited mass murder capability.

        No rational group of people would vote for idiots to have assault weapons.

        Silly Hoomans.

        • Skeptic says:

          Good point Bobbo. Here is a good description of what a gun was in 1791, as quoted from a Columbia Law School blog.

          Guns in 1791 WOULD
          …be made by a gunsmith.
          …have rudimentary rifling.
          …be single-shot weapons.
          …be loaded through the muzzle.
          …fire by means of a flintlock.

          Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
          …have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
          …be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
          …be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
          …use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
          …use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
          …load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)

          • LibertyLover says:

            Nice history lesson.

            Here’s another one for you:

            Most of the founding fathers were inventors. To assume they didn’t anticipate the advancement of personal weaponry is just plain arrogance on your part.

            The Puckle gun was invented in 1718. It was the first machine gun and could fire 10 rounds a minute. How many of the Founding Fathers owned one?



            In addition, most of the cannon used during the Revolutionary War was privately owned (not state owned, not militia owned).

            I hate to tell you this, Scooter, but that argument doesn’t stand.

  16. Bailout Bob says:

    So, did any of you guys even read the second part of the post above, I’ll recap:

    “Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

    According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.

    The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.”

    As has been said, this argument is less about gun control, and more about controlling the uppity slaves.

    • Dallas says:

      What is the relationship between gun ownership and all violent crimes statistics? I don’t see the correlation.

  17. Skeptic says:

    Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population:

    United States of America: 3.3 /100,000
    Canada: 0.5 /100,000


  18. Skeptic says:

    Forgot to include…
    Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population:

    United Kingdom (England and Wales): 0.1 /100,000

  19. The0ne says:

    lol, Europe is not as safe as most of you may think. There have been unrest, particularly on economic and racial issues, over several years now. We really only get a snippet of what’s happening there on our news broadcast here.

  20. LibertyLover says:


    This has got to be the most comprehensive disquisition on the failure of gun control I’ve ever read. It’s long so sit back and enjoy.

    If you’re for gun control, be prepared to throw in the towel. Larry addresses every argument you have and presents logical and reasoned responses to them all.

    Share this everybody.

    • Dallas says:

      Too long to read completely for me but I dug in there pretty good. I’m sure you seeked and found your best argument that supports your thirst for owning an assault weapon. Now you can rest peacefully knowing that assault gun violence victims are a given and that arming many ‘good guys’ to respond again with an immediate, violent response is the better path.

      I even ignored the author is a gun fanatic (self described) but I don’t buy his argument. Note that I never stated that a gun ban of any sort would prevent another mass shooting. We all know the Columbine massacre was st s school with an armed guard but I digress….

      The author doesn’t guarantee a better outcome because he can’t. A smart gunman would take out the armed guard first – although that wasn’t even needed at Columbine. The author also fails to discuss the number of accidental deaths, the crazed ‘good guy’, the list and stolen weapons on school grounds. Never mind the cost and practicality of arming, training and school children concentration in arming the kindergarten.

      Do you know how many kids get killed every year in the US by guns?

      • LibertyLover says:

        Every single one of your statements is addressed in the article.

        If you haven’t got the time to read it, you aren’t qualified to comment on it.

    • Skeptic says:

      After reading your link, my opinion is that Larry is just a braggart and a narrow-minded fool. The US has nearly 7 times the murder rate with guns than Canada, and 33 times the murder rate than England.

      I don’t see Larry addressing that inconvenient fact, and many others that are pertinent to the argument. Canada’s rate would be a lot lower, I would bet, if there weren’t so many guns being smuggled across the border from the USA.

      • LibertyLover says:

        It’s in there, but I’ll summarize:

        When taken as an aggregate, you are correct.

        Our numbers are higher because most of our deaths occur in “gun free” zones, where no one is allowed to defend themselves. If those are removed from the picture and compared even up with the entire world, we are at the bottom.

        i.e., where people are able to defend themselves, we are 1/10 the rest of the world.

    • kmfix says:

      I hope this guy never loses his mind and shoots up a McDonalds. He seems like a sane person now, but we never know when people like this lose it, and then it’s too late.

      • LibertyLover says:

        Actually, I’m more concerned with him getting old and senile and running his pickup truck through the front window and traumatizing the kids for the rest of their lives.

  21. deowll says:

    The Brits had to put up with this bleep for 40 yrs. That should be enough torture.

    He doesn’t bother me. I never watch him and wouldn’t know he existed if others didn’t keep bringing him up.

    As a BO worshiper I doubt if BO will kick him out anyway.

  22. he 2nd amendment does not trump the first. it is totalitarian in nature to deport someone for saying something that ya disagree with. funny how the people who run their idiot mouths about the constitution 24/7 often want to line item the 1st amendment, the part before the comma in the 2nd, and repeal the entire 13th. also, to talk of changing gun regulation is not the same as talk of repealing the 2nd amendment. only in a fools world where everything is binary is this the case.

  23. Glenn E. says:

    How many Americas are there hosting or presenting on Tv, in Great Britain or Australia? Probably zero! I don’t understand why so many Brit/Aussies get plum Tv jobs here. Except that it’s likely thru Rupert Murdock’s evil influence. Now we’ve got this new Brit/Aussie wonder, Trisha Goddard. Who’s barely got more than a primary and girl’s grammar school education. And she’s been handed a Tv career like she’s the next Oprah. So why has ABC-Universal signed her up for another American Tv talk (freak) show? How is anyone who’s been divorced twice, an expert on advising other people’s about their problems?

    I say deport all the non-film actor UK/AU talking frauds. We don’t need them giving us their opinion of what’s wrong with America. If they don’t like it, why are they even living here? And there are plenty of out-of-work Americans, who are better educated, and more experienced in American life, who should quality for these presenter slots. Before always filling them with these imported Murdock kiss-ups.

    • spsffan says:

      Oh! There’s nothing like an Australian accent to make my skin crawl. They seem to have taken over the infomercials these days, as if those weren’t bad enough before!

      Actual Englishmen, particularly with the old standard BBC inflection are fine and a joy to listen to, but those who sound like David Beckman should stay home.

  24. James says:

    I’m no fan of Piers Morgan, but the intolerance coming up over this issue is incredible especially from US citizens whom I’ve always thought valued their freedom of speech. I’m starting to realize that the majority of people that say they want freedom, in fact don’t. Listen to No Agenda – its apparent that all of the crazy rules added and freedoms lost is what the majority of people want for their own safety. People also generally believe that guns can be use to protect. It sounds reasonable and I used to belive that too but take a look at statistics over the years. People will disagree with statistics and say that many of the so-called facts are made up by the political left, but look around at every other country in the world. The rest of the world can learn a lot from the U.S., but not around this issue. Look at news from any source outside of the States and you will see that most of the world is scratching their head over this right that the majority of Americans want to hang on to so preciously.

    • Dallas says:

      Fortunately we are a country of laws and not mob rule. That the Sheeple are hypocrites has always been the case. Your observation is accurate

      • Sea Lawyer says:

        Not much of a country of laws when the laws are constantly being reinterpreted to find “new” meaning in them.

        • Dallas says:

          The laws need to keep up with the times too.

          In Tennessee, a law exists which prohibits the sale of bologna on Sunday. I think this should change to all seven days.

          • Dallas says:

            Aborted if gay? Oh ok .

            I might be offended if it was someone. Yawn

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            Changing statutes through a legislative process is different than just reimagining what is the meaning of exists laws.

    • deegee says:

      I don’t think that when the constitution was written they meant that freedom of speech includes going ballistic, frothing at the mouth, and calling a person an idiot to their face.
      Piers should at least apologize for his unprofessionalism.
      He is a hack, not a journalist or host.
      If I were an advertiser on that network I would pull my ads.

      • deowll says:

        Actually it is pretty well documented that the people who wrote the Constitution had done exactly that to each other rather frequently in the past and at the convention. Many of the points discussed where extremely contentious.

        The good book says something along the lines of even a fool may be thought wise if he will only keep his mouth shut. The founding fathers recognized the importance of freedom of speech and public debate in allowing people to sort out the good from the bad and make choices.

        However slander, liable, and flat out telling lies was something they would not have put up with nor would they have approved of those who sought to hide the truth from the public at least as a matter of public principal.

  25. sargasso_c says:

    Very interesting stats on violent crime in the UK.

  26. Holdfast says:

    For years Piers Morgan, or Moron, has been famous for opening his mouth without seeming to think and saying stupid things. Very few people here were sad when he took himself across the Pond. Perhaps he will feel happier there?

    Nothing changes – or does it? He still opens his mouth without seeming to think. That bit hasn’t changed. Then the change – he says something sensible! No wonder those who consider themselves your masters are angry with him…

  27. Arthur Fallowfield says:

    The Daily Mail! Oh Dear, Oh Lord, Oh Blimey! A newspaper well known for twisting statistics to show that Britain’s going to hell in a handbasket and blaming it on the Labour Party. How were the figures compiled for each country, and what is the local definition of violent crime? Without that information you can ‘prove’ anything. Seriously folks, if you believe the Daily Mail, you deserve to have Piers Morgan sleeping in your bathtub.

  28. Glenn E. says:

    From the time the USA wrote its Declaration of Independence. There was a deliberate move to distance itself from all things, indicative of it’s former ruler. Namely the British royal crown. And the American language reflects that move, when many of the spellings were changed or simplified. So you no long see Catalogue, Colour, or Shoppe. But instead, Catalog, Color, and Shop. But over the last few decades, this stuff has been leaking back into American culture. Not just a bunch of British know-it-all news presenters, talk show hosts, and talent contest judges. But even one of the US Space Shuttles, was named “Endeavour” (instead of “Endeavor”), apparently after a line of old royal navy ships. As far as I know, England never had anything to do with funding the Space Shuttle program. So why give US spacecraft names like Endeavour and Challenger? And Columbia had been used before, with Apollo 11 (named after Jules Verne’s Columbiad cannon shell spacecraft). Why repeat?

    I remember being foolish enough, at one time, to believe US tax payers were getting value for their money. And signed some stupid petition to get NASA to name the first Space Shuttle the “Enterprise”. Not knowing that it was only a aerodynamic test model. That would never actually go into space. And the rest of the series were given the usual foreign and mythical names, having little to do with American history or culture. Seemed like a deliberate slap in the US taxpayers’ face.

    NASA better knock that sh*t off in the future. Or they’re won’t be any more sweet US funding for their space toys.


Bad Behavior has blocked 12942 access attempts in the last 7 days.