Alex Jones goes bat sh*t crazy on Piers Morgan

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]He replaced video with another one that edited out his threat to kill people, however [URL="Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yf6S)"]Raw Story kept the original.[/URL]

He's tried to talk walk this back a bit, [URL="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/just_watch_this.php?ref=fpblg"]but he just can't help himself[/URL] and he sure seems like he wants to shoot people.

And [URL="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/state-suspends-handgun-carry-permit-of-tactical-response"]the state of Tennesee has revoked his carry permit.[/URL][/QUOTE]
:lol :lol
He tried to maintain himself to the best, but still came out as a gunswinger... It was a bit painful to watch, as I see the guy in him that is not that bright or self-disciplined, yet he talks smooth...smooth... and then slips a bit again
uh uh

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Also the "Hitler took the guns" argument that Jones was spewing is one those zombie lies you can't kill. It just keeps coming back to life.
If you want the real truth about the history of gun ownership in Germany. You may want to check out these links.

The short version is gun ownership was severely restricted in Germany before Hitler came to power by the Treaty of Versailles under the Weinmar Republic. They may have gone further than the Treaty required and this was primarily because there routine street fighting in Germany by the Crips and Bloods of their day. Except in the case of Weinmar Germany it was the Nazis and the Communists and both would have loved to take over the state.

The laws were relaxed significantly in 1928 and again under Hitler in 1938 and more importantly gun registration played absolutely no part in Hitler coming to power or pursuing any of his programs.

[url]http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control[/url]
[url]http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
The Mao Zedong argument is awfully flawed too. Even if the common Chinese folk had the right to bear firearms, very few would have a firearm anyways because the general population was too poor to afford one for each household.

The "dictators rise from gun control" is a dumb causation argument. Dictators rise because they either have an army, they have a large enough supporting crowd, or the government is extremely vulnerable to be taken over.

[QUOTE=ballup]The Mao Zedong argument is awfully flawed too. Even if the common Chinese folk had the right to bear firearms, very few would have a firearm anyways because the general population was too poor to afford one for each household.

The "dictators rise from gun control" is a dumb causation argument. Dictators rise because they either have an army, they have a large enough supporting crowd, or the government is extremely vulnerable to be taken over.[/QUOTE]

just want to add that American constitutions already has checks in place from preventing such take overs. However, if these people were serious about being worried about Tyranny, then why don't they debate ideas to strengthening the constitution instead of scaring Americans to stock pile weapons and ammo.

[QUOTE=MMM]just want to add that American constitutions already has checks in place from preventing such take overs. However, if these people were serious about being worried about Tyranny, then why don't they debate ideas to strengthening the constitution instead of scaring Americans to stock pile weapons and ammo.[/QUOTE]
Culturally, we don't see the Cold War as a bad thing. For the American public, it's kind of those grey areas in US history like the War of 1812. That's part of the reason as to why some people don't see anything wrong with two sides building up arms, but not really fighting.

[QUOTE=Thomas Jefferson]I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. [/QUOTE]

...

[QUOTE=bdreason]I actually agree with his general stance. I'm surprised how many people think our government has our best interest in mind. The same government that has sent tens of thousands of lower-class soldiers to die in the middle east for the profit of the elite.

Obviously this guy is passionate, and needs to take a chill pill, but he's right. Placing any type of faith in this government would be a huge mistake. I'm not a "gun guy", I've never even been hunting, but I'm not surrendering my right to own weapons, because I don't trust the government has my best intentions in mind, nor do I think they can adequately protect me against my fellow citizens.[/QUOTE]

/thread

[QUOTE=BlackWhiteGreen]I live in Britain, and no one I know has been a victim of violent crime (unarmed burglary doesn't count as violent, does it?). I don't know anyone who's been shot, even with an air rifle, or stabbed. Britain, as far as I can tell, is a far safer place to live in than America. But I'm interested to know if there are statistics to show otherwise.

My main point would be: which would you rather be higher, firearm homicides or violent crime? I know what I'd think...[/QUOTE]

It would be impossible to make the USA like England. There's 53 million people in England, there's 315 million people in the USA. The size difference alone makes it impossible to make a comparison. Especially with Mexico right there. There will always be guns in the USA. If we can't stop people from getting in, then stopping guns from being smuggled in is not going to be too successful. Of course, there will also be dirty cops who sell their guns in addition to many guns already on the street, far too many to possibly get them all.

To answer your question, I'd rather be in a place where the law abiding citizens have a chance to protect themselves against the criminals who will potentially break in to your home.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]It would be impossible to make the USA like England. There's 53 million people in England, there's 315 million people in the USA. The size difference alone makes it impossible to make a comparison. Especially with Mexico right there. There will always be guns in the USA. If we can't stop people from getting in, then stopping guns from being smuggled in is not going to be too successful. Of course, there will also be dirty cops who sell their guns in addition to many guns already on the street, far too many to possibly get them all.

To answer your question, I'd rather be in a place where the law abiding citizens have a chance to protect themselves against the criminals who will potentially break in to your home.[/QUOTE]

Yes you have the right to protect my self should there be a better balance between your personal right and our collective rights???

Irresponsible gun owners and the irresponsible lack of regulation need to be looked at so we can protect the rights of law abiding citizens.

lol @ the government caring about the rights of law abiding citizens...Really, a lot of us must live in different worlds...

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcTB8oZFAJ4"]Cory Booker - Gun violence false debate[/URL]


I think this guy will be president someday

[QUOTE=Nanners][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcTB8oZFAJ4"]Cory Booker - Gun violence false debate[/URL]


I think this guy will be president someday[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I think he might be too left for most Americans on some issues.

[QUOTE=bdreason]The problem is this country no longer belongs to the people. The process of electing people to represent our will (representative democracy) has been defiled by corporate america. Politicians win elections by accepting resources (bribes) from special interest groups and corporations, and from the day they are elected, pander to the interests of the groups that helped them get there.[/QUOTE]
This is a cop out. Americans love citing corporate influence in politics to absolve themselves of responsibility in the stewardship of the country.

[QUOTE=MMM]Yes you have the right to protect my self should there be a better balance between your personal right and our collective rights???

Irresponsible gun owners and the irresponsible lack of regulation need to be looked at so we can protect the rights of law abiding citizens.[/QUOTE]

I don't think everyone should have a gun. Particularly people with a history of violent crimes. I also think you should have to take a test under the supervision of someone who determines if you're competent and safe with your gun before you get a permit, similar to a driver's license.

I'm not against some regulations on gun ownership, but making guns completely illegal is just a nonsensical fantasy. And most violent criminals don't own their guns legally. Most don't want it documented, and most have had previous legal problems. Those are the people I'm really worried about. And if the average person isn't allowed to have a gun, many of those types, the people I don't want to have a gun still will.

Look, I hate people who don't look at gun ownership as a serious responsibility and treat it accordingly. There will unfortunately always be those people, just like there will always be drunk drivers.

Deranged nutjobs aren't the norm, though. And many of the times, it isn't their gun. What the gun owners have to do is keep their guns safe where only they can access them. Unfortunately, you can't police that. But what's to stop a deranged person from buying an illegal gun on the street?