OT: Alex Jones freaks out on CNN

[AndroidMan]

Didn't Ghandi expel the British (the world's most powerful empire) by demonstrating?

Nope, that's just the history most are taught. The real story is much deeper and involve rebel movements initiated by Subash Chandra Bose, as well as the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. Funny thing about British colonialization in India was that for the most part the British had small number of ground troops employed in India during their reign. They basically hired and bribed Indians to carry out their duties for them, and we shamefully obliged. Once we started to push for independence the Navy's mutiny sealed the deal. After the mutiny occurred and Britain weakened from WW2, they realized there was no way to retain control of the people. They had rebelled and were no longer willing to be subjects to the King. Game was up.

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

[johnnywishbone]

When during our history has a President ever declared himself to be the monarch? That's what I mean by an invented problem. It just wouldn't work in the US for a variety of reasons. We are not Syria and we are not Cuba.

If your argument is that the army will never have the stomach to go after the people then why do we need weapons at all? Didn't Ghandi expel the British (the world's most powerful empire) by demonstrating? Didn't Egypt just throw out Mubarak by simply going to Tahrir square?

If your argument is that the army can't be trusted you will never be able to adequately arm the people.

The idea that we need to safeguard our liberty by arming the citizens is an idea that should stay in the 18th century.

Our entire history is based on that fact ... we would not be here without it and our Founders did as much as they could to prevent it from happening again.

If we dont have any weapons then there is no need to go after the people. People will take orders to detain folks, arrest them, make certain things illegal that have no harmful impacts on anyone else..what they dont want to do is engage in open war with their friends, family, neighbors. Without people fighting back, tyranny will always win. The only way for evil to win, is for good men to do nothing.

Also, Gandhi did a lot of good things for India vs Britain, but he did not dispel them on his own...without WWII, that doesnt happen as they had "bigger fish to fry"

How else do we safeguard our liberty if not by having an armed and willing citizen militia? By trusting our amazingly competent beauricrats to be benevolent is not my idea of safeguarding...I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them...

India got it's independence after the War not before. The government doesn't go after the people because we have a right to vote. I'll give you a concrete example:

Medicare the way it is currently constructed is unsustainable. It is nearly impossible to get elected nationally if you say you want to reform medicare. Why? Because old people in Florida won't vote for you. It's not because old people own guns.

[21shumpshumpst]

Oh you got your little insurgence? Oh here is a big nuke in your stronghold. Oh well there goes your insurgence.

Ok so they would nuke us then if we all formed a "little" insurgency. Basically nuke Americans on their own soil. I say they don't Too much collateral damage to get rid of. Military members would not allow this to happen. there are still a lot in the military who would not participate in any attacks against US citizens and it would be a mutiny against the US gov't. The gov't would be powerless without their military and the soldiers and officers they need to support it. Mutiny would be a guarantee.

It's tough debating these issues. Some people will only look at the surface their entire life...

The military again would follow the tyrant because they and their families would be better off.

Here is what you simpletons don't get. A person doesn't just rise to power before he has enough backing from military.

Like Obama couldn't just say "oh you know what f this democracy, we a dictatorship up in here now". He would have had to have talks upon talks with close circle of who would be involved. How to buy their loyalty and keep their loyalty. etc. etc.

This whole premise that "oh the military wouldn't go through with it so we stand a chance with our semis" is ridiculouos to begin with because no dictator would ever try to usurp power WITHOUT proper military backing.

This paranoia and thoughts of grandeur as if you and your guns would stand a fight or actually matter is hilarious.

[AndroidMan]

I'll also say, as one of the ones supporting gun rights in this thread. Alex Jones came off like a total douche in this interview. There is a very good and logical reason to have an armed citizenry and you should debate those reasons on their merit and not throw out insults to your host.

I dont like Piers Morgans views on pretty much anything, but he was very calm and composed in this interview, hes just wrong on the issue (in my opinion). You can debate that without resorting to insults that have nothing to do with the argument. Also, he has just as much a 1st amendment right to say guns should be banned as I have a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun...

I suppose the proper British accent worked on you as well. The reason AJ got mad, and rightfully so, is that Pie4rs kept on condescendingly cutting him off and trying to stir the debate to his liking. AJ don't play around, he knows Pier's debate tricks. All Alex did was school Piers and not allow him to take the debate to his liking. In my opinion, Alex wasn't even that loud. He just initiated the debate and points he felt was relevant. Nothing wrong with that in my book, if some gay interviewer calls you to his show and tries to dominate the direction of the debate.

[NYK_Lampe]

It's sad that most people don't get the point that our freedoms that we have are secure due to the fact we can own firearms. That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment which is to prevent the government from abusing its power. Look at things like the NDAA and SOPA that they've tried or have sneaked by us while we are allowed to be armed. These kind of abuses would only become much more common and more drastic in an unarmed US

[carmelo115]

Let me make a statement and I want all of you out there to remember it as well as possible, when the time comes you will all understand if you don't already.

Did you also believe that the Mayans were right? Just asking.

No offense, but this kind of paranoia followed with "I have a right handed down by our ancestors to own whatever type of assault weapon I need to defend myself against undefined enemies" is exactly what makes the rest of us **** a brick.

You're comparing the Mayan belief to something that has already happened many times before?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tze Tung, Pol Pot...do I have to go on?

These dictators unarmed their citizens and guess what happened, extermination. Get your facts straight.

[aj49689]

I'll also say, as one of the ones supporting gun rights in this thread. Alex Jones came off like a total douche in this interview. There is a very good and logical reason to have an armed citizenry and you should debate those reasons on their merit and not throw out insults to your host.

I dont like Piers Morgans views on pretty much anything, but he was very calm and composed in this interview, hes just wrong on the issue (in my opinion). You can debate that without resorting to insults that have nothing to do with the argument. Also, he has just as much a 1st amendment right to say guns should be banned as I have a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun...

Oh please, Piers Morgans has a show to run and guidelines to follow. Alex Jones has nothing to lose but his rights to bare arms or a certain guns.

[E86]

K in order for an insurgency to work you need a leader or leaders. Men.women who can strategize. Men/women who have resources. Your little guns are afterthoughts.

The revolutionary war statement is so moronic I can't begin to describe. The times have changed. Were there nukes, drones, hell even interwebs , cars? Different time that has nothing to do with today.

Here is a perfect example of how today's society is not equipped to survive and your little guns won't do squat against a dictator.

Sandy that bitch of a hurricane. People didn't konw how to survive without their electricity or gas.

I laugh at the notion that there are great military minds that can pick up a gun and strategize when idiots can't even get off their phones while at dinner.

I guess here is where we have our fundamental differences. You clearly believe that the government needs to hold our hands because people aren't self sufficient. I believe we are self sufficient, but that people have been conditioned to be dependent.

If the statement on the revolutionary war was moronic then retort with something beyond ad hominem. However, because all you can come up with is listing new technology I don't think you know much about history.

[E86]

K in order for an insurgency to work you need a leader or leaders. Men.women who can strategize. Men/women who have resources. Your little guns are afterthoughts.

The revolutionary war statement is so moronic I can't begin to describe. The times have changed. Were there nukes, drones, hell even interwebs , cars? Different time that has nothing to do with today.

Here is a perfect example of how today's society is not equipped to survive and your little guns won't do squat against a dictator.

Sandy that bitch of a hurricane. People didn't konw how to survive without their electricity or gas.

I laugh at the notion that there are great military minds that can pick up a gun and strategize when idiots can't even get off their phones while at dinner.

I guess here is where we have our fundamental differences. You clearly believe that the government needs to hold our hands because people aren't self sufficient. I believe we are self sufficient, but that people have been conditioned to be dependent.

If the statement on the revolutionary war was moronic then retort with something beyond ad hominem. However, because all you can come up with is listing new technology I don't think you know much about history.

[21shumpshumpst]

It's sad that most people don't get the point that our freedoms that we have are secure due to the fact we can own firearms. That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment which is to prevent the government from abusing its power. Look at things like the NDAA and SOPA that they've tried or have sneaked by us while we are allowed to be armed. These kind of abuses would only become much more common and more drastic in an unarmed US

It's sad that you don't understand that when the constituion was written it was a different time and the world has changed.

Why did the founding fathers didn't put probition on spying on phones and interwebs. Oh well because it wasn't created yet.

You guys who stick to your guns don't get that. it was a different time back then. When a freedom like that was needed. People needed to protect their land. There were no 911 calls. No ADT. None of that stuff.

But you keep thinking its olden times just so you feel important or so you feel safe from the boogy man who is out to get you and steal your rights.

BTW SOPA is made so that fools don't steal intellectual property and use it as their own. What is wrong with that?

[J9Starks3]

21shumpshumpst - you may believe its hopeless to fight for your liberties. I for one do not think it is and would be willing to die for it, rather than live under a dictator. I dont think that day will come in my lifetime, but it may come one day and when it does, I hope people will fight and not lay down. My children deserve better than for me to assume its hopeless and thus sign their lives away into slavery.

I dont know your personal background, but I dont think you understand just how complex a land war in the US would be, especially against an armed insurgency of your own people. Our country is HUGE, with tons of wilderness and lots of huge cities. It would present a real problem for any organized military as you only have so many soldiers to cover a broad area (not to mention the hundreds of other countries were already in).

[johnnywishbone]

Didn't Ghandi expel the British (the world's most powerful empire) by demonstrating?

Nope, that's just the history most are taught. The real story is much deeper and involve rebel movements initiated by Subash Chandra Bose, as well as the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. Funny thing about British colonialization in India was that for the most part the British had small number of ground troops employed in India during their reign. They basically hired and bribed Indians to carry out their duties for them, and we shamefully obliged. Once we started to push for independence the Navy's mutiny sealed the deal. After the mutiny occurred and Britain weakened from WW2, they realized there was no way to retain control of the people. They had rebelled and were no longer willing to be subjects to the King. Game was up.

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

Did you even read this link? It just illustrates my point further. This wasn't an armed insurrection but a general strike.

The RIN Revolt started as a strike by ratings of the Royal Indian Navy on 18 February in protest against general conditions. The immediate issues of the revolt were conditions and food. By dusk on 19 February, a Naval Central Strike committee was elected.
Leading Signalman M.S Khan and Petty Officer Telegraphist Madan Singh were unanimously elected President and Vice-President respectively.[3] The strike found immense support among the Indian population, already gripped by the stories of the Indian National Army.[4] The actions of the mutineers was supported by demonstrations which included a one-day general strike in Bombay. The strike spread to other cities, and was joined by the Royal Indian Air Force and local police forces. Naval officers and men began calling themselves the "Indian National Navy" and offered left-handed salutes to British officers. At some places, NCOs in the British Indian Army ignored and defied orders from British superiors. In Madras and Pune, the British garrisons had to face revolts within the ranks of the Indian Army. Widespread rioting took place from Karachi to Calcutta. Notably, the revolting ships hoisted three flags tied together — those of the Congress, Muslim League, and the Red Flag of the Communist Party of India (CPI), signifying the unity and downplaying of communal issues among the mutineers.
The revolt was called off following a meeting between the President of the Naval Central Strike Committee (NCSC), M. S. Khan, and Vallab Bhai Patel of the Congress, who had been sent to Bombay to settle the crisis. Patel issued a statement calling on the strikers to end their action, which was later echoed by a statement issued in Calcutta by Mohammed Ali Jinnah on behalf of the Muslim League. Under these considerable pressures, the strikers gave way. However, despite assurances of the good services of the Congress and the Muslim League widespread arrests were made. These were followed up by courts martial and large scale dismissals from the service. None of those dismissed were reinstated into either the Indian or Pakistani navies after independence.

[aj49689]

Let me make a statement and I want all of you out there to remember it as well as possible, when the time comes you will all understand if you don't already.

Did you also believe that the Mayans were right? Just asking.

No offense, but this kind of paranoia followed with "I have a right handed down by our ancestors to own whatever type of assault weapon I need to defend myself against undefined enemies" is exactly what makes the rest of us **** a brick.

DUMBASS

[carmelo115]

Also, if the government wants the citizens to become unarmed then why the f*ck has Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billions rounds of ammunition dating back to only August of last year?

Why do they need so many bullets if the citizens become unarmed?

[aj49689]

Also, if the government wants the citizens to become unarmed then why the f*ck has Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billions rounds of ammunition dating back to only August of last year?

Why do they need so many bullets if the citizens become unarmed?

AMEN

[21shumpshumpst]

K in order for an insurgency to work you need a leader or leaders. Men.women who can strategize. Men/women who have resources. Your little guns are afterthoughts.

The revolutionary war statement is so moronic I can't begin to describe. The times have changed. Were there nukes, drones, hell even interwebs , cars? Different time that has nothing to do with today.

Here is a perfect example of how today's society is not equipped to survive and your little guns won't do squat against a dictator.

Sandy that bitch of a hurricane. People didn't konw how to survive without their electricity or gas.

I laugh at the notion that there are great military minds that can pick up a gun and strategize when idiots can't even get off their phones while at dinner.

I guess here is where we have our fundamental differences. You clearly believe that the government needs to hold our hands because people aren't self sufficient. I believe we are self sufficient, but that people have been conditioned to be dependent.

If the statement on the revolutionary war was moronic then retort with something beyond ad hominem. However, because all you can come up with is listing new technology I don't think you know much about history.

No I don't believe the govt needs to hold your hands. I believe that people need to earn things for themselves.

So I don't know where you are getting that I think govt needs to hold your hands. I am not a democrat.

Here is what I believe though. I believe that there is no good reason for a civilian to own a gun. Because the training you need to actually use it safely, as in no innocent bystander is going to get shot, is beyond the shooting range. It would have to be constant training. Who is going to pay for that you?

Also, I don't believe there is a boogy man conspiracy out to get the world. People just use that to validate their failures in life because well if some mysterious force is out there then there is nothing I can do they will just keep me down. So my failures are not my failures anymore. See how easy that works?

I also believe that his notion that armed civilians stand a chance against a US tyrant is laughable at best. It fits into a humans need to feel important. "Man I can stand up to the govt. Power to the people." Most people are morons. There are a few select who would actually have the brain capacity to carry out an insurgency properly.

So you see it is not that I think we need to be hand held. It is that I think all the reasons to arm a person are laughable.

[J9Starks3]

It's sad that you don't understand that when the constituion was written it was a different time and the world has changed.

Why did the founding fathers didn't put probition on spying on phones and interwebs. Oh well because it wasn't created yet.

You guys who stick to your guns don't get that. it was a different time back then. When a freedom like that was needed. People needed to protect their land. There were no 911 calls. No ADT. None of that stuff.

But you keep thinking its olden times just so you feel important or so you feel safe from the boogy man who is out to get you and steal your rights.

BTW SOPA is made so that fools don't steal intellectual property and use it as their own. What is wrong with that?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

People are protected against illegal wire taps through the 4th amendment... police need a warrant to tap my phone. Prior to the "Patriot Act" better known as the repeal of the 4th Amendment and the "NDAA" better knowns as the repeal of the 5th Amendment.

Looks like the founders, in their infinite wisdom did try to protect us in the interwebz and cell phones...

[johnnywishbone]

K in order for an insurgency to work you need a leader or leaders. Men.women who can strategize. Men/women who have resources. Your little guns are afterthoughts.

The revolutionary war statement is so moronic I can't begin to describe. The times have changed. Were there nukes, drones, hell even interwebs , cars? Different time that has nothing to do with today.

Here is a perfect example of how today's society is not equipped to survive and your little guns won't do squat against a dictator.

Sandy that bitch of a hurricane. People didn't konw how to survive without their electricity or gas.

I laugh at the notion that there are great military minds that can pick up a gun and strategize when idiots can't even get off their phones while at dinner.

I guess here is where we have our fundamental differences. You clearly believe that the government needs to hold our hands because people aren't self sufficient. I believe we are self sufficient, but that people have been conditioned to be dependent.

That is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with the "nanny state". It's called living in the modern world. The times have changed a lot since the 18th century. You can't own a slave, women can vote etc... etc...

The idea that what protects our liberties is firearms is farcical. Look at all the trouble we had controlling Iraq for a few short years. A small country and we have the World's most advanced military. Do you think a foreign country could control a nation of 300 million people like the US? Do you really believe a single person could just declare himself to be the King? It's a silly notion. And the reason people like Alex Jones get so angry is that when he is presented with the lunacy of his ideas he just goes to pieces.

[J9Starks3]

No I don't believe the govt needs to hold your hands. I believe that people need to earn things for themselves.

So I don't know where you are getting that I think govt needs to hold your hands. I am not a democrat.

Here is what I believe though. I believe that there is no good reason for a civilian to own a gun. Because the training you need to actually use it safely, as in no innocent bystander is going to get shot, is beyond the shooting range. It would have to be constant training. Who is going to pay for that you?

Also, I don't believe there is a boogy man conspiracy out to get the world. People just use that to validate their failures in life because well if some mysterious force is out there then there is nothing I can do they will just keep me down. So my failures are not my failures anymore. See how easy that works?

I also believe that his notion that armed civilians stand a chance against a US tyrant is laughable at best. It fits into a humans need to feel important. "Man I can stand up to the govt. Power to the people." Most people are morons. There are a few select who would actually have the brain capacity to carry out an insurgency properly.

So you see it is not that I think we need to be hand held. It is that I think all the reasons to arm a person are laughable.

Is your claim that those in Iraq and Afganistan have more brain capacity than most US citizens, since they have launched decade long (really century long) insurgency campaigns against invaders...most of them cant even read...

[AndroidMan]

The military again would follow the tyrant because they and their families would be better off.

Not necessarily. Are military is large and any tyrant would require mass support from the armed forces. We might not have military or a war pedigree, but I can guarantee you military commanders who go rogue to our side do. They would set up the gameplan and we would fight to acquire the bigger weapons such as tanks, air bases, drones, command and control centers, stealth jets, and all that good **** to fight back. We the people can't be dominated if we don't want to. If you believe some military brass are willing to give up their freedom, people, and history we were founded on, I think you're not seeing things clearly.