OT: Alex Jones freaks out on CNN

[yaboynyp]

Yes because if I disagree with you I obviously must lack “actual knowledge of the world, beyond what is taught in school”…. Sounds like the words of an enlightened individual. Maaan I really hope I can get to your level one day..mmmhmmm

Also if Alex Jones was trying to argue against gun control, he needs a new script. Can’t see how most sane people would take time to sift through all of his rants and yelling to decipher what his point is. He just sounds loud, and angry, combine that with the fact he’s advocating for more guns and he sounds scary…

it's not "just because you disagree with me". It's your way of trying to beat around the bush when I'm pretty aware you are not familiar with most of the darkside of American History. Not only that, but I can sense resistance in the tone of your messages and thus feel it unnecessary to explain anything to you. I see no point in trying to convince someone so tunnel minded to focus on what he has been fed his whole life and unwilling to see things for what they are.

So you came to that conclusion based on my 2 sentence response saying I disagree with you?? Not sure if serius… My comment was and I qoute..

"Pretty much disagree with every thing you said. Dood sounds so loud and irrational It’s hard to even follow his logic. I’m all in favor of pursuing the mental health aspect of this, starting with Alex Jones first..” What part of that comment caused you to come to such broad conclusions about me??

I’ll wait right here while you dig really deep into your “enlightened” mind to figure out the answer to that…

[johnnywishbone]

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

I'm not the dumbass wasting my money on buying firearms that an organization controlled by a lobby paid for by the gun industry has convinced me I need to own to feel safe.

[21shumpshumpst]

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).

I don't believe fighting for your liberties is hopeless or dumb. But there are many avenues to do that. Run for congress for one. Make enough money so that you become the lobbyist and congressmen are kissing your ass for money and owe you favors.

Or how about protesting with an actual message and an understanding of the issues not like the occupy wall street idiots.

What i do think is dumb is you thinking that you have any chance against an organized govt with your only weapon being a gun.

Not only that but lets say right now you give every single civilian a gun. Do you know how many accidental shootings there would be? You need proper training to hit your targets IN A CRISIS SITUATION. Not just a shooting range. Constant training.

I would gladly put 100 seals vs 1000 armed civilians with their only training being the occasional trip to the shooting range.

I also believe that this whole notion, without backing btw, that there is some looming govt conspiracy to make the US citizens all slaves is just ...just... ROFL AT PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS.

You don't get the global impact that would have? You don't get that other countries who have billions invested here would care? Or would do something about? The chances of a tyrant in the US are almost 0 because it would destabilized the whole world.

At that point your guns wouldn't matter because it would be the US vs the allied world.

Serious question how old are you?

[AndroidMan]

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

wtf, I've never seen anyone, a normal person, be in favor of sopa, which is far more then copyright protection. Only a tool would be foolish enough to believe that. And you sir, certainly qualify. With your rhetoric, I'd presume that you'd be some gov't agent, but they would probably be a lot smarter your dribble.

[E86]

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.

You're all over the place. You say most people are morons but then say that you don't believe they need their hands held, all the while, I assume, believing that the government should take away our guns? Well, clearly you believe people need their hands held. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing but you're having a hard time forming a rational thought. All you're doing is relying on condescending rhetoric. Grow up, man.

[RutgersBJJ]

The problem with the 2nd amendment defenders is that article 1 of the constitution also used to say that non-white males were only 3/5ths of a person. So do we interpret the literal meaning of the original document? Or are we allowed to edit the document when it no longer makes sense in the current time? Military grade weapons should be banned, but I still don't think anyone has used a military grade rifle in any of these attacks.

And Piers problem is that he is a dirtbag who somehow isn't in prison for illegally wiretapping every single famous person's cellphone in the UK. Plus none of these shootings have used a military grade weapon, which he keeps spouting off. None have used an automatic assault rifle, none have used a gun capable of killing 100 people in 1 minute like he says, and the guns that he thinks are military grade weapons aren't. They just have the physical appearance of weapons you would see in an action movie. Guns are just the tools used in these acts because they require the least amount of forward planning or intelligence. When you ban guns, you will stop seeing public shootings and you will start seeing public bombings made from homemade pipe bombs (which are disturbingly easy to make).


So once you ban guns you're going to have to start banning books and banning websites because anyone with access to Google can find out how to make these things and how to make homemade chem bombs from household cleaning supplies.


This crusade against guns would be much more effective if it was coming from someone who quite honestly wasn't a huge piece of condescending ****.

[aj49689]

America needs to stand up loud and clear and be angry with these people that think its OK to ruin this country. Iraq was hard to control because the people were fighting back with weapons. Our military are not all good moral-ed heroes.

Here is a link to what its like to be in war times fighting for our government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EbB3G0Fpw

[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

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.

The main point was that the British were powerless to stop it. Not that demonstrating and singing kumbaye made the British see their wrongs. If they had the military power they would've exerted it and there would retain their crown jewel so valuable to their Empire. Point is the British would've staged a military operation to suppress the rebllion/mutiny, but they realized it was pointless the people wanted control of their own destiny and were willing to fight for it. The British realized this and knew the game was up. Thus they left India, and not because of some demonstrations that won their hearts.

[21shumpshumpst]

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.

The person who is not seeing things clearly is you.

Again YOU WITH A GUN DON'T MATTER. A person who is smart and can strategize, has resources or access to bigger and badder weapons do.

Lastly why are we even talking about a hypothetical situation that most likely will never happen as it has not happened in the history of the US? To make you feel better about how you matter in this world? To make you have an excuse to keep your guns.

Again if your only defense against keeping guns is that "well we MIGHT have a tyrant and I have to defend myself" then you have no defense. Because you are not backing this with any facts. There is no evidence or historical data to back this. NONE.

You know who you sound like. You sound like a friend of mine I had in fifth grade. A total loser who didn't amount to anything in life. His whole life revolved around "who is cooler in the wu tang clan, that there is a govt conspiracy, what hat to match with his sneakers". The dude is a nobody now. He spewed all that crap just to feel like a somebody. That is exactly what you sound like.

Here answer me this. What evidence. Solid not circumstantial do you have that an imminent hostile takeover of the US govt is about to happen?

[aj49689]

The problem with the 2nd amendment defenders is that article 1 of the constitution also used to say that non-white males were only 3/5ths of a person. So do we interpret the literal meaning of the original document? Or are we allowed to edit the document when it no longer makes sense in the current time? Military grade weapons should be banned, but I still don't think anyone has used a military grade rifle in any of these attacks.

And Piers problem is that he is a dirtbag who somehow isn't in prison for illegally wiretapping every single famous person's cellphone in the UK. Plus none of these shootings have used a military grade weapon, which he keeps spouting off. None have used an automatic assault rifle, none have used a gun capable of killing 100 people in 1 minute like he says, and the guns that he thinks are military grade weapons aren't. They just have the physical appearance of weapons you would see in an action movie. Guns are just the tools used in these acts because they require the least amount of forward planning or intelligence. When you ban guns, you will stop seeing public shootings and you will start seeing public bombings made from homemade pipe bombs (which are disturbingly easy to make).


So once you ban guns you're going to have to start banning books and banning websites because anyone with access to Google can find out how to make these things and how to make homemade chem bombs from household cleaning supplies.


This crusade against guns would be much more effective if it was coming from someone who quite honestly wasn't a huge piece of condescending ****.

AMEN my MF brother from another milf mother...just playin....but i do agree with your logic.

[E86]

The problem with the 2nd amendment defenders is that article 1 of the constitution also used to say that non-white males were only 3/5ths of a person. So do we interpret the literal meaning of the original document? Or are we allowed to edit the document when it no longer makes sense in the current time? Military grade weapons should be banned, but I still don't think anyone has used a military grade rifle in any of these attacks.

And Piers problem is that he is a dirtbag who somehow isn't in prison for illegally wiretapping every single famous person's cellphone in the UK. Plus none of these shootings have used a military grade weapon, which he keeps spouting off. None have used an automatic assault rifle, none have used a gun capable of killing 100 people in 1 minute like he says, and the guns that he thinks are military grade weapons aren't. They just have the physical appearance of weapons you would see in an action movie. Guns are just the tools used in these acts because they require the least amount of forward planning or intelligence. When you ban guns, you will stop seeing public shootings and you will start seeing public bombings made from homemade pipe bombs (which are disturbingly easy to make).


So once you ban guns you're going to have to start banning books and banning websites because anyone with access to Google can find out how to make these things and how to make homemade chem bombs from household cleaning supplies.


This crusade against guns would be much more effective if it was coming from someone who quite honestly wasn't a huge piece of condescending ****.

Yeah, I understand why people assume it's antiquated. But for me it's not about constitutional integrity. Womens sufferage, civil rights, all of those are a by product of moral progress. The right to bare arms isn't a moral issue. By taking guns away we're not suddenly coming to the idea that murder is wrong. It's a liberty and property issue, and something that is in the scope of government philosophers and not ethics philosophers.

[21shumpshumpst]

America needs to stand up loud and clear and be angry with these people that think its OK to ruin this country. Iraq was hard to control because the people were fighting back with weapons. Our military are not all good moral-ed heroes.

Here is a link to what its like to be in war times fighting for our government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EbB3G0Fpw

Iraq was hard to control becuase we couldn't use our bigger weapons out there and go all guns blazing due to the nature in which we went in.

We had to take HUGE care in the way we used our force. Basically for PR reasons we handcuffed ourselves in the manner in which we could conduct the war.

Had nothing to do with people and their little guns. It had to do with insurgents having military grade weapons.

[E86]

America needs to stand up loud and clear and be angry with these people that think its OK to ruin this country. Iraq was hard to control because the people were fighting back with weapons. Our military are not all good moral-ed heroes.

Here is a link to what its like to be in war times fighting for our government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EbB3G0Fpw

Iraq was hard to control becuase we couldn't use our bigger weapons out there and go all guns blazing due to the nature in which we went in.

We had to take HUGE care in the way we used our force. Basically for PR reasons we handcuffed ourselves in the manner in which we could conduct the war.

Had nothing to do with people and their little guns. It had to do with insurgents having military grade weapons.

Vietnam, and the Korean war.

[johnnywishbone]

The main point was that the British were powerless to stop it.

Yes, they were powerless to fight a strike. Just as if everybody went on strike in the US the government would be powerless to stop it.

Who had a bigger effect on history? MLK or the black panthers?

[E86]

The main point was that the British were powerless to stop it.

Yes, they were powerless to fight a strike. Just as if everybody went on strike in the US the government would be powerless to stop it.

Who had a bigger effect on history? MLK or the black panthers?

Are you unaware of the violent riots during the civil rights movement?

[21shumpshumpst]

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.

You're all over the place. You say most people are morons but then say that you don't believe they need their hands held, all the while, I assume, believing that the government should take away our guns? Well, clearly you believe people need their hands held. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing but you're having a hard time forming a rational thought. All you're doing is relying on condescending rhetoric. Grow up, man.

I think people are morons but I don't think it is the govt responsibility to help these morons. I didn't go all over the place. You interpreting things wrong is not my fault.

So if they don't amount to anything in life it is no one's responsibility to help them.

The rest of the statements still stand.

[21shumpshumpst]

America needs to stand up loud and clear and be angry with these people that think its OK to ruin this country. Iraq was hard to control because the people were fighting back with weapons. Our military are not all good moral-ed heroes.

Here is a link to what its like to be in war times fighting for our government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EbB3G0Fpw

Iraq was hard to control becuase we couldn't use our bigger weapons out there and go all guns blazing due to the nature in which we went in.

We had to take HUGE care in the way we used our force. Basically for PR reasons we handcuffed ourselves in the manner in which we could conduct the war.

Had nothing to do with people and their little guns. It had to do with insurgents having military grade weapons.

Vietnam, and the Korean war.

Bolded. Plus again you are talking about the past which has no relevance with today's weapons or technology.

If you told me 100 years ago, man if **** hits the fan and govt starts acting up just arm me so we can fight back.

I would say. Yeah dude sounds like a good plan.

Nowadays weapons are so advanced that you don't stand a chance.

[aj49689]

America needs to stand up loud and clear and be angry with these people that think its OK to ruin this country. Iraq was hard to control because the people were fighting back with weapons. Our military are not all good moral-ed heroes.

Here is a link to what its like to be in war times fighting for our government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EbB3G0Fpw

Iraq was hard to control becuase we couldn't use our bigger weapons out there and go all guns blazing due to the nature in which we went in.

We had to take HUGE care in the way we used our force. Basically for PR reasons we handcuffed ourselves in the manner in which we could conduct the war.

Had nothing to do with people and their little guns. It had to do with insurgents having military grade weapons.

So what your saying is that we should of nuked them? We had air strikes, we had tanks, we had bunker busters, and we had many other weapons. How many times were are people under fire and needed the air strike to proceed, but we failed?

[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.

The person who is not seeing things clearly is you.

Again YOU WITH A GUN DON'T MATTER. A person who is smart and can strategize, has resources or access to bigger and badder weapons do.

Lastly why are we even talking about a hypothetical situation that most likely will never happen as it has not happened in the history of the US? To make you feel better about how you matter in this world? To make you have an excuse to keep your guns.

Again if your only defense against keeping guns is that "well we MIGHT have a tyrant and I have to defend myself" then you have no defense. Because you are not backing this with any facts. There is no evidence or historical data to back this. NONE.

You know who you sound like. You sound like a friend of mine I had in fifth grade. A total loser who didn't amount to anything in life. His whole life revolved around "who is cooler in the wu tang clan, that there is a govt conspiracy, what hat to match with his sneakers". The dude is a nobody now. He spewed all that crap just to feel like a somebody. That is exactly what you sound like.

Here answer me this. What evidence. Solid not circumstantial do you have that an imminent hostile takeover of the US govt is about to happen?

i don't even have guns. I just support the constitutional right to be allowed to have one. I've never had a gun in my life, and may have only held on maybe once unloaded. Either way, speaking to you is tough because you take everything at face value and then expose your ignorance when you say stupid things like sopa is juts for copy protection. If you weren't so damn stupid, I'd credit you with at least being a government agent trying to sabotage a legitimate debate. Instead I just have to accept your naivete. It's so damn reckless too. You just flat believe everything told to you.

[E86]

I think people are morons but I don't think it is the govt responsibility to help these morons. I didn't go all over the place. You interpreting things wrong is not my fault.

So if they don't amount to anything in life it is no one's responsibility to help them.

The rest of the statements still stand.

So we should be able to keep our guns, because the government doesn't have a responsibility to help us morons? I mean, clearly we're all morons that don't know how to shoot properly, or not to shoot at innocent people. So the government would be helping us by taking them away. But they shouldn't do that right?