OT: Alex Jones freaks out on CNN

[21shumpshumpst]

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.

Yes the whole premise of SOPA was for copyright infringement. The law went too far which is why it got struck down but the basic premise of why SOPA came to be was just that.

I had a client who wanted SOPA passed badly because of just that copyright infringement. Not because they were part of a dark secret org that is out to get you and your rights.

[johnnywishbone]

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

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Unless you are saying that MLK had a less of an effect than the black panthers.

I guess by your logic the reason why gays are in the military now and they have the freedom to get married now is because Ellen is packing an AR-15.

[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.

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?

No what I am saying is that Iraq's situation is nowhere near the same as here.

You have kids who are trained since 5 to live in bad terrains and to train to use weapons. They are trained to be fighters.

There is no comparison with your run of the mill middle class kid who grows up and the only thing he knows is ipads, iphones and COD.

The other thing that is widely different that you failed to address is that THEY HAD MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.

Did they use a gun to shoot down drones or black hawks? No they used anticraft weapons. We are not talking about your right to own anticraft weapons we are tlaking about guns.

GUNS ALONE WON'T DO YOU ANY GOOD AGAINST A DICTATOR.

[AndroidMan]

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.

Ya but massacres in Iraq(Mosul, Haditha, and elsewhere) show the horrors of taking the cuffs off. I suppose you'd be on the guys who'd be happy with scorch earth policy against anyone who looks like a terrorist(basically and Iraqi). War isn't suppose to be about PR. You should only fight wars for your own self defense. If you're worried about PR issues when fighting a war, then you probably shouldn't have started that war in the 1st place.

[aj49689]

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?

Let 21shumpshumpst think he is smart and going place's in life. Those of us that understand can continue to fight for our rights to protect these people that can't stand up for themselves.

[aj49689]

No what I am saying is that Iraq's situation is nowhere near the same as here.

You have kids who are trained since 5 to live in bad terrains and to train to use weapons. They are trained to be fighters.

There is no comparison with your run of the mill middle class kid who grows up and the only thing he knows is ipads, iphones and COD.

The other thing that is widely different that you failed to address is that THEY HAD MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.

Did they use a gun to shoot down drones or black hawks? No they used anticraft weapons. We are not talking about your right to own anticraft weapons we are tlaking about guns.

GUNS ALONE WON'T DO YOU ANY GOOD AGAINST A DICTATOR.

Lmao, I know tons of kids that play CALL OF DUTY and even at 5 years old can shoot a gun. Your telling me if you had a 5 year old watch mommy and daddy get shot and understood how to use a gun he wouldnt pick it up?

[E86]

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

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Unless you are saying that MLK had a less of an effect than the black panthers.

I guess by your logic the reason why gays are in the military now and they have the freedom to get married now is because Ellen is packing an AR-15.

No, I believe gays are allowed to be in the military now because of moral progress. I believe the civil rights movement was a catalyst for that progress, and I know that violence was needed to fight against oppressors during the civil rights movement. Were there peaceful demonstrations as well? Yeah, of course. But violent back lash to inequality was the main factor that made people listen once the rational sides came to a discussion because whitey feared violent repercussions.

[21shumpshumpst]

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?

Straw man much?

No the reason why they should take your guns away is because no one has the right to take someone else's life. Which is what is happening more and more. Especially when no one can give a good reason why citizens should own a gun other than "their might be a doomsday scenario with the govt" or "well a bunch of dudes wrote a paper hundreds of years ago in a society completely different than this one and they gave me that right" "but that society no longer exists" "yeah but still".

Now if guns were not used to kill others including children I would have no problem with you owning a gun. Go hunt for all I care. But fact of the matter is they are used as harmful weapons by a lot of people.

Here is another thing.

[johnnywishbone]

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?

Let 21shumpshumpst think he is smart and going place's in life. Those of us that understand can continue to fight for our rights to protect these people that can't stand up for themselves.

Yeah, people who can't protect themselves like little children - you idiot.

[21shumpshumpst]

No what I am saying is that Iraq's situation is nowhere near the same as here.

You have kids who are trained since 5 to live in bad terrains and to train to use weapons. They are trained to be fighters.

There is no comparison with your run of the mill middle class kid who grows up and the only thing he knows is ipads, iphones and COD.

The other thing that is widely different that you failed to address is that THEY HAD MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.

Did they use a gun to shoot down drones or black hawks? No they used anticraft weapons. We are not talking about your right to own anticraft weapons we are tlaking about guns.

GUNS ALONE WON'T DO YOU ANY GOOD AGAINST A DICTATOR.

Lmao, I know tons of kids that play CALL OF DUTY and even at 5 years old can shoot a gun. Your telling me if you had a 5 year old watch mommy and daddy get shot and understood how to use a gun he wouldnt pick it up?

Yes and that is exactly why guns should be banned. Because without those guns Mommy and daddy WON'T GET SHOT. Then 5 year old doesn't have to see their parents get shot, then said 5 year old doesn't have to pick up a gun that probally will be misused and either shot himself or the wrong person instead of the perpetrator. Its funny that you actually would use this example.

A 5 year old pick up a gun? Really that is your comeback to compare to an Iraqi child living in poverty and being trained to be a soldier from birth? ROFL wow just wow. Delusional much?

[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?

Straw man much?

No the reason why they should take your guns away is because no one has the right to take someone else's life. Which is what is happening more and more. Especially when no one can give a good reason why citizens should own a gun other than "their might be a doomsday scenario with the govt" or "well a bunch of dudes wrote a paper hundreds of years ago in a society completely different than this one and they gave me that right" "but that society no longer exists" "yeah but still".

Now if guns were not used to kill others including children I would have no problem with you owning a gun. Go hunt for all I care. But fact of the matter is they are used as harmful weapons by a lot of people.

Here is another thing.

That's fine. It'd be a straw man if your position wasn't both "the government shouldn't hold hands," and "the government should hold hands." Because you're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you need to man up and just say that you think the government needs to do everything for us.

[johnnywishbone]

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

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Unless you are saying that MLK had a less of an effect than the black panthers.

I guess by your logic the reason why gays are in the military now and they have the freedom to get married now is because Ellen is packing an AR-15.

No, I believe gays are allowed to be in the military now because of moral progress. I believe the civil rights movement was a catalyst for that progress, and I know that violence was needed to fight against oppressors during the civil rights movement. Were there peaceful demonstrations as well? Yeah, of course. But violent back lash to inequality was the main factor that made people listen once the rational sides came to a discussion because whitey feared violent repercussions.

You are right on the first half wrong on the second. President Kennedy sent the army to Mississippi so that James Meredith could attend classes. It wasn't fear of a black revolt that inspired Kennedy. And I guess by your guys logic the people of Mississippi should have fought the suppression of the US military and the nanny state!

[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

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?

Since when does 911 or ADT have a response time that will prevent the crime? Sure they might catch the guy coming to do harm to your family but the average police response time off a 911 call is over 4 minutes. How is that supposed to protect your family from some wack job busting in? The problem with SOPA that you continue to fail to understand is not what it was advertised that it was going to do but the abuses that it would then allow that they wouldnt talk about.

I notice you conveniently didn't even mention the NDAA why not? Another history lesson for you is that every dictator in recent history whether it be Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Qadaffi or others have all been able to come to such great control and power over their countries by disarming the public with the promise it was in their best interests for their own safety.

A person like you clearly has too much trust in his government. You also fail to realize that every government is destined to become corrupt and overpowering unless the proper precautions and restrictions are in place to restrain it....IE the constitution

[NYK_Lampe]

No what I am saying is that Iraq's situation is nowhere near the same as here.

You have kids who are trained since 5 to live in bad terrains and to train to use weapons. They are trained to be fighters.

There is no comparison with your run of the mill middle class kid who grows up and the only thing he knows is ipads, iphones and COD.

The other thing that is widely different that you failed to address is that THEY HAD MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.

Did they use a gun to shoot down drones or black hawks? No they used anticraft weapons. We are not talking about your right to own anticraft weapons we are tlaking about guns.

GUNS ALONE WON'T DO YOU ANY GOOD AGAINST A DICTATOR.

Lmao, I know tons of kids that play CALL OF DUTY and even at 5 years old can shoot a gun. Your telling me if you had a 5 year old watch mommy and daddy get shot and understood how to use a gun he wouldnt pick it up?

Yes and that is exactly why guns should be banned. Because without those guns Mommy and daddy WON'T GET SHOT. Then 5 year old doesn't have to see their parents get shot, then said 5 year old doesn't have to pick up a gun that probally will be misused and either shot himself or the wrong person instead of the perpetrator. Its funny that you actually would use this example.

A 5 year old pick up a gun? Really that is your comeback to compare to an Iraqi child living in poverty and being trained to be a soldier from birth? ROFL wow just wow. Delusional much?

So wait a second if guns are banned there will be no more gun related deaths? Damn they should also ban heroin, cocaine and bath salts if that's the case

[aj49689]

As long as tyranny exist, the right to bare arms should as well. Is there corruption with power? If you don't think so then take a better look and do more research. The further we get from our Constitution the worse things will get guaranteed. If killing is wrong then why does are government have the right to do so when ever and where ever they want. People should look into Obama's health care that permits the use of RDFI chips to be implanted and those that decide not to will go to FEMA camps. Also, to be properly mandated by a certain time that no one without 1 will not be able to see a doctor.

[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.

Ya but massacres in Iraq(Mosul, Haditha, and elsewhere) show the horrors of taking the cuffs off. I suppose you'd be on the guys who'd be happy with scorch earth policy against anyone who looks like a terrorist(basically and Iraqi). War isn't suppose to be about PR. You should only fight wars for your own self defense. If you're worried about PR issues when fighting a war, then you probably shouldn't have started that war in the 1st place.

This is what I hate about americas youth which I am pretty sure you are in your early 20s or still in college.

You act as if your life is hard. As if you can compare the atrocities or hardships that people in third world countries live to your own hardships (lol at calling them that here).

We are talking about giving guns to american citizens not iraqi, pakistani or any other middle eastern country. Their past and present are wildly different than those here.

Have you even traveled? Ever been to a third world country?

War is not suppose to be about PR but sadly for us too many times it is. I didn't agree with the Iraq war. My comments still stand.

You cannot compare Iraqs situation with ours. So stop.

[AndroidMan]

Yes the whole premise of SOPA was for copyright infringement. The law went too far which is why it got struck down but the basic premise of why SOPA came to be was just that. I

The reason why sopa was initiated was to have greater gov't control over the internet, whereby gov't could take down any website, even if the owners of the website had no knowledge of or did not approve of posted materials from its members. A site like realgm could be taken down by govt authorities at will because someone posted a copyrighted video or song, or even worse an NBA clip from last night's game.

The law was too wide and gave govt far too much authority in taking down sites. The people rebelled against it and even companies such as Google did not like the law to be enacted. The gov't should not be able to police the internet and that's what they tried to do. That's why sopa failed. Your ignorance stems from this statement

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

What's wrong is your ignorance of why the bill is wrong and how it gives power to the gov't they shouldn't have. A simpleton like you though assumes gov't is your boy, and will always protect you and not deceive you. They've got you you right where they want you. You're the role model for believing their speech and even promoting it on your own volition.

[aj49689]

]


So wait a second if guns are banned there will be no more gun related deaths? Damn they should also ban heroin, cocaine and bath salts if that's the case

NO kidding, +1

[E86]

Yeah, people who can't protect themselves like little children - you idiot.

You don't need to hurl insults at him. I, personally, commend your belief and I think it's great you feel a responsibility to protect innocent lives, because so do I. The stuff that happened in Newtown was deplorable, unfortunately it is easy to blame guns in a situation where perhaps the blame falls on society or the parents for enabling a person like that murderer to grow up with an amoral view on the world. We live in a society where divorce is sky rocketing, parents are letting the TV raise their kids, and violence against innocent people is glamorized by every media type from games to music.

Taking away our guns is akin to banning twinkies to stop obesity instead of educating people on proper nutrition.

[AndroidMan]

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

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Unless you are saying that MLK had a less of an effect than the black panthers.

I guess by your logic the reason why gays are in the military now and they have the freedom to get married now is because Ellen is packing an AR-15.

No, I believe gays are allowed to be in the military now because of moral progress. I believe the civil rights movement was a catalyst for that progress, and I know that violence was needed to fight against oppressors during the civil rights movement. Were there peaceful demonstrations as well? Yeah, of course. But violent back lash to inequality was the main factor that made people listen once the rational sides came to a discussion because whitey feared violent repercussions.

amen.