OT: Alex Jones freaks out on CNN

[21shumpshumpst]

Also calls Piers a foreigner and a Redcoat at the very end. I even enjoy his mocking the proper British accent, as that is suppose to makes someone sound prestigious. AJ won me back.

Huh? How is a regular british accent that EVERYONE from the UK I have met has is suppose to sound prestigious?

I deal with the UK all the time and Piers has just a regular accent? Are you that detached from the world?

That won you back? Wow sad.

[21shumpshumpst]

Something tells me the NRA isn't exactly thrilled about Alex Jones being the face attached with gun advocacy. As for the 2nd amendment being the only thing protecting us from 'tyranny', well that's just completely delusional thinking. 1) Term limits protect us from 'tyranny' not guns. 2) All the guns in the world would be useless against a 1st class military equipped with tanks, bomber jets, drones, missiles etc.... So this idea that the 2nd amendment somehow protects us from 'tyranny' is just a hilarious notion. There will never be a second American Revolution.

1 - Term limits are good, but do not protect you from tyranny... if nobody but the President has guns and he says, 'no more Constitution, I am now President for life' ... what protects you then?

2 - That argument does not really hold water.
1st - Would said new King of US be willing to drone strike, bomber and torch his own cities? We have many many "collateral damage" aka innocent men, women and children killed for every terrorist we drone strike. How long will he have support of the people while he uses scorch the earth methods to flush out the "terrorists" not loyal to him.
2nd - Who makes up the bulk of the private gun collections? Current and former military and police. Many of these people will not be loyal to a command of disarming the US public and if an uprising comes up, you now will have many defectors.
3rd - After some people who just dont agree its ok to take peoples guns defect, what about the ones who are now ordered to open up fire on their own? You are in the military and are told to lay down gunfire on your hometown to flush out the "terrorists"? How many will turn on their own chain of command and give info to the "terrorists"
4th - Lets just use #s. They say that 80 million people own 300+ million guns. If even 1% of those are willing to take up arms and form a gorilla assault on the US that is more people with more guns in a larger area than those in Iraq... how well did that work out for us? Its still a mess...add in the first 3 factors and it makes that war that much harder to fight.

Its not a given that the US military has the stomach or ability to defeat an armed insurgency from its own people...not by a long shot

Yes it is. You act like people would actually be able to defend themselves with semis from the heavy hitting weapons we have in the military.

If we had a dictator not only would those people be dead they would be made an example of.

Also, you cite Iraq. The only reason we don't win wars overwhelmingly is because we tie our own hands from going all out so the world doesn't see us as the big bad USA.

If there was such a dictator in the US not you or anyone with your little semis would be able to do anything. That guy would have already made the decision that he is taking no prisoners because it is not only the US that he is fighting, you think the world is going to be ok with a US dictator?

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

I laugh when people actually think that they have any hope against a govt take over should it happen with just semis. You need a hell of a lot more than that to fight it.

[E86]

The United States Constitution and founding fathers drew their inspiration from the works of guys like Hobbes, and John Locke. The right's to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were taken from Locke's famous quote that we have the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke famously wrote the Two Treatise of Government where he asserts both liberal and libertarian view points. I'm a big John Locke fan, and that's why I believe the government should provide free health care, as John Locke points out that the governments power should be limited to the good of the people. However, John Locke was adamant in believing we have a right to revolution. Without weapons there could be no revolution.

Basically, I understand why people want to get rid of guns. In the short term it's a great idea. But imagine if Great Britain banned gun powder and rifles in the mid 1700's because of rampant stage coach robberies or the violence in the colonies. There would be no Sons of Liberty, there would be no revolution.

I know people will look at how the world is right now and think everything is OK right this moment so we should do something that will give us results in our life time. But the long term consequences of disarming the people will be something no one alive right now will have to bare witness to. And it is in respect to that foresight that philosophers like John Locke would be appalled that the only solution we can come up with to man's egoism is by taking away his ability to secure his liberty.

[johnnywishbone]

Something tells me the NRA isn't exactly thrilled about Alex Jones being the face attached with gun advocacy. As for the 2nd amendment being the only thing protecting us from 'tyranny', well that's just completely delusional thinking. 1) Term limits protect us from 'tyranny' not guns. 2) All the guns in the world would be useless against a 1st class military equipped with tanks, bomber jets, drones, missiles etc.... So this idea that the 2nd amendment somehow protects us from 'tyranny' is just a hilarious notion. There will never be a second American Revolution.

1 - Term limits are good, but do not protect you from tyranny... if nobody but the President has guns and he says, 'no more Constitution, I am now President for life' ... what protects you then?

2 - That argument does not really hold water.
1st - Would said new King of US be willing to drone strike, bomber and torch his own cities? We have many many "collateral damage" aka innocent men, women and children killed for every terrorist we drone strike. How long will he have support of the people while he uses scorch the earth methods to flush out the "terrorists" not loyal to him.
2nd - Who makes up the bulk of the private gun collections? Current and former military and police. Many of these people will not be loyal to a command of disarming the US public and if an uprising comes up, you now will have many defectors.
3rd - After some people who just dont agree its ok to take peoples guns defect, what about the ones who are now ordered to open up fire on their own? You are in the military and are told to lay down gunfire on your hometown to flush out the "terrorists"? How many will turn on their own chain of command and give info to the "terrorists"
4th - Lets just use #s. They say that 80 million people own 300+ million guns. If even 1% of those are willing to take up arms and form a gorilla assault on the US that is more people with more guns in a larger area than those in Iraq... how well did that work out for us? Its still a mess...add in the first 3 factors and it makes that war that much harder to fight.

Its not a given that the US military has the stomach or ability to defeat an armed insurgency from its own people...not by a long shot

So we should run our society based upon some hypothetical situation that will never happen? And if we are so afraid of the government why don't we arm citizens with better weapons i.e. SAMs and RPGs?

We do have real problems that we need to solve like structural unemployment, income inequality, extremely high levels of incarceration, global warming, children being murdered in school etc... I think we should work on the real problems before we start inventing new ones.

[J9Starks3]

Yes it is. You act like people would actually be able to defend themselves with semis from the heavy hitting weapons we have in the military.

If we had a dictator not only would those people be dead they would be made an example of.

Also, you cite Iraq. The only reason we don't win wars overwhelmingly is because we tie our own hands from going all out so the world doesn't see us as the big bad USA.

If there was such a dictator in the US not you or anyone with your little semis would be able to do anything. That guy would have already made the decision that he is taking no prisoners because it is not only the US that he is fighting, you think the world is going to be ok with a US dictator?

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

I laugh when people actually think that they have any hope against a govt take over should it happen with just semis. You need a hell of a lot more than that to fight it.

Sure, this sounds very logical...nuke the "stronghold" where ever that is...in an insurgency there isnt one, but lets for the sake of argument assume there is one...maybe in Alexandria, VA. Your nuke now took out some of D.C. and the debris killed millions more. Have fun running a country of 300 million people over the vast size of the US with 0 support from the people. Thats assuming those in the military even go for it, which as I stated earlier, many would not.

In all likelihood, what plays out is a long drawn out cat and mouse game where people are hiding out in every city in America... so unless youre willing to nuke the entire country, leaving you the dictator of a pile of burning and radioactive rubble, your entire premise is "Ive got the biggest gun so I win" which works when were dropping bombs on other people, but not when you have to drop it on yourself. Why doesnt North Korea just nuke South Korea?

[E86]

Yes it is. You act like people would actually be able to defend themselves with semis from the heavy hitting weapons we have in the military.

If we had a dictator not only would those people be dead they would be made an example of.

Also, you cite Iraq. The only reason we don't win wars overwhelmingly is because we tie our own hands from going all out so the world doesn't see us as the big bad USA.

If there was such a dictator in the US not you or anyone with your little semis would be able to do anything. That guy would have already made the decision that he is taking no prisoners because it is not only the US that he is fighting, you think the world is going to be ok with a US dictator?

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

I laugh when people actually think that they have any hope against a govt take over should it happen with just semis. You need a hell of a lot more than that to fight it.

They probably had a bunch of guys like you during the revolution telling guys like Sam Adams that we had no hope against the powerful military of Great Britain. And indeed, if you study the history of the war we should have been eliminated. The revolutionists got lucky.

But wars aren't just won in the battle field. And drones couldn't do crap about a strategic assault on a military installations.

As far as nukes go, if there was an uprising within the United States I would seriously doubt who ever was in control would green light a nuclear assault on the land that they are trying to preserve.

[AndroidMan]

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.

[J9Starks3]

So we should run our society based upon some hypothetical situation that will never happen? And if we are so afraid of the government why don't we arm citizens with better weapons i.e. SAMs and RPGs?

We do have real problems that we need to solve like structural unemployment, income inequality, extremely high levels of incarceration, global warming, children being murdered in school etc... I think we should work on the real problems before we start inventing new ones.

What problems am I trying to invent? Im giving a scenario as to how an armed people could defend themselves against the government, even if they dont have a nuke....

I agree we should work on real problems...at the federal level, those problems include overstepping the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government, massive spending on welfare and warfare and enslaving our children to debt.

Best solution to all of those things is less federal government.

[AndroidMan]

Also calls Piers a foreigner and a Redcoat at the very end. I even enjoy his mocking the proper British accent, as that is suppose to makes someone sound prestigious. AJ won me back.

Huh? How is a regular british accent that EVERYONE from the UK I have met has is suppose to sound prestigious?

I deal with the UK all the time and Piers has just a regular accent? Are you that detached from the world?

That won you back? Wow sad.

You won't get it. It's a hidden arrogance they have. The more proper you sound the smarter you are. I truly don't give a f, and have British friends. Just in this case, Piers was acting like a douche and kept cutting AJ off. AJ just mocked the hell out of him with the fake properness of his tone. Funny thing is Piers actually listened to him once he went all British accent.

[AndroidMan]

Something tells me the NRA isn't exactly thrilled about Alex Jones being the face attached with gun advocacy. As for the 2nd amendment being the only thing protecting us from 'tyranny', well that's just completely delusional thinking. 1) Term limits protect us from 'tyranny' not guns. 2) All the guns in the world would be useless against a 1st class military equipped with tanks, bomber jets, drones, missiles etc.... So this idea that the 2nd amendment somehow protects us from 'tyranny' is just a hilarious notion. There will never be a second American Revolution.

1 - Term limits are good, but do not protect you from tyranny... if nobody but the President has guns and he says, 'no more Constitution, I am now President for life' ... what protects you then?

2 - That argument does not really hold water.
1st - Would said new King of US be willing to drone strike, bomber and torch his own cities? We have many many "collateral damage" aka innocent men, women and children killed for every terrorist we drone strike. How long will he have support of the people while he uses scorch the earth methods to flush out the "terrorists" not loyal to him.
2nd - Who makes up the bulk of the private gun collections? Current and former military and police. Many of these people will not be loyal to a command of disarming the US public and if an uprising comes up, you now will have many defectors.
3rd - After some people who just dont agree its ok to take peoples guns defect, what about the ones who are now ordered to open up fire on their own? You are in the military and are told to lay down gunfire on your hometown to flush out the "terrorists"? How many will turn on their own chain of command and give info to the "terrorists"
4th - Lets just use #s. They say that 80 million people own 300+ million guns. If even 1% of those are willing to take up arms and form a gorilla assault on the US that is more people with more guns in a larger area than those in Iraq... how well did that work out for us? Its still a mess...add in the first 3 factors and it makes that war that much harder to fight.

Its not a given that the US military has the stomach or ability to defeat an armed insurgency from its own people...not by a long shot

+1.

[johnnywishbone]

So we should run our society based upon some hypothetical situation that will never happen? And if we are so afraid of the government why don't we arm citizens with better weapons i.e. SAMs and RPGs?

We do have real problems that we need to solve like structural unemployment, income inequality, extremely high levels of incarceration, global warming, children being murdered in school etc... I think we should work on the real problems before we start inventing new ones.

What problems am I trying to invent? Im giving a scenario as to how an armed people could defend themselves against the government, even if they dont have a nuke....

I agree we should work on real problems...at the federal level, those problems include overstepping the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government, massive spending on welfare and warfare and enslaving our children to debt.

Best solution to all of those things is less federal government.

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.

[J9Starks3]

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...

[AndroidMan]

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.

[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.

If we give up on our right to bare arms, then WAR will come to American soil and none of you will be able to protect yourself or your family. Alex Jones is not crazy and anyone that thinks so are not aware of much more then their Facebook/Twitter accounts. So many people are brainwashed by media and government to believe in what is being feed. The statistics don't lie, and the reason for having the second amendment is to help protect our country from any outside threats including government. Murder happens every where, no matter what weapons are available and the numbers don't change. Certain people are bound to committing these actions and taking away guns will not stop it. What is insane is how people trust the government and think the world has their best interest in mind. Wars are going on all of the world, and some think, "nah, it will never happen here". I am here to tell you, "YOUR WRONG". Military is spending all of our resources/money and are well armed. WE can not rely on them to protect THE PEOPLE because its "we the people" that are to retain the power and need to keep the second amendment.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. If you let Obama get away with this then we wont have the power to take back our country. DO YOU ALL WANT TO BE HELPLESS?

[aj49689]

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.

I agree 100 Percent! People (sheeple) need to wake up! If your not mad over this outrages gun control bull **** then get out of this country! (AMERICA)

[21shumpshumpst]

Yes it is. You act like people would actually be able to defend themselves with semis from the heavy hitting weapons we have in the military.

If we had a dictator not only would those people be dead they would be made an example of.

Also, you cite Iraq. The only reason we don't win wars overwhelmingly is because we tie our own hands from going all out so the world doesn't see us as the big bad USA.

If there was such a dictator in the US not you or anyone with your little semis would be able to do anything. That guy would have already made the decision that he is taking no prisoners because it is not only the US that he is fighting, you think the world is going to be ok with a US dictator?

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

I laugh when people actually think that they have any hope against a govt take over should it happen with just semis. You need a hell of a lot more than that to fight it.

They probably had a bunch of guys like you during the revolution telling guys like Sam Adams that we had no hope against the powerful military of Great Britain. And indeed, if you study the history of the war we should have been eliminated. The revolutionists got lucky.

But wars aren't just won in the battle field. And drones couldn't do crap about a strategic assault on a military installations.

As far as nukes go, if there was an uprising within the United States I would seriously doubt who ever was in control would green light a nuclear assault on the land that they are trying to preserve.

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.

[E86]

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...

[J9Starks3]

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...

[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.

[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.

Not all of you will be armed. Not all of you will know how to use weapons. A dictator will have an army full of people who WILL follow him.

You know how? Because if a tyrant really did take over the US the simplest way to crush your little insurgency and have loyal military followers is to ration food and water supplies. Here my army you and your family will not go hungry or die of thirst. All you have to do is kill those people over there who are making it worse for the rest of us .

Done and done.

Again this whole notion that civilians with guns actually would matter is SUPER LOL.