Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan - 1776 Will Commence Again' If Guns Taken Away

[Zimobog]

Before we start talking about what guns are ridiculous to own or how many is too many: this logic should apply to anything.

I dont think its fair that guy has a roll of snus and I have only a can (or none). That guy has a tub of dip and I dont. Not fair. That guy brought a can into a school, he should get extra jail time. That guy sent snus in the mail to another guy and a kid stole it, lets also blame snus. That guy has enough snus for an army! Lets find out what he's up to! There are people who look different from me who have more snus than me. Not fair, they dont deserve it!

And so on.

If you look around and they only people carrying weapons are the government, then i ask how you will fare if they decide you or your property or your rights belong to them.

[Crow]

Most of my colleagues seem to agree on the intent of the second amendment.

But I completely agree that something must be done. Strengthened background checks? Sure. Banning high-capacity magazines? I'm still not sure about that one. I understand the arguments from both sides, but it's left me rather conflicted.

An outright ban on semi-automatic rifles? There's no way I can bring myself to support that. I hear the arguments from within the party, but the arguments are illogical. It just doesn't make any sense. For example, as I've mentioned before, with an assault rifle ban; you would still leave semi-automatic handguns open.

I consider semi-automatic handguns to be far more dangerous than semi-automatic rifles due to their ease of concealment, and also, dropping a spent mag to load a new mag is a breeze compared to rifles.

What would be the proposal? Banning both semi-automatic rifles (aka assault rifles) and semi-automatic handguns? If so, then expect the situation to get pretty nasty amongst the populace. Adding provisions to confiscate said weapons? Good luck with that.

We need to bring the violence under control, but the AWB is clearly not the right approach. Remember Columbine? 1999? The 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994. Reinstating it will do absolutely nothing to stem violence. In fact, it will most likely make the situation a whole lot worse.

Perhaps requiring citizens to be certified to handle firearms through training in order to purchase them? It might help the situation a bit... But what we really need to do is tackle the problem head-on. That problem is the mental health of our country, and how society treats the issue of mental health.

[SnusoMatic]

The biggest blow to the Americans I can remember was delivered by a dozen or so dedicated Saudi Arabs with boxcutters. Boxcutters should be banned.

The second biggest blow I can remember was delivered by a dedicated American with a dozen or so bags of fertilizer. Fertilizers should also be banned.

But above all, dedication must be banned. Because otherwise somebody really dedicated starts killing members of the ruling class with scissors, pens, coins in socks, pieces of masonry... Difficult to ban all those things.


On the other, more serious hand, as somebody from a gun-banned country I would like to ask you: Do you feel that you are more free due to the guns? Because I am not sure. I cannot have a gun without much harrassment, but that applies to everybody around me and I have never seen a gun in public other than police etc. I have never even heard of anybody being hurt by a gun. By this I mean people I knew or I would at least heard about before, not TV. I met some people in my life that I did not like and I really would not like to see them armed.

First off, very good post and insight. I do fell more free because of the balance of power or what used to be a balance of power. For example, our Constitution says "We The People" are the government. Yet how can we the people be in charge if the politicians make oppressive laws. Then use cops, fbi and military to enforce those oppressive laws.

As bad as this is going to sound history proves that sometimes drawing blood (or the threat of) is the only way to ensure ones freedom. Since 911 they keep making one oppressive law after another. Sometimes just "enforcing laws" that don't even exist. For example, in New York the cops would stop and search anyone they wanted even though that is a clear violation of the constitution. They did that for a year or more before some judge stopped them. Oh and New York state has the strictest gun control in the country.

As strange as I am sure it seems to you, just about everyone around here has guns. people who would never use one for anything wrong. My 85 year old dad has six. Any self respecting crook has a 9mm and an AK. I never would let my kids have guns but in the rural areas some kids get their first gun as young as 8 or 10. Crooks have access to any gun they want (illegally) with no waiting period or background checks. If you lived here would you be the guy that don't have a gun? I mean the target ;-)

Before the Internet my contact with the outside world was limited to emigrants who would move here. I was about 28 before I found out that some countries don't allow guns. A German girl moved next door to us when I was about 28. We lived in town and you are not allowed to shoot real guns in town. I was out back target shooting with an air rifle and she came over. The way she acted I had a rocket launcher or something. Anyway, she told me how guns work in Germany. At the time a shotgun was all they could own and they had to keep it locked up at a gun club and go there to shoot it. I was flabbergasted! So I can understand sort of how we must sound to you.

[whalen]

Someone harmed you ..brother ? ;(

No GN, just too controversial a topic, gets me in trouble. Learned my lesson............

[GN Tobacco Sweden AB]

No GN, just too controversial a topic, gets me in trouble. Learned my lesson............

Come to the lighter threads no nerves just fun , is this gun question ? What is right answer yes or no to gun ???

[whalen]

The answer to my gun question goes like this GN, Rule wisely!

[whalen]

What gun are you wearing GN?

[GN Tobacco Sweden AB]

The answer to my gun question goes like this GN, Rule wisely!

Anyone doubt ?

[Crow]

Anyone doubt ?

Your tits are lovely.

[whalen]

Must be 57 tits there!

[GN Tobacco Sweden AB]

Your tits are lovely.

Main ???? I doubt ??? Are you .... O I get you meant sig tits .... I am tired of them will change now

[whalen]

Main ???? I doubt ??? Are you .... O I get you meant sig tits .... I am tired of them will change now

Now hold on there just a minute sparky!

[Crow]

Main ???? I doubt ??? Are you .... O I get you meant sig tits .... I am tired of them will change now

Hahaha!!

[OregonNative]

The issue with gun control is a tough one in the U.S. It's something that most foreigners cant really understand. I'm not saying they have no idea, but it's something rooted in our culture. Whether one agrees with the right to own firearms or not, it's very unlikely that anothers opinion will change the others. People could scream and yell at each other until they were blue in the face and it wont likely change the opinion of another.

I've talked a little bit before in this thread, but I'd like to mention a few things. I dont believe people should lose the ability to own firearms, but there needs to be further regulation on them. Whether you support gun ownership or not, the fact remains that guns are far to easy to get in this country. I've lived in areas where the only thing required to own a gun was 10 minutes of time, a drivers license, and the money. I believe everyone should be required to take some sort of firearm handling class, there needs to be lengthy background checks, and there should be restrictions on how people are able to aquire these firearms. When I was living in Kentucky, you were able to buy firearms at flea markets with no background check, no identification, just an exchange of hands. This isn't right, and it allows anyone to access a firearm, including people with mental disorders, felons, etc.

I personally don't believe certain weapons should be for sale to the public. I'm not going to really get into this part of the discussion. If people want to buy AK varients, M4s, etc, go ahead and get them. I don't have the right to suggest that anyone shouldn't be allowed to own these firearms. I don't feel they are necessary, but that isn't my call. I own several firearms, including a Glock 27, Beretta 92fs (for work), Remington 700 (270./300wm) (hunting), Remington 870 (hunting), and a CZ-452 (hunting). I haven't felt the pistols were necessary outside of work, and the rest of my firearms are hunting related.

I used to be very pro-gun as I was growing up. I grew up in a military family, and grew up around firearms. I've been somewhat soured to the subject though. Having dealt with the murders of several friends, and working several jobs that subjected me to the harsh reality of what a lack of gun control has done to our country. For those who really want a good picture of gun control in our nation, I suggest spending a few weeks in Oakland, East St. Louis, Miami (Dade), Detroit, or parts of Los Angeles. I don't remember one night spent in Oakland where I didn't hear gunfire.

I love the U.S as it's my home, but I've had to deal with a lot of shit because of guns. People can defend gun ownership all they want, but I'd imagine the majority of these people have not lived in places where the threat of gun violence was a major issue. I'm not judging anyone here, but I've spent my time in places like Oakland, LA, Miami, and I've seen the problems with my own eyes. I've worked several jobs that put me in the middle of a lot of this as well. It's a much different experience when you are actually around these problems than when you live in a small quiet town that on average has a very low violence rate. I believe when I was in Oakland, we were averaging 3-4 shooting deaths every single day. Oakland isn't a massive city either, I believe it has less than 400,000 people. To put this into perspective, Louisville Kentucky, with a population of 750,000 had 51 murders in 2011. Oakland with about 1/2 the population of Louisville passed the Louisville murder rate in less than 3 weeks.

Granted, a lot of these firearms used in these shootings were either stolen, or bought through illegal means, but they were able to be accessed because we have such a flood of weapons in this nation. We've become almost paranoid at the idea of losing our guns, and we assume with every election that we are about to lose them, and everyone is out to get us.

Bottom line is, if you guys like guns, get them. I hope we do a better job in the future at controlling them, if not removing certain weapons from the market, I hope we work on controlling the flow of weapons in this country. There is far to many floating around and ending up in the wrong hands. Background checks should be a bit better too to help control the amount of LEGAL weapons ending up in the wrong hands as well. I'm not here to demand you guys turn in your weapons or demonize gun owners (as I own them myself), but I would like to see more purchasing restrictions.

Cheers fellas!

[Zimobog]

The issue with gun control is a tough one in the U.S. It's something that most foreigners cant really understand. I'm not saying they have no idea, but it's something rooted in our culture.

I would say they have the same natural human right to own firearms, a right that is denied by their governments. Not that I think America ought to do anything about it, just saying.




Sir, I hope you will not take my post as disrespectful.

Whether one agrees with the right to own firearms or not, it's very unlikely that anothers opinion will change the others. People could scream and yell at each other until they were blue in the face and it wont likely change the opinion of another.

No disrespect intended here, but "opinions" about the right to own firearms concern me about as much as someone else's opinion about who I ought to be allowed to marry or let eat in a resturant I might own or let sleep in my house. It is my right and not subject to the opinion of others. As in "shall not be infringed". But even without the Constitution, I would still have the natural right to self-protection and arming myself however I see fit. The founders simply wanted to recognize the natural right by mentioning it. Thank you, founders.

I've talked a little bit before in this thread, but I'd like to mention a few things. I dont believe people should lose the ability to own firearms, but there needs to be further regulation on them.

"Shall not be infringed", as in not regulated. If you would not like me carry a firearm/knife/playboy mag/snus in your house, I can respect that. But that is where it ends.

Whether you support gun ownership or not, the fact remains that guns are far to easy to get in this country. I've lived in areas where the only thing required to own a gun was 10 minutes of time, a drivers license, and the money.

I don't have a problem with that, in fact, I think it should be even easier.

I believe everyone should be required to take some sort of firearm handling class, there needs to be lengthy background checks, and there should be restrictions on how people are able to aquire these firearms.

I would recommend training just so you can use them safely for your own protection and that of others, but I would reject the idea that this should be a "law". If someone uses a firearm (or their fist or a rock) to hurt someone or does so with negligance, than they should face liability.

When I was living in Kentucky, you were able to buy firearms at flea markets with no background check, no identification, just an exchange of hands. This isn't right, and it allows anyone to access a firearm, including people with mental disorders, felons, etc.

What right does the government have to stop the private transfer of goods? None. The attempt to do so is under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution. My own state rep introduced the "Alaska Firearms Freedom Act". Basically pointing out that firearms manufactured and sold within our own border are no business of the federal government. Only when the firearm travels across state lines does the federal gov even have slim grounds for oversight, but I would take exception to that. Not only is private transfer "right" it is a right, as in "shall not be infringed".

I

personally don't believe certain weapons should be for sale to the public. I'm not going to really get into this part of the discussion. If people want to buy AK varients, M4s, etc, go ahead and get them. I don't have the right to suggest that anyone shouldn't be allowed to own these firearms. I don't feel they are necessary, but that isn't my call.

What about SUVs, chainsaws, motorcycles over 850ccs, ribbed condoms, malt liqour, or salt without iodine in it? I love all those things but some people don't. I hate those spinner rims, rap music, tootsie rolls, and those ugly bald cats, but I don't want them banned or not for sale if someone wants to buy them and someone else wants to sell them.

I own several firearms, including a Glock 27, Beretta 92fs (for work), Remington 700 (270./300wm) (hunting), Remington 870 (hunting), and a CZ-452 (hunting). I haven't felt the pistols were necessary outside of work, and the rest of my firearms are hunting related.

I take it then sir, that you are some sort of LEO?

I used to be very pro-gun as I was growing up. I grew up in a military family, and grew up around firearms. I've been somewhat soured to the subject though. Having dealt with the murders of several friends, and working several jobs that subjected me to the harsh reality of what a lack of gun control has done to our country. For those who really want a good picture of gun control in our nation, I suggest spending a few weeks in Oakland, East St. Louis, Miami (Dade), Detroit, or parts of Los Angeles. I don't remember one night spent in Oakland where I didn't hear gunfire.

I love the U.S as it's my home, but I've had to deal with a lot of shit because of guns. People can defend gun ownership all they want, but I'd imagine the majority of these people have not lived in places where the threat of gun violence was a major issue. I'm not judging anyone here, but I've spent my time in places like Oakland, LA, Miami, and I've seen the problems with my own eyes. I've worked several jobs that put me in the middle of a lot of this as well. It's a much different experience when you are actually around these problems than when you live in a small quiet town that on average has a very low violence rate. I believe when I was in Oakland, we were averaging 3-4 shooting deaths every single day. Oakland isn't a massive city either, I believe it has less than 400,000 people. To put this into perspective, Louisville Kentucky, with a population of 750,000 had 51 murders in 2011. Oakland with about 1/2 the population of Louisville passed the Louisville murder rate in less than 3 weeks.

Sir, I think your statements here make some broad assumptions about those of us who stand for the natural right of self-protection. I myself have been the personal victim of gun violence and also used a firearm to protect my own life. I have been a resident of one of those cities you mention. People like Roy Innis, NRA Board Member, have lost family to gun violence (2 sons in his case) and still fight daily for civil and natural rights. We know that when only police and violent criminals have firearms, the rest of us will suffer. When I went to Oakland last year, my first stop after the airport was the Home Depot for a carpet knife and a framing hammer. Cause I knew that I, a peaceful free citizen, would not be allowed to protect myself by the police while the police would be unable to protect me as they were too busy protecting San Fran-rich-co and not poor white trash who visit Oakland . Protection is my right, and my responsibility.

I think that the violence in the street has a lot to do with drug prohibition. Ending the Drug War will end much of the violence the same way ending alcohol ended the violence surrounding Prohibition. The flow of illegal drugs and the flow of illegitimate violence are connected at the hip in the same way as during the years in which America was denied booze by a voting majority. The violence involved between turfwars between gangs, the theft of property, and retaliation for both are all failures of the Drug War.

Granted, a lot of these firearms used in these shootings were either stolen, or bought through illegal means, but they were able to be accessed because we have such a flood of weapons in this nation. We've become almost paranoid at the idea of losing our guns, and we assume with every election that we are about to lose them, and everyone is out to get us.

Bottom line is, if you guys like guns, get them. I hope we do a better job in the future at controlling them, if not removing certain weapons from the market, I hope we work on controlling the flow of weapons in this country. There is far to many floating around and ending up in the wrong hands. Background checks should be a bit better too to help control the amount of LEGAL weapons ending up in the wrong hands as well. I'm not here to demand you guys turn in your weapons or demonize gun owners (as I own them myself), but I would like to see more purchasing restrictions.

You seem like a good person and a honest man. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion. I just wanted to respond to some of these opinions and I hope I have done so in civil manner.