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

[lxskllr]

Did Alex call him a redcoat? totally off the scale wtf in these vids. You guys need a better rep.

I saw part of the video last night on TV at my mother's house. My blood pressure immediately went up, and my mother changed the channel fairly quickly. I don't have patience for that kind of bullshit. This is what American TV has come to. Partisan fsck heads spew nonsense, and stupid people think they're informed and in touch with modern politics and world events. I haven't, and will not watch the above videos. Piers I find annoying in general, and I'm not really familiar with Jones, but if the above is a typical example, I don't like him either. Aside from the occasional entertainment show, there's nothing of value on the picture box, and I certainly wouldn't give credence to any kind of policy, politic, or news show that purports to "educate" this country's simpletons.

Edit:
critical grammar

[resnor]

When you consider that other things kill more people every year than guns in America, it makes you wonder WHY some people are so intent on getting rid of guns. If one is being honest, you have to admit that it is not really about safety...

[Ephemeris]

The second amendment isn't a "right to hunt" or a "right to be 2 generations behind the current regime's weapons". It's a right to bear arms, primarily to keep the government in check. When it was ratified, it was for state of the art weaponry which was the equal of what the government used. They didn't limit it to slingshots, swords, or bow/arrow, or anything else. Any argument regarding the quality of weapon misses the point in the best case, and deliberately obfuscates the issue in the worst.

Well said. The Continental Army was actually surpassed in firepower by the average citizen. The army was still shooting inaccurate smoothbore muskets while the volunteers from places like Kentucky, VA and NC had nice, ultra-accurate (for the time) rifled barrels. It could probably be argued that when the Constitution was drafted, the American citizens actually had more powerful weaponry than their government.

Then there's things like bombs, cannons, Gatling guns, etc that were utilized by the military but not available to the general populace. I'm not even comfortable with my government having an atomic bomb, but I damn sure wouldn't want to live nextdoor to someone that had one.

But these weapons that the left is trying to ban aren't MILITARY weapons. We haven't been able to own true military grade weaponry in this country since 1968 when they outlawed machineguns and explosives for recreational use.

It really pisses me off when someone tells me that my magazine should hold no more than ten rounds, or that my handgun should fire rounds smaller than 9mm. These are the only semblance of "militaria" that civilian guns have in common with the police or military. Remember in '92 when Clinton and Gore found the idea that a Glock could hold 17 rounds "unfathomable" for anyone but the military or police? They banned them. Gun violence actually increased. So half assed regulation gets tossed around like that from time to time but it's usually just a couple of jackasses reacting to an isolated situation like the movie theater shooting or the school shooting.

Alex Jones, like Piers Morgan, is a flaming bag of poo. That's all I really have to say about the debate.

But my entire philosophy towards gun control can be summed up by fellow snuffer and junkie beat poet William S. Burroughs:

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed to own guns are the police and the military."

[truthwolf1]

I agree with everything Jones was yelling but completely agree he came into this interview way over the top. The only excuse I will give him is that he gets basically censored everytime he is on MSM or given such a small time to speak. So, his tactic has always been to go in full force.

Now, if the big pharma medications are driving people to suicide and mass shootings then why is there not the same or even more MSM time being spent on that? Not to mention the high death count from gang violence and criminals.

Accidental deaths, well.. that I can agree on. Those do not need to happen in such high numbers but that does not mean we need to ban them from responsible people.

[lxskllr]

Then there's things like bombs, cannons, Gatling guns, etc that were utilized by the military but not available to the general populace. I'm not even comfortable with my government having an atomic bomb, but I damn sure wouldn't want to live nextdoor to someone that had one.

But these weapons that the left is trying to ban aren't MILITARY weapons. We haven't been able to own true military grade weaponry in this country since 1968 when they outlawed machineguns and explosives for recreational use.

It really pisses me off when someone tells me that my magazine should hold no more than ten rounds, or that my handgun should fire rounds smaller than 9mm. These are the only semblance of "militaria" that civilian guns have in common with the police or military. Remember in '92 when Clinton and Gore found the idea that a Glock could hold 17 rounds "unfathomable" for anyone but the military or police? They banned them. Gun violence actually increased. So half assed regulation gets tossed around like that from time to time but it's usually just a couple of jackasses reacting to an isolated situation like the movie theater shooting or the school shooting.

Heavy weapons are self selecting. Not many people can afford a tank who's gas mileage is rated at gallons per mile, and rounds that likely cost thousands per shot. Magazine capacity regulations are ridiculous. I can swap magazines faster than I can get a portion of snus. One 30 round or three 10 round magazines? Who cares? They're virtually the same. 100 round magazines are for n00bs, and I think that was demonstrated in Colorado. If I'm not mistaken his 100 round magazine jammed, which is pretty much par for the course. You buy something like that for an amusing novelty, not real work.

All this is for politicians who want more control, and to curry favor from the fearful. You know what scares me? Going on the road after a misting rain. The braindead masses threaten me every second. I couldn't care less about firearms. I fear alien abduction as much as I fear firearms.

[CzechCzar]

Just my two cents:

Hands, clubs, baseball bats, etc., are all capable of killing. Assault is assault. Why is the imperative to make guns illegal, instead of clubs or baseball bats? This is especially puzzling when you consider that guns are the only way for a 90 year old to protect herself against a gang of thugs, while axes or baseball bats would not be nearly so effective. Many, many studies have shown that crime is lowest in places where concealed carry is allowed and gun ownership is high. This is not a coincidence.

If we assume the 2nd amendment is only meant to apply to breech-loaded muskets, we must also assume that the 1st amendment only applies to 18th-century printouts of a physical newspaper. That boat won't float. Indeed, even in the 18th and early 19th centuries, with the inventions of the revolver and the magazine-loading rifle, everyone recognized that they were still protected by the 2nd amendment. Recent supreme court cases have recognized this argument as authoritative, explicitly codifying into law what had for centuries been the modus operandum of states. If we want to ban guns, we need to amend the constitution.


The Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Since a militia is a military force, using military arms, obviously the type of arms that the people have the right to keep and bear are also military arms. The protected arms are not limited to those needed for self-defense against criminals.

Also for those of you who want to ban assault weapons... you are uneducated about what an "Assault" rifle is and isn't... In military terms an assault weapon is that which can fire many projectiles down range to inflict the greatest damage on enemy combatants in a short amount of time. The idea being a short decisive battle reduces friendly casualties. An assault weapon for this purpose has a selector switch to choose your rate of fire! No matter how closely a civilian rifle looks like a Military weapon it DOES NOT have a selector switch to choose "Full Auto" as a rate of fire. Therefore civilian copies/look-a-likes are NOT "Assault Rifles!". This is a case of name branding gone wrong.

[Ephemeris]

Heavy weapons are self selecting. Not many people can afford a tank who's gas mileage is rated at gallons per mile, and rounds that likely cost thousands per shot. Magazine capacity regulations are ridiculous. I can swap magazines faster than I can get a portion of snus. One 30 round or three 10 round magazines? Who cares? They're virtually the same. 100 round magazines are for n00bs, and I think that was demonstrated in Colorado. If I'm not mistaken his 100 round magazine jammed, which is pretty much par for the course. You buy something like that for an amusing novelty, not real work.

Tell me about it. I love it when friends of mine buy 100 round drum magazines for their AKs or Mini Ranches and manage to get six rounds off before they spend the rest of the afternoon trying to fish the rest of the ammo out of their drum.

I've got a 50 round drum for my Thompson, but like you said it's mainly for novelty. I actually think my Tommy looks and feels better with the standard stick magazines. They're damn sure more reliable.

In all honesty the government has driven me towards smaller caliber guns. The only thing I can afford to shoot any more is .22 rounds.

[Mr. Snuffleupagus]

Piers is a twat! And so is everyone else trying to ban our guns. Alex covered a lot of ground in that interview. Good job IMO!

Last time I checked "shall not infringe" means there is no middle ground. It means don't fsck with it.

[Bigblue1]

I agree with snuffy and Twolf. Everything he said is true. He acted like that due to how Piers has been acting against the second amendment. Look at this examiner article and tell me you wouldn't go in guns blazing against this twat. http://www.examiner.com/article/pier...deluded-menace The Man is not a US citizen what right does he have to come here and criticize the Bill Of Rights. Frak Him. He is a total NWO Shill...... I hope your the first to be taken to a camp JOE.

[Crow]

The Man is not a US citizen what right does he have to come here and criticize the Bill Of Rights.

The First Amendment?

While I don't agree with Piers' view regarding guns, he has every right to preach it. Just as much as I don't agree with Alex Jones and his views; he has every right to preach it.

[Joe234]

I agree with snuffy and Twolf. Everything he said is true. He acted like that due to how Piers has been acting against the second amendment. Look at this examiner article and tell me you wouldn't go in guns blazing against this twat. http://www.examiner.com/article/pier...deluded-menace The Man is not a US citizen what right does he have to come here and criticize the Bill Of Rights. Frak Him. He is a total NWO Shill...... I hope your the first to be taken to a camp JOE.

And where might this camp be? A Rainbow Gathering?

Or a camp in Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura's mind?

[Frosted]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just a refresher.

[halocog]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just a refresher.

Sadly, most of that is ignored by our government now.

[Kaplan]

This isn't about gun rights, this is about Piers Morgan being a c*nt and his loving this boost in his ratings by inviting the biggest nutjob he could get on his show to make the side of gun rights look ridiculous. He should just be booted out of the country for being such a sanctimonious and hypocritical piece of crap.

As for the actual issue at stake...let's just say I own guns and I like it that way. But still it is an issue that should be discussed and debated, and I don't think someone is automatically anti-America because they believe this or that.

[Frosted]

But still it is an issue that should be discussed and debated, and I don't think someone is automatically anti-America because they believe this or that.

Unfortunately here in these videos are the two worst people that should be debating it.