# Pro-Gun Advocate Alex Jones Goes Completely Berserk On Piers Morgan's Show



## Mansali (Jan 7, 2013)

> CNN
> CNN host Piers Morgan had radio host Alex Jones on his show tonight to talk about his role in creating a petition to deport Morgan because of his views on gun control in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
> The interview quickly devolved into a mostly one-sided shouting episode from Jones, the controversial figure who has promoted conspiracy theories about the government being involved in both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
> Some of the highlights of the interview:
> ...



Here is the link to the interview. The ending is awesome ...when Jones imitates a British accent on live TV :rofl

[YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 7, 2013)

Taking away all of the guns is a stupid idea. It's also not news if some redneck gets mad on TV.


----------



## Mansali (Jan 7, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Taking away all of the guns is a stupid idea. It's also not news if some redneck gets mad on TV.



No one is saying take away all the guns...... In this story.

This is the guy who started the petition to deport Piers Morgan...so this is news.


----------



## mortsleam (Jan 7, 2013)

I still don't know if Alex Jones is a disinformation agent or not but a lot of things he says are legitimate besides all the fear-mongering.


----------



## mortsleam (Jan 7, 2013)

And you have to get mad at Morgan he's an asshole if you don't scream at him he will Bill O'rielly you. Call you a loony or scream back at you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 7, 2013)

Mansali said:


> No one is saying take away all the guns...... In this story.
> 
> This is the guy who started the petition to deport Piers Morgan...so this is news.


The line right in the middle talks about him saying taking all the guns away is not a good idea.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 7, 2013)

mortsleam said:


> And you have to get mad at Morgan he's an asshole if you don't scream at him he will Bill O'rielly you. Call you a loony or scream back at you.



So behaving like an ape is more effective in winning debates that using facts and logic to you huh?  Maybe you should watch the guests Piers had on AFTER Alex Jones on the same episode, though something tells me you didn't even watch the interview at all.


----------



## mortsleam (Jan 7, 2013)

Mider T said:


> So behaving like an ape is more effective in winning debates that using facts and logic to you huh?  Maybe you should watch the guests Piers had on AFTER Alex Jones on the same episode, though something tells me you didn't even watch the interview at all.



I completely agree with you. What I'm saying is you need to be a bully or you will get bullied. If you say facts news reporters will go to commercial or call you crazy.

I think it's funny how he brought up 9/11. We all see how Piers Morgan operates. I'm not a Alex Jones fan it's just very clear that he lost since he's attempting to make Jones look like a loony when everything in that interview he said was credible. 

Have you seen Piers Morgan or Bill O'Rielly babble and shut people up like 5th graders... these are prominent figures in America talking heads to distract us and they use propaganda.. mass propaganda.

And no I'm not going to watch Piers Morgan I only watched that Alex Jones interview because I knew it would be entertaining. Piers is a scum bag


----------



## Lindsay (Jan 7, 2013)

So a controversial figure goes hysterical on a British TV host that has very negative views of gun ownership in America?



> He responded to Morgan's question asking him how many murders were committed in Britain last year with a question of his own: "How many chimpanzees can dance on the head of a pin?"



What is the point of saying that? It sounds nonsensical if anything.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 7, 2013)

Lindsay said:


> So a controversial figure goes hysterical on a British TV host that has very negative views of gun ownership in America?
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of saying that? It sounds nonsensical if anything.


The show is an American show though.


----------



## Mansali (Jan 7, 2013)

This is the guy who started the petition to deport Piers Morgan. People....don't just read the titlle before commenting. he was brought in to explain himself but he instead went crazy on live TV.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 7, 2013)

> Jones claimed that the recent rape and murder of an Indian student could have been prevented if she had access to a gun.



And what if the gang had guns too? Use your brain mate.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 7, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> And what if the gang had guns too? Use your brain mate.


She needed one of those African Vagina traps.


----------



## very bored (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm surprised he could keep a straight face through all that.  I couldn't last even one minute.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jan 7, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> She needed one of those African Vagina traps.



No, she needed a Cloyster.

Cmon! It comes with a free anti-rape goblin and everything!


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 7, 2013)

> She needed one of those African Vagina traps



Oh shit they do need them.

Really if India just prosecuted rape cases properly, rape would diminish by a lot. The reason Delhi is rape capital is because of its backward way in dealing with it, infact accepting it. Guns in to the equation won't help the victims.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

Ugh. So much stupidity in this world.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 8, 2013)

What a convenient character to have on your show to support anti-gun undertones.


----------



## Mansali (Jan 8, 2013)

Did anyone make it to the end when he started talking in the British accent?

I was watching this one live TV a few hours ago and it was awesome. I almost threw up the food I was eating.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Jesus, I am trying to watch the replay on CNN...this fucker is pissing me off.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 8, 2013)

I am trying so hard to watch this and its a pain, but I'm doing it for you Mansali.
Alex Jones needs to get himself checked.  (Along with many other political crazies).  He also needs to take public speaking classes.

MANSALI, HOW CAN YOU STAND THIS?


----------



## Mansali (Jan 8, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> I am trying so hard to watch this and its a pain, but I'm doing it for you Mansali.
> Alex Jones needs to get himself checked.  (Along with many other political crazies).  He also needs to take public speaking classes.
> 
> MANSALI, HOW CAN YOU STAND THIS?



I just find it really funny. 

The whole thing back fired on Alex Jones in my opinion. His immature behaviour ruins the reputation of the petition. 

Some parts are hard to watch.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> I am trying so hard to watch this and its a pain, but I'm doing it for you Mansali.
> Alex Jones needs to get himself checked.  (Along with many other political crazies).  He also needs to take public speaking classes.
> 
> MANSALI, HOW CAN YOU STAND THIS?



Yeah the guy is a raving lunatic, but then again it's like watching Glenn Beck and seeing him go on those rants


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Just to be clear, what this post is talking about is only the part about our right to bear arms. The way Jones carried himself was like a crazy baboon. I don't support or agree with that at all.

My sig says more than enough on this subject. The guy had it coming.

[YOUTUBE]B23VnNgOkCQ[/YOUTUBE]

_"The *RIGHT* of the people to keep and bear arms *SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."*_* -US Second Amendment*

_"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, *which would include their own government*."_ *-George Washington*

_"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_ *-Thomas Jefferson*

_"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."_ *-George Mason*

_"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."_ *-Thomas Jefferson*

_"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they certainly can be corrected by good men with rifles."_ *-Colonel Jeff Cooper*

_*"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" -Joseph Stalin*_


Gun control has never lead to pretty results. History has, time and time again, repeatedly, demonstrated this. Criminals like unarmed victims, while the government likes unarmed civilians. See a connection? People like Kim Jong, Hitler, and Stalin opposed the Second Amendment right, while people like George Washington, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson supported it. I think the choice of who to trust is clear.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 8, 2013)

^YOU ALSO need to watch the guests he had on after Jones, because you're just rambling as well.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Jesus, I am trying to watch the replay on CNN...this fucker is pissing me off.



So what were those posts about earlier in the thread if you didn't watch the video in the OP?


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm just posting the words of our wise founding fathers, and my rights. I know them, and I'll be damned if they try to violate them, and turn our country into the very thing we originally separated from, or worse. They're certainly not ramblings.


----------



## hadou (Jan 8, 2013)

I saw the interview and that Alex Jones is a fucktard. He was immature, rude, and senseless.


----------



## Daxter (Jan 8, 2013)

It's Prozzac's fault no doubt. :rofl


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

Whenever i have a little bit of hope that my country knows better or has learned its lesson, i get people like Alex Jones and now Justin in my face proving once again that there will be no healing period as long as their insane irrational rambling thoughts exist.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I'm just posting the words of our wise founding fathers, and my rights. I know them, and I'll be damned if they try to violate them, and turn our country into the very thing we originally separated from, or worse. They're certainly not ramblings.



These quotes are as random as Jones' silly babbling were to the argument.  Not once in this debate did anybody ever taking anyone's guns away, not once. 

You haven't watched the video have you?


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 8, 2013)

More guns=less crime, what

This guy turned in to a nut by the end


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Mider T said:


> ^YOU ALSO need to watch the guests he had on after Jones, because you're just rambling as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So what were those posts about earlier in the thread if you didn't watch the video in the OP?


Well I didn't say anything about the video earlier, I just posted on the content of the article.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Mider T said:


> These quotes are as random as Jones' silly babbling were to the argument.  Not once in this debate did anybody ever taking anyone's guns away, not once.
> 
> You haven't watched the video have you?



They're relevant in the topic of gun control, which is what they were talking about (among other things). I did watch the video. Why question the people's right to carry any kind of gun, automatic or not (which is pretty much what Piers Morgan's question was shooting at, if you'll pardon the expression), if there wasn't a hint of infringing on one's right to bear arms? I mean, they are trying to pass such a bill (doesn't matter if it targets one gun type or all of them), and if people are questioning that... I wonder if they really are paying attention to all of the news, or not.

I know Morgan's stance as well. I've seen him talk with others on this subject. He's not exactly an advocate of our 2nd Amendment, and that's fine, but it's tough shit since that's our God-given right.

That said, while I agree 100% with Jones' stance, and his common sense (including the "good guy with a gun is the quickest way to stop a bad guy with a gun", and the statistics of other time periods and countries that have enforced gun control), he didn't conduct his arguments very well. They were sound in nature, but he could have used those hard-hitting facts more professionally.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 8, 2013)

Info Wars is a joke.


----------



## Daxter (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I know Morgan's stance as well. I've seen him talk with others on this subject. *He's not exactly an advocate of our 2nd Amendment*, and that's fine, *but it's tough shit since that's our God-given right.*



Am I missing something here?


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> More guns=less crime, what
> 
> This guy turned in to a nut by the end



Statistically, he is correct. In areas where gun control is less strict or non-existent, where civilians are more free to carry guns, crime rate is lower. This is because criminals, who don't bother obeying the law in the first place, aren't about to open fire or attempt anything of the sort around a bunch of people who are also packing heat, and able to shoot back at a moment's notice. Neither you nor I would either. We'd feel safer, as criminals, to try those sort of stunts against unarmed civilians, as they would have no formidable means of defending themselves.

Before Sweden became the rape center of the world, people should look at their policies with guns, and their crime rates. The findings would be very interesting.

But while Jones was right about that, he carried himself as a loon. Not good for his case.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Justin, you're an embarrassment to the name.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

The dude's (acting like a) whackjob sorry to say. That rambling tone is not acceptable for any civil discourse


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Daxter said:


> Am I missing something here?



You mean about our right to bear arms or that Piers Morgan has before shown lack of support for it? No. It shouldn't be news.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> They're relevant in the topic of gun control, which is what they were talking about (among other things). I did watch the video. Why question the people's right to carry any kind of gun, automatic or not (which is pretty much what Piers Morgan's question was shooting at, if you'll pardon the expression), if there wasn't a hint of infringing on one's right to bear arms? I mean, they are trying to pass such a bill (doesn't matter if it targets one gun type or all of them), and if people are questioning that... I wonder if they really are paying attention to all of the news, or not.
> 
> I know Morgan's stance as well. I've seen him talk with others on this subject. He's not exactly an advocate of our 2nd Amendment, and that's fine, but it's tough shit since that's our God-given right.
> 
> That said, while I agree 100% with Jones' stance, and his common sense (including the "good guy with a gun is the quickest way to stop a bad guy with a gun", and the statistics of other time periods and countries that have enforced gun control), he didn't conduct his arguments very well. They were sound in nature, but he could have used those hard-hitting facts more professionally.



His arguments were not sound at all, he went on a rant about 9/11, bombs, Times Square, sharks, and even did a childish mock.  Damn Justin, I'm on _your_ side, I don't want my guns taken away from me but this guy is a nutjob and when people refuse to acknowledge it makes all pro-gun people look like nutjobs.  

If you watch the episode, Piers interviews a man who was the uncle of one of the Colorado theater victims, he's also pro-gun and was able to use sound reasoning about what he wanted to do.  None of the reactionary hubaloo of this buffoon.  The fact that someone can even begin to defend him makes my head hurt.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Justin, you're an embarrassment to the name.



For what, exactly, am I an embarrassment? For supporting the Constitution?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> For what, exactly, am I an embarrassment? For supporting the Constitution?


Essentially yes, for blindly supporting a man made document. Take the dick out of your ass and read it for what it is. 

For one thing, you need to realize that the document is supposed to be revisited every twenty years. 

"If you're told the answer needs no questioning, the answer is a lie."

The stupid thing about what you're saying is that most sensible people are saying just take away assault rifles, you don't need a fucking assault rifle.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

I didn't know you changed your tune Cardboard. I thought you were against what we were talking about back during the shooting thread?

Now you seem like you actually agree with reasonable gun regulation


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> For what, exactly, am I an embarrassment? For supporting the Constitution?



Oh, so must be supporting the 3/5 clause and slavery as well.


----------



## Mizura (Jan 8, 2013)

*watches interview*
*mind blown*
Holy shit, a real-life trolling session. 
I thought you only got this level on the internetz.


----------



## Lindsay (Jan 8, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> More guns=less crime, what



The argument is that a armed citizenry is a deterrent to violent crime from criminals.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> I didn't know you changed your tune Cardboard. I thought you were against what we were talking about back during the shooting thread?
> 
> Now you seem like you actually agree with reasonable gun regulation


I didn't change my tune, I don't have an issue with guns, but I do have an issue with not questioning the Constitution and with people who think they need assault rifles.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Mider T said:


> His arguments were not sound at all, he went on a rant about 9/11, bombs, Times Square, sharks, and even did a childish mock.  Damn Justin, I'm on _your_ side, I don't want my guns taken away from me but this guy is a nutjob and when people refuse to acknowledge it makes all pro-gun people look like nutjobs.
> 
> If you watch the episode, Piers interviews a man who was the uncle of one of the Colorado theater victims, he's also pro-gun and was able to use sound reasoning about what he wanted to do.  None of the reactionary hubaloo of this buffoon.  The fact that someone can even begin to defend him makes my head hurt.



Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I don't want there to be a misunderstanding here, Mider. I think we've both become victims of that just now. I'm in no way defending any of those arguments, though I should have been more specific. He was right about the statistics of crime and gun control, but those tangent rantings and ravings made him carry himself like, as I said, a loon.

I won't go into 9/11. I'll just say there was probably more to it than we're told. That's all. I applaud this guy's stance on guns, but that's all. I wanted to point that out specifically. My original post was only on the part where they were talking about gun-bearing rights, as brief as they were. I'm not on board with the other stuff he was saying. That's what hurt the credibility of his argument. I mean, I ignored that for the sound parts of his argument, but I'm not gonna defend the other things he said.

Basically, I wasn't defending Jones; just what he said on the subject of gun control. Now, if we're talking about how Jones handled himself, you'll need to post more facepalms than that. He was mad, yes, but that's no excuse for his behavior. I'm in total agreement with you.


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

Mansali said:


> Here is the link to the interview. The ending is awesome ...when Jones imitates a British accent on live TV :rofl
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA[/YOUTUBE]



LMAO at his stupidity. Greater violent crime in the UK? We have A LOT less murder and violent crime here, and a much smaller percentage of that is gun related. I wonder where he gets his statistics  It goes to show that Alex Jones didn't give a straight answer when he asked how many gun murderers there are in Britain and chose to slander him instead


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I don't want there to be a misunderstanding here, Mider. I think we've both become victims of that just now. I'm in no way defending any of those arguments, though I should have been more specific. He was right about the statistics of crime and gun control, but those tangent rantings and ravings made him carry himself like, as I said, a loon.
> 
> *I won't go into 9/11. I'll just say there was probably more to it than we're told. That's all. I applaud this guy's stance on guns, but that's all. *I wanted to point that out specifically. My original post was only on the part where they were talking about gun-bearing rights, as brief as they were. I'm not on board with the other stuff he was saying. That's what hurt the credibility of his argument. I mean, I ignored that for the sound parts of his argument, but I'm not gonna defend the other things he said.
> 
> Basically, I wasn't defending Jones; just what he said on the subject of gun control. Now, if we're talking about how Jones handled himself, you'll need to post more facepalms than that. He was mad, yes, but that's no excuse for his behavior. I'm in total agreement with you.



This madness should be more than enough to brand you as crazy and get your guns taken up. I don't want crazy people having all their rights, that's for damn sure. 

Also, I like how you trust the Constitution...written by the Government. But you then say that they're lying to us about 9/11...so basically your star witness is also a liar and a mass murderer?


----------



## Daxter (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> You mean about our right to bear arms or that Piers Morgan has before shown lack of support for it? No. It shouldn't be news.



No no sir, I mean the memo about the constitution being the word of god.

Inb4 Jesus supports guns.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Essentially yes, for blindly supporting a man made document. Take the dick out of your ass and read it for what it is.
> 
> For one thing, you need to realize that the document is supposed to be revisited every twenty years.
> 
> ...



I have... a quick simple question. Do you know why we were given the right to bear arms in the first place?



Elim Rawne said:


> Oh, so must be supporting the 3/5 clause and slavery as well.



You misunderstand what that part of the document meant. It meant that slave states could count each black person as 3/5ths of a person, so every 15 slaves, counts as 10 for the over all population.

The reason they wanted this was to balance the powers of congress since northern states that had already abolished slavery and southern states had fewer representatives. This way slaves would count towards the population and southern states would get more people in congress. It did not impose nor enforce slavery at all.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I have... a quick simple question. Do you know why we were given the right to bear arms in the first place?


If the government attacks you, you're fucked.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> You misunderstand what that part of the document meant. It meant that slave states could count each black person as 3/5ths of a person, so every 15 slaves, counts as 10 for the over all population.
> 
> The reason they wanted this was to balance the powers of congress since northern states that had already abolished slavery and southern states had fewer representatives. This way slaves would count towards the population and southern states would get more people in congress. It did not impose nor enforce slavery at all.



I know exactly what it is. Do you support that as well ? It is in the constitution after all...


----------



## kokodeshide (Jan 8, 2013)

mortsleam said:


> I think it's funny how he brought up 9/11. We all see how Piers Morgan operates. I'm not a Alex Jones fan it's just very clear that he lost since he's attempting to make Jones look like a loony when everything in that interview he said was credible.



Morgan lost? He barely got a word in you fuck.


----------



## Daxter (Jan 8, 2013)

Freedan said:


> LMAO at his stupidity. Greater violent crime in the UK? We have A LOT less murder and violent crime here, and a much smaller percentage of that is gun related. I wonder where he gets his statistics  It goes to show that Alex Jones didn't give a straight answer when he asked how many gun murderers there are in Britain and chose to slander him instead



But he said stuff in a British accent in the end, so now we have no choice but to accept his once questionable sources as valid. 

Very clever move, Jones.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Wow, Justin is trying to defend the 3/5 clause? Dude you are fucking crazy.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Daxter said:


> No no sir, I mean the memo about the constitution being the word of god.
> 
> Inb4 Jesus supports guns.



That was just a phrase, so you may take your anti-Christian sentiments elsewhere. The leaders who established this right did believe in a higher power, and thus didn't believe themselves to be the people's "god". They established the freedom of speech, of possession of arms, etc., as a "God-given" right, so the government wouldn't think too high and mighty of itself, and believe itself worthy of taking those rights away, despite the fact that the creation of this nation rested the power with the people, not the government. The Constitution exists to restrict the powers of the government, but as we see, the people are the ones... whose power is being restricted.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

This ain't the 1700's bro. There's no longer slavery or the 3/5th's clause. And by that same reasoning, having your pithy assault weapon aint gonna help you against tanks and firebombing jets bro, sorry to say.

Your gonna have to come into the real world, you know, where the rest of us live


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

> If the government attacks you, you're fucked.



It was more so that... we wouldn't be fucked. It was a check and balance for the people to retain their independence, and defend it against any threats, both foreign and domestic, including our own government. I don't think a shotgun or a musket would cut it. But in any case, the right to bear arms gives no such specifications or limitations.



Elim Rawne said:


> I know exactly what it is. Do you support that as well ? It is in the constitution after all...



In a nation where slavery was law and the rest of the nation didn't believe slaves counted as anything? I believe that clause has relevance only pertaining to such a nation, am I wrong? I don't believe we are a slave nation anymore. In the context of when it was written, it was done so to give some power, some humanity to the slaves. It didn't outright abolish slavery right then, but it was a step in that direction.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, Justin is trying to defend the 3/5 clause? Dude you are fucking crazy.



I'm merely explaining what it was created for.


----------



## Daxter (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> That was just a phrase, so you may take your anti-Christian sentiments elsewhere. The leaders who established this right did believe in a higher power, and thus didn't believe themselves to be the people's "god". They established the freedom of speech, of possession of arms, etc., as a "God-given" right, so the government wouldn't think too high and mighty of itself, and believe itself worthy of taking those rights away, despite the fact that the creation of this nation rested the power with the people, not the government. The Constitution exists to restrict the powers of the government, but as we see, the people are the ones... whose power is being restricted.



So basically if you believe in god you're pretty much set. Anything you want to establish as law can just be humbly claimed as god's will and not man's, because we don't want big heads or anything, and everyone has to accept it as not only a state-given right, but a god-given right... because the (mortal) people who established it in the first place said so?

You're slowly curing my ignorance... even as 'this restriction of so called freedom can and will save lives' lingers on the tip of my tongue, I shall resist.

And what's a few dozen children's deaths in the face of the people's god given rights anyway.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> This ain't the 1700's bro. There's no longer slavery or the 3/5th's clause. And by that same reasoning, having your pithy assault weapon aint gonna help you against tanks and firebombing jets bro, sorry to say.
> 
> Your gonna have to come into the real world, you know, where the rest of us live



The clause still exists. It's just not in effect because for that to happen, slavery has to be in effect as well, with slaves not counting as people. It's not that it doesn't exist. It's just that there are no slaves for it to have an effect on. Hopefully, it should never be needed again.

That would be like... the land of Kanto (in Pokemon game) having a law that states that Magikarp gets 3 free turns at the start of a battle. Now, assume that the creators removed Magikarp from the programming. That doesn't mean that law has no more effect. There just aren't any Magikarp for that law to be enforced on. The conditions aren't met, but should they be, it's there.

I've been paying attention to the real world for quite some time now. "They already have the advantage, so let's give up what we have completely and surrender!". That's a sound mindset.


----------



## MinatoRider (Jan 8, 2013)

Man Alex Jones makes makes glenn beck look's smart.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Daxter said:


> So basically if you believe in god you're pretty much set. Anything you want to establish as law can just be humbly claimed as god's will and not man's, because we don't want big heads or anything, and everyone has to accept it as not only a state-given right, but a god-given right... because the (mortal) people who established it in the first place said so?
> 
> You're slowly curing my ignorance... even as 'this restriction of so called freedom can and will save lives' lingers on the tip of my tongue, I shall resist.
> 
> And what's a few dozen children's deaths in the face of the people's god given rights anyway.



Yes, because taking away guns will stop criminals, with plans to commit more horrendous crimes, from breaking that law, just as well as the laws against weed have taken it off the streets. 

This ignores the fact that killers who don't go on loud shooting rampages, kill far more children (and adults), even without the use of guns (such as those who use... say fertilizer or gas?), because their methods of killing are more subtle, less loud, and can go on for years before they're caught, since they don't draw nearly as much attention to themselves.

The real danger is in the PEOPLE who commit the crimes. It matters not their method of killing. The more subtle ones are the most dangerous. If you want to know the painful truth; had those teachers been armed with guns, they'd have saved a lot more lives. Establishing more gun control would not have stopped any of those people with murder already on their mind.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 8, 2013)

> It didn't outright abolish slavery right then, but it was a step in that direction.



No, it wasn't. It was just a way of pandering to the slaveowning states.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> No, it wasn't. It was just a way of pandering to the slaveowning states.



Better to say they counted as something than nothing at all, despite what you say about the motives. Someone else explained it quite well, that by southern state laws, blacks were not legally US citizens - they were property and by some accounts not even considered human. And the conflict was in that according to the constitution, only US citizens could count towards state populations and over all representation in congress. This contributed to a greater amount of resentment between southern states and northern, because it increased the mentality that the north was "oppressing" the south. Thus a wedge was further drawn between the two sides.

As of now, there is no target for such a law in this country, and we should hope there never is again.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah the guy is a raving lunatic, but then again it's like watching Glenn Beck and seeing him go on those rants



No its not.  Glenn is never rude to his guests and only goes on rants when he is in monologue.  Also, Glenn is _*acting*_ and its kind of sad that liberals and Democrats didn't pick that up, the fact that he acts out for show.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> No its not.  Glenn is never rude to his guests and only goes on rants when he is in monologue.  Also, Glenn is _*acting*_ and its kind of sad that liberals and Democrats didn't pick that up, the fact that he acts out for show.


He's not acting, he's a lunatic. The guy acts like someone who should be medicated.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> Yes, because taking away guns will stop criminals, with plans to commit more horrendous crimes, from breaking that law, just as well as the laws against weed have taken it off the streets.



...Are you really comparing weed to guns? Because I hope you understand the difference between a gun that:


> Here's my problem with the focus on 'assault weapons': what people are really talking about are not weapons that are designed to look like military weapons- that's merely cosmetic and it always diverts the conversation. What they are really talking about are *three features* - the fact that these rifles are *semi automatic*, that *they are designed to accept high capacity magazines* and that they are often - not always but often - *chambered for small, high velocity rounds, rounds designed to break up in the body and cause maximum damage*.




and smoking a blunt. Guess which is more likely to kill people as intent in design goes. Talk of "they want to take all their guns" is a lazy strawman in an attempt to pretend as if there isn't the solid argument about reasonable gun safety.

I believe what you're supposed to specify is the matter of demand being an issue with demand for guns in the U.S. being quite high. But it doesn't mean we pretend that if we had a high demand for rocket propelled grenade launchers that they should be legal to own.


> This ignores the fact that killers who don't go on loud shooting rampages, kill far more children (and adults), even without the use of guns (such as those who use... say fertilizer or gas?), because their methods of killing are more subtle, less loud, and can go on for years before they're caught, since they don't draw nearly as much attention to themselves.


No, it's more that it keeps in mind the intent in design of a weapon that has no real civilian purpose while there's the chilling comparison of 20 plus dead children by a firearm in a massacred compared to a comparable attack upon over 20 children... that results in injuries rather than fatalities because the Chinese assailant used a knife.

The argument that there are other things that kill is a lazy weak argument to pretend that gun safety and reasonable regulation can't be considered just because there's always something that can be potentially weapon even though the number of designed uses are well beyond just that.


> The real danger is in the PEOPLE who commit the crimes. It matters not their method of killing. The more subtle ones are the most dangerous. If you want to know the painful truth; *had those teachers been armed with guns, they'd have saved a lot more lives.*


Saved more lives like the armed guards for Columbine? Saved more lives like the Fort Hood shooting at a MILITARY BASE? Because the fact of the matter is that it's not a given that having armed people around solved those shootings nor should it be some heroic fantasy for this one.



Jυstin said:


> People like Kim Jong, *Hitler*, and Stalin opposed the Second Amendment right,


On Hitler, actually:



So, besides the myth about sweeping Nazi gun control as if gun control only existed after the Third Reich were VOTED into power, are you suggesting that Jews armed with pistols and hunter's rifles were doing to do what to the Nazi war machine that consisted of, at the time, the most advanced tanks among other vehicles, artillery, automatic military weapons, and such?

Because the fact of the matter is that the U.S. military isn't going to be defeated by a bunch of people armed with the firearms that currently exist for the U.S. gun owners.

Also, the suggestion of some people's militia defeating the big bad government and restoring order is not only a suggestion of treason in terms of the U.S. but historically is non-sense as multitudes of examples in numerous countries stuck with civil war or had their government's overthrown only to have in power a group with little interest in democracy:



Also, this idea of harping about the 2nd Amendment is an idiotic joke where so many of these 2nd Amendment protectionist ignore the numerous freaking amendments that maintain our society's continuing democratic structure and stability that have been endangered during the Bush and even more so during the Obama administration:


> If you're looking for considered objections, read Matt Steinglass in The Economist. In this item, we're going to proceed as if the arguments above are correct -- that there is a real danger of the U.S. government growing tyrannical; that the people must preserve checks on its power; and that the Framers best understood how to do so.
> 
> I respect that general reasoning.
> 
> ...





> It's one thing to argue that gun control legislation is a nonstarter, despite tens of thousands of deaths by gunshot per year, because the safeguards articulated in the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct. I can respect that... but not from people who simultaneously insist that 3,000 dead in a terrorist attack justifies departing from the plain text of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, and giving the president de-facto power to declare war without Congressional approval.
> 
> The conservative movement has a broad, textualist reading of the 2nd Amendment... and nothing else.
> 
> ...






Jυstin said:


> while people like George Washington, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson supported it. I think the choice of who to trust is clear.



Actually, to burst your bubble of ignorance:



> The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
> 
> For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.




So, a lot of this 2nd Amendment protectionist stuff is...well... bullshit.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I'm just posting the words of our wise founding fathers, and my rights. I know them, and I'll be damned if they try to violate them, and turn our country into the very thing we originally separated from, or worse. They're certainly not ramblings.



What they were are nervously blurted out facts, defenses, and off-topic conversation changers because he does not know how to communicate on television or with anyone who wants to debate.  He seriously needs to take conversation courses if he expects to get anywhere if he has anything productive to say.


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

Holy shit Justin....



Jυstin said:


> I have... a quick simple question. Do you know why we were given the right to bear arms in the first place?



According to the constitution, to protect us from a corrupt govt. However, you know nothing, so here's a little context of you. The constitution was made at a time where people had just won liberty from a govt they believed was tyrannical and wanted nothing of it - The British Empire. They sought to step away from anything that even remotely resembled the English. One step toward that was to arm civilians thinking they would be on even footing with an evil govt. 

But the fact is this: the govt does not have to exert tyranny by hostile takeover of its people. Money can have an even bigger impact on people given the right circumstances, and I'd have thought recent history was proof of this.



Jυstin said:


> You misunderstand what that part of the document meant. It meant that slave states could count each black person as 3/5ths of a person, so every 15 slaves, counts as 10 for the over all population.
> 
> The reason they wanted this was to balance the powers of congress since northern states that had already abolished slavery and southern states had fewer representatives. This way slaves would count towards the population and southern states would get more people in congress. It did not impose nor enforce slavery at all.





Jυstin said:


> In a nation where slavery was law and the rest of the nation didn't believe slaves counted as anything? I believe that clause has relevance only pertaining to such a nation, am I wrong? I don't believe we are a slave nation anymore. In the context of when it was written, it was done so to give some power, some humanity to the slaves. It didn't outright abolish slavery right then, but it was a step in that direction.



We're not a slave nation anymore and it's extremely unlikely we ever would be anymore. So why keep the clause? Why defend it when it was set up specifically to throw it right in the slave population's face that they're subhuman? That it still exists ought to be insulting, not praiseworthy.



Jυstin said:


> That was just a phrase, so you may take your anti-Christian sentiments elsewhere. The leaders who established this right did believe in a higher power, and thus didn't believe themselves to be the people's "god". They established the freedom of speech, of possession of arms, etc., as a "God-given" right, so the government wouldn't think too high and mighty of itself, and believe itself worthy of taking those rights away, despite the fact that the creation of this nation rested the power with the people, not the government. The Constitution exists to restrict the powers of the government, but as we see, the people are the ones... whose power is being restricted.



Let me ask you this: who is anyone to determine what is a God-given right? You just said it yourself, perhaps without realizing, that a group of men suddenly thought it was a good idea to say the right to bear arms is a God-given right so that people wouldn't think the govt was giving itself the airs. Don't you see how obvious a ploy this is? You just admitted it's NOT in fact a God-given right.

But who am I kidding? I can't take a guy who defends the 3/5ths cause seriously.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He's not acting, he's a lunatic. The guy acts like someone who should be medicated.





Whenever he was wrong, he admitted it.  Perhaps I assume people are intelligent enough to get the difference between someone being sarcastic and someone legitimately being nervous.  He says so many things off the wall that are meant to grab your attention and make you laugh at the absurdity, then adding in a truthful sentence that goes well with the previous gimmick phrase.  Then again, someone else on these forums said only a Republican would know the difference.  

And yes, half of his performance is comedic acting.


----------



## Draxo (Jan 8, 2013)

mortsleam said:


> I still don't know if Alex Jones is a disinformation agent or not but a lot of things he says are legitimate besides all the fear-mongering.



This.

And frankly i'm with him on this one.  Morgan is a scumbag and I will happily applaud anyone who gives him a piece of their mind, as they have a right to do regardless of their PoV.  Unless he wants to take that right away too.


----------



## navy (Jan 8, 2013)

It's it  like when you tune into  AlSharpton or Limbaugh to start laughing, Sara?


----------



## navy (Jan 8, 2013)

Draxo said:


> This.
> 
> And frankly i'm with him on this one.  Morgan is a scumbag and I will happily applaud anyone who gives him a piece of their mind, as they have a right to do regardless of their PoV.  Unless he wants to take that right away too.



Remember though, All rights are man made.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

Draxo said:


> This.
> 
> And frankly i'm with him on this one.  Morgan is a scumbag and I will happily applaud anyone who gives him a piece of their mind, as they have a right to do regardless of their PoV.  Unless he wants to take that right away too.



Because we all know that Morgan disagreeing with the 2nd Amendment with his voiced opinion is magically not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Cause why bother talking about changes to the constitution when you can throw someone out of the country for making use of the very first freaking amendment. Because Morgan is the one we should worry about rather than a group of people who want to punish him with a banishment from our land for using the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 8, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> Whenever he was wrong, he admitted it.  Perhaps I assume people are intelligent enough to get the difference between someone being sarcastic and someone legitimately being nervous.  He says so many things off the wall that are meant to grab your attention and make you laugh at the absurdity, then adding in a truthful sentence that goes well with the previous gimmick phrase.  Then again, someone else on these forums said only a Republican would know the difference.
> 
> And yes, half of his performance is comedic acting.



Talk about a completely wrong use of macro.  

Can you get more apologist?


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 8, 2013)

Impressive, someone can sit next to Piers Morgan and he isn't the biggest twat there. When I think Americans couldn't sink any longer they surprise me.


----------



## Toroxus (Jan 8, 2013)

Why is this a topic about gun control when all it is is a video of some stupid fuck getting mad, bro?


----------



## Mansali (Jan 8, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Why is this a topic about gun control when all it is is a video of some stupid fuck getting mad, bro?



This is the guy who started the petition to deport Piers Morgan for his views on gun control.

[YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v0sE9hAXXB4[/YOUTUBE]

Alex Jones talking about what happened during the interview lol


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

Lol of course security asked them to leave. He was literally about to rip Morgan's throat out if you hadn't known any better. And if he really believed that Piers Morgan was a thug like everyone in "Bloomberg town" he had even more reason to be respectful rather than hostile during the interview. It's not as if anyone pointed any guns at him. If he really thought he was in the right, he could've easily answered Morgan's questions and turn the debate against him but half of his debate was slandering the interview. He can complain about how disrespectful Morgan was (which he was not), he didn't show any respect himself.


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

mortsleam said:


> And you have to get mad at Morgan he's an asshole if you don't scream at him he will Bill O'rielly you. Call you a loony or scream back at you.



/thread

Morgan is a huge ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). He got kicked out of the UK for a reason.


----------



## Mansali (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> /thread
> 
> Morgan is a huge ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). He got kicked out of the UK for a reason.



This has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> /thread
> 
> Morgan is a huge ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). He got kicked out of the UK for a reason.



You don't respond to being a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) by being the greater ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). Jones came out of that "debate" looking like the loser. What he should've done was let Morgan be a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), and a lot more people would've respected him for it. Now instead, Morgan's the one looking like the better man.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

I made a comment to the member Tyrael last night that despite Morgan being a rude ass, he's different for the US than the UK, here he's like a Dark Knight. He's the kind of reporter the US needs more of, but doesn't want. 

In the UK you will see reporters do shit they'd never do here. They show over whelming respect even when the person they are talking to makes no sense in the US, over there that kind of shit would get a politician blasted. 



oprisco said:


> /thread
> 
> Morgan is a huge ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). He got kicked out of the UK for a reason.


Maybe people would give a shit about your stupid opinion if Morgan had been allowed the speak AT ALL.


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Now instead, Morgan's the one looking like the better man.



to who? not to me. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I made a comment to the member Tyrael last night that despite Morgan being a rude ass, he's different for the US than the UK, here he's like a Dark Knight. He's the kind of reporter the US needs more of, but doesn't want.
> 
> In the UK you will see reporters do shit they'd never do here. They show over whelming respect even when the person they are talking to makes no sense in the US, over there that kind of shit would get a politician blasted.
> Maybe people would give a shit about your stupid opinion if Morgan had been allowed the speak AT ALL.



Lol. He's already been allowed to speak on too many occasions. There are several petitions going against Morgan. For a reason. The UK should ship him asap back to them !


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> Lol. He's already been allowed to speak on too many occasions. There are several petitions going against Morgan. For a reason. The UK should ship him asap back to them !


Don't you fucking realize that the first amendment protects from that kind of shit? For one he's gainfully employed, more so than most of the slack jawed fucktards signing the petitions. 

How can you try to hang one man off the first amendment and then spend all your time trying to protect the second at any cost?


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Don't you fucking realize that the first amendment protects from that kind of shit? For one he's gainfully employed, more so than most of the slack jawed fucktards signing the petitions.
> 
> How can you try to hang one man off the first amendment and then spend all your time trying to protect the second at any cost?



Isn't it hypocrisy to make use of the first amendment when the same person is trying to take the 2nd amendment away from the people? Both are sacred!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> Isn't it hypocrisy to make use of the first amendment when the same person is trying to take the 2nd amendment away from the people? Both are sacred!


First off, the first is much more sacred than the second, no matter what you say. 

And he's not trying to take away all your guns, you don't pay attention. This is about the assault rifles ban--which should have never been allowed to expire.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

The First Amendment is the most basic requirement of a successful democracy, the second not so much.


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> to who? not to me.



Why? Because he couldn't act like a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) as you hoped due to the fact he wasn't even given a chance to speak?



oprisco said:


> Lol. He's already been allowed to speak on too many occasions. There are several petitions going against Morgan. For a reason. The UK should ship him asap back to them !



That's the same kind of rhetoric Jones used. So let's say Morgan is the douche that you think he is. Why is Jones the better man here when half his argument was to insult and slander Morgan. How does that make Jones look better?


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The First Amendment is the most basic requirement of a successful democracy, the second not so much.



History disagrees with you.


*Spoiler*: __ 



A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
-----------------------------

*Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.*


----------



## Cromer (Jan 8, 2013)

Piers Morgan is an utter plonk. And yet I found myself almost pitying him in this matter.


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

Oprisco. All your examples are examples of dictatorship countries. Considering the US is a democratic country, it's hard to think your examples hold any relevancy at all.

On another note, civilian access to guns isn't stopping the US govt from sending innocent people to Guantanamo or allow authorities to point fingers at any random bloke and say he's a terrorist because the NDAA permits it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

That was a terrible attempt of correlation two clearly separate events.  Trying to make it as if gun laws led to all of those, and a lack of would've prevented them is fallacious,  dishonest,  and lacking in common sense.  Understand that weapons or not a government military will steamroll any civilian militia. To argue that it is essential or even feasible for civilians to fight a military of our size and firepower is laughable. Also,  I liked that  you excluded any democracies or the current democratic incarnations of many of those nations that still have regulatory gun laws. 

I am not against owning guns entirely, but a civilian should have no business having an assault weapon expressly designed to kill en masse.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> History disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Comparing us to third world countries and post war Germany? 

How about this, and if you had seen the rest of the the show you'd know this because Morgan brought it up, his country--the UK banned firearms in the late 90s after a school shooting. 

It's been about sixteen years and no one has been rounded up and herded onto prison buses. 

Stop putting your fucking foot in your mouth, there's an argument for keeping hang guns and simple rifles, but not assault rifles.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

No one needs an assault rifle. To go hunting? The fuck are you going after? Dragons? 

Self Defense?  Must have pissed off a lot of people.


----------



## Raiden (Jan 8, 2013)

The bigger problem here is cultural insensitivity.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

Raiden said:


> The bigger problem here is cultural insensitivity.



What do you mean?


----------



## Raiden (Jan 8, 2013)

He doesn't think Piers Morgan is an American.

He mocks him with a British accent at the end, calling it "fancy." In other words, he was intimated by the way that Morgan spoke.

The reason he's so passionate isn't really a gun issue. 

American's aren't taught anything about the rest of the world. And their history books romanticize just about everything the country has done. Moreover, often they don't expose themselves to people who would challenge such views.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> History disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



This has well enough been responded to but I'll add a bit. First, there was freaking gun control in Germany before the Third Reich came into power. Gun control actually was weakened to the relative standards afterward to what we kind of have in the states. And, yes, comparing a first world democracy with numerous protections for the public to third world countries and dictatorships is an ignorant comparison.



> Obviously, Joseph Story was wrong. Militia are hopelessly inadequate as a means of defending a free country. While "people's war" militia-based strategies have been employed to wear down invading armies in numerous countries over the past century, not one of those countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, southern Lebanon, etc) is "free". This is not an accident of history. Freedom is the product of orderly democratic governance and the rule of law. Popular militias are overwhelming likely to foster not democracy or the rule of law, but warlordism, tribalism and civil war. In Lebanon, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories and elsewhere, we see that militias of armed private citizens rip apart weak democratic states in order to prey upon local populations in authoritarian sub-states or fiefdoms. Free states are defended by standing armies, not militias, because free states enjoy the consent of the governed, which allows them to maintain effective standing armies. Like every other free country apart from Costa Rica, the United States has a standing army in times of peace, and has since 1791, when the founding fathers realised a standing army would be necessary to fight the irregular popular militias of the continent's Native American peoples. (Guess who won?)





> As crummy as popular militias have proven at defending against "sudden foreign invasions", they've been even worse at defending against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers". There is, I think, not a single case in modern history, certainly not since the invention of the Gatling gun. No popular militia has ever prevented the seizure of power by an authoritarian ruler. In countries with well-established democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers are rare; when they occur, popular militias do not resist, or are ruthlessly crushed by national armed forces. In countries with weak democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers sometimes go smoothly, or in other cases touch off periods of civil war, which are resolved when one faction finally defeats the others and imposes authoritarian rule. Name your authoritarian takeover: Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Egypt, Libya, Brazil, Greece, Spain, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Chile, Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Syria—popular militias never resist authoritarian takeover and preserve democracy or civil freedoms. That is a thing that happens in silly movies. It is not a thing that happens in the world.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Raiden said:


> He doesn't think Piers Morgan is an American.
> 
> He mocks him with a British accent at the end, calling it "fancy." In other words, he was intimated by the way that Morgan spoke.
> 
> ...



This bothered me a lot too, he stopped at blaming Piers for the Revolutionary war...but he did call him a fucking red coat in the midst of all that.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 8, 2013)

With the mocking accent, he was being insensitive but the other parts like when he said "Come to America, I'll take you shooting and join the Republic" and "Don't do what your ancestors tried to do" was more like just cultural ignorance.  Like people who are so ingrained in racism they don't even realize when they say something terribly offensive.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Mider T said:


> With the mocking accent, he was being insensitive but the other parts like when he said "Come to America, I'll take you shooting and join the Republic" and "Don't do what your ancestors tried to do" was more like just cultural ignorance.  Like people who are so ingrained in racism they don't even realize when they say something terribly offensive.



That's what it is though, then these people champion this as patriotism and not letting outsiders run things. 

They say idiotic shit like "Why should America, the greatest country in the world listen to non-American ideas?"

Well because you still think we're the Greatest country...and I just realized what he meant about the Republic...these people need to get over this shit about Texas independence.


----------



## Chausie (Jan 8, 2013)

Please don't send Piers Morgan back. We're quite happy with him being over in your side of the world. We don't need him, honest.



oprisco said:


> History disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...




Ahhh I getcha'. So that means us in the UK are going to get rounded up and fed to the Queen? Australia too? 

And countless other countries which have very strict laws on guns.

Like with everything in life, there is a good and a bad side. To only pick and choose the parts which support your argument, and ignore the parts which don't, is silly.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

I think Oprisco isn't really trying to even see the other side of the argument.


----------



## Chausie (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think Oprisco isn't really trying to even see the other side of the argument.



How can anyone not see the other side of an argument like this?

One of the basic things you learn growing up from your parents and in school is to try and see the other side of an argument, even if you don't agree. Especially if you don't agree.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Don't you fucking realize that the first amendment protects from that kind of shit? For one he's gainfully employed, more so than most of the slack jawed fucktards signing the petitions.
> 
> How can you try to hang one man off the first amendment and then spend all your time trying to protect the second at any cost?





oprisco said:


> Isn't it hypocrisy to make use of the first amendment when the same person is trying to take the 2nd amendment away from the people? Both are sacred!



Both the First and the Second are sacred and should be treasured. No free man should be debarred either, though it is ironic when a bunch of protestors use their free speech to speak out against the right to freedom of speech.

I mean it's their right, but considering that it's because of free speech that they're allowed to do that, it's a little bit pathetically humorous.

_"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?"_ *-Joseph Stalin* 

If you let them take away one right (like guns), you're only opening the door for them to take more (like freedom of speech, which political correctness has already been slowly doing).



Freedan said:


> Oprisco. All your examples are examples of dictatorship countries. Considering the US is a democratic country, it's hard to think your examples hold any relevancy at all.
> 
> On another note, civilian access to guns isn't stopping the US govt from sending innocent people to Guantanamo or allow authorities to point fingers at any random bloke and say he's a terrorist because the NDAA permits it.



The balance of power has shifted heavily to the government. Thomas Jefferson warned us about this, about becoming as oppressive as the government we (at that time) separated from. We're not as much of a democracy as we used to be. We will only remain as such so long as the people remember their rights and their freedoms and actively fight to keep threats, both foreign and domestic, from taking them away.

We shouldn't be so quick to believe this cannot happen in the US, simply by dint of it being the US. That kind of unguarded thinking is what allows things like that to happen. That's what has allowed it to happen throughout history - people allowing it to happen.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No one needs an assault rifle. To go hunting? The fuck are you going after? Dragons?
> 
> Self Defense?  Must have pissed off a lot of people.



The Second Amendment was not created so we could go hunting, nor is it limited to self-defense against simple burglars. It was, and this is quoted, for the preservation of our freedom against any and all threats to that freedom, including our own government. We were even told that the beauty of the Second Amendment, is that it will not be specifically needed until "they" try to take it away.

These aren't just some simple thug threats it protects the people against. They cannot try to take away our rights.


But if people want to give up their guns, like so many have before, then fine. Let natural selection take its course on them. They'll only have themselves to blame.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> The balance of power has shifter heavily to the government. Thomas Jefferson warned us about this, about becoming as oppressive as the government we (at that time) separated from. *We're not as much of a democracy as we used to be.* We will only remain as such so long as the people remember their rights and their freedoms and actively fight to keep threats, both foreign and domestic, from taking them away.


You're suggesting that the U.S. was more of a democracy during a time when women, minorities, and even, initially, any white male who didn't own land, couldn't vote? Are you suggesting the Bill of Rights has somehow made the U.S. less democratic?

Again, the 2nd amendment isn't the first nor most important of amendments required for maintaining democracy in the U.S. I find it hilarious how you keep harping on the 2nd amendment while numerous more important amendments are being endangered during the current presidential administration.

And again, your claims about the founding fathers is based in myth when:


> The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
> 
> For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.




and once again:


> Obviously, Joseph Story was wrong. Militia are hopelessly inadequate as a means of defending a free country. While "people's war" militia-based strategies have been employed to wear down invading armies in numerous countries over the past century, not one of those countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, southern Lebanon, etc) is "free". This is not an accident of history. Freedom is the product of orderly democratic governance and the rule of law. Popular militias are overwhelming likely to foster not democracy or the rule of law, but warlordism, tribalism and civil war. In Lebanon, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories and elsewhere, we see that militias of armed private citizens rip apart weak democratic states in order to prey upon local populations in authoritarian sub-states or fiefdoms. Free states are defended by standing armies, not militias, because free states enjoy the consent of the governed, which allows them to maintain effective standing armies. Like every other free country apart from Costa Rica, the United States has a standing army in times of peace, and has since 1791, when the founding fathers realised a standing army would be necessary to fight the irregular popular militias of the continent's Native American peoples. (Guess who won?)





> As crummy as popular militias have proven at defending against "sudden foreign invasions", they've been even worse at defending against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers". There is, I think, not a single case in modern history, certainly not since the invention of the Gatling gun. No popular militia has ever prevented the seizure of power by an authoritarian ruler. In countries with well-established democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers are rare; when they occur, popular militias do not resist, or are ruthlessly crushed by national armed forces. In countries with weak democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers sometimes go smoothly, or in other cases touch off periods of civil war, which are resolved when one faction finally defeats the others and imposes authoritarian rule. Name your authoritarian takeover: Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Egypt, Libya, Brazil, Greece, Spain, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Chile, Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Syria—popular militias never resist authoritarian takeover and preserve democracy or civil freedoms. That is a thing that happens in silly movies. It is not a thing that happens in the world.





So, stop with the 2nd Amendment protectionist bull crap. Suggesting the right to treason isn't a good argument. Pretending that there isn't to be had an argument about gun safety is just being dishonest or ignorant.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Chausie said:


> How can anyone not see the other side of an argument like this?
> 
> One of the basic things you learn growing up from your parents and in school is to try and see the other side of an argument, even if you don't agree. Especially if you don't agree.



In America, school might teach that, society doesn't.



Jυstin said:


> Both the First and the Second are sacred and should be treasured. No free man should be debarred either, though it is ironic when a bunch of protestors use their free speech to speak out against the right to freedom of speech.



It's this kind of stupid shit that tells me that we need to revist the entire Constitution, though the Republicans are currently so stupid that they'd try to slip shit in about rape or abortion instead of doing their jobs and jam up the whole process. 

The first Amendment is clearly the most important, while I don't think guns should be banned, I would rather them go than free speech.


----------



## Daxter (Jan 8, 2013)

Raiden said:


> He doesn't think Piers Morgan is an American.
> 
> He mocks him with a British accent at the end, calling it "fancy." In other words, he was intimated by the way that Morgan spoke.
> 
> ...



Brilliant point. I agree with it so much, and see this as a repetitive theme unfortunately.

Like most people, I've always thought Morgan was nothing short of a piece of shit, and still do, but it's certainly not because he's British. His stance (or what little we could hear of it) is shared by people within America too, not just outside it, and has very little to do with his being from the UK. 

I think it, especially with the mocking of the accent at the end, shows how more of the ignorant and/or nationalistic population of the States view outsiders - based on circulated stereotypes and quite possibly irrational fear.

It's pretty sad.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> You're suggesting that the U.S. was more of a democracy during a time when women, minorities, and even, initially, any white male who didn't own land, couldn't vote? Are you suggesting the Bill of Rights has somehow made the U.S. less democratic?
> 
> Again, the 2nd amendment isn't the first nor most important of amendments required for maintaining democracy in the U.S. I find it hilarious how you keep harping on the 2nd amendment while numerous more important amendments are being endangered during the current presidential administration.
> 
> ...



No. I'm not going back _that_ far, nor am I comparing our democracy now to our democracy _way_ back then. I'm not sure... why you are either, unless to exaggerate what I said to the point where it sounds ridiculous. The waning I'm talking about is now vs... not even 2 decades ago.

You should really read the top portion of my post. Naturally, since this thread is about gun control, or it's mentioned, I'm going to bring up the Second Amendment, and I'll be damned if they take that away, but that's only a fraction of our problems. Our freedom of speech has also waned over the years, and I'm aware of that as well. I value the Second Amendment because it allows us the means to preserve our other freedoms (such as listed in the First Amendment), or that's what it was created for. I don't only care about our Second Amendment, but I don't want them even to have a stepping stone to taking away other rights. This is something I will not, nor should I have to, budge on.

The first quote you posted sounds very different to what the quotes of the founding fathers. and what's written in the constitution, say. To the point where I question its validity, or wonder if they are the same specific people. 

The latter quotes seem to be demonizing the personal possession of guns, or at the very least, saying, "We can't beat them anyway, so fuck it. Don't even try. Just give in and surrender.". I've never been a very good defeatist. It also does nothing to refute the facts posted from that video which list all of those genocides following gun control. We'll remain a democracy as long as our freedoms also remain, but if you let them take this, or any of the other rights that you yourself mentioned are at stake, is that democracy?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's this kind of stupid shit that tells me that we need to revist the entire Constitution, though the Republicans are currently so stupid that they'd try to slip shit in about rape or abortion instead of doing their jobs and jam up the whole process.
> 
> The first Amendment is clearly the most important, while I don't think guns should be banned, I would rather them go than free speech.



I'm not sure what you're arguing with me here. I already said the First Amendment is important. Even Joseph Stalin admitted that ideas are more powerful than guns. The Second Amendment gives the people a means for defending the First. When I mentioned the right to bear arms being given for us to preserve our freedom, it was more than just the freedom to bear arms. It includes all our freedoms.

Essentially, it's a fail safe so, if needed, we can defend our other rights, by force if necessary, if they should try to take away those freedoms, by force, regardless of whether or not their force is greater.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No one needs an assault rifle. To go hunting? The fuck are you going after? Dragons?
> 
> Self Defense?  Must have pissed off a lot of people.


Assault Rifles are no match for dragons, they've got like an AC in the 30s


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

> No. I'm not going back that far, nor am I comparing our democracy now to our democracy way back then. I'm not sure... why you are either, unless to exaggerate what I said to the point where it sounds ridiculous. The waning I'm talking about is now vs... not even 2 decades ago.



Here's the issue with your worship of the founding fathers. A lot of them were slave owners. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who intellectually knew the wrong of it but never would commit the practical. The time of the founding fathers is relatively less democratic when, once again, only white males could vote. So, I would rather operate on what I consider viable now rather than lazily treating the Constitution as a bible.

While, once again, the waning you talk of seems pretty ignorant when all you've brought up is guns and free speech only after someone else mentioned the latter.



Jυstin said:


> You should really read the top portion of my post. Naturally, since this thread is about gun control, or it's mentioned, I'm going to bring up the Second Amendment, and I'll be damned if they take that away, *but that's only a fraction of our problems. Our freedom of speech has also waned over the years, and I'm aware of that as well.* I value the Second Amendment because it allows us the means to preserve our other freedoms (such as listed in the First Amendment), or that's what it was created for. I don't only care about our Second Amendment, but I don't want them even to have a stepping stone to taking away other rights. This is something I will not, nor should I have to, budge on.


...If you really think I'm only thinking about the 1st Amendment being endangered by the Obama administration, no, you don't even know how much a fraction of the problem you're only focused upon. There's more than just the 1st Amendment and your fear over the 2nd Amendment. Which is why I've posted that the 2nd Amendment is pretty much the last thing I'm worried about compared to violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, and giving the president de-facto power to declare war without Congressional approval. 


> The first quote you posted sounds very different to what the quotes of the founding fathers. and what's written in the constitution, say. To the point where I question its validity, or wonder if they are the same specific people.



Holy ignorance. Gun policy in terms of what the founding fathers did in practice doesn't have to be reflected in just quotes and parts of the Constitution that you like. What's next? Questioning the fact that white males that didn't own land originally weren't allowed to vote because of the text "all men are created equal?" The founding fathers had an organized militia they themselves need for revolution where it makes sense to register said weapons while living guns lying around for people who haven't agreed to their revolution sounds like a pretty stupid way to have the red coats have access to more guns and ammo. So, again, the founding fathers were actually people. People do things outside the bounds of the documents they create where law of then, onward, and now isn't only recorded within a few select quotes and one document.


> The latter quotes seem to be demonizing the personal possession of guns, or at the very least, saying, "We can't beat them anyway, so fuck it. Don't even try. Just give in and surrender.". I've never been a very good defeatist.


No, it's making it clear that the claim that democracy will be saved by a people's militia to be something that only exist in fiction. It says nothing about just giving in and surrender but lists out numerous nations and historical precedents that makes the idea of people's militia saving democracy to be a load of bullshit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I'm not sure what you're arguing with me here. I already said the First Amendment is important. Even Joseph Stalin admitted that ideas are more powerful than guns. The Second Amendment gives the people a means for defending the First. When I mentioned the right to bear arms being given for us to preserve our freedom, it was more than just the freedom to bear arms. It includes all our freedoms.
> 
> Essentially, it's a fail safe so, if needed, we can defend our other rights, by force if necessary, if they should try to take away those freedoms, by force, regardless of whether or not their force is greater.



Because you keep saying stupid things? 

You couldn't repel a government attack.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You couldn't repel a government attack.



Pretty much.  The people we decimate in other countries have assault rifles and they're not even close to a match for our military.  With our current level of military technology the government could just send a swarm of unmanned drones over an area and rain down hell.

How are hand guns supposed to compete with that?


----------



## Plague (Jan 8, 2013)

As over the top as Alex was, I actually liked seeing it. Someone yelling over Piers (and making fun of his accent right to his face lol). 

But more importantly, I do think Alex made some good points, and take his side overall. I'm a pro-gun guy myself.

Yeah, I know Alex was nuts, but I dislike Piers so I am biased hahaha


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Pretty much.  The people we decimate in other countries have assault rifles and they're not even close to a match for our military.  With our current level of military technology the government could just send a swarm of unmanned drones over an area and rain down hell.
> 
> How are hand guns supposed to compete with that?


Also, firing at armed drones causes them to shoot back using the trajectory of the bullet to hit you.



Plague said:


> As over the top as Alex was, I actually liked  seeing it. Someone yelling over Piers (and making fun of his accent  right to his face lol).
> 
> But more importantly, I do think Alex made some good points, and take his side overall. I'm a pro-gun guy myself.



Great, another one of these people to make moderate gun users/owners/advocates look crazy.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

You guys are still fucking arguing with these xenophobic ignorant clowns? Jesus christ, now your just post grabbing

What's sad is that more people are coming in here agreeing with them the more you give them the satisfaction of your time.

Piers Morgan versus the piece of shit called Alex Jones is not even a contest, its people like that who make the rest of the world think we're jokes in every area.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

There's still something to be said about people who think that calling British people red coats and owning fifty guns when you're obviously crazy is okay.


----------



## Tyrael (Jan 8, 2013)

- A perspective from a man with mental health issues, well worth a read. He actually supports gun ownership, but does think it needs to be tightened up a lot.

*

Jones, to be fair, does bring up a few salient points amongst his juvenile screaming and aggressive xenophobia - Switzerland and lower crime rates in heavily armed areas is one I really wanna address.

The point being that the violent crime rates are not caused by gun ownership. Which is true - I can't actually disagree. The point I would make is that, whilst guns may not cause violent crime, they do enable it to be more effective.

Like if you knew a person who was violent. He wouldn't be any less violent if you take away anything that can be used as a weapon - but his ability to cause damage would be lessened greatly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910 - Happened the same week as the school shooting, nobody died. If he'd had a gun, well...


----------



## Cinna (Jan 8, 2013)

Wow Alex Jones is creepy, man. I feel sorry for you America. That you have to deal with idiots like that. My condolences. Every point he ever tried to make, was in drowned in fear-mongering half-truths and full-blown bullshit. WTF

WTF are SUICIDE PILLS?????? WTF?

Piers is a slimey guy, but since he's been in the US he seems like a reasonable guy. Says a lot about the US if you ask me.


----------



## Plague (Jan 8, 2013)

I think the "suicide" pills he mentioned were Anti-depressants (like Prozac) that a lot of school shooters are on when they commit the crimes or commit suicide.


----------



## Ceria (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> She needed one of those African Vagina traps.



that or one of those mace can keychains.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

Can someone tell me the things Piers Morgan has done to make him so despised?


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> Here's the issue with your worship of the founding fathers. A lot of them were slave owners. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who intellectually knew the wrong of it but never would commit the practical. The time of the founding fathers is relatively less democratic when, once again, only white males could vote. So, I would rather operate on what I consider viable now rather than lazily treating the Constitution as a bible.
> 
> While, once again, the waning you talk of seems pretty ignorant when all you've brought up is guns and free speech only after someone else mentioned the latter.



That's why I've committed to, and mentioned their words, and not their actions. I make sure I understand why we are given the rights we've given, before lazily accepting it.

That's because this was originally about guns, about the right to bear arms. I would rather not carry the conversation too off topic, but when the right to freedom of speech was brought up, of course I'd comment on that. We were given the right to bear arms as a means to (attempt at least) preserve all of our other freedoms as well, and not just that one freedom.

I mean, if we're going to talk about other rights, the Obamacare bill includes in it,and this can be cited, that the government has permission (by none other than itself lol) to enter the homes of expecting couples (an invasion of privacy without legitimate cause) and TELL them how to parent.

I even wonder why we were lied to about how the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden died. We were told they committed suicide, but they died in a plane crash, which was involved with Hilary's plane crash, which was what resulted in her bruises and brain blood clots, which deterred her from testifying on the Benghazi incident. I would question why they would lie about that, but I'm reminded that they lied, more than once, about that very Benghazi story.



> ...If you really think I'm only thinking about the 1st Amendment being endangered by the Obama administration, no, you don't even know how much a fraction of the problem you're only focused upon. There's more than just the 1st Amendment and your fear over the 2nd Amendment. Which is why I've posted that the 2nd Amendment is pretty much the last thing I'm worried about compared to violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, and giving the president de-facto power to declare war without Congressional approval.



You should see my facebook page. It's littered with articles, not limited to our right to bear arms. I know here I'm only focused on a fraction, because that's what the thread is on, but elsewhere, I've been sharing info on much more. We also have violations on our 10th Amendment, and I've warned a friend that Obama might even try to extend how many terms he can serve, which  my friend said couldn't happen, but now I've recently heard that Obama is trying to rewrite the 22nd Amendment so that he can serve additional (and perhaps indefinite) terms. When I see my friend again, I will be telling him to have marked my words. I admittedly didn't even know about the 22nd Amendment, but I could see through Obama and just knew he'd try something like this, to stay in office longer.

I am also aware of Obama skipping Congressional approval. He pretends to go through the system, play by the rules, but when he doesn't get his way, he slips things by through a back door. It's not the first time he's done it. I believe he sold key islands of Alaska, to Russia, without letting anyone (namely Congress or the people) even know about it. People deny he does this, yet we have a VIDEO of Leon Panetta telling Congress that the Administration will go to the UN for permission to go to war, and will merely tell Congress of their decision, without gaining Congressional approval. I still can't fathom how people can deny this is happening... when it's on video.



> Holy ignorance. Gun policy in terms of what the founding fathers did in practice doesn't have to be reflected in just quotes and parts of the Constitution that you like. What's next? Questioning the fact that white males that didn't own land originally weren't allowed to vote because of the text "all men are created equal?" The founding fathers had an organized militia they themselves need for revolution where it makes sense to register said weapons while living guns lying around for people who haven't agreed to their revolution sounds like a pretty stupid way to have the red coats have access to more guns and ammo. So, again, the founding fathers were actually people. People do things outside the bounds of the documents they create where law of then, onward, and now isn't only recorded within a few select quotes and one document.



It's true that corruption exists in our government, and in our leaders, and I'm glad you brought that up, because so many people believe the government is full of angels out for our benefit. Now, I've been following the words of these founders, and what is written, and not the contrary actions you've listed. It's good you've brought that up, but I've been citing the words spoken. I don't follow those actions. There are many wise quotes from even the biggest of tyrants in history who have done much more horrible things. We follow and take what they've said to heart, without following the actions they've displayed. Such people include Stalin and Hitler.



> No, it's making it clear that the claim that democracy will be saved by a people's militia to be something that only exist in fiction. It says nothing about just giving in and surrender but lists out numerous nations and historical precedents that makes the idea of people's militia saving democracy to be a load of bullshit.



This is true, but the only alternative to fighting (by any means) would be to give in and allow it, and that does not bode well for us. We had a successful revolution in 1776, when they last tried to take away our right to arms. It's not just the people either. Factions of the military are also against this. Soldiers are refusing orders, or the notion of such orders, including disarming or shooting/detaining citizens unlawfully. If civil war were to fully break out, even the military would be split. I would not choose which right I'd rather lose. When we start compromising our rights, nothing is sacred anymore. It would be a slippery slope. What remains is that our right to bear arms is our last real line of defense towards protecting our other rights, as hopeless of a defense as it may seem.

The worst thing we could do to let the evil triumph, would be to do absolutely nothing.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because you keep saying stupid things?
> 
> You couldn't repel a government attack.



*I* cannot repel a government attack. Not alone. The collective people though, should they wake up? Yes. Especially considering that even factions of the military are against such government orders, including unarming the citizens, and detaining them or shooting them without trial. Yes, soldiers have said they refused such orders, or rather refused to even be given such orders. It would not just be government vs people. Even factions of the military are split. We essentially have civil war already, without the actual war.

Even if I could not repeal a government attack, I would not simply surrender. I would rather die free than live in oppression, because if we compromise one freedom, it's a slippery slope. You said that you'd rather choose losing your Second Amendment right than your First, but what's to really stop them from taking that after you hand over your one line of defense? I wouldn't choose which right I'd rather lose. I shouldn't have to. If we start compromising our rights, nothing is sacred. At least, if I chose to fight, and died fighting, I would avoid death via defenseless extermination, for being against them altogether. I guess you could escape death by bowing to them completely, and being no better than those others who were taken over, but I'd rather die fighting to preserve my freedom, than live a freedom-less, turncoat coward.


----------



## Roman (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> Both the First and the Second are sacred and should be treasured. No free man should be debarred either, though it is ironic when a bunch of protestors use their free speech to speak out against the right to freedom of speech.



Wait, didn't you clearly admit earlier that the founding fathers decided to say the right to bear arms was a God given right just so they would not give people the impression that the govt was giving itself power and authority over others? How does that make the constitution and its amendments in any way sacred?



Jυstin said:


> _"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?"_ *-Joseph Stalin*
> 
> If you let them take away one right (like guns), you're only opening the door for them to take more (like freedom of speech, which political correctness has already been slowly doing).



You know nothing. Ideas are more powerful than guns. People do not act because they have a gun. They act because they have ideals, ambitions, objectives they want to accomplish. Just because a tyrant said the words doesn't have to make them any less true.

And for the nth time, no one here wants guns to be taken away completely except perhaps myself, and even then only over the course of several decades as I expect that's how long it will take for the US to overcome its gun culture and come to terms with the fact the constitution is not a holy scripture (something you earlier admitted perhaps without realizing it). And what would be the harm in that? Other democratic nations have a total ban on guns, such as the UK and Sweden, and Australia has a total ban on assault rifles which is something the US should by any given logic try to emulate. You don't see their governments consistently strip people of their rights yet it is in the US that the govt approves demonic bills like the NDAA.



Jυstin said:


> The balance of power has shifted heavily to the government. Thomas Jefferson warned us about this, about becoming as oppressive as the government we (at that time) separated from. We're not as much of a democracy as we used to be. We will only remain as such so long as the people remember their rights and their freedoms and actively fight to keep threats, both foreign and domestic, from taking them away.
> 
> We shouldn't be so quick to believe this cannot happen in the US, simply by dint of it being the US. That kind of unguarded thinking is what allows things like that to happen. That's what has allowed it to happen throughout history - people allowing it to happen.



Clearly you did not read the second half of my post which hints at how the govt is in fact resorting to more dictatorship tactics than democratic ones i.e. the NDAA. Do tell how having more guns will protect you from the govt intruding into your house, taking all your guns away and wait for you to come back home from work to send you off to Guantanamo for the rest of your life because they believe you're a terrorist and don't even have to prove it?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 8, 2013)

> Even if I could not repeal a government attack, I would not simply surrender. I would rather die free than live in oppression



You want to live away from government "oppression" ? Move to fucking Somalia


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> That's why I've committed to, and mentioned their words, and *not their actions.* I make sure I understand why we are given the rights we've given, before lazily accepting it.


Except that only keeping in mind what people say rather than what they do isn't understanding much at all.


> That's because this was originally about guns, about the right to bear arms. I would rather not carry the conversation too off topic, but when the right to freedom of speech was brought up, of course I'd comment on that. We were given the right to bear arms as a means to (attempt at least) preserve all of our other freedoms as well, and not just that one freedom.


No, you really missed the point. First of all, the topic is about more than just the 2nd Amendment when it's still about a conversation between two TV personalities with one wanting the deportation of the other for exercising his 1st Amendment right. Yet, your ongoing focus keeps going back to the 2nd Amendment as the thing that somehow is the bastion of our democracy even though we have a crap load of more important, necessary amendments that have made it more likely that democracy is in place rather than a goofy fantasy that a people's militia would restore democracy.


> I mean, if we're going to talk about other rights, the Obamacare bill includes in it,and this can be cited, that the government has permission (by none other than itself lol) to enter the homes of expecting couples (an invasion of privacy without legitimate cause) and TELL them how to parent.



Please do cite it then.


> I even wonder why we were lied to about how the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden died. We were told they committed suicide, but they died in a plane crash, which was involved with Hilary's plane crash, which was what resulted in her bruises and brain blood clots, which deterred her from testifying on the Benghazi incident. I would question why they would lie about that, but I'm reminded that they lied, more than once, about that very Benghazi story.


Source. I don't have time for stupid Republican conspiracy theory.


> You should see my facebook page. It's littered with articles, not limited to our right to bear arms. I know here I'm only focused on a fraction, because that's what the thread is on, but elsewhere, I've been sharing info on much more. We also have violations on our 10th Amendment, and I've warned a friend that Obama might even try to extend how many terms he can serve, which  my friend said couldn't happen, but now I've recently heard that Obama is trying to rewrite the 22nd Amendment so that he can serve additional (and perhaps indefinite) terms. When I see my friend again, I will be telling him to have marked my words. I admittedly didn't even know about the 22nd Amendment, but I could see through Obama and just knew he'd try something like this, to stay in office longer.


...Source your conspiracy please. I don't care for a facebook link just to make this clear. Because the theory that Obama will grant himself another term sounds about as viable a theory as new world order fear mongering.


> I am also aware of Obama skipping Congressional approval. He pretends to go through the system, play by the rules, but when he doesn't get his way, he slips things by through a back door. It's not the first time he's done it. I believe he sold key islands of Alaska, to Russia, without letting anyone (namely Congress or the people) even know about it. People deny he does this, yet we have a VIDEO of Leon Panetta telling Congress that the Administration will go to the UN for permission to go to war, and will merely tell Congress of their decision, without gaining Congressional approval. I still can't fathom how people can deny this is happening... when it's on video.


Really, can I see this video?



> SNIP



Seriously, are you suggesting that logic somehow should be limited to the idea "do as I say, don't bother noticing what I do?"


> This is true, but the only alternative to fighting (by any means) would be to give in and allow it,


No, it's the simple matter of making sure we maintain numerous amendments and restrictions rather than waiting around for a new Civil War.


> We had a successful revolution in 1776, when they last tried to take away our right to arms.


Are you suggesting 1776 was simply about taking away arms? Are you suggesting that the founding fathers didn't have an organized militia with registered weapons? Because, again, there's a difference between a people's militia and an organized militia that has sworn itself to a leadership that doesn't allow weapons to be held by those not sworn to the revolution. Also, it's an idiotic false comparative to compare our current government with that of 1776 Britain. There's no talk of taking away all guns. Obama isn't on that platform. Biden isn't on that platform. Piers Morgan isn't on that platform. So, you're just making a pointless red herring argument in an attempt to act as if gun safety isn't what is being argued.

From now on, any attempt to claim "they're take all our guns" will get the simple response that considers the reality of no one with actual government power actually suggesting they could ever do so. There's no plan by the U.S. government to confiscate 300 plus million guns that are impossible to collect in all in the first place. The focus is on gun safety, not an odd attempt to take ALL guns.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Essentially yes, for blindly supporting a man made document. Take the dick out of your ass and read it for what it is.
> 
> For one thing, you need to realize that the document is supposed to be revisited every twenty years.
> 
> ...



The Constitution shouldn't be worshipped, but it absolutely should be used when advantageous for securing natural rights, being in the rational self-interest of the individual as they are. The right to self-defense is a natural right, following from the consequences of the principle of self-ownership, and the State makes no claims they are responsible for individual self-defense (the Supreme and Appellate Courts both reaffirm this point, repeatedly, citing crushing economic burden should the State assume responsibility). Note that self-defense refers to protection not just against individuals, but the collective that would similarly violate their personal autonomy. Any means of self-defense that doesn't necessitate innocent loss of life or property on proper usage qualifies as moral, and their regulation both illogical and irrational. Conversely, only means of self-defense that cause collateral damage regardless of usage are immoral and should qualify for regulation, and even then there should never be circumstances in which there are haves and have-nots in society.

Anyone that advocates theft disqualifies themself as a "sensible person". They are thoroughly anti-social Utilitarians that will strip individual rights if there is some perceived benefit to themselves as part of the collective, even in circumstances without initiated aggression. This always comes back to the illogical _appeal to emotion_ derived from the perceived utility gained by controlling the actions of other people. In this respect guns are no different from the asinine Drug War.

Good luck figuring out an argument where you can legitimately defend the collective's supposed "right" to be protected from assault rifles that haven't been used against them. I'll save you the effort - you can't do it purely by logic.

I fully expect some sort of defense derived from Utiliarian reasoning, at which point they can read this and understand why I don't take their opinions concerning the regulation of society seriously - they are the last individuals any society should ever look to as an example:


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> The focus is on gun safety, not an odd attempt to take ALL guns.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's this kind of stupid shit that tells me that we need to revist the entire Constitution, though the Republicans are currently so stupid that they'd try to slip shit in about rape or abortion instead of doing their jobs and jam up the whole process.
> 
> The first Amendment is clearly the most important, while I don't think guns should be banned, I would rather them go than free speech.



Not sure if trolling. Revisiting the entire constitution? The government already spits too much on the constitution, it's unbearable. 

Btw, the militia act 1902 forbids any kind of gun control law.

_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. 
_


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 8, 2013)

> The Dick Act of 1902



Shit from 1902 is so fucking relevant right now.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jan 8, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> You want to live away from government "oppression" ? Move to fucking Somalia



AHAHAHAHA


Quoted for fucking truth.


On Alex Jones

That there, people, is the reason why the pro-gun nuts are dangerous to your society. Look at him. He was totally frothing in the mouth. Talking about suicide pills and shit


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Shit from 1902 is so fucking relevant right now.



  best full-in-denial comment I've read in a while.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 8, 2013)

Perhaps I'm missing something but what exactly in that act invalidates all gun control laws?


----------



## Mansali (Jan 8, 2013)

Watch Piers Morgan tonight guys  

The fallout from the interview is supposedly going to be discussed. 

Alex Jones hehehe 

If you watch his youtube channel he talks about how the shootings were inside jobs to take his guns away.

I thought he was gonna mention that but he didnt get a chance to :rofl


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> Btw, the militia act 1902 forbids any kind of gun control law.
> 
> _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.
> 
> ...



So, you think we're supposed to simply accept the word of a single website with no references, no source, nothing to support its claim. Because:





So, basically, not only is it not suggesting that in our current world, that doesn't have the draft suggested in the act, we're expected to not have any gun regulation whatsoever but it also doesn't have a nice opinion of insurrection. Also, the unorganized militia, that's once again still under the power of the government to be called into service, is considered to consist of men within ages of 18 to 45. In other words, it doesn't cover women, any man outside that age range, and it most definitely is going to be odd to pretend that Jim Crow Southern states simply allowed every black male from ages 18-45 to have access to a gun OF ANY TYPE.

But why bother caring about a source that not only has multiple referenced sources and even a copy of the documents own wording when a random crappy angelfire doman site says something.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

Let's give every man and woman a right to missile silos and unmanned drones.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Why even bother arguing this?

It's pointless to debate with morons that have been brainwashed with government anti gun propaganda.I simply say like Alex..you're not disarming Americans libbies.No amount of silly laws will make me comply.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Let's give every man and woman a right to missile silos and unmanned drones.



Oh my..was that supposed to be a legitimate argument?
No duh..Americans can no longer be armed equal to the military because nukes in the hands of everyone would be suicide.True that SOME concessions like that have to be made.But assault weapons are another matter.Americans are already horribly under powered compared to the government.And now you want to depower them further?Nuh uh...I don't think so.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Oh my..was that supposed to be a legitimate argument?
> No duh..Americans can no longer be armed equal to the military because nukes in the hands of everyone would be suicide.True that SOME concessions like that have to be made.But assault weapons are another matter.Americans are already horribly under powered compared to the government.And now you want to depower them further?Nuh uh...I don't think so.



But self-defense. How can you expect a civilian to defend themselves in this modern day? Assault rifles aren't nearly enough to make a difference!


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> But self-defense. How can you expect a civilian to defend themselves in this modern day? Assault rifles aren't nearly enough to make a difference!



More a difference than using guns with 6 bullet max capacity..or better yet no guns at all like some want.Silly Seto your propaganda has no effect on me.

If some libbies have their way we'll all be defending ourselves from tyrannical governments this way some day....


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> More a difference than using guns with 6 bullet max capacity..or better yet no guns at all like some want.Silly Seto your propaganda has no effect on me.
> 
> If some libbies have their way we'll all be defending ourselves from tyrannical governments this way some day....



It actually wouldn't make any difference at all. You won't be defending yourselves either way, you'll be dead before you know it. A civilian militia cannot defend or run a country effectively, especially not one like ours. Untrained, inexperienced average Joe with an assault rifle? He'll probably kill more of his own than the "enemy". So, unmanned drones and missile silos for every citizen!


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Why even bother arguing this?
> 
> It's pointless to debate with morons that have been brainwashed with government anti gun propaganda.I simply say like Alex..you're not disarming Americans libbies.No amount of silly laws will make me comply.



As opposed to the NRA and the gun manufacturing industry brainwashing _you_ with unrestricted weapon ownership propaganda?

Sure thing.

Fucking morons i swear the lot of you.

I don't think its too out of bounds to say that.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Why even bother arguing this?
> 
> It's pointless to debate with morons that have been brainwashed with government anti gun propaganda.I simply say like Alex..you're not disarming Americans libbies.No amount of silly laws will make me comply.



"You don't _need_ assault rifles."

"That's what we have the police for."

"You can't fight back against the army, you'll only die."

"Guns used for hunting are okay."

"Guns have no place in civil society."

"Only certain people should have the really powerful guns, like the military and police."

"Politicians, police, and service members deserve the protection of guns, but not us. They're special."

"If you let people have assault rifles, then why can't they have nukes?"

"Won't somebody think of the children?!"

"You will comply when they come for your guns, because you will be too afraid to die. Resistance is futile."

and my own:

"The State is an all-loving, benevolent deity that can be trusted to own things the plebians like me and you are too dangerous and irresponsible to own. They have all of our best interests in mind at all times, and would never violate our rights. The collective reigns supreme, individuals are a detriment to society."

That about covers it. Arguments like those are so convincing how can you not become a gun control advocate? Clearly people need to be ruled by other people with a monopoly on force, and it is our destiny to be the serfs of the ruling class. Don't resist it, such is your lot in life; afterall, too much freedom is dangerous. The State will be sure to give you some kickbacks to ensure compliance, so just chill out and enjoy your _panem et circenses_.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

I like the moronic strawmen. There's a reason why ramblers like you aren't taken seriously. If guns are needed for self-defense, and defense from possible oppression, then there isn't a reason why higher-end weapons should not be accessible either, you drawing the line is being hypocritical as assault rifles would not make a difference at all.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It actually wouldn't make any difference at all. You won't be defending yourselves either way, you'll be dead before you know it. A civilian militia cannot defend or run a country effectively, especially not one like ours. Untrained, inexperienced average Joe with an assault rifle? He'll probably kill more of his own than the "enemy". So, unmanned drones and missile silos for every citizen!



Oh wow..how many times have I heard this weak argument now?
It must be making the daily rounds about the mainstream propaganda networks since it's being parroted so much lately.

Basically the argument boils down to 'we don't stand a chance,so we better go ahead and comply with whatever they tell us to do'.For shame Seto..shame.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> As opposed to the NRA and the gun manufacturing industry brainwashing _you_ with unrestricted weapon ownership propaganda?
> 
> Sure thing.
> 
> ...



I'm not a member of the NRA buddy lol.
What propaganda..oh you mean the constitution and my right to keep and bear arms to defend myself haha?Try again Libby


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Basically the argument boils down to 'we don't stand a chance,*so we better go ahead and comply with whatever they tell us to do*'.For shame Seto..shame.



No, I'm quite sure that's a strawman. No one is talking about lying down for government abuses. It makes more sense to maintain the protections of our democracy well before we need to go into civil war where there has never been a positive precedent for a people's militia attempting to take down a democratic Western government.

Because the fact remains that the numerous Western nations, Australia, Israel, Britain, etc., have not turned into authoritarian dystopias just because they have strict gun laws.

And again, no, no one with real government power in the U.S. is planning to take ALL GUNS. It's a stupid red herring attempt to pretend as if there isn't reasonable talk to be had about gun safety.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

One thing I don't get is why only the second amendment needs to be unrestricted, I mean if I yell fire in a crowded theater...free speech be damned I will get in huge trouble, I could argue that not wearing a seat belt is an exercise of my free speech, but I will still get ticketed for it. Also the seat belt thing could fall under privacy.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> One thing I don't get is why only the second amendment needs to be unrestricted, I mean if I yell fire in a crowded theater...free speech be damned I will get in huge trouble, I could argue that not wearing a seat belt is an exercise of my free speech, but I will still get ticketed for it. Also the seat belt thing could fall under privacy.



Don't forget the religious freedom to practice human sacrifice.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I like the moronic strawmen. There's a reason why ramblers like you aren't taken seriously.



We all know strawmen and logical fallicies are only acceptable when libbies and atheists use them.To make the matter simple ..the constitution says I can have them to defend myself...not giving them up...STFU

The End..


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> No, I'm quite sure that's strawman where no one is talking about lying down for government abuses but that it makes more sense to maintain the protections of our democracy well before we need to go into civil war where there has never been a positive precedent for a people's militia attempting to take down a democratic Western government.



Again with the strawmen claims.
You can give all the jargon and big words you want buddy.It all comes back to the fact you are attempting to violate the 2nd amendment in favor of cowing to the government.you have fallen for the fear porn and propaganda that attempts to entice you to be an obedient slave 'for the better good' as big brother likes to call it.

Still not falling for it,try again fella's


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> We all know strawmen and logical fallicies are only acceptable when libbies and atheists use them.To make the matter simple ..the constitution says I can have them to defend myself...not giving them up...STFU
> 
> The End..



You know a conservative can be atheist right? I as a liberal, am not against gun ownership entirely so again, I do like the moronic strawmen. You talk of propaganda and mainstream media, but all your dialogue suggests is that you are fed by extremely skewed and inaccurate sources on what "libbies and atheists" in particular are and what they stand for.

If that's what the Constitution says, then why not extend it to drones and missiles?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> I'm not a member of the NRA buddy lol.
> What propaganda..oh you mean the constitution and my right to keep and bear arms to defend myself haha?Try again Libby



You don't have to be a *member* of the NRA to contribute to their cause of weapon sales and weapon propagation. And i don't have a problem with you calling me a liberal, its not an insult and i am proud of being one.

What i do have a problem with, is the unrestricted amount of ignorance coming off of a sliver of the US population who are so paranoid they can't even think for themselves outside of stockpiling weapons for an imaginary "invasion" that will never come.

You sound like one of those crazy cop killer milita guys who live out in the woods preparing for the coming detention centers and gas chambers.

I also, don't have a problem with gun ownership or the second amendment, and in this thread i am not even talking about that. What i am doing, is challenging your mental stability and what drives you to be scared of an invisible man coming to round you up.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Don't forget the religious freedom to practice human sacrifice.


We need that back, too. 

To the person saying they need guns with more bullets to defend themselves, you could always modify a pistol to fire more rounds, it won't exactly mean that you can repel any attack. 

If I remember correctly a Beretta can be outfitted with a 30 round clip and made to be full auto, it won't matter if enough guys come to get you. 

But let's be reasonable, the average break in features one or two guys, with maybe a pistol or shot gun, and that's all that the average home owner needs, coupled with the fact that you know your house you should be able to scare them off. 

In Texas, if it's night you can always pop one of them in the back so long as it's night. 

But having fired an assault rifle it's harder to control, easier to expend ammo needlessly and harder to train someone to use effectively.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> One thing I don't get is why only the second amendment needs to be unrestricted, I mean if I yell fire in a crowded theater...free speech be damned I will get in huge trouble, I could argue that not wearing a seat belt is an exercise of my free speech, but I will still get ticketed for it. Also the seat belt thing could fall under privacy.



Because there has to be a line drawn on freedom of speech if it is capable of causing other injury or harm.And if someone abuses that freedom of speech to cause chao's they alone should be severely punished and let the majority of other Americans who use it reasonably go on about their lives.

Just like it makes far more sense to try and identify potentially insane people and get them help/restrict gun use than it does to punish the millions of other gun owners that don't intend to shoot up a school or workplace.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Again with the strawmen claims.
> You can give all the jargon and big words you want buddy.It all comes back to the fact you are attempting to violate the 2nd amendment in favor of cowing to the government.



The 2nd amendment that talks about an organized militia that was created by men who required that you swore yourself to the revolution to gain a firearm that was registered and thus regulated while those who didn't swear to said revolution weren't given nor allowed guns.

So, no, there's no real suggestion from the 2nd Amendment that the civilian populace needs guns that:


> Here's my problem with the focus on 'assault weapons': what people are really talking about are not weapons that are designed to look like military weapons- that's merely cosmetic and it always diverts the conversation. What they are really talking about are *three features* - the fact that these rifles are *semi automatic*, that *they are designed to accept high capacity magazines* and that they are often - not always but often - *chambered for small, high velocity rounds, rounds designed to break up in the body and cause maximum damage*.




So, once again, there's no talk of banning all guns from anyone with the power to even attempt to do so. There are 300 million plus guns that the U.S. government can't collect in full nor has the delusion of it being possible to do so. So, again, the issue is the matter of gun safety. Any attempt to distract from that should might as well go full nutto with talks of principals armed with rocket launchers.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Because there has to be a line drawn on freedom of speech if it is capable of causing other injury or harm.And if someone abuses that freedom of speech to cause chao's they alone should be severely punished and let the majority of other Americans who use it reasonably go on about their lives.



I love the irony in this.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> You don't have to be a *member* of the NRA to contribute to their cause of weapon sales and weapon propagation. And i don't have a problem with you calling me a liberal, its not an insult and i am proud of being one.
> 
> What i do have a problem with, is the unrestricted amount of ignorance coming off of a sliver of the US population who are so paranoid they can't even think for themselves outside of stockpiling weapons for an imaginary "invasion" that will never come.
> 
> ...



blah blah blah I'm just a paranoid gun nut blada blada blada.
The same false accusations time and time from legions of lemmings again.This is how brainwashing works people take note.

One day little doggy you'll learn that just because you didn't learn about it from your community college professor;or heard it said on the dum dum box doesn't mean it's not reality.You're in for a horribly rude awakening one day buddy if you don't open your eyes and smell the roses.


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I like the moronic strawmen. There's a reason why ramblers like you aren't taken seriously. If guns are needed for self-defense, and defense from possible oppression, then there isn't a reason why higher-end weapons should not be accessible either, you drawing the line is being hypocritical as assault rifles would not make a difference at all.



This is actually an easy argument, logically so. It all extends from the principle of self-ownership.

#1) An individual is in absolute ownership of their being.
#2) Self-ownership creates responsibility for the general welfare of one's being.
#3) Self-defense against potential aggressors is a rational pursuit in accordance with one's general welfare.
#4) Efficient self-defense most capably ensures one's general welfare.

Following from that, I can address why certain weapons could be socially regulated to prevent ownership (by *anyone*, Statists included):

#1) An individual is in absolute ownership of their being.
#2) Cognizance of one's self-ownership is extended to other individuals.
#3) Attempts to subvert the self-ownership of other individuals via aggression is unethical.
#4) Ethical aggression, or self-defense, can only come in response to aggression.
#5) Responses to unethical aggression must be focused on the agent initiating aggression.
#6) Means of self-defense that fail to concentrate force on the violators of self-ownership and, by proxy, cause the destruction of innocent life and property (property also extends from self-ownership), are illegitimate.

What does this all mean for the people too lazy to read? Individuals can *logically* be dismissed from owning nukes, biological/chemical weapons, et al, due to the nature of the weapons and their inherently immoral usage. "Ownership" of those weapons could only ever be purely communal, and reinforced by contract - meaning no privileged access. Assault rifles do not fall under the same category as nukes, et al, for demonstrable reasons.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Because there has to be a line drawn on freedom of speech if it is capable of causing other injury or harm.And if someone abuses that freedom of speech to cause chao's they alone should be severely punished and let the majority of other Americans who use it reasonably go on about their lives.
> 
> Just like it makes far more sense to try and identify potentially insane people and get them help/restrict gun use than it does to punish the millions of other gun owners that don't intend to shoot up a school or workplace.



Stop right there, you think that the line should be drawn at people getting hurt? What about people who get riddled with bullets because you think people need M16s for home defense?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

I have found that those who use the term "sheep", "lemmings", "mainstream media" "government run-X", "open your eyes" or some stupid diatribe about secondary eduction is not to be taken seriously. The problem with those people is that they think they are the only aware persons in a world full of "blind" people, when often they are just probably extremely paranoid and misinformed.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I love the irony in this.



There is no irony Seto,it's simply your lackluster reading comprehension failing you again.I said if one abuses the freedom of speech with intent to cause harm they alone should be punished,and leave that right alone for the rest of Americans.

Just like you're sadly mistaken if you think all normal assault rifle owners are gonna give up their rights to own said firearms just because 1% of the nutters happen to use that weapon to shoot their school or work up.


----------



## Oil Can (Jan 8, 2013)

Is it just me or is Alex Jones an insane person?


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Stop right there, you think that the line should be drawn at people getting hurt? What about people who get riddled with bullets because you think people need M16s for home defense?



No..I asaid if someone uses the first amendment to hurt others they should be harshly punished and leave said amendment intact for the rest of us.Just like 99% of the responsible assault rifle owners are not gonna give up their weapons just because the occasional dumb ass like Adam Lanza uses it to go on a shooting spree.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 8, 2013)

Bryan Paulsen said:


> This is actually an easy argument, logically so. It all extends from the principle of self-ownership.
> 
> #1) An individual is in absolute ownership of their being.
> #2) Self-ownership creates responsibility for the general welfare of one's being.
> ...



>"inherently immoral usage"
>assault rifles specifically made to kill en masse

Ownership of silos and drones do not have to be communal, if one had the money, just the same as assault rifles. They serve the same purpose, and fulfill it more effectively at that.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I have found that those who use the term "sheep", "lemmings", "mainstream media" "government run-X", "open your eyes" or some stupid diatribe about secondary eduction is not to be taken seriously. The problem with those people is that they think they are the only aware persons in a world full of "blind" people, when often they are just probably extremely paranoid and misinformed.



Yeah I think that people who hold these opinions are sick and show just how much medication of the ill is needed. 



Oil Can said:


> Is it just me or is Alex Jones an insane person?


Yeah, he's fucking insane.


----------



## oprisco (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I have found that those who use the term "sheep", "lemmings", "mainstream media" "government run-X", "open your eyes" or some stupid diatribe about secondary eduction is not to be taken seriously. The problem with those people is that they think they are the only aware persons in a world full of "blind" people, when often they are just probably extremely paranoid and misinformed.



Your attitude reminds of Bush warning people not to buy into unofficial stories about 9/11, calling them nutters and such, and years later he goes on lying about WMD in iraq.  

Do a reality check.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I have found that those who use the term "sheep", "lemmings", "mainstream media" "government run-X", "open your eyes" or some stupid diatribe about secondary eduction is not to be taken seriously. The problem with those people is that they think they are the only aware persons in a world full of "blind" people, when often they are just probably extremely paranoid and misinformed.



To be fair, i've used one of two of those terms a few times. In regards to stupid people of course. YMMV


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I have found that those who use the term "sheep", "lemmings", "mainstream media" "government run-X", "open your eyes" or some stupid diatribe about secondary eduction is not to be taken seriously. The problem with those people is that they think they are the only aware persons in a world full of "blind" people, when often they are just probably extremely paranoid and misinformed.



Love that obvious bias there Seto.
Yes..people that rightfully call you guys lemmings,sheeple etc for being useful govt morons that parrot their lies and propaganda means we are to be ignored.

Yet you guys can use the same media anti gun arguments that get refuted over and over and call us paranoid repeatedly for not being good little media parrots like you and it's suddenly fine.

Pish posh..if Libbies really gave a damn about dead children they would end abortion immediately and demand that Obama and our congress call off drone strikes on middle eastern children.But of course that doesn't happen because the children are just being used for the anti gun agenda aren't they?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> >"inherently immoral usage"
> >assault rifles specifically made to kill en masse



Violators of self-ownership are not always singular. An assault rifle can, demonstrably so, be used to kill specific targets. It is not a generalized weapon like a nuke, bomb, or even a missile is. Collateral damage is the calling card of the last three.



> Ownership of silos and drones do not have to be communal, if one had the money, just the same as assault rifles. They serve the same purpose, and fulfill it more effectively at that.



You obviously ignored the whole point about force that fails to concentrate against the initiators of aggression being illegitimate as a means of self-defense.

Silos/Drones (Missiles) create collateral damage upon usage and therefore do not qualify as a legitimate means of self-defense.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 8, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> Except that only keeping in mind what people say rather than what they do isn't understanding much at all.



I did not say I didn't keep what they did in mind. I said I did not follow those actions.



> No, you really missed the point. First of all, the topic is about more than just the 2nd Amendment when it's still about a conversation between two TV personalities with one wanting the deportation of the other for exercising his 1st Amendment right. Yet, your ongoing focus keeps going back to the 2nd Amendment as the thing that somehow is the bastion of our democracy even though we have a crap load of more important, necessary amendments that have made it more likely that democracy is in place rather than a goofy fantasy that a people's militia would restore democracy.



The topic it stemmed from was still gun control. Hence why I commented on that, especially considering it was in the title. I commented on his stance, without defending the other crazy shit he was going on about. I've already mentioned that I'm aware of much more going on, but the main topic _here_ (concerning our rights anyway), was gun control.



> Please do cite it then.



Sec. 1904, Pg. 843-844

_*Pg. 843*​"(A) means expenditures to provide voluntary visitation for as many families with young children (under the age of school entry) and families expecting children as practicable, through the implementation or expansion of high quality home visitation programs that-

*Pg. 844*​"(i) adhere to clear evidence-based models of home visitation that have demonstrated positive effects on important program-determined child and parenting outcomes, such as reducing abuse and neglect and improving child health and development;"_

Even more troublesome considering many see simple spankings as abuse. I can also cite where it mentions "death talks" with people over a certain age, with their doctor, every 5 years or so. Seen a commercial in relation - an elderly woman saying on it, "Well I lived a good life.". Ugh.



> Source. I don't have time for stupid Republican conspiracy theory.



Since I don't know which sources you believe are rubbish or not, I'll bring up a bunch. It can be searched pretty easily, so long as you specify which Seals you're looking for.



Google has even more results.



> ...Source your conspiracy please. I don't care for a facebook link just to make this clear. Because the theory that Obama will grant himself another term sounds about as viable a theory as new world order fear mongering.



They are links to actual articles, simply shared on facebook. You know, they are all pretty simple searches one can conduct. Though I might get a "It's all false" rubbish response, which can simply be thrown back, and forth. But here:



LOTS of articles. Take your pick.

Oh and don't get me started on one-world governments. They can try, stupidly, but such a system won't hold in any case.



> Really, can I see this video?



Certainly. It weighed pretty heavy on me.

[YOUTUBE]5zNwOeyuG84[/YOUTUBE]



> Seriously, are you suggesting that logic somehow should be limited to the idea "do as I say, don't bother noticing what I do?"



No. Nothing said about not noticing. Do as one says, but not as they do. Bad that they don't follow their own words of wisdom, but better we follow them than their questionable actions. It's not "not noticing" them. It's differentiating between actions and words, rather than blindly following both because of who they are.



> No, it's the simple matter of making sure we maintain numerous amendments and restrictions rather than waiting around for a new Civil War.



I'm hoping we can maintain them. 



> Are you suggesting 1776 was simply about taking away arms? Are you suggesting that the founding fathers didn't have an organized militia with registered weapons? Because, again, there's a difference between a people's militia and an organized militia that has sworn itself to a leadership that doesn't allow weapons to be held by those not sworn to the revolution. Also, it's an idiotic false comparative to compare our current government with that of 1776 Britain. There's no talk of taking away all guns. Obama isn't on that platform. Biden isn't on that platform. Piers Morgan isn't on that platform. So, you're just making a pointless red herring argument in an attempt to act as if gun safety isn't what is being argued.



Whether it's all guns of just assault rifles, it makes no difference, and I'd rather not cave even slightly, to allow the crack created to grow. The right does not specify or give such limitations. No, I'm not suggesting in the slightest that that's all 1776 was about. We fought Taxation Without Representation, which looks _similar_ to what we have here, again, now.



> From now on, any attempt to claim "they're take all our guns" will get the simple response that considers the reality of no one with actual government power actually suggesting they could ever do so. There's no plan by the U.S. government to confiscate 300 plus million guns that are impossible to collect in all in the first place. The focus is on gun safety, not an odd attempt to take ALL guns.



Let us hope they never do. They can't even try to take any kind of guns. If we're truly talking about gun safety, any reasonable human being knows that a criminal with intent on murder will have no qualms with violating gun control laws, while their victims - law-abiding citizens - will be in obedience with these laws, making them obvious defenseless targets, ideal for a criminal with a gun. People should take a look at Sweden. You want to lower crime rates? Put more guns in the hands of the citizens. Most of them are law-abiding, and can do more to silence the threat of crime, involving guns or not, than gun control EVER will. Criminals tend to think twice before trying something amongst a bunch of people who could potentially be carrying a concealed weapon, able to take them out at a moment's notice.

This, is just plain common sense. We don't even need to look at the statistics, which show the same results. Jones had those right.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

oprisco said:


> Your attitude reminds of Bush warning people not to buy into unofficial stories about 9/11, calling them nutters and such, and years later he goes on lying about WMD in iraq.
> 
> Do a reality check.



well if they didn't see it broadcast on the dum dum box last night it obviiiiiously didn't happen eh? 

Poor little dears..they actually define reality by what they see/hear from the gubment and media


----------



## Oil Can (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> well if they didn't see it broadcast on the dum dum box last night it obviiiiiously didn't happen eh?
> 
> Poor little dears..they actually define reality by what they see/hear from the gubment and media



As opposed to what random people on a naruto fan forum tell them?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

A lot of these guys sound like they've been watching too many youtube "conspiracy" videos for one day 

The biggest draw of the digital age, information from others reaches minds much faster, even if the info is absolute garbage


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Love that obvious bias there Seto.
> Yes..people that rightfully call you guys lemmings,sheeple etc for being useful govt morons that parrot their lies and propaganda means we are to be ignored.
> 
> Yet you guys can use the same media anti gun arguments that get refuted over and over and call us paranoid repeatedly for not being good little media parrots like you and it's suddenly fine.
> ...



You have bias there too, half of you would be eliminated from gun ownership if we just implemented an IQ test.


----------



## Coteaz (Jan 8, 2013)

Damn son, it's Teabagger central in here!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

Coteaz said:


> Damn son, it's Teabagger central in here!


They'd call themselves that...if tea wasn't such a British idea.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

If you drink enough tea you grow a monocle, top hat and start to say "indeed" a lot.

I'm just going off of Alex's brilliant logic.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2013)

I heard that tea shrinks your penis and makes your wife into Margaret Thatcher.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 8, 2013)

Truly a nightmare of epic proportions.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> The 2nd amendment that talks about an organized militia that was created by men who required that you swore yourself to the revolution to gain a firearm that was registered and thus regulated while those who didn't swear to said revolution weren't given nor allowed guns.
> 
> So, no, there's no real suggestion from the 2nd Amendment that the civilian populace needs guns that:
> 
> ...



Thats because in those days the people WERE the army.Fact remains that the second part of the amendment says that the PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.You people want to only obsess over the part that you think suggests that it was only the military was supposed to be well armed.But the second part is clearly refering to we the peoples right to be decently armed.

If you find civilian militias out there that wage terrorism without a just cause (Like a govt takeover) they should be punished and have their guns taken away just like any other mass murderer.Normal criminal action is not condoned by the founding fathers.But as long as they prove to be responsible owners the government should not come anywhere near the rights of regular assault weapon owners.

And your principal with a rocket launcher comparison is ridiculous.Yes..we are well aware by now that civilians can not be allowed to handle nukes and similar weaponry because of the devastation and terrorist potential.However civilians are already pathetically armed in comparison to the military and govt already.Therefore your reasoning for de powering Americans further is simply silly.Especially when the main 'cause' is people like you just getting scared when the occasional gun owning psychopath crawls out of the woodwork.You do not have a just cause for further disarming Americans at all.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Oil Can said:


> As opposed to what random people on a naruto fan forum tell them?



There ya go,help me prove my point.
Because information magically becomes more true and valid if there is a good looking man/woman news anchor team reading it to you behind a desk in a well lavished news studio.


----------



## Lindsay (Jan 8, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> >"inherently immoral usage"
> >assault rifles specifically made to kill en masse
> 
> Ownership of silos and drones do not have to be communal, if one had the money, just the same as assault rifles. They serve the same purpose, and fulfill it more effectively at that.



Technically missiles and drones are legal to buy in the United States. Someone can easily go to hobby shops and buy a small remote controlled airplane and/or buy small rockets that are used to launch fireworks into the air. Obviously they aren't capable as the US Military's Predator drones but they can be quite lethal in the right hands.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> A lot of these guys sound like they've been watching too many youtube "conspiracy" videos for one day
> 
> The biggest draw of the digital age, information from others reaches minds much faster, even if the info is absolute garbage



Yowza..there we go with the 'nutters learning everything they know off of you tube' gem.

How many more more conspiracy theorist stereotypes and generalizations that you've been brainwashed with can you parrot at me Inu?I'm rather curious to know.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I did not say I didn't keep what they did in mind. I said I did not follow those actions.


Yet you only cared enough to take words at face value.


> The topic it stemmed from was still gun control. Hence why I commented on that, especially considering it was in the title. I commented on his stance, without defending the other crazy shit he was going on about. I've already mentioned that I'm aware of much more going on, but the main topic _here_ (concerning our rights anyway), was gun control.



No, the topic literally extends from how Piers Morgan and Alex Jones connect with each other on the topic of gun control. When that topic brings up the matter of free speech, it's clearly not just gun control. When you keep harping about a 2nd Amendment that actually isn't endangered, you're calling for the amendments that actually are to be thrown upon you.


> Sec. 1904, Pg. 843-844
> 
> _*Pg. 843*​"(A) means expenditures to provide *voluntary visitation *for as many families with young children (under the age of school entry) and families expecting children *as practicable*, through the implementation or expansion of high quality home visitation programs that-
> 
> ...



I see nothing to support you earlier accusation of unreasonable investigation and presence of an outside party to ensure the safety of a child. It doesn't at all suggest in detail at all what you're fear mongering to need worry. And "death talks?" Just stop. I get it. You're a Tea party type who lives in a bubble of ignorance who can't properly read stuff without thinking new world orderism.


> Since I don't know which sources you believe are rubbish or not, I'll bring up a bunch. It can be searched pretty easily, so long as you specify which Seals you're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> Google has even more results.



Let me teach you something. Throwing at a person a bunch of links found through Bing or Google does nothing to prove your case. Just like throwing at a someone a bunch of links to conspiracy theories about mole men that live under ground is, I'm sorry to say, still a joke. When one of your top links is from Fox News...


> They are links to actual articles, simply shared on facebook. You know, they are all pretty simple searches one can conduct. Though I might get a "It's all false" rubbish response, which can simply be thrown back, and forth. But here:
> 
> 
> 
> LOTS of articles. Take your pick.


Okay, I'll bite. I'll pick this article from the bing search you provided:


> We do say that there’s no evidence that Obama is pushing for repeal and little sign of partisan motivation for Serrano’s bill. Furthermore, repeal proposals show no more signs of life now than they have over the past decade.




So, well, did you bother to read any of the links you posted?


> Oh and don't get me started on one-world governments. They can try, stupidly, but such a system won't hold in any case.


There's no one trying. There's evidence to suggest it's actually going to be attempted within our century and longer. In other words, it's worrying about the invisible man who doesn't exist. In other words, it's crazy crap that only exist for people who live in a bubble of ignorance and fear.


> Certainly. It weighed pretty heavy on me.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]5zNwOeyuG84[/YOUTUBE]


Whoa. You really don't understand the concept of international coalitions? The U.S. didn't officially go to war with Libya. NATO and UN members aren't puppets of the U.S. Are you suggesting that we pretend we aren't members of NATO and the UN? Because the new world order stuff is tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.



> No. Nothing said about not noticing. Do as one says, but not as they do. Bad that they don't follow their own words of wisdom, but better we follow them than their questionable actions. It's not "not noticing" them. It's differentiating between actions and words, rather than blindly following both because of who they are.


Except that both the words and actions don't suggest at all that civilians need semi-automatic guns with huge clip holds and bullets meant to break apart for maximum damage on human beings. Seriously, suggesting we only keep in mind what they say is a hilarious attempt to pretend that theoretical simply beats the practical. Especially when the theoretical still isn't the claim of a people's army taking apart the U.S. government democracy. Treason is not legal.


> Whether it's all guns of just assault rifles, it makes no difference, and I'd rather not cave even slightly, to allow the crack created to grow. The right does not specify or give such limitations. No, I'm not suggesting in the slightest that that's all 1776 was about. We fought Taxation Without Representation, which looks _similar_ to what we have here, again, now.



First, no, that slippery slope crap is a stupid fallacy claim when once again the founding fathers didn't practice voiding any gun regulation. This slippery slope you speak if has not occurred for the numerous modern Western democracies that consider having no gun regulation to be idiotic. Second, I live in DC. Take the taxation without representation stuff and shove it before muttering about it to me.


> People should take a look at Sweden. You want to lower crime rates? Put more guns in the hands of the citizens.



Sweden has stricter gun laws than the U.S. Just stop talking. Ditto on Australia and Israel. Your statements sound like they're from a bubble ignorant of reality. Australia, Sweden, and Israel don't smoke the pipe of "no gun regulation."


spankdatbitch said:


> Thats because in those days the people WERE the army.Fact remains that the second part of the amendment says that the PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Except that said rule wasn't even followed by the founding fathers. The people stopped at anyone who wasn't apart of the organized militia that swore loyalty the revolution.

There's nothing new about having gun regulation when it started before , during, and still onward after the founding of the U.S.


spankdatbitch said:


> And your principal with a rocket launcher comparison is ridiculous.Yes..we are well aware by now that civilians can not be allowed to handle nukes and similar weaponry because of the devastation and terrorist potential.


Because a massive amount of gun deaths that killed more people in the U.S. these past years than foreign terrorists ever did have no terrorist potential?

Again, I said a rocket launcher. Like the two rocket launchers that were obtained through the buyback program in Los Angeles. Your argument is an odd suicidal contradiction where people need to defend themselves from the government but at the same time they can't be allowed to have stuff that would do anything to the current military forces we have. It's even more a fallacious argument where the likely usage of firearms against a member of the household or for criminal purposes is multiple time greater than statistical usage of a firearm for self defense. So, basically, as statistics  go, the self defense claim is a fallacy for the vast majority of Americans.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You have bias there too, half of you would be eliminated from gun ownership if we just implemented an IQ test.



Right..and now here we have the typical 'conservatives/conspiracy theorists have low IQs' mental programming.I was wondering when that conditioned response would come out..thx CTK.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They'd call themselves that...if tea wasn't such a British idea.





Coteaz said:


> Damn son, it's Teabagger central in here!



Aw..you mean you silly people still believe in all that Republican/Tea Party Vs Democrat/OWS garbage they are selling us on the media?

I thought anyone with a brain would see that both/all these organizations are owned and bend over for corporate and wall street interests by now.


----------



## Eskimo (Jan 8, 2013)

Gun ownership allows people to enforce their rights, but that requires that they are intellectually and morally capable of such. I wouldn't trust anyone who hasn't been through a few years of police training with that responsibility, let alone an average American. The assertion that everyone deserves the right to defend themselves doesn't take away from the fact that not everyone is capable of sufficiently exercising judgement.


----------



## Revolution (Jan 8, 2013)

Hey, check this out.



> This is the craziest person in the history of broadcasting
> Want to know who the media wants to make the face of the pro-gun argument in America? Look no further than conspiratorial radio host Alex Jones, best known for his 9/11 Truther theories and his love of Charlie Sheen's hernia. Jones is the man behind the petition to deport CNN host Piers Morgan for his views on gun control. Morgan invited Jones onto his show to debate the gun issue yesterday, and not surprisingly, Jones made a fool of himself, giving the left the perfect poster boy for their attempts to paint every logical conservative as an extremist nut job.



Guess who put this up.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 8, 2013)

Yeah, because when I want to think about what Alex Jones did, Glenn Beck should be mentioned... why?





> There's a telling moment in this Piers Morgan interview with Alex Jones, wherein Jones challenges Morgan to a boxing match. Jones is one of the authors of a petition to deport Piers Morgan. He also commands a fairly large talk radio audiences, and began the interview by angrily warning Morgan that any move toward gun control would open the doors to "1776."
> 
> Nevertheless, I think the fact that Jones responds to a disagreement over government policy by telling his interlocutor "well how 'bout we take this outside" is illustrative. Jones spends much of the interview ranting about the evils of government use of force, without much attention to the kind of individual violence with which he threatened Morgan. More accurately, Jones believes that the only answer to such violence is more -- presumably defensive -- violence, though his pose makes him a poor advocate for such a position.
> 
> One argument, and perhaps the greatest argument, for civil society is that we do not settle actual policy questions by asking, in Chris Rock mode, "Yes, but can you kick my ass?" That way lies the path to government by ogres, or chaos, or all against all, or all against them, or all against me. There must be a better way.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jan 8, 2013)

This guy is a thug but why was he talking about sharks ?......


----------



## Oil Can (Jan 8, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> There ya go,help me prove my point.
> Because information magically becomes more true and valid if there is a good looking man/woman news anchor team reading it to you behind a desk in a well lavished news studio.



That doesn't prove your point. You haven't explained how someone on the internet is more qualified than someone on tv. If anything, they are equally invalid because you're just taking someone else's word for it.


----------



## NarutoxKakashi (Jan 8, 2013)

Eskimo said:


> Gun ownership allows people to enforce their rights, but that requires that they are intellectually and morally capable of such. I wouldn't trust anyone who hasn't been through a few years of police training with that responsibility, let alone an average American. The assertion that everyone deserves the right to defend themselves doesn't take away from the fact that not everyone is capable of sufficiently exercising judgement.



Police are terrible shots. Not to mention they like to beat peeps. And yes there are all kinds of assholes who exercise all kinds of rights yet aren't intellectually and morally capable of such.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 8, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> This is true, but the only alternative to fighting (by any means) would be to give in and allow it, and that does not bode well for us. We had a successful revolution in 1776, when they last tried to take away our right to arms.



A) The revolution had nothing to do with taking away arms.  It was about rich colonists wanting to keep their money and a number of other issues such as not being allowed to expand on land owned by Allies of Britain (Very simplistic terms here)

B) You only won simply because for the UK it wasn't a war between the British and a few disgruntled colonists.  It was about the British vs the Colonists and the rest of the major world powers (French, Spanish and Dutch).  While for you the war only took place in North America.  For Britain major battles took place in N.America, Caribbean, India and beyond.  To the point it came down to what was worth more for us.  The 13 colonies or the Caribbean ones which just one Island alone brought in more money than the entire 13 colonies combined.


And also you have yet to explain how owning guns is paramount to a thriving democracy when most of europe, Aus, NZ and a few others have some very strict Gun owning laws and yet have better standard of living, more freedoms and other positives.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Jan 8, 2013)

Oil Can said:


> That doesn't prove your point. You haven't explained how someone on the internet is more qualified than someone on tv. If anything, they are equally invalid because you're just taking someone else's word for it.



Because there is true and then there are lies.
someone has to be right..and guess what..it ain't the mainstream media durp


----------



## Palpatine (Jan 8, 2013)

Alex Jones continuing to act like a complete lunatic I see...

It scares me that this guy has any loyal listeners at all.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 8, 2013)

lol pro gun advocates being insane is nothing new.


----------



## Raging Bird (Jan 8, 2013)

You don't lose your rights to criminals, only they should lose theirs.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Jan 9, 2013)

That guy.... :rofl
Wow, I need to start watching T.V 
more often.
xDDD​


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 9, 2013)

> Why are AR-15-style rifles so popular? As Cracked.com put it, “the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux: All kinds of modifications can be made to it.” It’s relatively simple for an enthusiastic marksman to customize the rifle to his specifications—adding a scope and other optics, swapping in a new grip, or trigger, or barrel. These modifications are more or less benign. But there’s another change that’s more problematic: For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire. And it’s perfectly legal.
> 
> To understand how this works, you first need to know about a process called “bump firing.” When you bump fire a semi-automatic rifle, your non-shooting hand pulls the rifle forward until the trigger hits your rigid trigger finger, thus firing the rifle. Then, recoil sends the rifle bouncing back and forth against your rigid trigger finger, causing it to keep shooting at an accelerated rate, simulating automatic fire.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY[/YOUTUBE]



> You generally bump fire from your hip, and you can’t really aim the rifle, which makes the technique kind of frivolous. If your fingers don’t work and you can’t squeeze a trigger, bump firing is a godsend. Otherwise, bump firing is only useful if you want to waste a lot of ammo fast.
> 
> At least that was the case until a couple of years ago. That’s when a company called Slide Fire Solutions introduced a replacement rifle stock called the SSAR-15 that, for $369, allows you to bump fire your AR-15-style rifle from your shoulder while still retaining accuracy and control. The stock, in the simplest terms, is the part of the rifle you hold and brace against your shoulder. According to the Slide Fire website, “unlike traditional bump firing, the Slidestock allows the shooter to properly hold the firearm and maintain complete control at all times. As a result of the forward movement required to discharge each round, the shooter naturally corrects their point-of-aim for each shot and prevents recoil from pushing the firearm's muzzle upward in an unsafe direction.” Or, as the subhed more concisely puts it, the SSAR-15 lets a shooter “unleash 100 rounds, in 7 seconds.” A product review at a site called Guns America notes that the SSAR-15 “installs in one minute with no special skills.”


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72USc0hXFcU[/YOUTUBE]



> If you’re like me, you had two reactions after watching those videos: “Holy shit,” and “There’s no way that can be legal.” But it’s completely legal. Prominently linked on the Slide Fire website is a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, confirming that the Slide Fire stock “has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed,” and hence “is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.” As far as I can tell, it would’ve been legal under the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, too. To be covered by the AWB, an AR-15-style rifle with a detachable magazine also had to have at least two of the following five features: “(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher.” The SSAR-15 isn’t any of those things.








> The one we can't believe is legal: The .50 caliber sniper rifle. Why is it so dangerous? To state the obvious, the bullets are huge. It's classified as an anti-materiel rifle, instead of an anti-personnel rifle. That means it can cause serious damage to hard military equipment, not just soft human bodies. The .50 cal unleashes 13,000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. By comparison, the AR-15 has 1,300 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. (The .50 cal is also available in bolt action.)
> 
> At right is a Barrett M82A1 for sale at Arms List for $11,000. This weapon is powerful enough to make troops say "Holy shit!" in this YouTube of one being fired in Iraq. It's big enough that guys like to post videos showing they can just fire the thing while kneeling or standing. (I like the GIF below because firing the weapon warps the video a little.)


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jan 9, 2013)

Mider T said:


> So behaving like an ape is more effective in winning debates that using facts and logic to you huh?  Maybe you should watch the guests Piers had on AFTER Alex Jones on the same episode, though something tells me you didn't even watch the interview at all.


Acting like an ape is supposedly more effective to winning an argument.
Though doing it to the point to where there is none pretty much makes it not effective at all. What I'm saying is we need to eat more bananas.


----------



## Roman (Jan 9, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Because there has to be a line drawn on freedom of speech if it is capable of causing other injury or harm.And if someone abuses that freedom of speech to cause chao's they alone should be severely punished and let the majority of other Americans who use it reasonably go on about their lives.
> 
> Just like it makes far more sense to try and identify potentially insane people and get them help/restrict gun use than it does to punish the millions of other gun owners that don't intend to shoot up a school or workplace.



Wow. You're ok with limiting freedom of speech if it's hurtful (and how one determines speech is hateful is highly subjective to begin with) but guns shouldn't be restricted even tho they're designed specifically to kill. That makes absolutely no sense.



Inuhanyou said:


> If you drink enough tea you grow a monocle, top hat and start to say "indeed" a lot.







Nemesis said:


> And also you have yet to explain how owning guns is paramount to a thriving democracy when most of europe, Aus, NZ and a few others have some very strict Gun owning laws and yet have better standard of living, more freedoms and other positives.



Don't try too hard Nemesis.  will most likely ignore you because you pointed out a really obvious fallacy in his argument 

Also,


----------



## kluang (Jan 9, 2013)

Soo

people in British burn down town and beat up old women?


----------



## Squeek (Jan 9, 2013)

what facts that Alex Jones bullshiting is actually right? His bullshit claim that crimes are rising in the UK and dropping in the US is nothing to do with the ability of people to purchase firearms. Crime levels are affected by many reasons like, social, cultural, and economic reasons for example. Also, he has no right to compare the US with Switzerland, in Switzerland even though you can keep firearms, the ammunition isnt kept by the civies. To top that, thats just him talking ridiculous paranoia, he only talks about the UK, what about Germany, and other countries where restrictions are applied and implemented? Do they have the same trend as the UK? so stupid.


----------



## Roman (Jan 9, 2013)

Squeek said:


> what facts that Alex Jones bullshiting is actually right? His bullshit claim that crimes are rising in the UK and dropping in the US is nothing to do with the ability of people to purchase firearms. Crime levels are affected by many reasons like, social, cultural, and economic reasons for example. Also, he has no right to compare the US with Switzerland, in Switzerland even though you can keep firearms, the ammunition isnt kept by the civies. To top that, thats just him talking ridiculous paranoia, he only talks about the UK, what about Germany, and other countries where restrictions are applied and implemented? Do they have the same trend as the UK? so stupid.



He was actually dead wrong on the UK too. Violent crimes are abysmal compared to the US, and only a very, VERY small percentage of those are gun related (while nearly all murders in the US are caused by firearms). Even if we take proportions into account, the US far outweighs the UK in total murder cases.


----------



## oprisco (Jan 9, 2013)

Back to topic. A. Jones gave Morgan his own medicine. 

Piers Morgan resorts to name calling and interrupts other people, like in this video:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smFaCK3oLAw[/YOUTUBE]

Ship that weirdo back to the UK.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 9, 2013)

Your arguments are pretty awful oprisco. 

Anyways, in related matters the NRA has made a scapegoat of Hollywood.


----------



## oprisco (Jan 9, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Your arguments are pretty awful oprisco.



Care to explain your argument further, regarding the video?



Seto Kaiba said:


> Anyways, in related matters the NRA has made a scapegoat of Hollywood.



Nothing bad about an association that tries to protect constitutional rights of civilians by telling weirdos like Morgan to mind their own business.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 9, 2013)

Freedan said:


> He was actually dead wrong on the UK too. Violent crimes are abysmal compared to the US, and only a very, VERY small percentage of those are gun related (while nearly all murders in the US are caused by firearms). Even if we take proportions into account, the US far outweighs the UK in total murder cases.



Actually violent crime in the UK has been dropping near enough yearly since 1995.  And that violent crime list the Mail posted a few months back was well the mail being the mail.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 9, 2013)

The gun industry has a tight hold on its investors. That's probably the most sad part.


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

Freedan said:


> He was actually dead wrong on the UK too. Violent crimes are abysmal compared to the US, and only a very, VERY small percentage of those are gun related (while nearly all murders in the US are caused by firearms). Even if we take proportions into account, the US far outweighs the UK in total murder cases.



Why are you comparing the two in the first place?. the population of the U.S is so much greater than that of the UK, you'd find better results by comparing crime in the UK to crime in certain US states that have similar population. 

For example:

US population (2012) 314,686,189

UK population (2012) 62,641,000

California population (2012) 37,691,912


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 9, 2013)

Okay then, Canada has 1 tenth of the gun related crimes compared to us and their population is similar. Australia's gun crimes flattened more than 50% after the banning of sale for assault weapons.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> Why are you comparing the two in the first place?. the population of the U.S is so much greater than that of the UK, you'd find better results by comparing crime in the UK to crime in certain US states that have similar population.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



That is why the per 1000 comes into play,  you can compare a country like the US to a country like the UK.  Hell you can even compare a country like the US to a country like San Marino.  The whole population is too different thing is a cop out when your argument goes against you.


----------



## Oil Can (Jan 9, 2013)

spankdatbitch said:


> Because there is true and then there are lies.
> someone has to be right..and guess what..it ain't the mainstream media durp



Why should I believe you?


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> Okay then, Canada has 1 tenth of the gun related crimes compared to us and their population is similar. Australia's gun crimes flattened more than 50% after the banning of sale for assault weapons.



what the idiot Alex Jones said on this is actually true. of course a country that has more readily available guns is going to have more gun related crime, you don't even need to argue that. But still i won't believe it's the _Guns_ fault i prefer to blame people for their own actions not Hollywood, video games or guns, just the person who made the decision to pick up that gun and pull the trigger. 

What about other crime? and the impact gun ownership has had on said crime?: The CDC has conducted many studies on gun control including; waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on specified types of firearms and ammunition. And yet they could not document any of these having reduced violent crime.

"Criminals interviewed in a maximum security prison said that they don't fear police but they do fear *you*. a citizen who might be armed." and a study by the Department of Justice confirms. 


    81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
    74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
    80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
    40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
    34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
    57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

As for the crime decreasing with an Assault rifle ban. Crimes committed with Assault weapons is already very low, of all gun crime in America, crimes committed with Assault weapons is lower 1% as is. Criminals prefer guns that they can easily conceal.


----------



## Tyrannos (Jan 9, 2013)

Yeah, that guy did go overboard.   But then again who watches Pierce Morgan?  


Here is a proposition that could settle this debate:

Red States keep their guns and Blue States ban guns entirely.  Then after 4 years, lets compare the crime rates and see which philosophy works.


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

Tyrannos said:


> Yeah, that guy did go overboard.   But then again who watches Pierce Morgan?
> 
> 
> Here is a proposition that could settle this debate:
> ...



we already have DC and Chicago:



> The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia?s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city?s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind today as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.



Read more: 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 9, 2013)

oprisco said:


> Nothing bad about an association that tries to *protect constitutional rights of civilians* by telling weirdos like Morgan to mind their own business.



Because we all know that violating someone's 1st Amendment right by trying to have them deported for using said right it is quite how you're supposed to protect the constitution.


Griever said:


> we already have DC and Chicago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Griever, please don't tell me you're actually attempting to suggest correlation, or god forbid causation, with what that graph shows. 

The Washington Times is a pretty bad source when they're still the kind of publication to publish a claim that young African American male job loss compared between 2007 and 2011 is caused by higher minimum wages rather than keeping in mind what happened in 2008 in the middle of that.

Just like how claiming the 25 percent drop was in response to the ban being lifted is pretty odd when the rate was falling for quite some time well before the ban was even lifted. So, no real correlation much less a laughable causation.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jan 9, 2013)

The notion that guns do not kill is only partly right and actually partly wrong. The mind + gun kill. If we could kill people just by thinking it, then I believe a lot of people would drop dead even as we speak, which thank fuck is not happening as there's a lot of deranged coughAlexJonescough people, especially in the Americas (no offence to those who aren't deranged) from what I'm seeing. The argument proposed by the anti-gun faction (me for instance) is that if you denied access to guns to angry rednecks like Jones, people will still be able to kill, but it'll be much harder. The notion that guns prevents deaths is flawed, as criminals are more likely to want guns. Check all the States, are all law abiding citizens gun owners? NO. What percentage of criminals are gun owners? I'd say a very high number. In order to protect law abiding citizens of America, the government must intervene.

Just sharing my opinions...


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> Griever, please don't tell me you're actually attempting to suggest correlation, or god forbid causation, with what that graph shows.
> 
> The Washington Times is a pretty bad source when they're still the kind of publication to publish a claim that young African American male job loss compared between 2007 and 2011 is caused by higher minimum wages rather than keeping in mind what happened in 2008 in the middle of that.
> 
> Just like how claiming the 25 percent drop was in response to the ban being lifted is pretty odd when the rate was falling for quite some time well before the ban was even lifted. So, no real correlation much less a laughable causation.



Less of a 'crime fell, because gun laws where lifted' and more of a 'didn't do shit in the first place' which is true. one state bans guns who fucking cares i can just go to the next state over to grab some guns then sell 'em on the street if i care to, fuck yeah!.

But DC's guns laws was a hindrance to the Defense of Habitation Law. Safety with guns is a good thing, but when that changes how fast you can get to your gun and get it ready, it becomes a hindrance when seconds count.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 9, 2013)

Tyrannos said:


> Here is a proposition that could settle this debate:
> 
> Red States keep their guns and Blue States ban guns entirely.  Then after 4 years, lets compare the crime rates and see which philosophy works.



Unless you're going to set up gun check points at the state borders that isn't going to change anything.


----------



## Agmaster (Jan 9, 2013)

Jones is a pot stirrer and it shows no brighter than here.  He could have left his argument with saying tyrants take guns from citizens.  End of.  Everything else is him...well...getting us to talk about it.  Sad how stupidity works so well on the smart.  ^_^


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> Less of a 'crime fell, because gun laws where lifted' and more of a 'didn't do shit in the first place' which is true. one state bans guns who fucking cares i can just go to the next state over to grab some guns then sell 'em on the street if i care to, fuck yeah!.



Except that it's forcing the suggestion that the only point of gun regulation is overall homicide and manslaughter rather than the reduction of criminal gun use or gun use against a fellow member of the household that statistically are more likely than the occurrence of a home invasion requiring defensive measures.


> But DC's guns laws was a hindrance to the Defense of Habitation Law. Safety with guns is a good thing, but when that changes how fast you can get to your gun and get it ready, it becomes a hindrance when seconds count.



Well, since the likelihood of using a gun for self defense is drastically times less than the likelihood of ill usage, such hindrance may be called for. Especially in a household that consist of more than one person and/or the presence of children.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jan 9, 2013)

Jones admits to owning 50 guns and then says he has them all locked up and never uses them, which fucks his own argument up the ass. How can he protect himself from and I quote "the goodfellas" without his guns on him at all times?  I mean, a high profile cunting fake constitution humper certainly needs the protection, by his own accounts!


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> Except that it's forcing the suggestion that the only point of gun regulation is overall homicide and manslaughter rather than the reduction of criminal gun use or gun use against a fellow member of the household that statistically are more likely than the occurrence of a home invasion requiring defensive measures.
> 
> 
> Well, since the likelihood of using a gun for self defense is drastically times less than the likelihood of ill usage, such hindrance may be called for. Especially in a household that consist of more than one person and/or the presence of children.



Not necessarily. the study that spawned that terrible misconception was half assed and I'll tell you why: 1) they counted *suicide* as *accidental death*. Bullshit, i don't care what anyone says suicide is not an accidental death and shouldn't be counted as such. 2) they didn't take into account the times guns had been used in self-defense and the criminal had _not_ died. 3) they counted accidents rather they involved family members or not and rather they happened in the house or not.


----------



## Roman (Jan 9, 2013)

oprisco said:


> Back to topic. A. Jones gave Morgan his own medicine.
> 
> Piers Morgan resorts to name calling and interrupts other people, like in this video:
> 
> ...



While it is generally incorrect to resort to slander during a debate, you can't say that it wasn't without reason here. That the US experiences one of the highest murder rate in the world is no secret, as well as the fact the US experiences one of the highest gun-related murder rates in the world, let alone among first-world countries. Yet the interviewee was deliberately ignoring this fact in saying more guns can help people defend themselves. If by defense, he speaks of shooting to kill, the end result is the same in that death has taken place. He may not say the US is like the wild west as Morgan depicts it, but it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to tell more guns can make that happen.



Nemesis said:


> Actually violent crime in the UK has been dropping near enough yearly since 1995.  And that violent crime list the Mail posted a few months back was well the mail being the mail.



Well there you go. A simple wikipedia search shows Jones was wrong that violent crime in the UK was rising.



Griever said:


> Why are you comparing the two in the first place?. the population of the U.S is so much greater than that of the UK, you'd find better results by comparing crime in the UK to crime in certain US states that have similar population.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



Because I said proportions. Did you miss that part? .

In summary:

There are 5 murders per 100,000 people in the US against 1.4 per 100,000 in the UK. This overcomes the absolute value of populations.

Additionally, 67% of murders in the US are caused by firearms. In the UK, only 7% of murders are gun-related. If this isn't a reason to think there's a relation between guns and murder rates, I honestly don't know what is.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> Not necessarily. the study that spawned that terrible misconception was half assed and I'll tell you why: 1) they counted *suicide* as *accidental death*. Bullshit, i don't care what anyone says suicide is not an accidental death and shouldn't be counted as such.


I referred to criminal usage and use of a gun against a fellow member of the household. I made no mention of suicide. What I'm referring doesn't focus on suicide when the point is the matter of what living gun users do with their firearm.

Also, are you suggesting that listing something as suicide or accidental changes what exactly (?) when either or is still a statistical point against the likelihood of self defense?


> 2) they didn't take into account the times guns had been used in self-defense and the criminal had _not_ died.


I think you're talking about something else. The study I'm referring to is on the general occurrence of self defense. Whether or not the criminal is killed is meaningless to the metric.


> 3) they counted accidents rather they involved family members or not and rather they happened in the house or not.



You might want to clarify what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that it's wrong for counting household members when said members aren't related and when it doesn't literally occur in a house?

If so, you can shoot someone who is apart of your household without them actually being related to you and without them having to be inside the house itself. Because the concept of a household is just a matter of shared living space. I'm not related to either of my room mates. We're still the members of the same household. If one of them shot me while I'm in the street, it's still using a gun against a fellow member of the household.


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Because I said proportions. Did you miss that part? .



yes i did actually. 



> In summary:
> 
> There are 5 murders per 100,000 people in the US against 1.4 per 100,000 in the UK. This overcomes the absolute value of populations.
> 
> Additionally, 67% of murders in the US are caused by firearms. In the UK, only 7% of murders are gun-related. If this isn't a reason to think there's a relation between guns and murder rates, I honestly don't know what is.



The crime rate in America has less to do with guns and more to do with our system and it's revolving-door justice. and the gun control they have in say Europe, would not work in America, it simply wouldn't and it's not ever going too. It's too authoritarian for America, it's too intrusive to the people and just doesn't fly with the individualist and egalitarian society that is America.


----------



## Roman (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> The crime rate in America has less to do with guns and more to do with our system and it's revolving-door justice. and the gun control they have in say Europe, would not work in America, it simply wouldn't and it's not ever going too. It's too authoritarian for America, it's too intrusive to the people and just doesn't fly with the individualist and egalitarian society that is America.



I won't deny that is part of the problem with regards to crime, but are you then suggesting that the solution to this is for people to buy more guns instead of actually trying to fix the problem?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> The crime rate in America has less to do with guns and more to do with our system and it's revolving-door justice. and the gun control they have in say Europe, would not work in America, it simply wouldn't and it's not ever going too. It's too authoritarian for America, it's too intrusive to the people and just doesn't fly with the individualist and egalitarian society that is America.



Revolving door justice?  We incarcerate far more people than any other country in the world.  Can you elaborate on why you view our justice system as the primary cause of crime?


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> yes i did actually.
> 
> 
> 
> The crime rate in America has less to do with guns and more to do with our system and it's revolving-door justice. and the gun control they have in say Europe, would not work in America, it simply wouldn't and it's not ever going too. It's too authoritarian for America, it's too intrusive to the people and just doesn't fly with the individualist and egalitarian society that is America.



Revolving door justice?  America has (one of) the highest incarceration rate in the western democratic world.  It locks people up for stupid reasons and puts them on some of the longest sentencing averages as well.

Then you have northern Europe and Scandinavia which has very low incarceration rates, even lower re-offending rates.  Which comes down to a light sentencing and focus on rehabilitation rather than treating criminals like crap and throwing them back out without the skills to get back into society.



> Well there you go. A simple wikipedia search shows Jones was wrong that violent crime in the UK was rising.



I guess he uses the blip a year ago that the riots gave as a zomg violent crime is rising.  Just like the mail tried to spin it.


----------



## Roman (Jan 9, 2013)

I do apologize. I misunderstood what he meant by "revolving door justice" when I posted a response 



Nemesis said:


> I guess he uses the blip a year ago that the riots gave as a zomg violent crime is rising.  Just like the mail tried to spin it.



It's a how he uses a blip to justify his argument and then says he will not have his guns taken because of a few exceptions


----------



## Griever (Jan 9, 2013)

I have a headache so i'm just going to address these two posts for now. 



Tsukiyomi said:


> Revolving door justice?  We incarcerate far more people than any other country in the world.  Can you elaborate on why you view our justice system as the primary cause of crime?





Nemesis said:


> Revolving door justice?  America has (one of) the highest incarceration rate in the western democratic world.  It locks people up for stupid reasons and puts them on some of the longest sentencing averages as well.
> 
> Then you have northern Europe and Scandinavia which has very low incarceration rates, even lower re-offending rates.  Which comes down to a light sentencing and focus on rehabilitation rather than treating criminals like crap and throwing them back out without the skills to get back into society.



Nemisis, You just gave the very definition of of what i meant by revolving door justice, in and out, round and round, not focusing on rehabilitation and thus being faced with repeat-offenders, in and out and back in. Revolving door, get it?.

Oregon in December of 2012, released two dozen inmates because they could no longer afford to hold them. less than an hour after being released one of said inmates robbed a bank.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 9, 2013)

Griever said:


> Nemisis, You just gave the very definition of of what i meant by revolving door justice, in and out, round and round, not focusing on rehabilitation and thus being faced with repeat-offenders, in and out and back in. Revolving door, get it?.



The problem with your argument here is the suggestion that crime level is simply a matter of how long criminals are kept in prison rather than the mix of economic and law enforcement priority factors that result in a certain amount of crimes and prison population.

It's telling when crime levels HAVE GONE DOWN for decades while the prison population has gone up. It's pretty much what you have depending on the economic situation of certain states and districts, while having a certain drug war policy can't help but increase the amount of convicts when a person can end up in jail for a non-violent offense like possessing an 8th of marijuana. Because it's pretty obvious that the prison population increase isn't simply from a case of more violent crimes that HAVE ONCE AGAIN GONE DONE for decades.


> Oregon in December of 2012, released two dozen inmates because they could no longer afford to hold them. less than an hour after being released one of said inmates robbed a bank.



You do realize that one outlier doesn't define a system, right? The Oregon release of two dozen inmates because of lacking funds is an outlier. It has no special significance in defining a national system nor even the state when it's not a real statistical show of anything. Ditto on the ONE person who commits a crime right when he was released. So, citing Oregon is a waste of time just like how judging the nation's gun violence problem by citing one massacre is useless thinking. Nemesis comments on a full picture only to have you respond with a single pixel.

The better way to figure out a system is to have a comprehensive show of how things have worked out in a large enough sample size to figure out the probability of a situation that may occur from a certain form of public policy.


----------



## Bender (Jan 9, 2013)

I avoided wactching this because I abhor dumb rednecks. But I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

When asked if he was "finished" I was hoping he'd be. But sadly he wasn't. He sounds like the love child of Bill O Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Also Alex Jones my dear dumbfuck,  you should know that the war of 1775-76 was not to save the REPUBLIC as you claim or suggest here but to LIBERATE the COLOINES from COLONIALISM. Someone give this guy a refresher in history. He seriously needs to go back to school.

Also someone like him having 50 GUNS is just retarded. Also lol "you're a hatchet man". If you have an unbalanced mental record you deserve to lose your shit.


----------



## Ruby (Jan 9, 2013)

Alex Jones could have been a little more respectable and would have had people honestly take him seriously and consider his views on the matter. 

Instead he just came off as "I'm right and no one has the right to say otherwise! "

I don't think he realizes that he doesn't have just America watching his outburst on live TV, but the whole world too. Insulting Piers the way he did by attacking Britain was really uncalled for and I can guarantee you, its gonna come back to bite him one day.


----------



## Griever (Jan 10, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> The problem with your argument here is the suggestion that crime level is simply a matter of how long criminals are kept in prison rather than the mix of economic and law enforcement priority factors that result in a certain amount of crimes and prison population.
> 
> It's telling when crime levels HAVE GONE DOWN for decades while the prison population has gone up. It's pretty much what you have depending on the economic situation of certain states and districts, while having a certain drug war policy can't help but increase the amount of convicts when a person can end up in jail for a non-violent offense like possessing an 8th of marijuana. Because it's pretty obvious that the prison population increase isn't simply from a case of more violent crimes that HAVE ONCE AGAIN GONE DONE for decades.
> 
> ...



I did not do a good job with that post i'll admit that, i was in a hurry and should have waited, but there it is. 

Anyways i see alot of problems with how our prison system works and it has little to do with how long a prisoners sentence is. though indeed there are some people who have been released that should never have been like William Spengler and Edmund Kemper (though Kemper was in a mental institution) for example. That and i do not think we spend enough time properly re-rehabilitating prisoners to prepare them for their release coupled with the fact that we mix prisoners of all degree together, which i find pretty foolish. 

and i am well aware that our overall crime rate has been decreasing for many years now despite our economic situation. 

I am also not attributing all of America's crime rate to our justice system. however, the overcrowding of prisons as well as budget cuts are a problem that need to be addressed.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Jan 10, 2013)

Piers Morgan is a cunt but Alex Jones wasn't helping his case by acting like such an insane fucktard.


----------



## Bender (Jan 10, 2013)

Zoan Marco said:


> Piers Morgan is a cunt but Alex Jones wasn't helping his case by acting like such an insane fucktard.



Correction: Alex Jones wasn't helping gun advocates by being a belligerent, sociopathic, and rude fuckwad. He's also a perfect example of the inherently flawed logic of pro-gun advocates of his party: "Hurr durr in the future our government is gonna be a tyrannical juggernaut and we're all gonna be dooooomed". 














































Reality check Alex Jones: 

We won't be able to see if we'll be in a dystopic future or not unless we regulate the gun laws. In actuality, not placing restrictions on guns is more certifying of that scenario than the government becoming a dictatorship and running our shit into the ground. Moreover, your groundless claims about our government turning into a dictatorship is exactly that. Groundless claims, and a pitiful childish nightmare.


He really wants to clarify his claims? Name one country with a butt-fucking load of guns and eased crime rates.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 10, 2013)

Bender said:


> He really wants to clarify his claims? Name one country with a butt-fucking load of guns and eased crime rates.



Somalia, I guess ?


----------



## Mansali (Jan 10, 2013)

Alex Jones vs Cenk Uygur on Current!!

I'm going to post a link to it when it's on youtube as I don't have access to Current. 

This should be cool!


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jan 10, 2013)

Mansali said:


> Alex Jones vs Cenk Uygur on Current!!
> 
> I'm going to post a link to it when it's on youtube as I don't have access to Current.
> 
> This should be cool!



Cenk is smart as fuck, but he's also biased. Have you seen his videos on Israel and Palestine?  Israel is always the bad guys and Palestine can do no wrong.  Moreover, I suspect Young Turks is full of hackers.


----------



## Madai (Jan 10, 2013)

Bender said:


> He really wants to clarify his claims? Name one country with a butt-fucking load of guns and eased crime rates.




As far as guns per capita, US is in a class by itself.

On violent crime stats, it's hard to get apples-to-apples.

High gun ownership:
US, Murder 4.8; 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000;
Serbia, Murder 1.2; ~440 violent crimes per 100,000;
Yemen Murder 4.2;  1.4 violent crimes per 100,000?;

Low gun ownership:
Japan, Murder 0.4;  "1/6 US violent crime rate";
Indonesia, Murder 8.1; 576 violent crimes per capita in Jakarta ;
South Korea Murder 2.6 ; "double US violent crime rate" ;

Still a crapshoot, really.   Now, UK vs US is easier to compare.  US has more murders, UK has more overal violent crime.  Looks like South Korea is another UK.  fewer murders than US, more crime.  That's the pattern I expect, but  some countries buck the trends, japan has extremely low violence of all kinds.  

But to answer the question, yemen? maybe saudi arabia? lol.


----------



## Roman (Jan 10, 2013)

Madai said:


> Still a crapshoot, really.   Now, UK vs US is easier to compare.  US has more murders, UK has more overal violent crime.  Looks like South Korea is another UK.  fewer murders than US, more crime.  That's the pattern I expect, but  some countries buck the trends, japan has extremely low violence of all kinds.



Meaning more guns = less violent crime? Are you really trying to make that distinction?

Between violent crime and murder, which do you think is worse?

But to answer the question, yemen? maybe saudi arabia? lol.[/QUOTE]

Idk about Yemen but in Saudi Arabia, . It looks like stricter gun laws really did help the Kingdom to decrease murder rates!

Wait, what?


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 10, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Meaning more guns = less violent crime? Are you really trying to make that distinction?



Freedan, slow down.

It doesn't look like he's making that suggestion at all. He's just mentioning comparisons.


> Between violent crime and murder, which do you think is worse?


There's an even easier way to ask that. Would you rather be attacked by a guy with a gun or a knife? I'm willing to guess what most cops would say.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 10, 2013)

Bender said:


> *We won't be able to see if we'll be in a dystopic future or not unless we regulate the gun laws.* In actuality, not placing restrictions on guns is more certifying of that scenario than the government becoming a dictatorship and running our shit into the ground. Moreover, your groundless claims about our government turning into a dictatorship is exactly that. Groundless claims, and a pitiful childish nightmare.



You can't claim someone is exaggerating and then make a statement like this. You sound just crazy as Jones. Guns aren't going to kill the whole country. 

One of the main issues with the regulation side of things is too many people who are like Jones on the other side.


----------



## MinatoRider (Jan 10, 2013)

6 reasons we should deport Piers Morgan lol


----------



## Roman (Jan 10, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> Freedan, slow down.
> 
> It doesn't look like he's making that suggestion at all. He's just mentioning comparisons.



My apologies. Too many people here would try that, which is why I jumped there.



neodragzero said:


> There's an even easier way to ask that. Would you rather be attacked by a guy with a gun or a knife? I'm willing to guess what most cops would say.



I doubt they would care tbh. They'd shoot the attacker regardless considering they'd do it for a guy missing an arm and a leg waving a pen around at them. A pen!


----------



## Bender (Jan 10, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't claim someone is exaggerating and then make a statement like this. You sound just crazy as Jones.



I was being coy CTK 




> Guns aren't going to kill the whole country.



No they aren't but they're sure as hell making this place a haven for sociopaths.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 10, 2013)

I shan't address the many important issues surrounding finding a balance between the right to bear arms, and public safety.  Did anyone expect anything else to happen when he had Alex Jones on?  Seriously Jones is a nutjob and a known proponent of the idea that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
*
This is about as noteworthy as Tom Cruise being silly on Oprah.  *

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnU1t7UzgM[/YOUTUBE]
You might call this unnecessary and wasteful.  However exercising your rights is never wasteful--even if people can get a bit silly doing so (Critical Mass, Gay Pride Parades, Folsom Street Fair).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 10, 2013)

I think if more people saw big breasted girls shooting assault rifles they'd like the idea.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 10, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GwIbyp4xBU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Shock Therapy (Jan 11, 2013)

2 ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) arguing on tv. nothing to see here. one is being more obnoxious but still, two ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) are two ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 11, 2013)

Shock Therapy said:


> 2 ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) arguing on tv. nothing to see here. one is being more obnoxious but still, two ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) are two ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


What did Morgan do to be so hated besides putting people in their place with his British charm.


----------



## Roman (Jan 11, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> You might call this unnecessary and wasteful.  However exercising your rights is never wasteful--even if people can get a bit silly doing so (Critical Mass, Gay Pride Parades, Folsom Street Fair).



It honestly is quite wasteful actually. Exercising your right to bear arms doesn't mean they can destroy cars for sport. Say the car they use for the "kill the car" event is an old one no one uses anymore. Rather than outright destroy it, I think it would've been a lot less wasteful if it was taken apart and recycled or sold to someone cheaper as they can't afford a car. Exercising your right to bear arms doesn't equate to organizing independent sports events because of it.



Elim Rawne said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GwIbyp4xBU[/YOUTUBE]



He might have a point about explosives, but when do people actually do that? Compared to mass shootings, suicide bombings hardly ever happen and if we're going to talk about places where guns are outlawed, the last suicide bombing I remember taking place here in the UK was the July 2005 bombing of the underground subway. Sorry Ice T, but people don't do that all the time. There's virtually no risk of a terrorist attack in the US.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 11, 2013)

Someone in Alabama just tried to blow his school up using bombs made from tobacco cans.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 11, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Someone in Alabama just tried to blow his school up using bombs made from tobacco cans.



And this matters how exactly? Just curious.


----------



## Roman (Jan 11, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Someone in Alabama just tried to blow his school up using bombs made from tobacco cans.



My friends from middle school in my hometown destroyed the school building setting the heaters on fire. No casualties were reported afaik. The fact remains that guns are still excessively accessible to the general public.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 11, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> And this matters how exactly? Just curious.


It's very relevant, if you can't see how maybe you belong in some sort of remedial thread.


----------



## Roman (Jan 11, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's very relevant, if you can't see how maybe you belong in some sort of remedial thread.



What you're basically saying is that if guns are banned, people will just find other ways to kill. Personally, I don't like the idea of not trying to fix a problem because a new one will arise. If anything, it makes you more prepared.

I'd also like it if you could back up your belief with evidence on just how many suicide bombings there have been in the US and cases in the US or other countries where gun restrictions led to more suicide bombings and/or generally did not affect murder rates in the slightest.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 11, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's very relevant, if you can't see how maybe you belong in some sort of remedial thread.



I'm sorry, I don't see how an extreme outlier is relevant for this thread. I was hoping you weren't making some superficial "if not a gun, something else" argument when it's still a lame argument that pretends there isn't reasonable thought on the matter of gun safety. So, since you enjoy being repetitive and bland in lazy rhetoric, you may want to take a class on why arguments based on irrelevant outliers don't work.

Your argument is about as dumb as the implicit suggestion to not have heavy regulation of alcohol just because people have easy access to paint thinner or Robitussin.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jan 11, 2013)

So now Cardboard is back to "guns aren't the problem"? You just said a few days ago that assault weapons ban would help  make up your damn mind


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Jan 11, 2013)

The best compromise is really to let the states decide how they want to implement more gun control programs if any.  This allows each region to adopt the stance that is the most reasonable and feasible.  Reasonable restrictions in NYC or Connecticut may not be reasonable restrictions in Oklahoma or Texas.  

I've given the whole shebang a lot of thought, and I think the best thing the Federal Gov't could do--instead of implementing a widespread ban on X firearms, is to basically give all of the states a legislative homework assignment tied to Federal Funding to investigate and address problems surrounding firearms violence within their borders.  This is basically how accreditation works for Universities.


----------



## Roman (Jan 11, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> *I'm sorry, I don't see how an extreme outlier is relevant for this thread*. I was hoping you weren't making some superficial "if not a gun, something else" argument when it's still a lame argument that pretends there isn't reasonable thought on the matter of gun safety. So, since you enjoy being repetitive and bland in lazy rhetoric, you may want to take a class on why arguments based on irrelevant outliers don't work.
> 
> Your argument is about as dumb as the implicit suggestion to not have heavy regulation of alcohol just because people have easy access to paint thinner or Robitussin.



Careful. Anti-gun control advocates consider all the mass shootings as outliers and believe that's what we're judging the danger of guns for the general masses on


----------



## Velocity (Jan 11, 2013)

I can't help but think that the majority of people who are against revised gun laws are paranoid nutjobs who think the Government will kick down their doors and kidnap them the second they give up their right to bear arms... If revising the gun laws and making them stricter cuts the number of deaths by even half, that's thousands of lives saved every year. Who can honestly argue against that?

Some people just don't make sense to me and it gets worse when people start saying stuff similar to what  (basically he said the only reason millions of Jews were killed in Germany during World War II was because Hitler took away their guns and that, basically, the same thing would happen to Americans if their Government took away their guns).

Who even connects the dots between gun control and mass genocide?


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 11, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The best compromise is really to let the states decide how they want to implement more gun control programs if any.


The problem with that is how it's basically how gun laws are done anyway. While it's problematic when the policy of one state can easily be circumvented with a trip to a state nearby with less restrictive gun laws.

I feel that a lot of people, both gun owners and non-gun owners, can agree that semi-automatic guns that carry huge click loads and are especially fashioned with bullets meant to break apart within a body to cause maximum lethal damage go beyond a reasonable form of defense. Ditto on why sniper rifles even exist in the first place as design intent goes.


> I've given the whole shebang a lot of thought, and I think the best thing the Federal Gov't could do--instead of implementing a widespread ban on X firearms, is to basically give all of the states a legislative homework assignment tied to Federal Funding to investigate and address problems surrounding firearms violence within their borders.  This is basically how accreditation works for Universities.



The problem with that is how it could still be considered an attempt of the federal government take hostage federal funding to force states to do legislative homework, that can be of varying levels of research quality if politics are involved rather than strict agnostic research. So, we go from an all encompassing national policy to an idea that can still be argued by certain conservatives to violate state rights. As nice as your ideas may sound, they suffer from needing to operate in a vacuum.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm seriously wondering how non-transparent the government thinks it is, by trying to ban assault rifles. Yes, they've been used in the last 4 suspiciously recent and close together massacres (one of which they did not try to hide the fact was a horrendous hoax, when they had posted condolences and reports on it days before it even happened, along with them getting a quote from the principal about the shooting, when that principal was reported killed in the shooting, or the actors from Florida - the Sextons - pretending to be a victim's family - the Phelps, or how one of the victims is seen in a later picture with Obama).

But people don't realize, that while this will only reduce the rate of crimes involving guns, which is only a percentage of the crimes committed, only a small percentage of gun-related crimes are committed with assault rifles. *In actuality, statistically handguns have been used to commit many more homicides than assault rifles in US' history*, so if their issue is with the gun used, they should move to ban those as well, but that's not the real issue. It is not about gun safety. It's simply about control.

Responsibly, it would make more sense to screen people wanting to purchase guns, to see if they have any serious criminal backgrounds, or mental instability, or horrendous irresponsibility. There's no reason to ban such guns (which has no basis for ban over the handgun, by their reasons for wanting it banned in the first place) from all of the people, because of the criminals who misuse them. Crimes will happen, even with the screening OR the complete ban. These weapons will just end up on the black market, which is where criminals go to get a hold of illegal merchandise. Law-abiding citizens will not. These same laws have done little to keep smuggled weed or illegal immigrants out of the US, so why would it work on firearms? We used to question why a teacher would punish all of the students in a classroom because of the actions of one or a few students. It's the lazy, ineffective way out. We need something that works, and something that in no way shape or form infringes on any of our Constitutional rights, regardless of what one thinks of those rights or not.

Trying to use an executive order won't work either (which Obama said, in 2007, he would not abuse the use of executive orders, and how many thousands has he signed already?). The Constitution prevents laws and amendments from being rewritten, except by going through Congressional approval (if I remember correctly). If he bypasses Congress again, those actions are illegal and are grounds for impeachment. Though, he's already set to appear before the Supreme Court again, regarding his legitimacy for being in office. This time, it's a serious issue, as they have enough incriminating evidence to even call him before them. He's walking thin ice. His next move should be chosen wisely.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jan 12, 2013)

Morgan is a bit of a slimeball, but he certainly knows how to give his opponents just enough rope to hang themselves with.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Jan 12, 2013)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Morgan is a bit of a slimeball, but he certainly knows how to give his opponents just enough rope to hang themselves with.


??


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jan 12, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> So now Cardboard is back to "guns aren't the problem"? You just said a few days ago that assault weapons ban would help  make up your damn mind



Cardboard is crazy but I like him...her(?) 'cause she's funny.


----------



## Whirlpool (Jan 12, 2013)

It's a conspiracy.

They're only doing this because WW3 is gonna happen and US troops need more guns.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 12, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I'm seriously wondering how non-transparent the government thinks it is, by trying to ban assault rifles.


I guess not transparent enough when you're arguing that the only focus is simply banning assault rifles. It's not.


----------



## TSC (Jan 12, 2013)

this whole guns kills people/ people kill people remind me of this song:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Lord Glacial (Jan 12, 2013)

So was the 1776 thing a joke to make Britain feel bad, or was he actually threatening a rebellion to overthrow the US government?





Edit: On another hand, don't blindly follow a man made document written more than 200 years ago. Back then people had muskets, and if the right to bear arms was an essential right, then how come people cannot have jet fighters, or tanks, or surface to air missiles? Those are basically weapons. Also Americans need to stop following blindly the ideas of old slave owners, who only wanted a nation to avoid paying taxes, as well as moving into the land of Native Americans.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 13, 2013)

Pistols not assault weapons are the problem.

Understand that an assault weapon is very big and hard to conceal on a body, if u was going to rob a store you wouldn't walk in with a shotgun or ak47 unless you wanted the store owner to be aware that your robbing the store before your actually in the store. A pistol can be concealed numerous way on the body, can hold up to 18 bullets and made for close range shooting.

You can go hunting w/ an ak47 but who uses a 9mm to hunt with.... no one at all cause it is useless at the range that most hunters have to shoot from and also the bullet will do little damage.

And if someone wanted to create fear through the use of guns then a hunting rifle is more fearsome than an assault weapon as someone can hit u from atleast half a mile away when your pumping gas or putting groceries in the trunks. The D.C. sniper instilled way more fear than this lone gunman w/ a lone attack, but no one said to outlaw hunting rifles, nor semi automatic rifles.

Hell a semi-automatic shotgun fucks shit up and there is no need for someone to have one of those, you miss, then pump and shoot again.

In levels of danger 
1. Pistols
2. Shotguns
3. Assault weapons
4. Hunting rifles
5. Natural causes.

Although one thing everyone can agree on is the restrictions that should be placed on magazines no one has a need for a 30 round clip except someone looking for trouble. 5 to every magazine is more than enough , and just enough where someone can't say that its to restrictive.


----------



## neodragzero (Jan 13, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> Pistols not assault weapons are the problem.
> 
> Understand that an assault weapon is very big and hard to conceal on a body, if u was going to rob a store you wouldn't walk in with a shotgun or ak47 unless you wanted the store owner to be aware that your robbing the store before your actually in the store. A pistol can be concealed numerous way on the body, can hold up to 18 bullets and made for close range shooting.



With that logic, we might as well consider grenade launchers reasonable to have around just because they're hard to use for robbing convenience stores without being incredibly obvious and suicidal. When it comes to AR-15, the issue is the matter of it being used for robberies but its use as a semi-automatic high ammo capacity weapon loaded with bullets at times designed to break up in a human body to increase lethal damage.


> You can go hunting w/ an ak47 but who uses a 9mm to hunt with....


Wait, who the hell goes hunting with an AK-47? Why does someone need an AK-47 to hunt? If you need an AK-47 to hunt a deer, you need to give up on hunting. Next thing I know we'll talk about C4 explosives for fishing.

Seriously:



> And if someone wanted to create fear through the use of guns then a hunting rifle is more fearsome than an assault weapon as someone can hit u from atleast half a mile away when your pumping gas or putting groceries in the trunks.



There's a problem with that argument. A hunting rifle is a pretty specific item that's usually regulated under fishing and gaming laws. It's a very specific thing for hunting that varies in when exactly someone is allowed to use it depending on the time of the year and state. It's usually supposed to be more regulated than the AR-15 semi-automatic that's easily modified to fire off rounds like an automatic. I would guess that hand guns would also be covered where no one needs an automatic fire hand gun with a certain amount of rounds.

No civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle with huge clips of bullets with said bullets specifically designed to break apart within a human body to create the greatest amount of fatal damage. Nor does anyone need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that's somehow legal right now even though it's an anti-military equipment weapon.



> The D.C. sniper instilled way more fear than this lone gunman w/ a lone attack, but no one said to outlaw hunting rifles, nor semi automatic rifles.


You might want to remember the fact that the D.C. sniper used a sniper rifle. Said sniper was also former military, excepting the relative who assisted him. That has nothing to do with hunting rifles nor simply semi-automatics. Again, it's obvious how there's no reasonable use for a civilian to have a sniper rifle, a gun that's the complete opposite of self defense design intent, while there's an argument of gun safety well beyond just the matter of semi-automatic but other features that go with it.


> Although one thing everyone can agree on is the restrictions that should be placed on magazines no one has a need for a 30 round clip except someone looking for trouble. 5 to every magazine is more than enough , and just enough where someone can't say that its to restrictive.



Agreed on the limiting the magazine size but also the two other features that aren't really necessary for civilians.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 13, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> Pistols not assault weapons are the problem.
> 
> Understand that an assault weapon is very big and hard to conceal on a body, if u was going to rob a store you wouldn't walk in with a shotgun or ak47 unless you wanted the store owner to be aware that your robbing the store before your actually in the store. A pistol can be concealed numerous way on the body, can hold up to 18 bullets and made for close range shooting.
> 
> ...


Pistols are for self defense, they're so that you can keep them in a car or home without having to string them up to the fucking wall. 

And what the fuck do you hunt with assault rifles?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 13, 2013)

neodragzero said:


> With that logic, we might as well consider grenade launchers reasonable to have around just because they're hard to use for robbing convenience stores without being incredibly obvious and suicidal. When it comes to AR-15, the issue is the matter of it being used for robberies but its use as a semi-automatic high ammo capacity weapon loaded with bullets at times designed to break up in a human body to increase lethal damage.


 Hollow points are designed for all kinds of guns, that is an issue w/ the ammo not the gun. Mr. Richey sits in his office w/ a shotgun so no one will rob him, if he sees someone walking up w/ an assault rifle he can be ready before they walk through the door, with a pistol they can pull it out and shoot him before he knows whats happening. 





> Wait, who the hell goes hunting with an AK-47? Why does someone need an AK-47 to hunt? If you need an AK-47 to hunt a deer, you need to give up on hunting. Next thing I know we'll talk about C4 explosives for fishing.


 For sport, people may like the way the ak sounds when fired, or its shooting ability and having a bigger, less lethal than the 5.56 used by Nato and ar15, round to stop a deer, plus not bolt feed so if ya miss u get another chance.


> Seriously:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a problem with that argument. A hunting rifle is a pretty specific item that's usually regulated under fishing and gaming laws. It's a very specific thing for hunting that varies in when exactly someone is allowed to use it depending on the time of the year and state. It's usually supposed to be more regulated than the AR-15 semi-automatic that's easily modified to fire off rounds like an automatic. I would guess that hand guns would also be covered where no one needs an automatic fire hand gun with a certain amount of rounds.


?, I can use any rifle to hunt anything I want, some may be better suited for specific type of game but there is no restrictions on the firearm that you can use nor what time of year. This is in Mississippi



> No civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle with huge clips of bullets with said bullets specifically designed to break apart within a human body to create the greatest amount of fatal damage. Nor does anyone need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that's somehow legal right now even though it's an anti-military equipment weapon.


 50 caliber doesn't mean its an anti-military equipment weapon, its designed to be able to shoot through armor, but if its not an armor piercing round but a hallow point which u seem to have something against then it is just as effective as a 30 aut 6. So take up the ammo issue, not the gun. Guns don't kill people they have no mind of their own, people kill people animals kill animals.





> You might want to remember the fact that the D.C. sniper used a sniper rifle. Said sniper was also former military, excepting the relative who assisted him. That has nothing to do with hunting rifles nor simply semi-automatics. Again, it's obvious how there's no reasonable use for a civilian to have a sniper rifle, a gun that's the complete opposite of self defense design intent, while there's an argument of gun safety well beyond just the matter of semi-automatic but other features that go with it.


 A remington 700 can easily be modified to Marine Corps Sniper specifications by a civilian with the right know how. Hunting rifles=sniper rifles, ya know a rifle used for accurate shots to hit a target from a far away distance. Civilians use sniper rifles to shoot game from a long distance away, also commonly referred to as hunting rifles, and usually feature a scope.





> Agreed on the limiting the magazine size but also the two other features that aren't really necessary for civilians.


I agree on hallowpoints and magazine size but to limit the availability a certain type of firearm for an isolated event, when there have been plenty of public displays of people using pistols for crimes and murder EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY. 

@TubeKnight- Yea I bet gangstas say they are for self defense to. I can just as easily access a rifle sitting in the passenger seat as a gun in the console(concealed). And why would you need access to a gun in your car, is someone car jacking you using a knife... no wait they probably have a 9mm not no ak47.

What do I hunt w/ assault an assault rifle: Deer, Bears, Alligators, any med-large size game.

What do I hunt w/ a pistol:  I don't know, certainly not a deer, not quail, mhm you know... Ive never seen anyone take a pistol hunting except for unless they was in danger of being charged while they were reloading their bolt action hunting rifle. So the question isn't what am I hunting w/ an ak47 but what are you hunting w/ a Colt 45?

If they are going to limit the access to assault rifles they need to limit access to other dangerous guns that are used to help commit a crime such as pistols.

As I have said they should limit all sizes of magazines for pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, down to 5 round clip.

Hallow points should be eradicated as there is no need for such dangerous ammo. 

But as I have pointed out, crime wise an assault rifle is not good to use unless your about to fight an army of police or the army. Most crimes are committed w/ a pistol or shotgun.

Also another thing I thought of was: You know how the gas propels in a machine, well can they not make a limiter on how much gas goes through at timed intervals that way someone can only fire a shot off every 2-5 seconds or something like that for civilian guns that way even if there is a massacre people will still have time to react to the situation instead of getting mowed down by a barrage of bullets, 18 xs 2 is 36 if someone had to glocks that hold 18 apiece in the clip and some glocks u can find automatic.

Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign used the number of daily gun murders as proof that ?gun violence rates are not? going down. But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.


Also its very hard to find an assault rifle on the street whereas pistols are readily for sell and no background checks or anything and some don't even have serial numbers so they can't be traced.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jan 13, 2013)

I know I'm late to the game here but why is he bringing up an example from INDIA?


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 13, 2013)

When you make Piers Morgan look good you can only be a racist butthurt murikan redneck.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 13, 2013)

In 2010  there was 11,000 homicide deaths involving guns. You gave roughly a 30 year span so that would come out to abou 333,000 deaths for 30 year span... Using stats from 2010 since i can't find the years your picture posted. Suicide numbers w/ guns are way higher but that is irrrelevant.

Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame. In 2005 there was 10,100 homicides commited by firearms.

In WW2 alone there was over 800,000 American military members killed. Statiscally speaking wars have killed more American in less than 20years than American killed by firearms by a civilian in 100 years.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 13, 2013)

The above is bullshit, if you pulled your head out of your ass you'd be able to reason out how it makes no sense. In the Civil War all deaths were American deaths...gun deaths used to be a lot lower...so those years you're talking about wouldn't have compared to more recent years.


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Jan 13, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Justin, you're an embarrassment to Welcome to my world CTK.


----------



## Jυstin (Jan 13, 2013)

I have some more data that's worth thinking about. You can check other sources if you wish and get the data anywhere you want. Chicago, as many of you are probably aware, has some of the strictest, if not the strictest gun control laws in the country, but yet, their crime rate is damn near the highest (or I think it's #1 in the US, at least with murder rates).



It's just showing, in practice, what people have been saying. Disarming law-abiding citizens to stop criminals... does not tend to work any more than the laws against smuggling in drugs takes them off the street.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 13, 2013)

Jυstin said:


> I have some more data that's worth thinking about. You can check other sources if you wish and get the data anywhere you want. Chicago, as many of you are probably aware, has some of the strictest, if not the strictest gun control laws in the country, but yet, their crime rate is damn near the highest (or I think it's #1 in the US, at least with murder rates).
> 
> 
> 
> It's just showing, in practice, what people have been saying. Disarming law-abiding citizens to stop criminals... does not tend to work any more than the laws against smuggling in drugs takes them off the street.



Like the great Governor Haley Barbour stated, You restrict guns then only criminals will possess guns and that will leave the civilian population at a huge disadvantage.

Like forbidden jutsu, its forbidden so therefore only people who are criminals, Orochimaru Kabuto, will use the forbidden techs and the rest of the population will be at a huge disadvantage, like the current war where ninja are fighting undead ninja.

Chicago is full of criminals.

Prohibition, They outlawed liquor so in response only criminals possessed liquor or sold it and crime dramatically rose. Al Capone and other gangstas made a fortune. 

Portugal- All drugs are legal, yet they have one of the lowest drug usage rates in all of the world and low crime rates.

You restrict guns and you restrict peoples right to be able to defend themselves. In Libya the government wasn't allowed to use their airforce or risk being shot down due to the civilian population not having a counter for such firepower. If someone breaks into my house and have a gun because they are a criminal and most likely have a gun, and I don't have a gun due to the government making it illegal there is little to nothing that me nor my family can due to stop the intruder from murdering us all, Whereas if I have a gun I have the ability to protect myself. 


 Things that are unable to act on their own can not in any way be blamed for the actions of others. If I ran someone over with my car... should the car be outlawed or destroyed and for me to get away scott free since I technically didn't deal the fatal blow. 

Rocks don't kill people, animals kill animals. It doesn't matter how they achieved the death of the person but that they was willingly and able in any form and fashion. Meaning that if I want to kill someone....I don't need a gun just the will to do it.

As Joseph Stalin said "Ideas are more dangerous than weapons, we've taken their weapons now we take their ideas" A little off but gets the point across.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 14, 2013)

And no one has still refuted the statements that I made.

/debate over, Gun nuts 1  Push overs 0


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 14, 2013)

> Chicago is full of criminals.



So is Australia, what's your point ?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 14, 2013)

Crime doesn't come from guns, it comes from need.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 14, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> So is Australia, what's your point ?



I don't think I have to tell you the difference between the two.

Australia was founded by criminals more or less, a prison island used by the British empire.

My point is criminals commit crimes not guns.


----------



## Superrazien (Jan 14, 2013)

Anyone think that violent crimes are going up because of our shitty economy? People are broke, desperate, can't afford the right health care. Gun's are not the problem a gun is just a tool. I'm sick of people always blaming a object for there problems, instead of getting at the root of the issue. As for the interview Jones pretty much owned him, it was very funny as well. Morgan is a dick and always over talks people, it's about time he knew what it felt like.


----------



## Roman (Jan 14, 2013)

Superrazien said:


> Anyone think that violent crimes are going up because of our shitty economy? People are broke, desperate, can't afford the right health care. Gun's are not the problem a gun is just a tool. I'm sick of people always blaming a object for there problems, instead of getting at the root of the issue. As for the interview Jones pretty much owned him, it was very funny as well. Morgan is a dick and always over talks people, it's about time he knew what it felt like.



If people are so destitute because of the recession, isn't it more logical to buy food than to buy guns? If people have the money to buy guns in a recession, they can certainly buy food. People won't feed on ammo. While the recession is a problem, that people go out to buy guns and kill people isn't its direct consequence. Jones didn't own anyone during the interview either. How can you own someone when all you do is yell and shout so you don't give the other person a chance to speak at all? Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "debate" because Jones certainly didn't.


----------



## rac585 (Jan 14, 2013)

people will find other ways to kill each other.


----------



## Roman (Jan 14, 2013)

Rac said:


> people will find other ways to kill each other.



Yes because in countries like the UK, Australia and Canada, people blow each other up all the time, right? 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Superrazien (Jan 14, 2013)

Freedan said:


> If people are so destitute because of the recession, isn't it more logical to buy food than to buy guns? If people have the money to buy guns in a recession, they can certainly buy food. People won't feed on ammo. While the recession is a problem, that people go out to buy guns and kill people isn't its direct consequence. Jones didn't own anyone during the interview either. How can you own someone when all you do is yell and shout so you don't give the other person a chance to speak at all? Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "debate" because Jones certainly didn't.



Not really most people only would have a gun for protection, and would rarely use any of there ammo. So it's really like a one time buy, food you have to buy all the time. So I don't see a problem with people wanting to spend some money on a gun, to protect there food when the world goes to shit and everyone gets all savage robbing each other.

He owned Morgan because he basically beat him at his own game. Morgan never debates he just over talks and whines. Also what could Morgan really say that he hasn't already said? Morgan has experience with debating many people, it was his show, and it was a issue he is passionate about. Him not having a chance to talk was also due to his weak puppet like personality. Do you honestly think even if it was a civilized debate that Morgan would of won? The guys a complete idiot, and hard off the English crown.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 14, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> I don't think I have to tell you the difference between the two.
> 
> Australia was founded by criminals more or less, a prison island used by the British empire.
> 
> My point is criminals commit crimes not guns.



Yeah, a country full of criminals with a gun ban has less crime than Chicago, or the US.

Kinda fucks up your argument.


----------



## Roman (Jan 14, 2013)

Superrazien said:


> Not really most people only would have a gun for protection, and would rarely use any of there ammo. So it's really like a one time buy, food you have to buy all the time. So I don't see a problem with people wanting to spend some money on a gun, *to protect there food when the world goes to shit and everyone gets all savage robbing each other*.



That right there is what I call being delusional if you think it'll happen on a grand scale. And isn't it easier to just move to a place where you don't have to worry about someone shooting you to burglarize your property all the time? It doesn't explain how any of it has to do with the recession either. People will commit robberies and car thefts in a boom or a recession. Ultimately, the fault isn't with third-party factors, but with the people themselves who have this contrived idea that guns = safety and power when the USA's murder rate pretty much speaks for itself.



Superrazien said:


> He owned Morgan because he basically beat him at his own game. Morgan never debates he just over talks and whines. Also what could Morgan really say that he hasn't already said? Morgan has experience with debating many people, it was his show, and it was a issue he is passionate about. Him not having a chance to talk was also due to his weak puppet like personality. Do you honestly think even if it was a civilized debate that Morgan would of won? The guys a complete idiot, *and hard off the English crown*.



From what I gather, the English don't like him either, but I won't get into that. Morgan does talk over others, this is true, but that does not at all mean his opponent has a right to be the same. The only thing I got from the debate is that as much as Morgan could be a douche, Jones came off as even more of a douche because he replied to douchebaggery with douchbaggery. That's not how you win debates. You win debates by presenting facts. Jones was dead-wrong about violent crime in the UK as it's been dropping significantly since 1995 (). He was dead wrong about how many gun-related murders occur in the UK ().

So what does it take to be a winner in a debate? Getting your facts straight or be the bigger douchebag? Cuz judging by your responses, it seems you favor the latter.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jan 14, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> Yeah, a country full of criminals with a gun ban has less crime than Chicago, or the US.
> 
> Kinda fucks up your argument.



How?

In Australia in 1996 in the Victoria state there was 6 gun related homicides, after the buyback law of 1997, which is costing the taxpayers of 500million it rose to 17, thats over a 100% increase when they inacted gun control laws. From 09-10 the homicides committed was 13%, 39%knive, and the rest is unknown weapons, so in a sense yes guns aren't a problem in Australia but the sad thing is they don't know what is.


----------



## Roman (Jan 14, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> How?
> 
> In Australia in 1996 in the Victoria state there was 6 gun related homicides, after the buyback law of 1997, which is costing the taxpayers of 500million it rose to 17, thats over a 100% increase when they inacted gun control laws. From 09-10 the homicides committed was 13%, 39%knive, and the rest is unknown weapons, so in a sense yes guns aren't a problem in Australia but the sad thing is they don't know what is.





I think you went wrong somewhere as firearm homicides actually declined since 1997, and 2003 introduced a new law, and homicide rates haven't exceeded 2003 levels since according to the initial chart.


----------



## Superrazien (Jan 14, 2013)

Freedan said:


> That right there is what I call being delusional if you think it'll happen on a grand scale. And isn't it easier to just move to a place where you don't have to worry about someone shooting you to burglarize your property all the time? It doesn't explain how any of it has to do with the recession either. People will commit robberies and car thefts in a boom or a recession. Ultimately, the fault isn't with third-party factors, but with the people themselves who have this contrived idea that guns = safety and power when the USA's murder rate pretty much speaks for itself.



Don't be so naive anything can happen, it's better to be safe than sorry. And yes it might be easier but not everyone is spineless. Some people actually want to stand up and fight for things that belong to them, not run like a coward. Increased violence always comes with a recession thats just common sense. The fault is always with the people of course, which is why we need the means to defend ourselves from these people. Lord knows the cops won't do it, can't remember the last time I seen a cop prevent a crime. 





> From what I gather, the English don't like him either, but I won't get into that. Morgan does talk over others, this is true, but that does not at all mean his opponent has a right to be the same. The only thing I got from the debate is that as much as Morgan could be a douche, Jones came off as even more of a douche because he replied to douchebaggery with douchbaggery. That's not how you win debates. You win debates by presenting facts. Jones was dead-wrong about violent crime in the UK as it's been dropping significantly since 1995 (). He was dead wrong about how many gun-related murders occur in the UK ().
> 
> So what does it take to be a winner in a debate? Getting your facts straight or be the bigger douchebag? Cuz judging by your responses, it seems you favor the latter.



You talk facts then site Wikipedia as a source? Jones facts were correct they were taken right from the FBI. Besides it's been shown throughout history that once people lose the ability to have something to protect themselves what follows next is either increased violence, or government suppression. So yes I think Jones won because he presented facts, and beat Morgan at his own game, which is about time someone did.

Let me ask you on a personal level. Do you really think people not having guns will prevent anything? Do you even know why we have the 2nd amendment? Gun's work in the same was as a nuclear deterrent. We don't go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons, because we don't want to get nuked back. Fear is the most powerful agent is the world, it's being used to sway the weak minded to give up the rights to defend themselves. While we should be using fear as a way to maintain some peace. The fear of getting shot would keep more criminals in line, when they realize they can be shot from any angle.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 14, 2013)

Wikipedia that uses the British governments own sources.  Also wiki is shown to be around 90% as reliable as Brittanica.

So for BRITISH crime statistics I would rather use British government who use the british police reporting than the FBI which has nothing to do with Britain.


----------



## Roman (Jan 14, 2013)

Superrazien said:


> Don't be so naive anything can happen, it's better to be safe than sorry. And yes it might be easier but not everyone is spineless. Some people actually want to stand up and fight for things that belong to them, not run like a coward. Increased violence always comes with a recession thats just common sense. The fault is always with the people of course, which is why we need the means to defend ourselves from these people. Lord knows the cops won't do it, can't remember the last time I seen a cop prevent a crime.



So you'd prefer it if there was more violence in your country as a result of a recession simply because people have the right to defend themselves? I'm glad you're not the president then, since you seem to give a rat's ass about people's own safety and let everyone fend for themselves. I always believed and will always believe the role of the govt, the role of the country's ruler is to *protect* his/her people and not leave everyone fend for themselves out of a fictitious notion that the govt will turn on them if they don't have the means to defend themselves with. What sort of country is it where people have to worry about their own skin at all times?



Superrazien said:


> You talk facts then site Wikipedia as a source? Jones facts were correct they were taken right from the FBI. Besides it's been shown throughout history that once people lose the ability to have something to protect themselves what follows next is either increased violence, or government suppression. So yes I think Jones won because he presented facts, and beat Morgan at his own game, which is about time someone did.



Nemesis answered the wiki question better than I could so I'll leave it at that.

Tell me what the FBI knows about murder and crime rates in the UK that the Scotland Yard doesn't? Unless you're implying the US does a better job of monitoring a country over which they have no jurisdiction over, please gtfo. And you can claim that people who "have no means to defend themselves will be subject to tyranny without fail" as your opinion, but the facts that Nemesis has shown and I reiterated for you prove other wise. On top of the UK, there is also Japan, Canada and Australia ALL of which enjoy far less crime and murder than the US. Jones presented completely incorrect facts. That's not a victory in my view.



Superrazien said:


> Let me ask you on a personal level. Do you really think people not having guns will prevent anything? Do you even know why we have the 2nd amendment? Gun's work in the same was as a nuclear deterrent. We don't go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons, because we don't want to get nuked back. Fear is the most powerful agent is the world, it's being used to sway the weak minded to give up the rights to defend themselves. While we should be using fear as a way to maintain some peace. The fear of getting shot would keep more criminals in line, when they realize they can be shot from any angle.



Oh yes, I most definitely believe it, and I've proven myself with ACTUAL facts rather than hearsay as Jones did. 39 gun-related murders in the UK. Even less than that in Japan. Far less murder in both of those countries, Australia and Canada overall. Violent crime has been declining heavily since 1995 in the UK. The facts speak for themselves: less guns, less murder, less violence. Compare that to the US, which sees thousands of murders in a year, 70% of which are all gun-related, and it's extremely hard to believe more guns will solve anything. Not when examples of countries where not even police officers can carry guns sees far less murder per capita.

As for your belief in fear, I have to disagree on the notion too. Peace built on fear can never last. Historically, that has been proven true time and again. People who live in fear will eventually grow tired of the society that imposes fear on them. That's what leads to conflict. You said it yourself. Violence rises with recessions. Why do you think that is? Is it because it is simply like that, or because people are afraid of losing more than what they've already lost? I'll wager on the latter, that's why they act violently in the end.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 14, 2013)

Alex Jones is right.

But as is typical of the united states the "moral majority" will probably screw us all in supporting the wrong stance(stricter regulation assault rifle ban) on gun control.

Then they'll blame the republicans for the fact that they made the wrong decision almost as if they have no independent will or consciousness of their own.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 14, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Alex Jones is right.
> 
> But as is typical of the united states the "moral majority" will probably screw us all in supporting the wrong stance(stricter regulation assault rifle ban) on gun control.
> 
> Then they'll blame the republicans for the fact that they made the wrong decision almost as if they have no independent will or consciousness of their own.


 Where the fuck are you getting this bullshit? What purpose to assault reifles serve? And how was the last assault rifle ban the wrong choice. 

You've got to stop talking like a lunatic at least long enough for us to question where you get this stuff.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 14, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Alex Jones is right.
> 
> But as is typical of the united states the "moral majority" will probably screw us all in supporting the wrong stance(stricter regulation assault rifle ban) on gun control.
> 
> Then they'll blame the republicans for the fact that they made the wrong decision almost as if they have no independent will or consciousness of their own.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 14, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where the fuck are you getting this bullshit? What purpose to assault reifles serve? And how was the last assault rifle ban the wrong choice.
> 
> You've got to stop talking like a lunatic at least long enough for us to question where you get this stuff.



What purpose does scientology serve?

Who says things must serve a purpose to exist?  

Assault rifles are used in a small portion of crimes.  

Would banning assault rifles have prevented recent mass shootings?

Why all the gun and NRA hate?  

Can't people assimilate or rationalize an issue like gun control without demonizing and having a personal hate hate relationship with something?


Economic distress and a weak job market may be considered as much a cause of mass shootings and elevated gun crime as firearms.

But I guess that doesn't matter much to those who don't understand issues like gun control well enough to offer their opinion without posting a meme image.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jan 14, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> What purpose does scientology serve?
> 
> Who says things must serve a purpose to exist?
> 
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 14, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> What purpose does scientology serve?
> 
> Who says things must serve a purpose to exist?


Do you think yourself clever? Get that weak shit out of here, there's a huge difference between a cult/religion and weapons made for the military. 


> Assault rifles are used in a small portion of crimes.


They shouldn't be used in any. 



> Would banning assault rifles have prevented recent mass shootings?


If they had stayed banned it might have. The point of banning something isn't to change the past, it's to make it harder for it to happen again. Banning assault rifles, enforcing background checks and stricter regulation on liscences would help a lot. 



> Why all the gun and NRA hate?
> 
> Can't people assimilate or rationalize an issue like gun control without demonizing and having a personal hate hate relationship with something?


 The NRA is a stupid gun lobby, nothing more. They support idiocy like not doing background checks on private and convention sales. That's just ridiculous. 



> Economic distress and a weak job market may be considered as much a cause of mass shootings and elevated gun crime as firearms.


 
True, but that doesn't mean we have to give them the best weapons possible to do something that no civillian needs to do. Assault rifles are for military groups and the like, maybe you can go somewhere and rent them to screw around, but having them where the public can buy them is dumb.


----------



## Roman (Jan 14, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where the fuck are you getting this bullshit? What purpose to assault reifles serve? And how was the last assault rifle ban the wrong choice.
> 
> You've got to stop talking like a lunatic at least long enough for us to question where you get this stuff.



I thought you were against gun control. Have you changed your mind?


----------



## oprisco (Jan 14, 2013)




----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 14, 2013)

Everyone with a different opinion who has different taste in books, food, movies must be "legally retarded".  

You do need to justify what makes your vaunted opinion more valid or accurate than mine.  If you wish to escape the "EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES OR THINKS DIFFERENTLY THAN ME IS MENTALLY RETARDED" type of ONE TRUE FAITH narcissist egotist mentality anywayz.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you think yourself clever? Get that weak shit out of here, there's a huge difference between a cult/religion and weapons made for the military.



Just pointing out whether or not something serves a purpose that can be demonstrated has little to do with whether or not it should exist, be legalized, etc.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They shouldn't be used in any.


 
Alcohol is complicit in more fatalities than guns.

Why don't you say alcohol shouldn't be "used" in traffic accidents as an attempted endorsement of prohibition and call it a day?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If they had stayed banned it might have. The point of banning something isn't to change the past, it's to make it harder for it to happen again. Banning assault rifles, enforcing background checks and stricter regulation on liscences would help a lot.


 
Not necessarily.

That may be indicative of the type of kneejerk reactionism associated with the prohibition movement.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The NRA is a stupid gun lobby, nothing more. They support idiocy like not doing background checks on private and convention sales. That's just ridiculous.



Knowing the government if they regulated it they would probably slap 20%-40% taxes across the board that would do nothing but bloat the sales process and raise prices while diminishing firearm workmarnship and there would be enough loopholes that criminals would still have firearms.

If you've noticed anything about recent history, you may have noticed that the US government actually provided mexican gun cartels with fully automatic rifles under operation "fast and furious".  Then they tried to blame it all on gun shows and falsified a precedent whereby they claimed mexican cartels obtained firearms legally due to a lack of regulation and background checks.

If you think the answer to guns is giving the same government that gave mexican drug cartels fully automatic weapons, grenades, explosives and other military grade hardware control over the private market.

That would seem a very unrealistic view with zero evidence to support it.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> True, but that doesn't mean we have to give them the best weapons possible to do something that no civillian needs to do. Assault rifles are for military groups and the like, maybe you can go somewhere and rent them to screw around, but having them where the public can buy them is dumb.



A person could buy a jumbo jet and crash it into a building if they so chose.

They could buy over the counter ingredients to make bombs.

If they were clever they might even be able to obtain ebola or another virus or disease and infect people with it.

Fact is tobacco, alcohol, and medical accidents claim exponentially more lives than assault rifles which makes me wonder why firearms are being singled out and all these other problems we have may seemingly be ignored.


----------



## Jeff (Jan 14, 2013)

Whichever path the government chooses to pursue, there will always be a counter argument just as there will always be violence involving a weapon.

Point in case, here: 

Anyone remember the Akihabara incident in Japan when a guy drove his truck into a group of people, jumped out, and started stabbing people with a combat knife?  It was in Japan, but if that occurred in America would we have a whole debate about combat knifes and trucks being deadly weapons?  Certainly guns serve no other purpose other than to kill or maim another human being or animal ("personal protection" is another valid point to buy a gun, and "target practice").  Hammers and other blunt weapons serve other purposes, therefore is just probably used as satire.  But it is the users of the weapons which are the main culprits, and barring population control there needs to be a better way to reduce violence in general.


----------



## Superrazien (Jan 14, 2013)

Freedan said:


> So you'd prefer it if there was more violence in your country as a result of a recession simply because people have the right to defend themselves? I'm glad you're not the president then, since you seem to give a rat's ass about people's own safety and let everyone fend for themselves. I always believed and will always believe the role of the govt, the role of the country's ruler is to *protect* his/her people and not leave everyone fend for themselves out of a fictitious notion that the govt will turn on them if they don't have the means to defend themselves with. What sort of country is it where people have to worry about their own skin at all times?



No I never said that I don't prefer violence of any kind. It's better if we all just get along. But this is no fairy tale world. We live in a very violent world. All I am really saying is people have a right to defend themselves, during a recession that right may be more needed than usual. Of course you will have people committing crimes with weapons, but what most of you people don't get is very few of actual gun crimes are committed with legal guns. The few that get plastered all over the media that so copy cats can do it are exceptions. But then you have shootings like the Colorado one which is so sketchy the more you research it.

Basically it boils down to you wanting to do away with one of our rights. We have the right to bear arms. Just like we have freedom of speech. If one of rights can be taken, then who's to say the other won't? Unless you want our freedom of speech to be taken next?





> Nemesis answered the wiki question better than I could so I'll leave it at that.
> 
> Tell me what the FBI knows about murder and crime rates in the UK that the Scotland Yard doesn't? Unless you're implying the US does a better job of monitoring a country over which they have no jurisdiction over, please gtfo. And you can claim that people who "have no means to defend themselves will be subject to tyranny without fail" as your opinion, but the facts that Nemesis has shown and I reiterated for you prove other wise. On top of the UK, there is also Japan, Canada and Australia ALL of which enjoy far less crime and murder than the US. Jones presented completely incorrect facts. That's not a victory in my view.



I'm going to do a little more fact digging to get some sources so I'll get back to this.




> Oh yes, I most definitely believe it, and I've proven myself with ACTUAL facts rather than hearsay as Jones did. 39 gun-related murders in the UK. Even less than that in Japan. Far less murder in both of those countries, Australia and Canada overall. Violent crime has been declining heavily since 1995 in the UK. The facts speak for themselves: less guns, less murder, less violence. Compare that to the US, which sees thousands of murders in a year, 70% of which are all gun-related, and it's extremely hard to believe more guns will solve anything. Not when examples of countries where not even police officers can carry guns sees far less murder per capita.
> 
> As for your belief in fear, I have to disagree on the notion too. Peace built on fear can never last. Historically, that has been proven true time and again. People who live in fear will eventually grow tired of the society that imposes fear on them. That's what leads to conflict. You said it yourself. Violence rises with recessions. Why do you think that is? Is it because it is simply like that, or because people are afraid of losing more than what they've already lost? I'll wager on the latter, that's why they act violently in the end.



Well you seem to just forget that America in general is just a violent country, we are violent people. Guns or no guns we will have a shit ton of rape and murder. So comparing those countries to us can't just be attributed toward banning guns. Remember we live in a country where violence on TV and movies is 100% ok to show kids and teenagers, but the minute someone shows a breast it's rated R.

Peace built on fear will never last? Might be true but it's the only peace the world has ever known. Unless you can tell me a time where the world has been in peace, not thanks to fear. 

You and anyone who believes that our government, or any government won't try to seize power over us the moment we are defenseless makes you naive. Or do you just think dictators take everyone's guns because they are big collectors?


----------



## Bryan Paulsen (Jan 14, 2013)

This is the second time I get to take you to the woodshed.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where the fuck are you getting this bullshit? What purpose to assault reifles serve? And how was the last assault rifle ban the wrong choice.



#1) Self-defense, whether against isolated or multiple aggressors.

#2) The natural right of self-defense is non-negotiable.

#3) What _is_ negotiable is whether a means of self-defense doesn't qualify as self-defense by virtue of implicating the loss of innocent property and life upon usage, because such means would qualify as unwarranted aggression.

Anyone that would argue that the behavior of outliers should require regulation of the majority and _carte blanche_ restriction of their behavior is irrational, and completely dependent on an _appeal to emotion_. This argument is made even more irrational via the insistence that a special group of people should still maintain this right (State-endorsed individuals), but not society as a whole.

Never mind the intellectually bankrupt gun control advocates that have no problem with the State owning weaponry of any and all varieties. Authoritarians are notorious for being hypocrites when posed with the idea of the _proletariat_ being empowered, because it represents a threat to their self-interests. Of course, you have to wonder about all of the useful idiots that would attempt to sell out on their natural rights in order to empower the State when they, themselves, do not actually occupy a position of power.

However, it is amusing to watch individuals that I know are atheists have such faith in the State to act in a consistently benevolent fashion. I guess man always has to find _something_ to faithfully submit himself to, because the idea of ruling one's self is apparently impossible.

Are there any gun control advocating atheists that want to step up to the plate and explain the logic behind their ineffable faith in the State to act responsibly with an absolute monopoly on force?


----------



## OmniOmega (Jan 14, 2013)

Piers Morgan needs to get the fuck out of America already. Not because of the 2nd Amendment shit.

But because he's shit.

The UK doesn't want him and I hope to god most of us in the US don't either. Send him to like Austrailia or Canada.

Like at least they'll tolerate him or something


----------



## Mansali (Jan 14, 2013)

*Cenk Uygur To Alex Jones During Heated Interview: ?Have You Ever Sought Mental Health*



> Host of The Young Turks Cenk Uygur interviewed gun advocate and conservative talk radio host Alex Jones about everything from his appearance on Piers Morgan to his views on Glenn Beck and posed a tongue-in-cheek question that may have been secretly serious: “Have you ever sought mental health treatment?”
> 
> Jones simply laughed and quipped, “America needs mental health treatment if they don’t have a pulse.” He went on to explain:
> 
> ...




OK NEW NEWS NOW WATCH THIS VIDEO : ALEX JONES VS CENK from TYT 

Here are the youtube links
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=306oq8haFrc[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CkSYtwY5o[/YOUTUBE]

This seems like a good one.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

People are so crazy.


----------



## Ae (Jan 15, 2013)

People are really taking Alex's side?


----------



## Roman (Jan 15, 2013)

Superrazien said:


> No I never said that I don't prefer violence of any kind. It's better if we all just get along. But this is no fairy tale world. We live in a very violent world. All I am really saying is people have a right to defend themselves, during a recession that right may be more needed than usual. Of course you will have people committing crimes with weapons, but what most of you people don't get is very few of actual gun crimes are committed with legal guns. The few that get plastered all over the media that so copy cats can do it are exceptions. But then you have shootings like the Colorado one which is so sketchy the more you research it.



This may be a violent world, but it will continue to remain that way if people believe they can carry a weapon wherever and shoot at whoever threatens them. Hatred and fear breed more of the same ilk, and as I've shown you repeated times, less guns = less crime. There are plenty of examples which I will reiterate to you AGAIN later in this post since even after showing them to you n! times you refuse to see it. And yes, most gun crimes may be related much more to illegal guns than legal ones, but do tell me how illegal guns have absolutely no relation to legal guns? Not that it matters because either way, there are many countries where guns are restricted, some of which I have shown you, where less guns = less crime.



Superrazien said:


> Basically it boils down to you wanting to do away with one of our rights. We have the right to bear arms. Just like we have freedom of speech. If one of rights can be taken, then who's to say the other won't? Unless you want our freedom of speech to be taken next?



This isn't about a govt acting out of tyranny by banning assault rifles, which still isn't an infringement on your oh so sacred second amendment. And even if it was, it's because the govt is *moving on with the times* and *understanding that the relatively unregulated access to guns is causing America to be one of the countries with the highest murder rates among first world nations and even the world at large*. It's about *safeguarding the American people*. People's safety should not be left to their own hands alone (emphasis on alone). The role of the govt, as I said, is to safeguard its people. That doesn't mean only arming them and leaving them to their own methods.



Superrazien said:


> I'm going to do a little more fact digging to get some sources so I'll get back to this.



Don't bother. Here you go.

The UK, where guns are forbidden even for police officers, .

 according to the British Crime Survey.







Superrazien said:


> Well you seem to just forget that America in general is just a violent country, we are violent people. Guns or no guns we will have a shit ton of rape and murder. So comparing those countries to us can't just be attributed toward banning guns. Remember we live in a country where violence on TV and movies is 100% ok to show kids and teenagers, but the minute someone shows a breast it's rated R.



And that's acceptable to you because?

Yeah, this does not justify keeping guns. If anything, it only serves to make me even more convinced that guns need to be outlawed. You don't hand tools of murder to "naturally violent people" as you put it. That's far more counterproductive.



Superrazien said:


> Peace built on fear will never last? Might be true but it's the only peace the world has ever known. Unless you can tell me a time where the world has been in peace, not thanks to fear.



Just because that's the only kind of peace humanity's ever known doesn't mean it's the only kind of peace humanity ever should know. So long as there is fear, there will be conflict. Perhaps not in the present, but almost undoubtedly in the future. 



Superrazien said:


> You and anyone who believes that our government, or any government won't try to seize power over us the moment we are defenseless makes you naive. Or do you just think dictators take everyone's guns because they are big collectors?


----------



## Bender (Jan 15, 2013)

Cenk Uygur > Alex Jones

Definitely is the best example of why people need mental evaluations before purchasing firearms.


----------



## oprisco (Jan 15, 2013)

OmniOmega said:


> Piers Morgan needs to get the fuck out of America already. Not because of the 2nd Amendment shit.
> 
> But because he's shit.
> 
> ...



Yeah I agree. Use already the petition against him. Nobody wants him.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 15, 2013)

Evidently the Second Amendment itself needs to be amended.


----------



## Roman (Jan 15, 2013)

Velocity said:


> Evidently the Second Amendment itself needs to be amended.



Exactly. But it must not be done because the constitution is a sacred and holy scripture on par with the bible


----------



## Toby (Jan 15, 2013)

The problem as I see it is that Alex Jones refuses to have a civilized argument, i.e. answer questions without changing the narrative every two seconds. 

He did not answer questions and acted like a fucking child. It is no wonder that people think all pro-gun rights activists are rabid animals. Alex Jones behaved like one.

The debate was terrible in any case, but Alex response lost him any credibility and perpetuates an impression of stupid, rude Americans. Disgusting. The news-host was asking leading questions too. Looks like the entire news cycle is broken.


----------



## Roman (Jan 15, 2013)

Toby said:


> The problem as I see it is that Alex Jones refuses to have a civilized argument, i.e. answer questions without changing the narrative every two seconds.
> 
> He did not answer questions and acted like a fucking child. It is no wonder that people think all pro-gun rights activists are rabid animals. Alex Jones behaved like one.
> 
> The debate was terrible in any case, but Alex response lost him any credibility and perpetuates an impression of stupid, rude Americans. Disgusting. The news-host was asking leading questions too. Looks like the entire news cycle is broken.



It's also hilarious how Alex Jones tried to explain that was his way of trying to wake us up from a trance that we're all cast under on TYT. I mean seriously, how ridiculous can one be when he goes and tells that all of us are in a trance cast on us by the govt to believe only in what they want us to believe? Nvm his other even more ludicrous conspiracy theories of the Marin Corps training mowing down civilians by having volunteers dressed like Americans walking as a tank (or whatever vehicle he said it was) rolled over them while pretending they're zombies.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 15, 2013)

Mansali said:


> OK NEW NEWS NOW WATCH THIS VIDEO : ALEX JONES VS CENK from TYT
> 
> Here are the youtube links
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=306oq8haFrc[/YOUTUBE]
> ...



>New World Order
>Robot Army
>HG Wells inspired Hunger Games

This guy is worse than Ballstik


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 15, 2013)

Why has this thread gotten so many replies ?___?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2013)

The people all over this "he should leave the country stuff need to leave themselves.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 15, 2013)

Mider T said:


> >HG Wells inspired Hunger Games



He's insane.  And needs to read Battle Royale to see where Hunger Games really came from


----------



## OmniOmega (Jan 15, 2013)

Toby said:


> The problem as I see it is that Alex Jones refuses to have a civilized argument, i.e. answer questions without changing the narrative every two seconds.
> 
> He did not answer questions and acted like a fucking child. *It is no wonder that people think all pro-gun rights activists are rabid animals.* Alex Jones behaved like one.
> 
> The debate was terrible in any case, but Alex response lost him any credibility and perpetuates an impression of stupid, rude Americans. Disgusting. The news-host was asking leading questions too. Looks like the entire news cycle is broken.



Just watch someone who isn't a confirmed nutjob like Ben Shapiro
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Pliskin (Jan 15, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The people all over this "he should leave the country stuff need to leave themselves.



Hell no, you keep them!


----------



## Roman (Jan 15, 2013)

OmniOmega said:


> Just watch someone who isn't a confirmed nutjob like Ben Shapiro
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs[/YOUTUBE]



What a load of BS. Italy, Japan, France, sure, all of these govts have their problems, but they're not the ones who made anything resembling the NDAA and civilians aren't allowed to carry guns in any of those countries and haven't had such permission for the longest time. Yet it is in the US, where people are allowed to carry guns, that something like the NDAA exists. So where the hell is the tyranny in Italy and Japan?

The point of the above is to show that guns don't deter govt tyranny if that's the road people want to take to defend gun rights.


----------



## NarutoxKakashi (Jan 15, 2013)

Freedan said:


> What a load of BS. Italy, Japan, France, sure, all of these govts have their problems, but they're not the ones who made anything resembling the NDAA and civilians aren't allowed to carry guns in any of those countries and haven't had such permission for the longest time. Yet it is in the US, where people are allowed to carry guns, that something like the NDAA exists. So where the hell is the tyranny in Italy and Japan?
> 
> The point of the above is to show that guns don't deter govt tyranny if that's the road people want to take to defend gun rights.



The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. 

The U.S. is already a tyranny.


----------



## Nemesis (Jan 15, 2013)

How is the US a tyranny?


----------



## Bender (Jan 16, 2013)

@Nemesis

That's what I'm wondering.


----------



## Uncle Phantom (Jan 16, 2013)

people with guns cant do shit to a regimented military. If the US wanted to take away our freedom, there isn't a damn thing we could do about it but leave the country.

stop this fuckshit already, it's beyond played.


----------



## Bioness (Jan 16, 2013)

I am truly at a lost for words with that interview.

Sure the questions were aimed to poke holes into pro-gunners arguments but if they act like that then they deserve to have more than their viewpoint shot full of holes.


----------



## Roman (Jan 16, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I am truly at a lost for words with that interview.
> 
> Sure the questions were aimed to poke holes into pro-gunners arguments but if they act like that then they deserve to have more than their viewpoint shot full of holes.



Yeah. I couldn't really stand the amount of arrogance Ben Shapiro displayed through the whole interview, what with his smirking and self-conceit particularly when he comes in with the constitution as if to say "I'm smart, you're a retard, deal with it." Not that I agree with Morgan calling him out as an idiot either. Both sides really need to act with more respect for one another before they can even start talking about having a civil discussion.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

Uncle Phantom said:


> people with guns cant do shit to a regimented military. If the US wanted to take away our freedom, there isn't a damn thing we could do about it but leave the country.
> 
> stop this fuckshit already, it's beyond played.



Agreed. The people spouting that shit must be delusional.


----------



## Triggenism (Jan 16, 2013)

But the people must be allowed some form of resistance, maybe if a law could make it harder to aquire a gun (more background checks and conditions necessary the side-effects of civilian gun ownership would decrease. Also even if as stated above the military steamrolls civilians with higher technology, the civilians at least get to make a final stand versus a tyrannical state, and can in that manner also convince larger masses to join the resistance. Also, keep in mind. It's the PEOPLE that make up the lower branches of the military, and they can always be swayed to the will of the republic. As MANY soldiers will find it to be their duty to fight for justice and the civilians, thus they will revolt and challenge the supreme rulers (government, authorital branches, chief of staff) etc.


----------



## Roman (Jan 16, 2013)

Triggenism said:


> But the people must be allowed some form of resistance, maybe if a law could make it harder to aquire a gun (more background checks and conditions necessary the side-effects of civilian gun ownership would decrease. Also even if as stated above the military steamrolls civilians with higher technology, the civilians at least get to make a final stand versus a *tyrannical state*, and can in that manner also convince larger masses to join the resistance. Also, keep in mind. It's the PEOPLE that make up the lower branches of the military, and they can always be swayed to the will of the republic. As MANY soldiers will find it to be their duty to fight for justice and the civilians, thus they will revolt and challenge the supreme rulers (government, authorital branches, chief of staff) etc.



A tyrannical state that the US is not and will never be. Sure, the US has a lot of issues with corruption, harsh law enforcement where innocents sometimes get taken in, misinformation through the media, but it's hardly what you'd call tyrannical. No one is being made a slave. Discrimination is largely discouraged and there exist laws that protect minorities (something actual tyrannical states don't have), etc. I see problems, many of them. But I don't see where the tyranny is.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

Triggenism said:


> But the people must be allowed some form of resistance, maybe if a law could make it harder to aquire a gun (more background checks and conditions necessary the side-effects of civilian gun ownership would decrease. Also even if as stated above the military steamrolls civilians with higher technology, the civilians at least get to make a final stand versus a tyrannical state, and can in that manner also convince larger masses to join the resistance. Also, keep in mind. It's the PEOPLE that make up the lower branches of the military, and they can always be swayed to the will of the republic. As MANY soldiers will find it to be their duty to fight for justice and the civilians, thus they will revolt and challenge the supreme rulers (government, authorital branches, chief of staff) etc.



This is some delusional shit. It won't be a resistance, it would be a massacre. If the U.S. were a tyrannical state, there'd be no question about it, and no armed civilian miltia would stop it.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 16, 2013)

People living under real tyranny wouldn't be posting here to talk about it.  These overreactions are just sad.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

They've got another loon on CNN...


----------



## Mider T (Jan 16, 2013)

NRA is panicking, they can't stop it this time and they know it so they're throwing out everything they've got, even if it makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2013)

Yeah, did you see that ad where they used Obama's children?


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 17, 2013)

Freedan said:


> A tyrannical state that the US is not *and will never be.*



Care to explain why?


----------



## Mider T (Jan 17, 2013)

The people would revolt, there wouldn't be just talk from loonies like now, there'd be actual mobilization of average Americans.


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 17, 2013)

Mider T said:


> The people would revolt, there wouldn't be just talk from loonies like now, there'd be actual mobilization of average Americans.



I see.... The sad/funny part is that those socalled loonies would be the first ones to revolt and they would be sharing their stockpiles of weapons and ammo with everyone else. Expect with those of course who keep calling them 'loonies'. 

Though it's hard to see how those weapons will help against drone attacks. Especially if you look at how much practice their getting these days using them.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 17, 2013)

@ you bringing up drones


----------



## Bender (Jan 17, 2013)

Uncle Phantom said:


> people with guns cant do shit to a regimented military. If the US wanted to take away our freedom, there isn't a damn thing we could do about it but leave the country.
> 
> stop this fuckshit already, it's beyond played.



The reality they're living in is beyond absurd. 



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> Yeah, did you see that ad where they used Obama's children?



As soon as they used that example they really showed how immature they were.


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 17, 2013)

Mider T said:


> @ you bringing up drones



Of course. It's the weapon of choice when it comes to killing terrorists.


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)

Son of Goku said:


> I see.... The sad/funny part is that those socalled loonies would be the first ones to revolt and they would be sharing their stockpiles of weapons and ammo with everyone else. Expect with those of course who keep calling them 'loonies'.
> 
> Though it's hard to see how those weapons will help against drone attacks. Especially if you look at how much practice their getting these days using them.



Who needs guns to show contempt? Demonstrations do not need to be violent. Although it ended in failure, Egypt's revolt was not an armed revolt by any means, and the people managed to hold some form of elections. Why wouldn't the US hold proper elections given its foundations are democratic, unlike Egypt which has been a dictatorship for decades? Guns are not needed for the people to make a point of something.


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 17, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Who needs guns to show contempt? Demonstrations do not need to be violent. Although it ended in failure, Egypt's revolt was not an armed revolt by any means, and the people managed to hold some form of elections. Why wouldn't the US hold proper elections given its foundations are democratic, unlike Egypt which has been a dictatorship for decades? Guns are not needed for the people to make a point of something.



That's why the US will never turn into a tyranny? Because people will peacefully protest? And what would stop the soon-to-be-tyrant to just squash them and go on as planned? Not very convincing. 

You bring up Egypt, where the military stood down for the most part? You know it doesn't always work out like that? In fact it rarely does. Look back at Lybia or Syria and Bahrein now.


----------



## Bender (Jan 17, 2013)

Son of Goku said:


> Of course. It's the weapon of choice when it comes to killing terrorists.



It's also the best weapon.


----------



## Roman (Jan 17, 2013)

Son of Goku said:


> That's why the US will never turn into a tyranny? Because people will peacefully protest? And what would stop the soon-to-be-tyrant to just squash them and go on as planned? Not very convincing.
> 
> You bring up Egypt, where the military stood down for the most part? You know it doesn't always work out like that? In fact it rarely does. Look back at Lybia or Syria and Bahrein now.



As you seem to believe the constitution is 100% correct on the matter of the US becoming tyrannical, let me also remind you that by the constitution, the US military should place a larger priority on the people than the govt. They serve the people and the constitution before they do the politicians. If you think about it, that's actually another reason civilians don't need guns. The military already protects them. But hey, I guess no one thought of that 

So yes, if the American people did carry out a peaceful protest in the extremely unlikely scenario that the US became a dictatorship, the military would stand by if not back them up. I really find it contradictory how people put so much faith in the constitution when it comes to the US becoming dystopic only to then completely disregard the part where the US military serves the people first.


----------



## St. YatōKiri_Kilgharrah (Jan 17, 2013)

Palpatine said:


> Alex Jones continuing to act like a complete lunatic I see...
> 
> It scares me that this guy has any loyal listeners at all.



I dont get it really, when someone has a few credible ideas but everything that comes out of their mouth is fucking bullshit you do NOT give them the time of day


----------



## Son of Goku (Jan 17, 2013)

Freedan said:


> As you seem to believe the constitution is 100% correct on the matter of the US becoming tyrannical, let me also remind you that by the constitution, the US military should place a larger priority on the people than the govt. They serve the people and the constitution before they do the politicians. If you think about it, that's actually another reason civilians don't need guns. The military already protects them. But hey, I guess no one thought of that
> 
> So yes, if the American people did carry out a peaceful protest in the extremely unlikely scenario that the US became a dictatorship, the military would stand by if not back them up. I really find it contradictory how people put so much faith in the constitution when it comes to the US becoming dystopic only to then completely disregard the part where the US military serves the people first.



So now the the US can't ever become a tyranny because its military won't let it? I'm sure that's true for a lot of soldiers (at least I hope so), but a significant number or even the whole military establishment? Doubtful. Heroes just don't grow on trees. And tyrants aren't stupid. They will make sure that they have the military and the media on their side and get rid of those who are not before taking power. Most soldiers will believe that they're doing the right thing, fighting domestic terrorists or sececionists or both.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 17, 2013)

^Uh no, the US isn't some shitty military state where the military gets special payoffs and kills the people.  Doesn't work like that here.


----------

