Alex Jones wants to deport Piers Mogan.

[Rizendragon]

You no, I have not.

We have the 2nd Amendment because at the time of the constitution the US was very much a frontier nation and the framers argued against a standing military. Guess what, we have a standing military and a huge percentage of the US is no longer a frontier nation.

Wrong. Quotes from the founding fathers that support you being wrong:

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

I could keep posting quotes, but I think it would be redundant. My point is that this notion that the government at the time of foundation only allowed people to keep their guns was so they could hunt and protect themselves from natives and the wilderness is absolutely wrong and misinformed. The Founding Fathers trusted a strong centralized government so little that we ended up with the very weak Articles of Confederation for the first 10 years of the country's existence.

[Deleted]

Alex Jones?

Isn't he the one who had a series of videos in which he claimed that the Bush adiministration blew the WTC up themselves and then covered it up?

[Daerio]

As long as guncontrol remains very strict over here, it shouldn't concern me.

Something we can agree on. I don't see a lot of Americans campaigning to legalize guns in EU or elsewhere in the world. Strangely, a lot of these forum discussions are filled with Europeans with this superior, arrogant attitude that we're stupid for keeping them legal here.

[Chaochamp]

I love how some people actually think a bunch of rednecks with guns could take on the superpower that is the United States Military.

[Deleted]

Something we can agree on. I don't see a lot of Americans campaigning to legalize guns in EU or elsewhere in the world. Strangely, a lot of these forum discussions are filled with Europeans with this superior, arrogant attitude that we're stupid for keeping them legal here.

A lot of Europeans find it stupid because we're used to trusting our government, and we don't feel like we have the need to protect ourselves from it, not to mention that we have a smaller homicide rate, 3.5, than the USA's, 4.8.

Then there's also the question why a good handgun don't do enough, or a shotgun. An assault rifle to defend yourself seems a bit excessive.

[Deleted]

I see nothing wrong with that petition. It was bad enough having to listen to the smarmy prick in the UK but after i moved to the US he seems to have come too.

Deport him back to the UK please i thought i'd got rid of him for good ><

Just to note i don't agree with the second ammendment either but that's neither here or there, he's still a prick.

Edit: After watching the video - Texans why did you let this guy out?

[Daerio]

A lot of Europeans find it stupid because we're used to trusting our government, and we don't feel like we have the need to protect ourselves from it, not to mention that we have a smaller homicide rate, 3.5, than the USA's, 4.8.

Then there's also the question why a good handgun don't do enough, or a shotgun. An assault rifle to defend yourself seems a bit excessive.

"We trust our government - why would you need an assault rifle?" Knowing the answer before you ask the question, and then pretending to be dense... this "gun debate" is always so circular and meaningless.

[Deleted]

Europeans with this superior, arrogant attitude

This is true, but don't forget this forum is also filled with Americans with this superior, arrogant attitude that they live in the only 'free' country.

[Deleted]

"We trust our government - why would you need an assault rifle?" Knowing the answer before you ask the question, and then pretending to be dense... this "gun debate" is always so circular and meaningless.

You take two different points that had nothing to do with each other and then call me dense, good going.

And you seriously don't need an assault rifle for the government. The government has way more assault rifles than you do, and they have the weapon expertise to back it up, so you don't stand a chance anyway. I still can't grasp how you people can seriously compare yourself to an American soldier.

[Daerio]

You take two different points that had nothing to do with each other and then call me dense, good going.

And you seriously don't need an assault rifle for the government. The government has way more assault rifles than you do, and they have the weapon expertise to back it up, so you don't stand a chance anyway. I still can't grasp how you people can seriously compare yourself to an American soldier.

If you read the thread, you already know the reason we have the right to possess arms, is to protect our rights from our leaders. It seems you should have already known that, since you start your post with, "Well, we trust our government!" - but then ask why we would need the same guns our government has.

Yes, our government has way more weapons than the citizenry does. Doesn't it then seem a bit silly to you to disarm the public when the government has such an arsenal?

As far as your condescending opinion, nobody needs you to understand it. They don't teach the 2nd amendment in EU schools.

[Deleted]

If you read the thread, you already know the reason we have the right to possess arms, is to protect our rights from our leaders.

Why can't you answer the question "Why do you need assault rifles?" I already said you could keep handguns and shotguns and whatever other non-rapid fire guns there are out there.

[Drithien]

Alex Jones is an expert at taking actual facts and a reasonable basis, then taking them to the most insane extreme possible, effectively destroying his own argument.

Only if the one that listens to him is so immature or unintelligent to not be able to listen to what he says and make up his own mind about what is fact, what personal opinion, and on which points of the personal opinion he agress with and to what extent. Obviously if someone is looking just to bash at Alex Jones or anyone in general he is going to get stuck at the "lol" aspects of his sayings. Which is what differentiates truely intelligent people and wannabe smartasses that just want to bash on others. Not directed at you by the way, just an observation of the way so many people seem to act like when it comes to listening to other people's opinions.

As a european, living in a country that has very strict gun regulation, I see what the problem is with taking away the right to own a gun from citizens in the United States. The U.S. is a coalition of states, not an actual country. Different states agreeing to, partly, unite, for their greater benefit. However, always making sure they have ways to be independent. One of the things to have in mind when trying to be independent as a group of people, is of course protection. That is why countries have national armies and police forces. However, there is no such thing as Californian Army (as far as I know). Only U.S. military. So some citizens want to make up for that by arming themselves privately. And they appear to have the right to do so.

The problem is in self-regulation. What those people themselves do to make sure they are responsible gun owners, and even more, to strip themselves of their weapons in case they are not. I see no reason why someone should not stick to the right to defend himslef and his people from possible enemies, even if the enemy is the government. However I also see no way in which taking an assault rifle in the woods for "shooting" while spamming "sammich" and "kitchen" jokes, as actual preparation in case of an emergency. Neither do I see how a 70-year old that can hardly see a meter in front of him is perfectly capable of handling a gun, any gun, even a pocket knife. Or a gun-nut. Or a person that has hardly any experience with guns.

It's not one or the other. It's about establishing some standards of gun ownership that are actually sane and work practically, and sticking to them, even if they impose annoying restrictions to you.

Of course the governement wants more regulation. And a ban would be ideal. It's far more practically efficient than negotiating laws. And of course a gun enthusiast wants next to no restrictions. It is also more practical for him to do as he pleases without having to stop every second to check if it is ok. After all, he knows better. But the solution in the middle is something that would work for the best of all cases.

And while all that fuss is made over guns, the real dangers pass by, mostly, unnoticed. I have seen several posters refer to some theoretical "tyranny" that they want to be able to fight against. Yet, the tyranny is real, and is already upon them, as well as most of us. And they hardly seem to notice. Much less realise that guns can do next to nothing against it. Nowadays you can get your house confiscated for merely owing a thousand dollars to the government.You can get sentenced to a multiple-year long prison incarceration for stealing a shirt. But you manage to trick a few hundreds of thousands of people out of their life-savings and you get... a government bailout as well as a bonus from your employer for doing such a great job. The tyrant is called banks and corporations. They do their own kind of min-maxing, with wealth. Robbing it off of anyone they can and accumulating as much of it as possible. And they already control most of what is going on, and are going for even more. They are also subtly, but actively brainwashing the rest of the world to think it is only natural. "Law of the strongest" and all that, as well as little treats to keep them wanting more and doing whatever they can do get it, primarily working to get their employers more wealth. And I don't see much rallying of freedom-fighters about those tyrants. Maybe because they require something more than bullets to get rid of.

[Deleted]

I believe you mean that this gun enthusiast has run out of good arguments. Unless you can find an instance of me personally agreeing with him, your argument is largely invalid.

come on kalyyn... we all know you're a lunatic.

[Daerio]

Why can't you answer the question "Why do you need assault rifles?" I already said you could keep handguns and shotguns and whatever other non-rapid fire guns there are out there.

I've answered it twice already. Other people in the thread have answered it also. I'll go for it one more time:

The government has assault rifles (I haven't seen any petitions to ban them from the military or police force) and the people should have access to them as well, to protect the rights of the citizenry. Is that direct enough for you, or do you still not understand the answer?

[Deleted]

I've answered it twice already. Other people in the thread have answered it also. I'll go for it one more time:

The government has assault rifles (I haven't seen any petitions to ban them from the military or police force) and the people should have access to them as well, to protect the rights of the citizenry. Is that direct enough for you, or do you still not understand the answer?

So again, what makes you think that the government is after controlling you all? Seems to be a lot of lifes you sacrifice in order to feed your conspiracy theories.

[Deleted]

Wrong. Quotes from the founding fathers that support you being wrong:

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

I could keep posting quotes, but I think it would be redundant. My point is that this notion that the government at the time of foundation only allowed people to keep their guns was so they could hunt and protect themselves from natives and the wilderness is absolutely wrong and misinformed. The Founding Fathers trusted a strong centralized government so little that we ended up with the very weak Articles of Confederation for the first 10 years of the country's existence.

The latest quote you posted (as in date) is from 1888. If you are posting this just to point out somebody has mis-interpreted the 2nd amendment you have my apologies. However, times have changed in the last 125 years "mostly" for the better. If that's my "European superior, arrogant attitude" showing, I'm not sure what to say...?

The argument that because around 30% of the US population is armed keeps the government on it's toes is naive / mis-guided at best.

[Beazy]

I love how some people actually think a bunch of rednecks with guns could take on the superpower that is the United States Military.

Most people in the military are the rednecks you speak of.

[Daerio]

The argument that because around 30% of the US population is armed keeps the government on it's toes is naive / mis-guided at best.

You're free to think so. We're free to disagree. And again, I don't see a lot of Americans campaigning to legalize guns in UK, but I notice you don't live here.

[Deleted]

You're free to think so. We're free to disagree. And again, I don't see a lot of Americans campaigning to legalize guns in UK, but I notice you don't live here.

Because legalising guns would do what exactly, in a society that gets by quite well without them and deems them unnecessary? The reason "us Europeans" are against guns in the majority, is because of the harm they cause.

All I ask, is for you to think about the following and give me an honest answer:

How many children / innocent people need to be murdered in cold blood, with the firearms you seem to hold with such esteem, before you will consider giving up you "God given right" to own them?

[Deleted]

Never heard of that Alex Jones before but the conclusion from the video, I don't like him.