Funniest thing I have ever seen in my life (Piers Morgan-Alex Jones interview)

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

It's called controlled opposition people. They bring the crazies out to make their side seem like the only credible one. It's a classic propaganda technique. Quite a few of Alex's facts were right though (rifles don't kill many people).

Think the point is that incidents involving rifles or automatic weapons have the highest number of casualties and injuries per shooter, one don't need to own automatic weapons to defend their homes just as you don't need to own a catapult to defend your home.

Most "gun folk" own guns because they like guns and the power (or sense of safity) that follow with guns.

[conscript]

And this was the sanest thing he did that day. An hour later he followed this interview up with a Youtube video claiming that Mayor Bloomberg and the mafia had undercover cops dressed as homeless crackheads trying to kill him and his crew.

[zorkuus]

Someone is yelling, never killed anyone in his life= conspiracy nutjob, disregard.

People don't consider him a conspiracy nutjob because he yells, it's because what he says (or yells) doesn't make any fucking sense and isn't supported by evidence.

[RickJamesLich]

Think the point is that incidents involving rifles or automatic weapons have the highest number of casualties and injuries per shooter, one don't need to own automatic weapons to defend their homes just as you don't need to own a catapult to defend your home.

Most "gun folk" own guns because they like guns and the power (or sense of safity) that follow with guns.

Every time i see this brought up, guys like Alex Jones will change the topic to anything else, "WE NEED TO FIGHT A TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT" or mention that these guns aren't used in most gun crimes. I think the issue is, there's no logical reason that civilians should have access to these weapons in the first place. In my opinion, it seems like the pro-gun crowd doesn't want these types of guns banned just because they look cool... as silly as it sounds.

[Wildtree]

see him at around 10:56... that's a man who legally owns 50 guns.

Sleep well folks. Sleep well.

Actually I did sleep very good lol... But lately that sleep wasn't too well anymore, I admit.
Watched that second vid, and I have to say.. When the "interview" with Morgan was at least borderline funny, since it made at least clear Jones can't be taken serious by anyone. This second vid however gives one the creeps. That's hard evidence for being a mentally unstable person, which shows obvious signs of schizophrenia and paranoia. And therefore should not have ANY firearm in his possession.
How long, until he loses it entirely and goes on a rampage? Maybe his mind totally snaps, and he believes that the revolution has to start right here and now, one day.
He shows the potential of being able to do just that. Maybe he will never do anything in that direction. Maybe he is just a rather cowardly human being, and behaves like a insecure dog would. Barking, barking, barking, and at the least sign of resistance falters tucking his tail between his legs and hides in a corner...
Who knows... I wouldn't take that chance. He's a perfect showcase for why their have to be regulations as to who can obtain and possess firearms. He's a prime example of an individual who should never have one.

[Marypoopins]

well that escalated quickly

[zorkuus]

Actually I did sleep very good lol... But lately that sleep wasn't too well anymore, I admit.
Watched that second vid, and I have to say.. When the "interview" with Morgan was at least borderline funny, since it made at least clear Jones can't be taken serious by anyone. This second vid however gives one the creeps. That's hard evidence for being a mentally unstable person, which shows obvious signs of schizophrenia and paranoia. And therefore should not have ANY firearm in his possession.
How long, until he loses it entirely and goes on a rampage? Maybe his mind totally snaps, and he believes that the revolution has to start right here and now, one day.
He shows the potential of being able to do just that. Maybe he will never do anything in that direction. Maybe he is just a rather cowardly human being, and behaves like a insecure dog would. Barking, barking, barking, and at the least sign of resistance falters tucking his tail between his legs and hides in a corner...
Who knows... I wouldn't take that chance. He's a perfect showcase for why their have to be regulations as to who can obtain and possess firearms. He's a prime example of an individual who should never have one.

If he wasn't "famous" and didn't have a radio show he makes millions out of and was just some average Joe I bet the first thing many people would think of would be "well that guy's going to be a mall shooter".

[rnbwtrout]

the conspiracy theory he holds so tight erases a lot of credibility, but im all for the freedom to own guns. do some research and you'll find that the first thing totalitarian or dictatorships do is to dis-arm the general population. it happens centuries after centuries, in countries from japan to the new world. whether you like it or not, gun ownership is part of the checks and balances, and has to remain as such, in our democratic republican government.

do we need further iteration/amendments on gun ownership? yes. do we need to do away with the general populaces' rights to arm themselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[RicardoZ]

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to find out Alex was some kind of a shill or something sent in by the Republicans to keep real Conservatives like Ron Paul from getting elected. I am honestly at a loss to think of how anybody could be so incredibly looney on their own and voluntarily do/say things like this on national television.

I do however like that somebody finally gave Piers Morgan a taste of his own medicine and screamed over him with irrelevant and loosely related facts and wouldn't let him get a word in. About time Piers found out what that's like for himself.

[RickJamesLich]

And this was the sanest thing he did that day. An hour later he followed this interview up with a Youtube video claiming that Mayor Bloomberg and the mafia had undercover cops dressed as homeless crackheads trying to kill him and his crew.

LMAO, if you got a video, please link!

[RicardoZ]

LMAO, if you got a video, please link!

LOL!!! Dude, check it...



HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!

[Wildtree]

No, they aren't. Assault weapons are fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons can't be bought freely. In order to own a fully automatic weapon it has to be manufactured before 1986, and even then the NFA system still applies. There's a large amount of paperwork and finances involved, in addition to needing an OK from both local and federal law enforcement agencies, resulting in, as I've pointed out, virtually NOBODY can get approved. Got a speeding ticket? No rifle. Got a DUI 30 years ago? No rifle. Hell my father has been sober for over 15 years, but due to having 3 DUIs, the most recent of which was 1977, he was nearly denied the right to purchase a pistol. He had to appeal the decision and attend an official hearing to get it overturned.

Just to answer you, since I went to bed last night.
If you go back to my post, you see that I wrote The "assault weapon" ban expired... I put it in quote marks, knowing how fired up people can get over that term.
Fact of the matter however is this:
Wiki is suffice. It provides the corresponding links to the Library of Congress where the law's are accessible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.

And since then, these types of weapons flooded into the population, with the result of a mass shooting spike now, starting 6 years after the ban expired.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 09:05 AM ----------

LOL!!! Dude, check it...

HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!

It's been linked serval times now already..
I dont see how it's funny actually.

[Deleted]

Sad that many Brits don't take classical liberalism seriously anymore

Hayek supported welfare as a precaution against revolution; so I find it odd you have him as your picture, and (I infer) you are libertarian.

And neo-liberalism is distinctly different from classical liberalism anyway, so it's strange you'd even mention classical liberalism when responding to some talking about modern libertarianism.

But I'm not American so it could just be a language barrier, I know 'liberal' means something very different in the U.S...

[DocQuantum]

To me, the most relevant aspect of this issue is that here in America we have a constitution... that the government has been chipping away at. If you want gun control, WRITE AN AMENDMENT. Merely having the federal (or state) government pass a "ban" on weapons isn't enough: it HAS to be a constitutional change, or it's illegal. This isn't a left-wing/right-wing issue: the last two presidential administrations, for instance, have both pretty much ignored the constitution. (This also isn't only recent: it's been going on since at least the 1860s.) If the constitution no longer applies (if those inalienable rights that cannot legally be taken from us are no longer ours), then we've already lost far more than a shouting match with a raving lunatic.

Just try going to an airport and holding on to your right against illegal search and seizure. Best of luck with that.

[Frankminimia]

he does act like a crazy person but alot of his points are true.

[Wildtree]

If he wasn't "famous" and didn't have a radio show he makes millions out of and was just some average Joe I bet the first thing many people would think of would be "well that guy's going to be a mall shooter".

Yes, agreed.... But I couldn't understand how many of those people would take his partial celebrity status as a tool to free him from that suspicion. How I think, I explained basically.. I ain't saying that he will be a mall shooter one day. I see that he has the potential of losing his clearly disturbed mind one day. What he will do at that point, no clue.. maybe not a mall. But I could imagine how he kills a traffic cop somewhere on a NYC intersection, because he then thinks that cop is a govt agent oppressing the people.

[Priestiality]

Just to answer you, since I went to bed last night.
If you go back to my post, you see that I wrote The "assault weapon" ban expired... I put it in quote marks, knowing how fired up people can get over that term.
Fact of the matter however is this:
Wiki is suffice. It provides the corresponding links to the Library of Congress where the law's are accessible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban
And since then, these types of weapons flooded into the population, with the result of a mass shooting spike now, starting 6 years after the ban expired.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 09:05 AM ----------

It's been linked serval times now already..
I dont see how it's funny actually.

This page here shows that the ban had little to no effect on mass shootings. They existed before, during, and after the weapons ban. And while you argue that these particular types of firearms made it possible, very few of these mass shootings involved anything classed under the ban.

[Mayhem]

the conspiracy theory he holds so tight erases a lot of credibility, but im all for the freedom to own guns. do some research and you'll find that the first thing totalitarian or dictatorships do is to dis-arm the general population. it happens centuries after centuries, in countries from japan to the new world. whether you like it or not, gun ownership is part of the checks and balances, and has to remain as such, in our democratic republican government.

do we need further iteration/amendments on gun ownership? yes. do we need to do away with the general populaces' rights to arm themselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

i hate to break it to you, but if you think you need the guns for checks and balances, because the democratic republican government could become something like a dictatorship

a) if that´s possible in your imagination, then you´d face the army, you know, the most expensive army in the world, you won´t stand a chance with your guns and you certaintly won´t start a revolution

b) if that´s possible and the army wouldn´t be on the dictators side, the dictatorship wouldn´t last very long, a few days maybe, so you wouldn´t need your guns

c) if it ain´t possible, you don´t need your guns

so in what scenario where your democratic republican government turns into a totalitarium or dictatorship would it be meaningfull for civilians to own guns?

don´t come with "but in history", yeah in history there were other kind of weapons, so that can´t translate

[GreatOak]

You just need to have a damn good reason for having one. Coming from a rural area, most farmers are in possession of a gun for hunting/pest control/humanely putting down livestock.

Most "violent crimes" in the UK involve fists, it's how British guys, especially the testosterone fuelled 16-25 category 'sort things out'. You need to remember that different countries see what constitutes "violent crime" differently. As I have said before, every drunk idiot that throws a punch at someone at 2AM falls under that category. And we have a lot of drunken idiots.

People seem to keep ignoring this though, along with when I pointed out that the US's rape statistics are higher than the UK's, which flies in the face of the "guns lower crime because they're great for self defense!" theory.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here are the complete stats for reference, and no, it doesn't debunk the theory since guns are used 10x more for self defense than crime here. I also don't buy the argument that we don't report assaults. There are some cases where mutual combat (essentially duels) can be legally established, but for the most part all crimes are reported. Even a shove is an assault if someone calls the police and embellishes it. Remember, America is a country where insurance fraud and lawsuits are a huge legal problem.


http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crim...ecdjan2012.pdf

[RickJamesLich]

LOL!!! Dude, check it...



HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!

I can't believe they were going to let this guy debate with Alan Dershowitz. That's like having Mike Tyson debate Stephen Hawkins on physics.