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

[Sivick]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-...113924767.html

I just stumbled across this a minute ago. It's an interview with the nutjob conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones where he basically just rants and screams at Piers Morgan for 12 minutes straight about gun control. Now I don't like Piers Morgan and I hope to god that petition doesn't go through because it would only send him back here, but compared to this guy he's the messiah.

Here's a link to the actual video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uymMI_omik (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo (part 2)

He's got to be the most insane mental-cripple I've ever seen, it's fucking hilarious. At one point he starts going on about chimpanzees and great white sharks and challenges Piers to a boxing match.

If I'm not mistaken isn't this the guy who has a radio show/tv show or something where he basically just screams about the illuminati for an hour? He certainly seems to mention the "new world order" alot.

Conspiracy theory nuts are about the dumbest people on the planet. i'm surprised he didn't crap his pants and hurl it at Piers.

[Deleted]

Wish they restricted guns in the US, would be fun to watch all the idiots complaining.

[Juno86]

From Wikipedia, list of intentional homicide rates.

UK = 1.2%, 722
Australia = 1%, 229
Canada = 1.6%, 554
USA = 4.8%, 14,748

I thought this was a common sense issue. Being from Canada, I never quite understood how this issue gets so derailed, so fast. I thought this was an issue about stopping mass school shootings. Few countries has the scale of mass school shootings the USA does, does it not make sense to reduce clip size? Do you need 30 bullets? Do you need a semi automatic weapon designed to not just kill a person, but many people? Is this how paranoid the people have become? Are you so utterly fearful of your own gov't you have made it a necessity to arm yourselves against them? Have people not realized that at the end of the day, a democratic gov't elected by the people, still ultimately works for the people? So far the only thing I have seen in this thread is Ad hominem attack again and again without looking at actual facts.

You have to ask yourself a simple question. Is it more necessary for every citizen to have the right to own a tool designed for killing en mass, or is it more necessary to have a civil society where the protection of your youth out weighs the need for such tools?

[Ahveros]

He started off strong and it sounded good then it got hilarious and ridiculous.

[Katsuii]

I'm a fan of Alex Jones. I think he popped Piers a new one but at the same time I do think he went a -tad- bit overboard. He could have let him talk more and not interrupt him so much.
Anyways, pro gun, pro 2nd Amendment, pro I'm keeping my AR's and if you want them then... too bad. Lol.

[Crissi]

You automatically lose an argument if you start yelling and screaming and acting like a general nutcase, so he did the pro 2nd amendment no favors whatsoever.

I'd also like to say I am SICK and TIRED of one line memes about keeping your guns, or saying "guns would have prevented the holocaust" or some other crap. Meme's overgeneralize and often do more harm than good, so STOP LINKING THEM. Anyways, thats my little rant on the subject due to several very pro gun and anti government friends on my facebook...

[Lockon Stratos]

heres a tutorial with pictures
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

wow, you need to read your sources....

taken from that post:


"Conclusion: If you are considering buying an auto sear to convert your AR15 to a full automatic firearm, there is only one option - the registered & transferable DIAS. While it may be tempting to buy a pre-81 to save thousands over the registered sear, the risks are considerable. Possession of an unregistered machinegun (a pre-81 DIAS and an AR15 rifle...or possibly even just a so called “pre-81” DIAS) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine, and permanent loss of your right to ever own a gun or vote again. Numerous rumors have circulated that some of the people selling the pre-81 sears are actually BATF operations. Buyer beware."

[Lilfrier]

he just seems to take it to a whole new level saying it's possible for a second revolution if guns are taken away

The guy might have been a total jackass, but if they start (well, continue) to violate the U.S. Constitution with this stuff, I'm all for a second Civil War. Honestly, the U.S. government has been overstepping its boundaries for decades, and it's getting old and depressing, to put it lightly. I mean the Second Amendment was created to avoid situations like this--where the government is too big and corrupt for its own good.

[Sky High]

the guy is just wacky plain and simple. he thinks anything and everything is a conspiracy.

[Lilfrier]

From Wikipedia, list of intentional homicide rates.

UK = 1.2%, 722
Australia = 1%, 229
Canada = 1.6%, 554
USA = 4.8%, 14,748

I thought this was a common sense issue. Being from Canada, I never quite understood how this issue gets so derailed, so fast. I thought this was an issue about stopping mass school shootings. Few countries has the scale of mass school shootings the USA does, does it not make sense to reduce clip size? Do you need 30 bullets? Do you need a semi automatic weapon designed to not just kill a person, but many people? Is this how paranoid the people have become? Are you so utterly fearful of your own gov't you have made it a necessity to arm yourselves against them? Have people not realized that at the end of the day, a democratic gov't elected by the people, still ultimately works for the people? So far the only thing I have seen in this thread is Ad hominem attack again and again without looking at actual facts.

You have to ask yourself a simple question. Is it more necessary for every citizen to have the right to own a tool designed for killing en mass, or is it more necessary to have a civil society where the protection of your youth out weighs the need for such tools?

Here's the basic idea behind giving civilians these things:

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, and it's not really about just protecting your property. The Amendment is about avoiding a tyrannical government like Cuba or North Korea. If you tell civilians that they are limited to handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns, it puts the people in a risky spot. Now, I don't necessarily think it would be something as simple as "we took the civilians' assault rifles, let's get 'em!" but the intent here is that if the general populous is threatened by military force, it needs to be able to defend itself. Civilians with pistols and hunting rifles and shotguns aren't going to stand up to a military with fully-automatic assault rifles, not a chance. Granted, people aren't likely to be able to take on the military with assault rifles, but it will at least give them a chance on that front.

The issue here isn't that people can get guns. People say taking the guns away will make the situation better, but will it? Remember a few things about the Newtown matter:

1. The school was a gun-free zone.
2.The gun was stolen from the guy's mother.
3. Murder's already illegal.

This wasn't an issue where a law-abiding citizen randomly snapped. A criminal made a thorough plan to kill people and broke SEVERAL laws (many felonies) by doing this. There is this assumption that banning assault weapons (or guns altogether) is going to change the mind of criminals. I mean, we're talking about murderers here--theft of a gun's not stopping them, and the illegal act of HAVING a gun won't either. The most-likely change will be killings with different weapons (be it handguns over assault rifles or axes over guns as a whole). The murder rates might go down, but the inching ever closer to a police state isn't worth the tradeoff.

Instead, proper background checks (as pro-gun as I am, that people can buy guns at gun shows without a background check is absurd) would be a great place to start. Another helpful thing would be making sure people know about and understand how to handle guns. In Newtown, if assault weapons were banned, Lanza would have just used handguns. There might have been fewer deaths--nay, there almost surely would have been fewer deaths. IF you banned all guns, maybe he just Google's how to create some makeshift explosives and plants them around the school instead.

If we took the alternative route of having people well-versed in guns or putting an armed guard or two at schools, then it's a different story. If Lanza went into that school and you had 3-5 teachers who carried pistols and knew how to handle them, things might have ended more quickly (though not without bloodshed, sadly).

To make a somewhat-weak analogy, think about how people approach sex ed now. The idea is that abstinence alone doesn't work, so teaching safety is the key. However, we're taking the exact opposite approach with guns. Telling people "no guns" doesn't change who is doing these things--criminals with mental problems (not creating an excuse or showing sympathy for them, just stating a fact that you have to be mentally ill to find killing children OK). If you instead promote self-defense courses with guns (pay a fee and learn to handle a gun, maybe provided by the instructor and a shooting range), you have more of a population that is capable (and hopefully willing) to protect one another from these kinds of people.

---------- Post added 2013-01-10 at 05:20 AM ----------

You automatically lose an argument if you start yelling and screaming and acting like a general nutcase, so he did the pro 2nd amendment no favors whatsoever.

I'd also like to say I am SICK and TIRED of one line memes about keeping your guns, or saying "guns would have prevented the holocaust" or some other crap. Meme's overgeneralize and often do more harm than good, so STOP LINKING THEM. Anyways, thats my little rant on the subject due to several very pro gun and anti government friends on my facebook...

Leave it to morons on Facebook to destroy any hope for rational discussion.

[Crissi]

Lilfer: yeah, but i hate political memes in general .I believe that if you can fit it in one sentence, then you oversimplified and it isnt worth discussing with you because you're an idiot (general you, not specific to you).

I think the last thing that have might come CLOSE to that is linking an article about a bill being pushed through texas about banning pitbulls (dont think it passed), but at least i bothered tyring to explain myself in a non idiotic simple way.

[Kasierith]

All of a sudden, I find myself slightly further towards the pro-gun control side of the debate...

[Synros]

It's funny that some people think it's OK to attack, invade and sanction other countries don't want foreigners to enter a domestic debate, denying them the rights their own constitution provides.

It's funny that some people think it's OK for their government to attack terrorists with drone attacks, as long as these terrorists have a different nationality.

As long as the U.S. is commenting (to say the least) on other countries on a large scale, they have no right to deny foreigners to comment on themselves. And whether you believe drone strikes are permissible or not, a terrorist is a terrorist and human rights don't just apply to U.S. citizens.

I'm Canadian, our government doesn't go in and invade others for the fuck of it. The only reason we're in the middle east right now, is so the US doesn't lose their shit with us. Theres a reason you don't hear about Canadians shooting civilians for fun, over there.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 10:05 PM ----------

One thing I have to say is I've heard respected pundits deride him harshly, and this was well before hating him became popular, but [confessionbear] I find Piers Morgan highly entertaining [/confessionbear].

That said, yeah, Alex Jones is way out there. Watched him bellow into a bullhorn at people in tinted Cadillacs pulling into secluded mansions for "Illuminati meetings".

Since we're on the topic of crazy people, I had to go into work at 4:30 AM this morning and caught the last half-hour of Coast to Coast AM, a late-night/early-morning crazy person's show, and heard this gem from one of the guests: "Jesus Christ rose into his spaceship and achieved planetary ascension, which we will achieve ourselves with our portal opening this July".

Gotta love crazy

You don't find a bunch of banker elites, gathering in "secret", with armed guards patrolling outside, then get mad about it when people show up to protest, the least bit suspicious? Alright then.

[Goldfingaz]

You don't find a bunch of banker elites, gathering in "secret", with armed guards patrolling outside, then get mad about it when people show up to protest, the least bit suspicious? Alright then.

I've not seen any evidence of such, can you point me into the right direction here on this? Such as photos of the scene or videos of the scene and not people simply talking about it?

[Tojara]

Brilliant PR stunt by Piers Morgan honestly. Although he doesn't take it to quite the extreme as Alex Jones did, he has made himself look pretty awful in a few of these interviews he had with some pro-gun advocates over the past couple weeks. What this does is try to paint Piers as a reasonable person in comparison (and it's a pretty easy comparison to make when you're watching someone as crazy as Jones). Piers doesn't even have to say anything to win this argument because Jones just makes himself look completely awful every second he talks.

I really don't like Piers Morgan at all. I find him whiny and he himself can act like like 10% of an Alex Jones at times (10% may seem like a low number, by 10% of that amount of crazy is a lot of crazy).

I think regardless of your distaste for Piers or whatever side of the debate you're on, everybody can walk away knowing that Alex Jones is absolutely batshit fucking crazy.

My opinion? You don't need military grade weapons to begin with. Keep your shotguns and rifles, and with special training allow handgun use. I understand the second amendment is to protect you from government, but I don't think even military grade guns are going to stop a tyrannical government if they are determined enough. If I were said government I'd just roll in with tanks or use aircraft which these weapons people have really aren't going to stop.

[Crissi]

Brilliant PR stunt by Piers Morgan honestly. Although he doesn't take it to quite the extreme as Alex Jones did, he has made himself look pretty awful in a few of these interviews he had with some pro-gun advocates over the past couple weeks. What this does is try to paint Piers as a reasonable person in comparison (and it's a pretty easy comparison to make when you're watching someone as crazy as Jones). Piers doesn't even have to say anything to win this argument because Jones just makes himself look completely awful every second he talks.

I really don't like Piers Morgan at all. I find him whiny and he himself can act like like 10% of an Alex Jones at times (10% may seem like a low number, by 10% of that amount of crazy is a lot of crazy).

I think regardless of your distaste for Piers or whatever side of the debate you're on, everybody can walk away knowing that Alex Jones is absolutely batshit fucking crazy.

Can i also add that i find distasteful is all the comments that essentialy state the Constitution should not apply to visiting forigners / forigners that live in the U.S? I have to agree with the White House on this one, when they responded that the First amendment should not be infringed to stick up for the 2nd amendment.

[Deleted]

This was like one of the funniest sketches from Chris Morris I'd ever seen. I mean - this was a joke, right?

[Eroginous]

Can i also add that i find distasteful is all the comments that essentialy state the Constitution should not apply to visiting forigners / forigners that live in the U.S? I have to agree with the White House on this one, when they responded that the First amendment should not be infringed to stick up for the 2nd amendment.

Technically, the constitution only really applies to US citizens or people applying for US citizenship. A foreigner is likely still a citizen of their home country and are subject to the laws of that country, even if they live here. That's why the US would likely deport someone to their home country in the event of a legal situation.

If your point was a question about the safety of foreigners against gun owners here in the US, then I would have to say that your protection should not come at the cost of our constitutional rights. If you're some high profile celebrity or politician here in the US, then you have private security to keep you safe, which should be more than enough against gun toting Americans.

[Chrysia]

Technically, the constitution only really applies to US citizens or people applying for US citizenship. A foreigner is likely still a citizen of their home country and are subject to the laws of that country, even if they live here. That's why the US would likely deport someone to their home country in the event of a legal situation.

If your point was a question about the safety of foreigners against gun owners here in the US, then I would have to say that your protection should not come at the cost of our constitutional rights. If you're some high profile celebrity or politician here in the US, then you have private security to keep you safe, which should be more than enough against gun toting Americans.

The entire idea behind the Bill of Rights is that they are universal human rights that cannot be violated. Applying them piecemeal flies in the face of their spirit. They either apply to everyone, with reasonable restrictions and responsibilities attached, or they don't apply at all.

[Eroginous]

The entire idea behind the Bill of Rights is that they are universal human rights that cannot be violated. Applying them piecemeal flies in the face of their spirit. They either apply to everyone, with reasonable restrictions and responsibilities attached, or they don't apply at all.

Ideally yes, this is correct. But then we have these things called country borders with their own governments and rules regarding their citizens. Then we have this thing called war that happens when we try to tell other countries how to treat their citizens, and while it's a somewhat noble cause to fight for freedom, it's not really an ideal philosophy to live by if others aren't willing to fight for their own freedom.

Where do you draw the line between 'our people have X rights' and 'all people have X rights?'

Alex Jones is everything that's wrong with trying to make an argument. Part 2, "America was born on guns and whisky". Ironically, mixing both of those is likely to lead to death. His British accent impersonation was hilarious.

Piers seemed to get very bored very quickly, but i think i would too if faced with that loudmouth. Regardless of whether it was controlled opposition or whatever, the statistics he was shouting so loudly about proved that with control, guns simply aren't needed. Now, i can't say that Britain is shining in any way. Politically, it's become tiresome to endure, and financially, we're in the same state as everyone else.

Crime rates may be the highest in Europe (whether that's true, i'm not sure), but i very rarely hear about shootings. The most 'extreme' one i can recall was a guy who shot a police officer and fired at another on Christmas day a few years ago. In fact, i'm quite comfortable that i could go anywhere in Britain, excluding privately owned land where i'm not allowed, and not be shot. I dare say that with the exception of a few high priority targets, i could go anywhere, even private land, and simply be escorted out. It might end up with me getting a criminal record, but it wouldn't end with anyone dying.

This is why Britain works in my eyes. Guns are forbidden in all regards except the forces, licensed hunters, and armed response units in the police force. ARU's are few and far between, and there's only enough to cover what are otherwise rare occurrences. Things are dealt with by talking in most cases. Sometimes this talking is done with the assistance of backup, but as guns aren't carried by just anyone, most crime is dealt with through gun-free enforcement. You could argue it's a police state if you assumed it was exactly as i just described, but the simple truth is that there's a lot of leniency on what you can get away with.

If you're a law abiding citizen, you've got nothing to worry about. By that, i refer to both being in trouble with the law, or being shot. Sure, there is still a statistical number of shootings in the UK, but the number is very low. This alone lends to the fact that enforcement can work without the need for firearms.

But then you have the question of what happens when your people have a major disagreement with their government's actions. How do you go about convincing your government that YOU as a people know what's best? Better yet, how do you protect yourself against an invasion from another country if that happens? You've already given up your right to protect yourself against armed criminals (yes, they do exist, regardless of the rules against gun ownership), so it's kind of lulz. If any of the above situations happened, you would be sheeple, incapable of doing anything about it.

Kind of sad.