Piers Morgan VS. Alex Jones Full Interview on Gun Control - 1/7/13

Daithi 1

For anyone who hasn't seen it. It's hilarious :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjz2cvaUhw

~What happened next..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8apuYmtOok

Aquarius34

I couldn't watch that, both of them are awful. Pierce Morgan is a reptilian.

hooradiation

Alex Jones just made me feel sorry for Piers Morgan....

What a reprehensible bastard.

Daithi 1

Ah go on, it's funny.

Aquarius34

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Ah go on, it's funny.

I turned it off after 1 minute. Alex Jones is a raving lunatic and used by the elite to make conspiracies look phoney and keep people in fear. God his studios are getting fancier everytime I see him.

Jonny7

One intelligent guy. Laughing all the way to the bank.

Daithi 1

Heres another recent one with Piers and Pratt. Piers gets ripped a new a$$hole. This is what Jones should have behaved like. Bringing Jones on was damage repair for this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

narddog

Alex Jones is a bit loony tunes. He's a bit like the big mouth down in the pub, who just won't shut up. Somewhere in between the drivel, bile and stupid accents are legitimate concerns and ideas, but it's hard to take him seriously. Morgan is just a tool.

super_furry

Ah Alex Jones, a self-made millionare who made his money and continues to make it off the back of people who swallow his hysterical bull****.

Aquarius34

Though Id like to see Bill O Reilly and Piers go at it. Or Alex and Bill O Reilly. Oh that would be hilarious. To why, I don't know. Bill O Reilly is something else. He actually takes his time and breaks in his sentences for people to pick up on his tone of voice.just so you get sense of how condescending he is. Comical.

You have to laugh at these commentators, roaring and raving on day time T.V and that's all you can take it as. It's a good job I don't watch t.v because it would get boring watching this kind of shiit day in day out. Which is precisely why I turned off the T.V

weisses

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I couldn't watch that, both of them are awful. Pierce Morgan is a reptilian.

Post of the day

Aquarius34

weisses wrote: »

Post of the day

Most positive response of the day. It's hard to find an air of positivity and civility on here, whoof.

Brown Bomber

That was ****ing hilarious. I haven't seen anything by Jones in years but for my money he is almost certainly a) Selling his infowhores media product to the lowest common denominator or b) disinfo.

What it hammers home to me is the foundations of a lot of this "conspiracy theory" malarkey, that being right-wing, primarily southern patriot/constitutionalist/militia/Christian fundie types which branches out in part to white nationalist/Neo-Nazi and also Libertarian groups. It shames me to say it but it's the truth.

We've seen persistent memes - chemtrails, vaccines etc supposedly weapons of the elite to wipe out the underclass but I've never seen in my life a "conspiracy theory" that hypothesises that guns have intentionally been placed in the hands of the people so the dregs of society can eliminate each other.

I believe that this is because much of the "conspiracy" talking points are dictated by the American, patriot right.

It's not that I don't have some sympathy with what they are saying. They has been a militarisation of the police and a rapid erosion of civil liberties, but from my perspective I'd say **** that! take my civil liberties, take my guns just make sure nobody ever lines a class full of school children against a wall again and shoots them down again.

And while you are at it Mr President please fix your sick, soulless society where violence is glamourised, and consumerism and commercialism is all.

Aquarius34

Pierce Morgan became is ridiculously famous over there, He's almost as big as Bill O Reilly or Anderson Cooper. I don't watch T.V so I rarely hear about these folks but I've heard about him on numerous occasions in various conversations. with people. Like Alex Jones, they are all connected to the elite, and they are both used to spread all this dis info and distractions as a means to keep everyone's eye's off the ball!

Bruthal

Jones looks like he has the type of mentality which is ideal for gun ownership.

BorneTobyWilde

If Alex had a gun on him he would have pulled it
If mentally ill people should not have guns then Alex Jones needs to be looked
at, He is not all there, He had British accent at end,
Should be committed before he does harm

Brown Bomber

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Alex had a gun on him he would have pulled it
If mentally ill people should not have guns then Alex Jones needs to be looked
at, He is not all there, He had British accent at end,
Should be committed before he does harm

I am fairly confident it's an act. I believe Jones was intentionally boorish and unhinged.

FamousSeamus

Thought this was brilliant...'guns kill people' 'ya well great white sharks!!!'

Jones makes Morgan looks normal during this, I don't like Morgan but he came out looking ok after this!! Jones is your typical conspiricy theorist, random disjointed fact and when he's beginning to get caught out he resorts to mocking Pierces accent as if that proves him right!! I really want to see jones doing something like this again with some other tv host just to give me a chuckle!!

Tzar Chasm

jones embodies everything that is wrong with conspiracy theorists, he came to the debate armed wit relevant facts and statistics but instead of calmly responding to Morgan he tore off on a nonsequitor rant, he does more damage to the cause than anything else.

if jones had been capable of objectively arguing single points he could well have 'won' that debate, as he had facts to counter morgans appeal to emotion, instead he came across as a loud boorish xenophobe.

NIMAN

Morgan should have taken the big pudding up on the offer of going into the boxing ring together.

I'd say he is just a loud mouth bully, who would punch like a girl if he had to.

Aquarius34

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

jones embodies everything that is wrong with conspiracy theorists, he came to the debate armed wit relevant facts and statistics but instead of calmly responding to Morgan he tore off on a nonsequitor rant, he does more damage to the cause than anything else.

if jones had been capable of objectively arguing single points he could well have 'won' that debate, as he had facts to counter morgans appeal to emotion, instead he came across as a loud boorish xenophobe.

It's not just his rant. He shouts and screams on a T.V network all day, everyday and makes money from people calling in to listen to him rant, scream and shout all day. He's fat, he's obnoxious, he eat's unhealthily, talks when he's eating, isn't intelligent and does not act like anyone but himself.

He's is selective who he want's to talk too and what to talk about , I mean rant on.
I don't listen to him. Any conspiracy theorist that I know don't listen to him either. The only people who listen to him or people who have cable t.v and believe that the governments are indestructible and are mad like him. He gives the elite power by ranting the way he does. That is why the elite have him on air like a raving pansy on T.V. He is absolutely no threat to the system whatsoever.

Is that his studio?? it's like something you'd see out of a CBS news special.

Aquarius34

I have to reiterate, The elite are mad like him. Makes sense.

Daithi 1

Here's a reality check on Morgans stats and general gun/violent death rates US vs UK and the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEeuMjG-94A

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Here's a reality check on Morgans stats and general gun/violent death rates US vs UK and the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEeuMjG-94A

Opens with someone saying that Fox news has a commitment to balanced news...

Then the report says "that Britain banned guns about 15 years ago" really?, what reality did that happen in?, then they say that the figures that Fox quoted are not correct.


Ok so Fox news say that Britain did something that it never did at the same time as acknowledging the fact - quote "it is true that Britain has a lower gun homicide rate"

Followed by this mind boggling quote about why the gun homicide rate is lower in Britain than the US;

Quote from Fox News - "it should not be surprising that the gun homicide rate in a country that bans guns would be lower than a country where guns are not banned".

They then try to obfuscate the quoted statistics by... quoting statistics.

According to Fox news a country like Ireland should be free of any gun crime at all, remember access to guns does not cause gun crimes - something else does (not sure what, lets say movies or computer games, or annoying british TV presenters, thats an easy answer)

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

Opens with someone saying that Fox news has a commitment to balanced news...

Then the report says "that Britain banned guns about 15 years ago" really?, what reality did that happen in?, then they say that the figures that Fox quoted are not correct.


Ok so Fox news say that Britain did something that it never did at the same time as acknowledging the fact - quote "it is true that Britain has a lower gun homicide rate"

Followed by this mind boggling quote about why the gun homicide rate is lower in Britain than the US;

Quote from Fox News - "it should not be surprising that the gun homicide rate in a country that bans guns would be lower than a country where guns are not banned".

They then try to obfuscate the quoted statistics by... quoting statistics.

According to Fox news a country like Ireland should be free of any gun crime at all, remember access to guns does not cause gun crimes - something else does (not sure what, lets say movies or computer games, or annoying british TV presenters, thats an easy answer)

Isn't 1996-1998 around 15 years ago, nearlyish ? in this reality. ~Isnt it ?

Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times. During the latter half of the 20th century there were only two incidents in which people holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale, the Hungerford massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996; each led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use, and tightening of laws. The result has been among the strictest firearms laws in the world.[12] After Hungerford, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 criminalised most semi-automatic long-barrelled weapons; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.[13] After the second incident, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 criminalised private possession of most handguns having a calibre over .22; the Snowdrop Campaign continued to press for a wider ban, and in 1997 the incoming Labour government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which extended this to most handguns with a calibre of .22 (there are exceptions for some antique handguns and black-powder revolvers.) The Cumbria shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot and killed three people connected to himself, and 12 others in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. Bird held legal permits for three shotguns and a rifle.

Brown Bomber

I'd like for anyone to watch this video and then tell me that Jones isn't a fraud who cares about the 2nd amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uyIVzdvGi4

If I was part of the anti-gun lobby I'd definitely hire him.

Aquarius34

I can't watch him.

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Isn't 1996-1998 around 15 years ago, nearlyish ? in this reality. ~Isnt it ?

?

The UK never "banned all guns" if thats what you are implying, i'm not really sure what you post was intended to prove.

Important part from the Wiki page you pasted;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times"

Why do you think that is?

The lower number of weapons is the real answer.

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

?

The UK never "banned all guns" if thats what you are implying, i'm not really sure what you post was intended to prove.

Important part from the Wiki page you pasted;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times"

Why do you think that is?

The lower number of weapons is the real answer.

When he says "banned guns", I think we know deep down that he meant introduced new gun laws. He did mention 15 years ago... He should probably choose his wording more carefully though.

Few firearms rampages due do fewer guns makes obvious sense. Less drugs on the streets, less drug related deaths.. But if I'm angry enough to wanna shoot someone, but don't have a gun, I'll use another method of killing them.

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

When he says "banned guns", I think we know deep down that he meant introduced new gun laws. He did mention 15 years ago... He should probably choose his wording more carefully though.
QUOTE]

Its a broadcast news report I would expect accuracy.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Few firearms rampages due do fewer guns makes obvious sense.

Yes thats my point.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But if I'm angry enough to wanna shoot someone, but don't have a gun, I'll use another method of killing them.

Fine, if your going to get angry enogh to shoot someone then maybe thats the best reason for gun control.

The more people have guns the higher the chance of someone getting " angry enough to shoot someone" then shoot the next person and the next and so on.

Remove the guns from that equation and their is no honest way anyone could say that the number of possible deaths/injuries would be decreased.

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

Daithi 1 wrote: »

When he says "banned guns", I think we know deep down that he meant introduced new gun laws. He did mention 15 years ago... He should probably choose his wording more carefully though.
QUOTE]

Its a broadcast news report I would expect accuracy.



Yes thats my point.




Fine, if your going to get angry enogh to shoot someone then maybe thats the best reason for gun control.

The more people have guns the higher the chance of someone getting " angry enough to shoot someone" then shoot the next person and the next and so on.

Remove the guns from that equation and their is no honest way anyone could say that the number of possible deaths/injuries would be decreased.

It's not that straight forward though. They created 2nd amendment for a reason. That reason remains as much now as it did then.
Anyway, it's not angry people doing the killing, it's drugged up to the eyeball kids. They throw antoi depressants at everything over there to cover up other sh1t. They are avoiding the real issue, banning guns aint gonna some guns is not gonna solve it.

EDIT: I was thinking about massacres ^. I supposed most gun related deaths would be crime, revenge or gang. Same point though, criminals and gang members wont surrender their guns, therefore regular citizens will be more vulnerable.

Aquarius34

If they ban guns, we should ban knives. They are dangerous.


If they ban knives, they might as well ban forks, what would the point in having forks without knives? Yes absolutely pointless if you ask me!

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It's not that straight forward though. They created 2nd amendment for a reason. That reason remains as much now as it did then.

The 2nd amendment, do you think it was created to allow individuals to own weapons? if you do your a victim of propaganda, sorry but thats the truth.

The 2nd amendment was intended to provide for a "well regulated militia", up until Regan was in power even the most conservitive member of the supreame court dismissed the notion of individual ownership. Have a look at the history of the NRA if you dont belive me.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Anyway, it's not angry people doing the killing, it's drugged up to the eyeball kids.

Not true, check it yourself, plenty of details available.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

They throw antoi depressants at everything over there to cover up other sh1t. They are avoiding the real issue, banning guns aint gonna some guns is not gonna solve it.

Banning guns wont solve it? , please lets not try to dispute the simple fact that without guns mass killings, as we know them, would not be possible.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

EDIT: I was thinking about massacres ^. I supposed most gun related deaths would be crime, revenge or gang. Same point though, criminals and gang members wont surrender their guns, therefore regular citizens will be more vulnerable.

Check the details of what weapons criminals use, its what they can steal about 85% of the time, again more guns in private hands leads to more guns in criminal hands.

Leagal gun owners have a much much higher chance of injury or of dying by gunshot than non owners - they do not make you safer, all the details are freely available, check them yourself.

gibraltar

Aquarius34 wrote: »

If they ban guns, we should ban knives. They are dangerous.


If they ban knives, they might as well ban forks, what would the point in having forks without knives? Yes absolutely pointless if you ask me!

how many people are killed a year in mass shootings?

How many people are killed a year in mass forkings?

Look closely and you will see the difference.

Aquarius34

gibraltar wrote: »

how many people are killed a year in mass shootings?

How many people are killed a year in mass forkings?

Look closely and you will see the difference.

Guns are not the problem, it's the people, It's a clever tactic just to try control the masses. There is no logic in trying remove guns when the elite have mass killing machines themselves. You have to be stupid to believe in all this crap.

I believe a lot of these school mass murders are victims of mind control and drugged. The elite love this kind of craze. it's gets attention, it makes news, it keeps people in fear and its more ways to try control people. Problem reaction solution.


Taking guns of criminals is not going to solve crime.

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

The 2nd amendment, do you think it was created to allow individuals to own weapons? if you do your a victim of propaganda, sorry but thats the truth.

The 2nd amendment was intended to provide for a "well regulated militia", up until Regan was in power even the most conservitive member of the supreame court dismissed the notion of individual ownership. Have a look at the history of the NRA if you dont belive me.



Not true, check it yourself, plenty of details available.



Banning guns wont solve it? , please lets not try to dispute the simple fact that without guns mass killings, as we know them, would not be possible.



Check the details of what weapons criminals use, its what they can steal about 85% of the time, again more guns in private hands leads to more guns in criminal hands.

Leagal gun owners have a much much higher chance of injury or of dying by gunshot than non owners - they do not make you safer, all the details are freely available, check them yourself.

I edited my post ages ago

They don't intend to ban guns. So Mass killings will always happen.
If the banned all gun, there will still be guns. So Mass killings will always happen.

Let's look at what happened with new gun laws in Oz. They are sitting ducks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4tS0DGDf0I

Daithi 1

Haha "Piers ,meet up with Jones for a boxing match, but bring a semi-auto rifle and pop him"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbV2eYla_b8

Aquarius34

They can't ban guns anyway. It will backfire on the elite. They will have no "terrorists" to fight because it's the elite who sell guns in the first place to fire breathing terrorists.

Or perhaps they should ban tweezers. They are dangerous too. You can poke someones eye out with that. They have banned bottled water on planes I believe. Now they are very dangerous.

Aquarius34

They don't want the general population to have guns. That's the distinction. They don't want people to defend themselves, if they ever said "hey we have enough of this corruption bang"

Duiske

gibraltar wrote: »

mass forkings?

Sounds like an orgy in Buckingham Palace.

Daithi 1

Guns aint the problem anyho..

Look at Switzerland. Nearly half the population own a gun. Average 50 gun related deaths a year. If guns were killers, there be a lot more deaths.
So, we conclude people are the problem, not the guns.
So, address the problem, fix or at least try fix the people. It's quite obvious. And to think a government cant figure that out is laughable.:)

Aquarius34

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Guns aint the problem anyho..

Look at Switzerland. Nearly half the population own a gun. Average 50 gun related deaths a year. If guns were killers, there be a lot more deaths.
So, we conclude people are the problem, not the guns.
So, address the problem, fix or at least try fix the people. It's quite obvious. And to think a government cant figure that out is laughable.:)

I agree but the elite are using airing it to their own advantage hoping that they can further take the rights from the people. Of course they are not stupid, they know gun ownership isn't the problem. If it was they would of tried to ban guns years ago. Arms trade is big money. So it's impossible to think it's even in question that it would ever happen.

Daithi 1

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I agree but the elite are using airing it to their own advantage hoping that they can further take the rights from the people. Of course they are not stupid, they know gun ownership isn't the problem. If it was they would of tried to ban guns years ago. Arms trade is big money. So it's impossible to think it's even in question that it would ever happen.

Yup, and we ain't stupid either, we know the US don't give a fook about 20 dead kiddies, same as thousands of fallen soldiers, same as thousands on 9/11. They probably couldn't believe their luck.
Out of every tragedy the people get squeezed tighter and government gets more power. If I was a psychopath working in the gov I'd probably start planning this sh1t instead of waiting for it to happen. Might be left waiting a long time.

I wonder why they covered up all that mk-ultra stuff.. I wonder if it's still going on in some perhaps underground military installation, out of sight. Must have been pretty damning stuff to destroy all the information on it, they could never ever let the public know what was involved. I wonder if they were drugging and brainwashing people to kill people. It's quite plausible. I'd say that's exactly what they were doing. It's probably a lot more advanced now, maybe they can do it remotely.

:rolleyes:

FISMA

gibraltar wrote: »

The 2nd amendment, do you think it was created to allow individuals to own weapons? if you do your a victim of propaganda, sorry but thats the truth.

The 2nd amendment was intended to provide for a "well regulated militia", up until Regan was in power even the most conservitive member of the supreame court dismissed the notion of individual ownership.

Concisely: you are wrong.

You need to read a bit more. To begin with, read the Federalist Papers - a great insight in to what they were thinking at the time.

There are numerous direct quotes from those that penned and framed the Constitution that directly demonstrate that you are wrong.

Challenge: can you provide a quote from: Hamilton, Mason, Adams, Jefferson, supporting what you said?

Here are some quotes from the framers of the Constitution. Clearly, the people have the right to: keep arms at home AND/OR bear them on their person.

This part of the Constitution was also addressing English Common Law at the time which stated that "Catholics" and "Highlanders" were not allow to keep arms at home. They were not allowed to bear arms on their person. And, they were not allowed to form an armed rebellion.

Cited, sourced, quotes to support my assertions.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

• "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

• If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
  -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

• "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 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

• "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
  --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

• "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
  --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

• "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
  --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

• "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
  --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
  -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

• "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
  -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

• "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
  -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

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

• " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
  -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

• "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
  -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

• "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

• "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

• "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
  -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

• "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
  -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

• "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
  -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
  

• "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
  --Samuel Adams

Aquarius34

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I wonder why they covered up all that mk-ultra stuff.. I wonder if it's still going on in some perhaps underground military installation, out of sight. Must have been pretty damning stuff to destroy all the information on it, they could never ever let the public know what was involved. I wonder if they were drugging and brainwashing people to kill people. It's quite plausible. I'd say that's exactly what they were doing. It's probably a lot more advanced now, maybe they can do it remotely.

:rolleyes:

Everything they do is carefully planned. To the point of complete warpness (I know it's not a word, it is now).it's a severe mental illness and the reason we have so much war, corruption, disease, greed, poverty and crime is because they created it and we are enslaved to all this problem reaction solution control.

It's an utterly sad way to live trying to control free will beings and keep this world the way it is . It always bites back in the end. it's all about ****ing $$$ and power.

Aquarius34

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I wonder why they covered up all that mk-ultra stuff.. I wonder if it's still going on in some perhaps underground military installation, out of sight. Must have been pretty damning stuff to destroy all the information on it, they could never ever let the public know what was involved. I wonder if they were drugging and brainwashing people to kill people.

:rolleyes:

That's the idea, and it's obviously working, in cases such as these "mass shootings"

Most of the worlds population is easily controlled by external mind control, such as entertainment, Hollywood, pop culture, money, success, rule, law, religion, education and fear. They don't need to be attacked by mk ultra.

But the slaves that don't fall in line, tend to be MK ultra victims, and if they can't control them. They control the people around them and their families members. It either drives them to suicide or eventually someone eventually takes them out if they make to much disruption.

Most high up ex politicians and military people have spoken about Mk Ultra, but it never gets very far and it's always never believable.to most people, because they are already mind controlled. Your life is always at risk then if you do speak out.


You know in the alien movies like MIB well there are bases and military type stuff going on deep underground in many places in the USA. They actually exist all over America. Most are not even hidden at all.

Daithi 1

Yeah, I have my suspicions. I wonder if they just snatched those mk-ultra kids off the streets, simply kidnapped them, cause they sure as fook didn't volunteer. Then they rape and abuse them, torture them, starve them, deprevate, dismember and kill them to try split their personalities. And now people are expected to believe they care about their kids lol, gimmy a break.
When people start to figure this kinda stuff out, that's when the gov don't want them having guns lol, Especially AR's.

Jonny7

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That's the idea, and it's obviously working, in cases such as these "mass shootings"

Most of the worlds population is easily controlled by external mind control, such as entertainment, Hollywood, pop culture, money, success, rule, law, religion, education and fear. They don't need to be attacked by mk ultra.

Uh huh there is always some greater power controlling all these devices of indoctrination toward nefarious goals.

The most evil manipulation you face is the power of advertising on your wallet.

But the slaves that don't fall in line, tend to be MK ultra victims, and if they can't control them. They control the people around them and their families members. It either drives them to suicide or eventually someone eventually takes them out if they make to much disruption.

And someone else believes something slightly different and as such makes up stories to validate their own beliefs and narrative.

Religions work in much the same way.

Most high up ex politicians and military people have spoken about Mk Ultra, but it never gets very far and it's always never believable.to most people, because they are already mind controlled. Your life is always at risk then if you do speak out.

I would like to thank Cold War experiments and their never-ending ability to constantly end up on conspiracy theory forums to "explain" stuff. Convenient that

You know in the alien movies like MIB well there are bases and military type stuff going on deep underground in many places in the USA. They actually exist all over America. Most are not even hidden at all.

And they have an entire division devoted to leaving clues to their evil plans in Batman films.

super_furry

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah, I have my suspicions. I wonder if they just snatched those mk-ultra kids off the streets, simply kidnapped them, cause they sure as fook didn't volunteer. Then they rape and abuse them, torture them, starve them, deprevate, dismember and kill them to try split their personalities.

Any proof of all this?

gibraltar

Aquarius34 wrote: »

They don't want the general population to have guns. That's the distinction. They don't want people to defend themselves, if they ever said "hey we have enough of this corruption bang"

If "they" dont want the general public to own guns why is gun ownership increasing? "they" really are doing a terrible job.

gibraltar

FISMA wrote: »

Concisely: you are wrong.

You need to read a bit more. To begin with, read the Federalist Papers - a great insight in to what they were thinking at the time.

There are numerous direct quotes from those that penned and framed the Constitution that directly demonstrate that you are wrong.

Challenge: can you provide a quote from: Hamilton, Mason, Adams, Jefferson, supporting what you said?

Here are some quotes from the framers of the Constitution. Clearly, the people have the right to: keep arms at home AND/OR bear them on their person.

This part of the Constitution was also addressing English Common Law at the time which stated that "Catholics" and "Highlanders" were not allow to keep arms at home. They were not allowed to bear arms on their person. And, they were not allowed to form an armed rebellion.

Cited, sourced, quotes to support my assertions.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

• "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

• If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
  -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

• "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 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

• "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
  --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

• "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
  --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

• "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
  --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

• "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
  --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
  -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

• "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
  -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

• "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
  -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

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

• " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
  -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

• "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
  -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

• "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

• "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

• "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
  -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

• "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
  -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

• "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
  -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
  

• "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
  --Samuel Adams

All the quotes are great but the only important quote is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Its only a few years since the supreme court ruled that the amendment protects the individual's right, this was a result of recent political pressure. I think it was Reva Seigel who wrote very well about it, have a look.