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

Aquarius34

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not a gun ban.. its regulation. It's currently in discussion, something will emerge soon and that will either pass or not pass.

Correct me if I am wrong but the only reason the debate is taking place in here of all places is because many CTers falsely believe that US citizens need powerful firearms to defend against their evil plotting government.

No its just that people are defending their rights to own a gun. If someone wants to own a gun, it's their right. If the government want to regulate gun ownership then they should think twice about sending weapons to the AL CIAIADA and their own troops into wars with the use of "guns".

But I doubt any practicality or logic will be involved in the decision-ing with those sort of things.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not a gun ban.. its regulation. It's currently in discussion, something will emerge soon and that will either pass or not pass.

Correct me if I am wrong but the only reason the debate is taking place in here of all places is because many CTers falsely believe that US citizens need powerful firearms to defend against their evil plotting government.

Ok, I'll correct you then. No.

Of course, I can only speak for myself.
I have already established in my mind that guns are not the problem. So, if guns are not the problem, I must assume there is an alternate agenda.
12,000 gun related deaths a year and not a dicky bird about gun regulation. 20 kids get killed and the public are emotionally blackmailed to forfit their rights due to some nutter whacked off his head on drugs that the government approve and push, while many of us know them to be unsafe.
American society is f*cked, the more f*cked it gets the more gun related deaths there are.
Perhaps if the government lead by example and didn't indiscriminately murder innocent men woman and children all over the world, the American public would have a little more value on human life. And 12,000 deaths might be dramatically reduced.

Tell you what. You wouldn't get someone going on a massacre after a few joints. But of course, that drug, hte harmless one, is mostly illegal.

Reamer Fanny

Alex Jones lost any shred of credibility when he started to mock Piers accent near the end of the interview.

What an idiot.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

12,000 gun related deaths a year and not a dicky bird about gun regulation. 20 kids get killed and the public are emotionally blackmailed to forfit their rights due to some nutter whacked off his head on drugs that the government approve and push, while many of us know them to be unsafe.

Forfeit what rights?

Here's a question for you: what social purpose does a Tec9 have?

Jonny7

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No its just that people are defending their rights to own a gun. If someone wants to own a gun, it's their right.

Its their right to own a bazooka? it's their right to own an M60?

I am discussing gun regulation, try to follow the thread, thanks.

If the government want to regulate gun ownership then they should think twice about sending weapons to the AL CIAIADA and their own troops into wars with the use of "guns".
But I doubt any practicality or logic will be involved in the decision-ing with those sort of things.

You cannot be real.

Torakx

justryan wrote: »

Alex Jones lost any shred of credibility when he started to mock Piers accent near the end of the interview.

What an idiot.

Yeah he acts like an ass.
The real question I hope people will consider, is why he is acting like an ass?
Especially since he is one of the main spokespersons for the CT side of things in the west.

SoulandForm

Torakx wrote: »

Yeah he acts like an ass.
The real question I hope people will consider, is why he is acting like an ass?
Especially since he is one of the main spokespersons for the CT side of things in the west.

He acts like an Texan Baptist preacher. His main audience in the USA do not have a problem with his presentation though it can seem very over the top to Europeans.

Aquarius34

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its their right to own a bazooka? it's their right to own an M60?

I am discussing gun regulation, try to follow the thread, thanks.



You cannot be real.

lol.

Daithi 1

Torakx wrote: »

I think the goal here is to make the arguement loud, not reasonable.
You dont always have to win the arguement to get your way.
He needs a platform to pursue that agenda,the interviews are just to keep the arguement going, as long as the fear is pushed into the minds of the masses.

Good point. I did wonder why he kept pushing the same questions he kept getting hammered with. He must feel like a right c*un. What a low life.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its their right to own a bazooka? it's their right to own an M60?

I am discussing gun regulation, try to follow the thread, thanks.



You cannot be real.

People why carry bazooka's are 98 times more likely of suffering death by gun.

Or is it 4.2% ?

Hmmm can't remember which one was the movie I saw.. I'll get back to you. :rolleyes:


By the way, you can own a m16 in some states, so yes. And a bazooka is a destructive device firearm, invented after the 2nd amendment was formed. It's not for self defense, so no.

Sixtus

Can we just clarify something.

When the constitution of the USA was drafted the country had no standing army of any sort, and would indeed go through the entire war of Independence without a United States Army instead of states militias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the bill of rights because of the lack of a US army, Protestant feeling at the time, and the fact that there wasn't a US standing army.

"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"

In 1779 without a national standing army, native american and French attacks having a militia was a good idea.

In 2013 when the likelyhood of getting attacked by the french is the same as getting scalped, distinctly remote. The pracitcal reasons for a well regulated milita are non existent

Secondly most founding fathers viewed the constitution as a "living document" that should be consistently looked at and reworked as time goes on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

So the idea that the 2nd amendment is etched in stone is hardly fair.

Someone said early the the US gunmurder rate is 96 times the UK.

The population of UK is 5 times smaller than the UK. (US population 295 million, UK 60 Million). If we scale the UK murder rate up by 5 we get approximately 175 murders per capita a year. 175 into 11,000 is 62 times.

So not 96. But if we applied UK gun control and culture to the US the rate of murder is drastically less than the US.

Daithi 1

Sixtus wrote: »

So the idea that the 2nd amendment is etched in stone is hardly fair.

Not fair ? on who ?

Sixtus

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Not fair ?

Fair as in the definition of the word as "legitimate"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fair

Now answer the post without getting bogged down in pedantry.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

By the way, you can own a m16 in some states, so yes. And a bazooka is a destructive device firearm, invented after the 2nd amendment was formed. It's not for self defense, so no.

Apparently it says "the right to bear arms". Where does it stipulate that I cannot use a bazooka?

Wait, are you trying to regulate what I can and cannot have? or is it already implemented common sense gun regulation which isn't based on the 2nd amendment?

Sixtus

Jonny7 wrote: »

Apparently it says "the right to bear arms". Where does it stipulate that I cannot use a bazooka?

Wait, are you trying to regulate what I can and cannot have? or is it already implemented common sense gun regulation which isn't based on the 2nd amendment?

Apparently we can all agree on the concept of gun control, we're just arguing about calibre at this point.

Daithi 1

Sixtus wrote: »

Fair as in the definition of the word as "legitimate"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fair

Now answer the post without getting bogged down in pedantry.

What question ?

Sixtus

Daithi 1 wrote: »

What question ?

There's no question. I articulated the issue that the 2nd amendment isn't set in stone. Explained how the founding fathers viewed the constitution as a living document, to be revised. And pointed out that the circumstances vis a vie the lack of US standing army explains why the framers included the amendment.

Daithi 1

Sixtus wrote: »

Fair as in the definition of the word as "legitimate"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fair

Now answer the post without getting bogged down in pedantry.

You mean they could make amendments to the amendments ? no way :eek:

Sixtus

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You mean they could make amendments to the amendments ? no way :eek:

So you admit, they could amend the 2nd amendment to make US gun control laws akin to the UK or any other country that doesn't have mass shootings every 6 months.

So it's just that you want mass shootings and 11,000 people a year killed in gun related crime?

gbee

Sixtus wrote: »

So it's just that you want mass shootings and 11,000 people a year killed in gun related crime?

It's the if you're not with me you ARE against me attitude and similar silly analogies that causes entrenchment.

Having looked at a lot of the areas where new gun laws have come, the average citizen suffers more at the hands of armed crime.

I don't agree that the US public should be disarmed, nor have their assault rifles removed, and I also don't agree that 11,000 need die from mindless assaults.

However, efforts would be better spent in finding the cause of the problem, true, the ready availability if weapons makes it easier, once a person turns nuts, but fertilizer is still cheap and that has been used to great effect and still is in fact.

But the problem remains, why does a person turn nuts. We have many examples of parents, both partners, the children themselves, the teachers and isolated loonies committing apparently random mass killings, the various rippers in English history managed mass murder in a similar scale, though over a longer time-frame, without firearms.

Daithi 1

Sixtus tends to demonise people why differ from him politically by standing on the graves of the children of the sandy hook massacre. If we cared more about the dead children we would agree with his policy.

Can't we discuss the rights, risks and rewards of different policies without resorting to demonizing people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at sandy hook ?

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sixtus tends to demonise people why differ from him politically by standing on the graves of the children of the sandy hook massacre. If we cared more about the dead children we would agree with his policy.

Can't we discuss the rights, risks and rewards of different policies without resorting to demonizing people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at sandy hook ?

Okay, give a reason why people need fully automatic weapons..

Aquarius34

Jonny7 wrote: »

Okay, give a reason why people need fully automatic weapons..

Give reasons as to why government officials and armed forces need fully automatic weapons?

All kids get lolllipops or no one gets any!

Sixtus

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Sixtus tends to demonise people why differ from him politically by standing on the graves of the children of the sandy hook massacre. If we cared more about the dead children we would agree with his policy.

I think the murder of 20 children, one of over a half dozen mass shootings in the US since Obama took office, it demands a change in US gun law.

Can't we discuss the rights, risks and rewards of different policies without resorting to demonizing people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at sandy hook ?

One side is suggesting that the children at Sandy Hook weren't actually killed and suggesting the "parents" are faking their pain. And you think I'm demonising people who think these are unfeeling about their real pain?

Can we all agree 20 children were murdered at Newtown and agree that anyone who thinks otherwise is reprehensible?

Jonny7

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Give reasons as to why government officials and armed forces need fully automatic weapons?

All kids get lolllipops or no one gets any!

I cannot dignify a statement so inherently stupid with a response

Daithi 1

Sixtus wrote: »

I think the murder of 20 children, one of over a half dozen mass shootings in the US since Obama took office, it demands a change in US gun law.

I would say it demands a change in pharmaceutical drugs laws. Most people who own guns are responsible with them. But people who are on certain types of pharmaceutical drugs can be very unstable, unpredictable and dangerous.
Those people should be kept far away from guns, all types of guns. Responsible people who are of sound mind and have no criminal background should be let be.

Havn't wecome to the realisation the the US got do not respect or value human life ? They bomb indiscriminately, children and whole families. Many of the children on milk cartons for decades may have been used in mk-ultra mind control and torture, rape and abuse. Kids kidnapped off the streets. Who knows how many.

So when they say the want more control over guns to save the kiddies we know they are lying, because we arenot f*cking stupid and we remember stuff that proves they care not for the kiddies.

Sixtus wrote: »

One side is suggesting that the children at Sandy Hook weren't actually killed and suggesting the "parents" are faking their pain. And you think I'm demonising people who think these are unfeeling about their real pain?

Can we all agree 20 children were murdered at Newtown and agree that anyone who thinks otherwise is reprehensible?

People are asking questions. It's good to question things, it's good to question everything right ?

Is it then nnot good to question things because some children died ?

Should we question the starvation issue in Africa ? Maybe it's a bit inseensitive what with the dead kids and all.
Should we question why some kids drop dead after getting vaccinations ?

Of course we should. We should question everything. EVERYTHING

I don't know why you are complaining, you were here at the crack of dawn only dying to get your teeth into some juicy comspiracies.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Of course we should. We should question everything. EVERYTHING

This "question everything" is often a cheap cover for questioning only that which runs contradictory to personal beliefs.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

This "question everything" is often a cheap cover for questioning only that which runs contradictory to personal beliefs.

Is it ?

Aquarius34

Jonny7 wrote: »

I cannot dignify a statement so inherently stupid with a response

Well don't make stupid statements then.

briany

Anyone who listens to Jones is sorely misguided. Think of the great debaters and thinkers of history. I seriously doubt any of them ever stooped so low as to mock their opponent through a derogatory and lame impersonation, topped off with some throwaway xenophobia. The man's idea of debate is to simply shout your opponent into submission. That is not debate. I can only be sure that Jones knows this all too well but this is what makes him his money, so why change? I mean, I hope it's all act for money anyway, otherwise I shudder to think what Christmas at the Jones' gaff must be like. Survival packs under the tree for the kids, reptile Santa and no dinner for anyone caught drinking diet coke.