Piers Morgan VS. Alex Jones :guns

[Tanis]

Alex Jones is an INSANE retard.

Morgan may be a raging ASSHOLE, but at least he isn't a bloody TROOFER.

 

[adamsaccount]

Dont deport him unless its to the north pole, we don't want him back here in the uk.
I tend to agree with the furious man but to a much lesser degree, and disagree with him on a lot of points (he really isn't doing his side any favours by being as irate as that and hes fucking deluded about prozac, of course people on anti depressants are going to have a higher suicide rate, its a fucking drug for depressed people). 2nd amendment is for a reason but more controls are needed, it should be a harshly punishable crime to not have guns properly locked up, especially if you have kids.

Honestly I think what they did here is to get a very uptight paranoid man who cant argue for shit to make piers morgan look better and more correct by comparison.

The more liberties you have the better, and the 2nd amendment is just one.

Hmmm, here's my tuppence:

Prozac does, indeed, elevate the risk of giving in to the impulse of offing yourself on a whim. There's absolutely no conspiracy theory level delusion going on there. It's, as of now, pretty much acknowledged and scientific fact until proven otherwise.

I agree with you on people locking their guns away so kids can't get to them. But I also believe it's important to raise your kids to not be complete idiots that shoot themselves or each other in the face during, say, a facebook photo shoot.

Here, I suggest you also watch this video featuring Alex Jones in his studio, his home turf, with Doug Stanhope:

<youtube=cc_Qa5m1e00>

As for Alex Jones being uptight and paranoid... meh, thing is, most of what he says when he's just a little less riled up is pretty much spot on, but I must admit that sitting opposite supercunt Piers Morgan tends to bring out the worst in everyone. Piers Morgan is a sad, sad person. Alex Jones is not. A lot of people will not just beg to differ, they'll hate on sight, in a rather trigger->response kind of fashion.

Fair enough, I dont know that much about prozac but was on it for a while, along with nearly every other ssri, didnt work for me but i know a few people who theyve helped alot so I still resent him calling them "suicide mass murder pills". Counseling is a far better way to get to the route of organic depression but for other kinds medication is the only (nonlethal)way out.

Cheers for the video, got a lot of time for Doug Stanhope.

 

[invadergir]

Dont deport him unless its to the north pole, we don't want him back here in the uk.
I tend to agree with the furious man but to a much lesser degree, and disagree with him on a lot of points (he really isn't doing his side any favours by being as irate as that and hes fucking deluded about prozac, of course people on anti depressants are going to have a higher suicide rate, its a fucking drug for depressed people). 2nd amendment is for a reason but more controls are needed, it should be a harshly punishable crime to not have guns properly locked up, especially if you have kids.

Honestly I think what they did here is to get a very uptight paranoid man who cant argue for shit to make piers morgan look better and more correct by comparison.

The more liberties you have the better, and the 2nd amendment is just one.

Hmmm, here's my tuppence:

Prozac does, indeed, elevate the risk of giving in to the impulse of offing yourself on a whim. There's absolutely no conspiracy theory level delusion going on there. It's, as of now, pretty much acknowledged and scientific fact until proven otherwise.

I agree with you on people locking their guns away so kids can't get to them. But I also believe it's important to raise your kids to not be complete idiots that shoot themselves or each other in the face during, say, a facebook photo shoot.

Here, I suggest you also watch this video featuring Alex Jones in his studio, his home turf, with Doug Stanhope:

<youtube=cc_Qa5m1e00>

As for Alex Jones being uptight and paranoid... meh, thing is, most of what he says when he's just a little less riled up is pretty much spot on, but I must admit that sitting opposite supercunt Piers Morgan tends to bring out the worst in everyone. Piers Morgan is a sad, sad person. Alex Jones is not. A lot of people will not just beg to differ, they'll hate on sight, in a rather trigger->response kind of fashion.

That video was a complete waste of my time. It's Alex Jone's talking to someone who basically doesn't know or care about the subjects Alex wants to talk about.

Jones has some "interesting"(read:so crazy it's funny) stuff to watch as long as you know he is just an entertainer and don't take things that he's saying seriously at all. How many of his predictions based on "inside information" have to not come true before people stop believing him? Bush not transferring power, federal martial law and FEMA POW camps after he guaranteed a second 9/11 that was supposed to happen like half a decade ago. I mean its funny, but also scary that you have people the one like above say things like "he's pretty much spot on".

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I mean its funny, but also scary that you have people the one like above say things like "he's pretty much spot on".

Hey, I'm right here. Talking about me? Tell it to my face. Your ad hominem attack is not something I take lightly.

 

[invadergir]

I mean its funny, but also scary that you have people the one like above say things like "he's pretty much spot on".

Hey, I'm right here. Talking about me? Tell it to my face. Your ad hominem attack is not something I take lightly.

It's not Ad hominem. I made no claim about anything involving your character or intellect.

It scares me that you think Alex Jones is "pretty much spot on".

And what do you mean about say it to your face. Is quoting you directly not doing just that?

 

[verdant monkai]

This sort of racist, paranoid, freak is the reason guns should be banned. I certainly wouldn't sleep comfortably knowing he has semi automatic rifles.

He seriously believes the U.S government organised 911? I don't think he realises that these Muslim extremist terrorists, hate the west and everything about us, they wouldn't even consider working with us in any way out of principal. That's why they wanted to blow up the towers in the first place. And hasn't HIS government spent years trying to catch the guy responsible you know that Bin Laden guy? yeah seems like they were very grateful to him.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I agree with Jones to a certain point, that guns can be used for personal protection. But he can't convince me that you would need a full-automatic heavy assault rifle for that.

The firepower one may or may not need varies with the threat faced. A simple .22 automatic handgun is perfectly suitable to defend against small animals while a more robust round such as .40 S&W or .45 ACP is useful to defend against an individual at close range. Rifles exist to provide the ability to fire on targets anywhere from 50 to hundreds of meters away and there exist scenarios where that capacity to project fire would be useful.

What it comes down to is simply this: the amount of gun one thinks they need is based entirely upon the threat they believe they face. The common argument for assault weapons and the like isn't that they are necessary to defend against criminals. Most self-defense shootings happen at ranges of less than 7 meters after all. It is to defend against an organized force of people. The exact nature of that organized group varies of course but it tends to run the gamut from desperate citizens (The classic and oft cited "The Shit hits the fan social breakdown scenario), to law enforcement (there are, after all, laws that people strongly disagree with), to professional military forces (either their own government or a foreign power).

To say that there is no reason to own such a weapon is to ignore the reason that such weapons exist. While you might not think any particular scenario likely, you have to consider just how the nation in question was founded. Beyond that, while people are often afraid of assault rifles and the like, that fear is generally unfounded. The use of such weapons in violent crime is incredibly rare and while recent events have seemingly demonstrated the destructive power of the rifle, one must consider that the weapon could easily have been replaced with any of a variety of handguns for similar effect. It is at this point that most of the argument about gun control in the US revolves. People throw out nonsense statistics to support one side or another but at the heart of the matter is simply that while the right to possess weapons is protected, there is no mention of what sort of weapons might be included.

Actually, when it comes right down to it, the thing that actually bugs me about the gun control debate isn't the fact that every argument that can be made has already been made but rather that people advocate one change or another without any real understanding of what effect it might have. For example, banning high capacity rifle magazines - presumably people think that somehow, forcing someone to have smaller magazine size would somehow mitigate the damage a psychopath might inflict. While that is a noble enough goal, they ignore the fact that most rifles of the sort can be easily reloaded in the space of a second or so in the hands of someone with a bit of practice. The total decrease in the rate of aimed fire from such a move is limited unless magazine size is cut dramatically. Others advocate requiring the use of some sort of tool to remove a magazine (In California, all rifles must have such a feature) but, sadly, given that the vast majority of rifles ever made were designed to facilitate such common actions as magazine replacement, any current mechanism would be relatively trivial to bypass if one were so inclined. And in that same vein, the discussion of control of various "assault weapons" or the even more laughable restrictions on anti-material rifles (very large caliber rifles designed to destroy "things" rather than people or animals) ignores that what is essentially advocated is that more controls be placed on a whole category of weapons who's use in violent crime is incredibly rare. The difficulty of concealment, the high cost even when obtained illegally, and a host of other factors simply mean that for the most part there is a better gun for villainy.

Honestly, it seems like the debate always ignores the fact that it isn't magazine size or particular bullet configuration or caliber or fearsome looks or range or presumed stopping power or any of the countless other things people have lobbied for one restriction or another would only rarely have any significant effect. Given that the guns most often used for violence are those that meet the simple criteria of being easily concealed and cheaply obtainable, it seems strange that the debate routinely ignores this class of firearm. Sure, a 200 dollar .22 pistol might not look scary nor does it have the capacity to leave wounds you could throw a cat through but that doesn't stop such a weapon of being one of the most common firearms involved in shootings.

 

[Angie7F]

America, I don't ask you for much, but please don't send him back.... do whatever you like with him (shoot him, for all I care) but we don't want the obnoxious little twunt either!!

Here here!

Even in the unlikely event they do kick him out (unlikely because the First Amendment protects him here I believe), he would be unlikely to come back to Blighty, on account of the fact that he would probably be met at the gate by Plod. Something about phone hacking I think...

we cans send him, to Canada....
someone get a box that could fit a person, a stick, a string, a story he could exploit and meet me in five.

I was just trying to imagine what would happen to him if you shipped him to Japan.
i think everyone will just politely smile, nod and walk away.

 

[lazy villian]

America, I don't ask you for much, but please don't send him back.... do whatever you like with him (shoot him, for all I care) but we don't want the obnoxious little twunt either!!

Here here!

Even in the unlikely event they do kick him out (unlikely because the First Amendment protects him here I believe), he would be unlikely to come back to Blighty, on account of the fact that he would probably be met at the gate by Plod. Something about phone hacking I think...

we cans send him, to Canada....
someone get a box that could fit a person, a stick, a string, a story he could exploit and meet me in five.

I was just trying to imagine what would happen to him if you shipped him to Japan.
i think everyone will just politely smile, nod and walk away.

what would happen if we sent fox to japan

 

[Alexander Bradley]

I like to think that someone told Alex Jones he was prepping for a WWE match and that we was supposed to be as loud, pissed off, and obnoxious as possible. As for Piers, I can only say that he's overtly British in the worst kind of way. He didn't even acknowledge the fact that the UK has more "white-hot robberies" than you'd ever have in the US. Only that UK > US because we r propr n stuf lolz.

As an aside, most gun-owners are very sensible, well-balanced, and very well-trained people. The problem is that they aren't very vocal people either, so finding a representative in the gun community that ISN'T a bumbling idiot who tells patriotic stories such as,"Then he was all like 'I'm gonna cut ya', but then I was all like 'PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW' with muh gun....'Murica." I'd personally nominate YouTuber Hickok45, but I doubt he or any other sensible shooter would want the burden of dealing with people yelling at you facts about how superior Europe (who've been more wound-up than a Nazi before a colonoscopy about guns for decades now) have less gun-related murders and robberies than the US.

 

[Jubbert]

Christ, there's so much ignorance in this thread, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

A little education for you here:

Semi-automatic weapon: A gun that fires once each time you pull the trigger.

Assault rifle: A rifle with selective fire, meaning that it can fire more than once with one trigger pull, meaning it has burst or fully-automatic capability.

AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle. Legal and relatively easy to acquire.

M16: An assault rifle. Extremely expensive and hard to acquire.

 

[revjor]

This sort of racist, paranoid, freak is the reason guns should be banned. I certainly wouldn't sleep comfortably knowing he has semi automatic rifles.

He seriously believes the U.S government organised 911? I don't think he realises that these Muslim extremist terrorists, hate the west and everything about us, they wouldn't even consider working with us in any way out of principal. That's why they wanted to blow up the towers in the first place. And hasn't HIS government spent years trying to catch the guy responsible you know that Bin Laden guy? yeah seems like they were very grateful to him.

We supplied the Mujhadeen during their war with the Soviets. Granted for them it was means to an end but we had a hand in allowing the Taliban to come to power.

 

[LGC Pominator]

I love how to us Brits Piers Morgan is an awful annoying tory douche, but over in the states they seem to hate him for being "too lib" on he issues.

Also, my god Alex Jones is deranged, I follow some of his stuff on youtube because quite frankly it is some of the most entertaining watching you will ever see, I mean I know it is kind of unfair to laugh at someone who is quite clearly mentally impaired, but how the hell does that guy have an audience that takes him seriously?! he is MENTAL!

I want to see a three way duel (trial?) between Clarkson, Morgan and Jones, that would be fun

 

[revjor]

I alwyas love the way people (in this case Jones) say ''Oh we need guns to protect us from the government and other crazy people''. The US is a (sort of) democratic coutry with a system based on Montesquieu's tri split of power. (Lawgiving, justice speaking, and executive) This system protects the citizens from state in a legal way. (''If you cannot afford a lawyer you will be appointed one'') So you don't need guns to protect you against the state. Other crazy people is more reasonable, but still: if guns wouldn't be so easily accesible, then other crazy people wouldn't get to them so easily either, and the gocernment would be able to protect you with a reasonable police force.

I agree with Jones to a certain point, that guns can be used for personal protection. But he can't convince me that you would need a full-automatic heavy assault rifle for that.

On the note of court appointed lawyers. In my state the appointed lawyers are massively understaffed to the point where in some of the smaller counties a state lawyer will get 500+ cases a year. Half of which are children. One I read about had 1300 cases in one year. At that rate they choose who to devote their little time to and who to cast aside.

There are multiple instances where you will not hear from your lawyer until the day of trial where you find out your lawyer is now your substitute judge. Or your lawyer is both your judge and lawyer.

The fact of the matter in Washington State is that if you are poor you might be completely fucked.

 

[Flunk]

Oh great, two totally full of themselves idiots shouting on TV.

Piers Morgan is an even worse interviewer than Larry King (who didn't even read the prep papers on his guests) and Alex Jones is incapable of debating because he doesn't allow the other person to actually make a point before repeating his same one point over and over.

This really proved nothing other than neither of these people should be on TV.

 

[Clowndoe]

I just feel like I could do Piers' job better, although I have a strong feeling he's almost putting on a persona, sort of trolling the news in order to make his channel more interesting, and in a way there's nothing wrong with that.

Anyway, I like the implication that semi-automatic rifles in the hands of American citizens would be the difference between them beating the U.S. Army and New World Order. Let's take Operation Iraqi freedom as a comparison:

Iraq army - Tanks, jets, RPGs, artillery, SAMs, middling military training for the grunts, hostile FOREIGN territory advantage. The "invasion phase" was about 1 month and 10 days. Also I feel that if America wanted to they could have potentially stayed in Iraq forever, nothing was dislodging them apart from a lack of reason to stay.

Theoretical American Militia - Rifles... Homefield advanta- well the army has that too.

Yeah I think if the Anti-Christ has the U.S. army your 2nd Amendment isn't going to help on that front.

 

[invadergir]

Christ, there's so much ignorance in this thread, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

A little education for you here:

Semi-automatic weapon: A gun that fires once each time you pull the trigger.

Assault rifle: A rifle with selective fire, meaning that it can fire more than once with one trigger pull, meaning it has burst or fully-automatic capability.

AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle. Legal and relatively easy to acquire.

M16: An assault rifle. Extremely expensive and hard to acquire.

AR15 is a civilian semi-automatic version of the US Main battle rifle(MBR). Just being a semi-automatic does not make it any less lethal in nature. The FN FAL was the MBR for the UK all the way up to the 80s and even into the 90's for other countries.

Arguing semantics of the word "assault rifle" is so beyond the point. The M16 and its civilian equivalent was designed solely for the purpose of killing people. Even the ammo was designed for maximum lethality while allowing the soldier to be able to carry more rounds due to its relatively low weight. The bullet tumbles after impact with flesh causing devastating wounds to its target.

Calling your opposition ignorant doesn't change the fact that many on the side of gun control are, in fact, not ignorant.

 

[ServebotFrank]

Assault Rifles aren't really as they are in movies and video games. I daresay their main goal isn't to kill people. Why do I say that? Because I have seen Automatic weapons fired before and those guns burn through the clip within two seconds. Assault Rifles are mainly meant for suppressing fire, where you fire automatic weapons on an enemy position to prevent them from moving up or getting up to shoot.

On the video, why the hell did Piers Morgan bring in Alex Jones, probably the absolute worst person to talk to about guns? Why not bring in Non-NRA guys who know what they're talking about in regards to gun safety? Alex Jones sometimes brings up decent points but immediately goes on a tangent and starts screaming. He is to date the only man to successfully talk over Piers Morgan when usually Morgan is talking over everyone else.

 

[invadergir]

Assault Rifles aren't really as they are in movies and video games. I daresay their main goal isn't to kill people. Why do I say that? Because I have seen Automatic weapons fired before and those guns burn through the clip within two seconds. Assault Rifles are mainly meant for suppressing fire, where you fire automatic weapons on an enemy position to prevent them from moving up or getting up to shoot.

On the video, why the hell did Piers Morgan bring in Alex Jones, probably the absolute worst person to talk to about guns? Why not bring in Non-NRA guys who know what they're talking about in regards to gun safety? Alex Jones sometimes brings up decent points but immediately goes on a tangent and starts screaming. He is to date the only man to successfully talk over Piers Morgan when usually Morgan is talking over everyone else.

How can you say that a MBRs primary goal isn't to kill people? Even the ballistics of the bullet are such that it was designed for maximum damage to human targets.

And the fact that you called a magazine a "clip" doesn't really separate you from the video game public in terms of believability.

 

[omega 616]

I have to agree with sentiment that having something like an m16 or ak to defend yourself is silly, I mean it's like saying I want to butter my bread and you reach for a claymore, yeah you can do it but it's over kill (excuse the pun). It's a good mental image, right?

Of course from my knowledge of school shootings, which is almost none, aren't handguns usually used? The most infamous school shooting, columbine, was done by hand guns (I think).

Then this sandybrook one, wasn't there an Asian guy who went on a little rampage with a hangun as well?