Pro-gun advocate Alex Jones rants at Piers Morgan in studio ‘debate’

[StruckANerve]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

So you don't think less guns = less gun violence? You don't think less assault weapons = less mass shooting deaths? I say you're wrong.

If you look at firearm ownership vs. violent crime in America it seems that the opposite is true. Firearm ownership has increased steadily yet violent crime has been falling for 20 years. Gun Control people seem to want to ignore the fact that America is the safest it's been in decades.

And if you agree with the proposed AWB then answer just one question. Why Rifles? Rifles kill fewer people than Hammers and other blunt objects. So why are Rifles and high capacity magazines being attacked? Why does the Govt want to deprive Americans from the most effective tool to protect themselves from Govt aggression?

Guns do not cause Violence, just as Pencils do not cause illiteracy. Poverty and lack of education seem to be the largest contributors. Looking at various major cities in America they all seem to have similar rates of violent crime regardless of which guns are legal and which aren't.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Ya know, I keep talking about education, but nobody wants to hear that apparently.

I mentioned in an earlier thread that in order to get a Possession and Acquire Licence here in the frozen North, you need to do a mandatory safety course. Seems to work for us. Hey the next time you're up we should rent a car and hit the range!

[theautopilot]

Originally Posted by StruckANerve

If you look at firearm ownership vs. violent crime in America it seems that the opposite is true. Firearm ownership has increased steadily yet violent crime has been falling for 20 years. Gun Control people seem to want to ignore the fact that America is the safest it's been in decades.

And if you agree with the proposed AWB then answer just one question. Why Rifles? Rifles kill fewer people than Hammers and other blunt objects. So why are Rifles and high capacity magazines being attacked? Why does the Govt want to deprive Americans from the most effective tool to protect themselves from Govt aggression?

Guns do not cause Violence, just as Pencils do not cause illiteracy. Poverty and lack of education seem to be the largest contributors. Looking at various major cities in America they all seem to have similar rates of violent crime regardless of which guns are legal and which aren't.

Could you run into a school and kill 20+ people with a hammer?

Are there many lonely mentally unstable people who obsess about hammers and collect them?

I did not think the original debate was about reducing crime and violence in society per say, I thought it was about helping prevent mass school shootings? Or are these school shootings acceptable collateral damage, so long as you can be suitably armed and prepared for the impending rise of New World Order?

[StruckANerve]

Originally Posted by domrevans

Could you run into a school and kill 20+ people with a hammer?

Are there many lonely mentally unstable people who obsess about hammers and collect them?

I did not think the original debate was about reducing crime and violence in society per say, I thought it was about helping prevent mass school shootings? Or are these school shootings acceptable collateral damage, so long as you can be suitably armed and prepared for the impending rise of New World Order?

You can label me a CT nut all you want but you can't deny that our Constitutional rights have been facing an all out assault by the Feds for the last decade.

You can be arrested for protesting.
Your communication and property are subject to search without a warrant.
You can be arrested and imprisoned without a trial.
Militarized Police forces patrol our streets.
Corporations and the wealthy are robbing America of it's wealth.

Let's forget about the tyrannical govt and instead let's say the Govt collapses due to our corrupt and destructive financial system, probable yes but not impossible. I deserve to protect my property from criminals that may want what I have or hurt the people I love. How I choose to do that is irrelevant. I will not give up my right to defend myself because of a monster.

Lone psychopaths that should be in Mental institutions do not need guns to commit mass murder. When something like this happens the wrong question is always asked. The public should not ask "Why did he have a gun?" they should be asking "Why did he kill all those people?"

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by StruckANerve

Lone psychopaths that should be in Mental institutions do not need guns to commit mass murder. When something like this happens the wrong question is always asked. The public should not ask "Why did he have a gun?" they should be asking "Why did he kill all those people?"

They should be asking both questions. How did someone, who by all accounts was at the very least unstable, get access to guns? And let's face it, if he had gone into that school with a hammer those kids and the teachers who died protecting them would have had a much better chance of survival.

I'd much rather see stricter punishments for irresponsible gun owners than an all out ban - with the ability to LOSE your "right" to bear arms if your gun is taken and fired by someone that isn't you. I'd also like to see mandatory education and re-licensing (is that a word?). Especially education about storage - it seems like everyday someone is killing themselves or someone else because a gun was laying around.

This country also needs to start taking better care of our mentally ill. The apathy and unwillingness for our society to help our own is also a huge problem.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by StruckANerve

You can label me a CT nut all you want but you can't deny that our Constitutional rights have been facing an all out assault by the Feds for the last decade.

You can be arrested for protesting.
Your communication and property are subject to search without a warrant.
You can be arrested and imprisoned without a trial.
Militarized Police forces patrol our streets.
Corporations and the wealthy are robbing America of it's wealth.

Let's forget about the tyrannical govt and instead let's say the Govt collapses due to our corrupt and destructive financial system, probable yes but not impossible. I deserve to protect my property from criminals that may want what I have or hurt the people I love. How I choose to do that is irrelevant. I will not give up my right to defend myself because of a monster.

Lone psychopaths that should be in Mental institutions do not need guns to commit mass murder. When something like this happens the wrong question is always asked. The public should not ask "Why did he have a gun?" they should be asking "Why did he kill all those people?"

Whose been more successful at enacting change? Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Hamas?

I'd say the former two have been far more successful than the latter which is still a violent group.

And did the IRA achieve more since they gave up their armed campaign, or before?

[dscuber9000]

I still don't get the resistance to the notion that only people who can properly and safely handle a gun at all times should be allowed to own one. But yeah, freedom.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by dscuber9000

I still don't get the resistance to the notion that only people who can properly and safely handle a gun at all times should be allowed to own one. But yeah, freedom.

The difficulty is in determining who are the "only people who can properly and safely handle a gun at all times."

It's like saying alcohol wouldn't be an issue if we could determine who are the "only people who can properly and safely handle a drink at all times."

Who are those people?

And how do we determine that?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The difficulty is in determining who are the "only people who can properly and safely handle a gun at all times."

It's like saying alcohol wouldn't be an issue if we could determine who are the "only people who can properly and safely handle a drink at all times."

Who are those people?

And how do we determine that?

Well, clearly the answer to that problem is to restrict the alcohol content in all liquor sold to a very low percentage.

We don't want to ban alcoholic beverages... just put limits on the capability of the beverage to intoxicate.

Again, this has nothing to do with any specific liquor and regulates instead the performance capabilities of the drink.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Well, clearly the answer to that problem is to restrict the alcohol content in all liquor sold to a very low percentage.

We don't want to ban alcoholic beverages... just put limits on the capability of the beverage to intoxicate.

Again, this has nothing to do with any specific liquor and regulates instead the performance capabilities of the drink.

We do that too. There are limits on the sale of Everclear, which is sold in 150 and 190-proof strengths. The higher proof is illegal or highly limited in 13 states.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I mentioned in an earlier thread that in order to get a Possession and Acquire Licence here in the frozen North, you need to do a mandatory safety course. Seems to work for us. Hey the next time you're up we should rent a car and hit the range!

That would be fun! Next time I have a break from work, I'll come up!

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by dscuber9000

I still don't get the resistance to the notion that only people who can properly and safely handle a gun at all times should be allowed to own one. But yeah, freedom.

The problem is who decides who can properly and safely handle a gun and what criteria do you use to determine that?

I'll be the first to stand up and admit that there are many people who purchase guns who don't have a clue, I see it often...

However I am a little torn as to how this should be approached. I am really not in favor of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to gun purchases. To be honest I think firearm safety should be taught in the schools.


There was a time in this country, and not too long ago (less than 3 decades is my guess), when firearms were not viewed in such a negative manner. Kids who hunted brought their shotguns and rifles to school and left them in their vehicle because they went hunting either before or after school, rifle teams at many high schools were common (mine had one up until about 1982 or so), at Christmas time the talk in the school hallways was often not what video game system was received as a gift, but what shotgun/rifle/gun accessories you had received.

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by glocke12

The problem is who decides who can properly and safely handle a gun and what criteria do you use to determine that?

Mental health check and training - there's nothing to discuss. You can't drive a car without taking driving lessons and acquiring a license, can you?

Originally Posted by glocke12

To be honest I think firearm safety should be taught in the schools.

No, children have no business handling firearms, not unless they are training to become hunters or child soldiers in the African wild.

[yg17]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The difficulty is in determining who are the "only people who can properly and safely handle a gun at all times."

It's like saying alcohol wouldn't be an issue if we could determine who are the "only people who can properly and safely handle a drink at all times."

Who are those people?

And how do we determine that?

We seem to be doing all right for drivers licenses. Everyone has to take a test to get one, and every few years, we have to renew it and do a basic eye exam and road sign test at the DMV.

Require that of gun owners. They have to pass a safety test by a trained examiner to be allowed to own a gun and every few years, they have to take a mental health exam to make sure they haven't gone off the deep end. But that'll never happen, because freedom or something

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

Mental health check and training - there's nothing to discuss. You can't drive a car without taking driving lessons and acquiring a license, can you?


No, children have no business handling firearms, not unless they are training to become hunters or child soldiers in the African wild.

problem is driving is not a constitutional right..i know you guys hate that argument but thats what it comes down to...

whats wrong with teaching firearms safety to kids? NRA already has a program in place to teach younger children what to do if they see a gun (Eddie Eagle program)....make that a part of classroom training, than when kids get older introduce them to marksmanship...nothing wrong with teaching school kids how to shoot a 22 bolt action/single shot rifle..

[yg17]

Originally Posted by glocke12

problem is driving is not a constitutional right..i know you guys hate that argument but thats what it comes down to...

whats wrong with teaching firearms safety to kids? NRA already has a program in place to teach younger children what to do if they see a gun (Eddie Eagle program)....make that a part of classroom training, than when kids get older introduce them to marksmanship...nothing wrong with teaching school kids how to shoot a 22 bolt action/single shot rifle..

And again, I ask, which well regulated militia are you a part of?

[rmwebs]

Since when do we have people "Burning down cities" in the UK? The UK is by far one of the most 'stable' countries in the world when it comes to violent crime.

Sorry but how the hell could anyone agree with that lunatic?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by yg17

And again, I ask, which well regulated militia are you a part of?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

[yg17]

Originally Posted by glocke12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Thankfully Supreme Court cases can be overturned. It's rare, but lets hope it happens with that one.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by yg17

Thankfully Supreme Court cases can be overturned. It's rare, but lets hope it happens with that one.

That's rather anti- American of you.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by yg17

And again, I ask, which well regulated militia are you a part of?

You can try to interpret the constitution all you want, but it's already been interpreted, though I suspect we are going to continue to try to change the meaning of words to reflect what you want.


"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


“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
way to enslave them.”
― James Madison

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison

"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 shall have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American ... The 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."
-- Tench Coxe, 1788.

“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.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared
to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic
purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice
for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

[elistan]

Originally Posted by glocke12

That's rather anti- American of you.

What an... odd... point of view, IMO. Do you consider Supreme Court Justices anti-American as well? Here are 10 examples of the SCOTUS overturning the SCOTUS.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-ov...ourt-cases.htm

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion stated, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

That's rather anti- American of you.

How on earth does hoping for a successful legal challenge constitute being anti-American???

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by glocke12

There was a time in this country, and not too long ago (less than 3 decades is my guess), when firearms were not viewed in such a negative manner. Kids who hunted brought their shotguns and rifles to school and left them in their vehicle because they went hunting either before or after school, rifle teams at many high schools were common (mine had one up until about 1982 or so), at Christmas time the talk in the school hallways was often not what video game system was received as a gift, but what shotgun/rifle/gun accessories you had received.

There was a time in this country, and not too long ago, when you didn't have a bunch of rabid wingbats running around screeching about how they need multitudes of weapons to protect themselves from government tyranny and thinking that they are unsafe at any point at which they aren't ready to take out an armed person vigilante style. It's not necessarily the gun...it's the crazy people and their misguided views for why they think they need them.

Let me ask you, if gun ownership was never a constitutional right and was never even approached as such, would you have gained such an interest in them and pushed so hard for their acceptance?

Originally Posted by skunk

How on earth does hoping for a successful legal challenge constitute being anti-American???

Because it's against something he wants.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

You can try to interpret the constitution all you want, but it's already been interpreted, though I suspect we are going to continue to try to change the meaning of words to reflect what you want.


"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


“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
way to enslave them.”
― James Madison

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison

"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 shall have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American ... The 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."
-- Tench Coxe, 1788.

“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.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared
to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic
purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice
for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

Being prepared to take arms is not the same thing as being a "well" regulated militia. While I understand why something like this was written into the constitution 500 years ago- I also understand that there were many things written into the consitution that just don't translate 500 years later (unless you believe that some should be considered 3/5 person). Owning a gun doesn't automatic qualify you as well-trained. I can buy a gun in 5 minutes here in Texas (we have gun shows every weekend). However, I certainly wouldn't trust myself to face-off against our military if it came to that.


I find it laughable, and frankly downright scary, that simply owning a gun makes one feel safe from the horrors of government "tyranny". When faced with being "protected" by lovers of the 2nd Amendment, I think I would take my chances with the tyrannical government.