Piers Morgan and Alex Jones

Jason P

Just watched the interview. Alex Jones came off as a well read, calm, reasonable human being. His elegant manors and ability to rationally debate have won me over.

Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Perhaps. I just find it easier than differentiating between this gun and that gun in every post, particularly since none of us here are drafting legislation.

Aren't fully automatic weapons already illegal?

Not federally. The way I understand it is that in some states they are completely illegal, while being heavily regulated in others. In the latter case, I've read that there are extensive background checks (one person wrote that you essentially need a police chief speaking on your behalf), only certain types are obtainable, and those that are come with a price tag that is prohibitively expensive. Given all that, while I would never advocate for a full federal ban on fully automatic weapons, I also wouldn't find that to be an unreasonable compromise.

We're not drafting legislation, but we are having a dialogue. If you were making a case for banning all assault rifles, by all means go for it. But you'll find yourself having a difficult time getting points across if you're confusing people that you're speaking with.

I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.

fife

unsung wrote:

Better Dan wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

how about that UK violent crime rate?



“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan

Increasing background checks, regulations for purchasing at gun shows, and eliminating semi-automatic weapons doesn't take away your right to own guns.

Taking away semi autos does. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

can people with major documented mental health issues buy guns? can ex-cons legally buy guns?

usamamasan1

Re Holmes being batchit crazy and buying guns
There is no process in Colorado to screen out whether a severly mentally ill person is purchaing those guns
Re a felon...They can't buy guns legally but that is the point. Criminals do not follow guns laws.

fife

usamamasan1 wrote:

Re Holmes being batchit crazy and buying guns
There is no process in Colorado to screen out whether a severly mentally ill person is purchaing those guns
Re a felon...They can't buy guns legally but that is the point. Criminals do not follow guns laws.

so your telling me that "shall not be infringed" is not correct? there are infringements?

Zoso

honestly this wasn't started off as a thread to debate pro gun vs anti-gun just wanted to point out alex jones and the fact that he is a fucking insane but see what happens on the AMT.

Jason P

Zoso wrote:

honestly this wasn't started off as a thread to debate pro gun vs anti-gun just wanted to point out alex jones and the fact that he is a fucking insane but see what happens on the AMT.

Good PR move by Smith. There is a niche market for this just like there is one for Steven A. Smith and Skip Bayless in the world of sports.

Hard to tell if he is nuts or a good promotor.

chadwick

alex jones has a shit load of facts he talks about. i like the guy. piers morgan... whatever

chadwick

http://youtu.be/4uymMI_omik
here ya go. piers vs' alex

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.

There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?

pjl44

chadwick wrote:

alex jones has a shit load of facts he talks about. i like the guy. piers morgan... whatever

Alex Jones is a bright dude, but he really doesn't do himself any favors when he conducts himself in this manner. You can intellectually debate Piers Morgan's position; instead he started yelling at him out of the gate, threatened revolution, and challenged him to a boxing match. I'd really like to see him calmly debate points and scale back the self-promotion.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.

There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?

Is there any legitimate reason for a citizen to possess a semiautomatic weapon? I say ban them, but that is in part because I have not heard any good argument from the other side.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I am indeed in favor of banning them all. Handguns for defense, hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting should be legal...and that's it. All others should be outlawed. Unless there is a compelling reason why not, which I as of yet have not heard. Just a lot of rhetoric.

There are many semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Where would you come down on those?

Is there any legitimate reason for a citizen to possess a semiautomatic weapon? I say ban them, but that is in part because I have not heard any good argument from the other side.

You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:

Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.

Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.

If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pjl44 wrote:

You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:

Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.

Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.

If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"

Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.

Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.

Just a few ideas off the top of the noodle. I'm sure smarter people are coming up with a reasonable solution in the form of compromise. It makes sense for a complete ban but militant Americans more interested in having wicked guns versus safeguarding their schools will throw hissy fits.

Zoso

how many chimpanzees can dance on the head of a pin???

comebackgirl

Jason P wrote:

Just watched the interview. Alex Jones came off as a well read, calm, reasonable human being. His elegant manors and ability to rationally debate have won me over.

Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.

when advocating that the average citizen should have open access to firearms it might hurt your position just a bit if you lose your shit on national television :fp:

Zoso

comebackgirl wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Just watched the interview. Alex Jones came off as a well read, calm, reasonable human being. His elegant manors and ability to rationally debate have won me over.

Can't wait for 1776 Part 2, starring Captain Insano. He shows no mercy.

when advocating that the average citizen should have open access to firearms it might hurt your position just a bit if you lose your shit on national television :fp:

don't forget conspiracy theories about 9/11 and change to a bad english accent.

comebackgirl

Zoso wrote:

Alex Jones is the exact reason being armed is a scary thing.

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/

This video reminded me of this for some reason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC4C_Gcp_dM

pjl44

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.

Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.

Don't they already require registration or is that just state-to-state? I know they do in Massachusetts. I really have no issue with the idea of guns being registered.

If you really stop and think about how you would implement an ammo plan like this, you'll run into administrative nightmares. (Mostly that a black market would immediately spring up and it would be impossible to control.) And by "taxing the shit out of ammo," it's really becoming more about a vendetta against gun owners than trying to find sensible solutions to violent crime. Again, black market.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pjl44 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Option 1. Except have all grandfathered weapons registered. Owners receive cards or licenses for such weapons. Can only purchase ammunition with these cards. All unregistered weapons fall into illegal status and carry criminal consequences for the person who holds them.

Tax the shit out of ammunition so that bullets cost a
ton. Monitor ammunition sales. Audits periodically.

Don't they already require registration or is that just state-to-state? I know they do in Massachusetts. I really have no issue with the idea of guns being registered.

If you really stop and think about how you would implement an ammo plan like this, you'll run into administrative nightmares. (Mostly that a black market would immediately spring up and it would be impossible to control.) And by "taxing the shit out of ammo," it's really becoming more about a vendetta against gun owners than trying to find sensible solutions to violent crime. Again, black market.

To reiterate... I just tossed something out there. With that said... it's not that bad of a plan. There has to be some work associated with gun legislation- of course.

Why shouldn't ammunition bear a heavy cost? It's not so much a vendetta as it is a user fee: your country could provide the opportunity to shoot a fucking assault rifle because it gives you a hard on... but it's costly to do so. Why should bullets cost nickels and food cost more?

The money generated from "taxing the shit out of ammunition" could be used to fund the safeguards necessary to keep your country as safe as possible given you refuse to turn in your toys. I say toys because come on... that's what they are. Not one gun owner has responded that a shotgun couldn't safely and adequately protect them and their loved ones. When pressed for a response... most on here have just yelled, "It's my right!" There is no need for them other than for leisure pursuits... or killing people.

With costly safeguards necessary... do you think it is the entire country's responsibility to pay that cost? Do you think the portion of your country that owns no guns should have funds diverted from other government programs to cover the costs associated with gun legislation so that you can have your hobby as cheap as it always has been?

Again... it's a suggested compromise: something you seem unwilling to do. You are no longer subtle in your effort to encourage the status quo.

Let me say this though: to promote the staus quo is tantamount to sticking one's head up their ass and denying there is a problem.

Short of saying your country is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it... what do you suggest needs to happen?