Piers Morgan and Alex Jones

DS1119 wrote:

unsung wrote:

People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.

Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:

I agree that it's a larger societal issue. With being young, male and from a lower socioeconomic class as the biggest risk factors in determining whether or not someone will commit violent crime, this seems to indicate that there are issues with how young males are socialized and access to resources and opportunities (such as education, physical and mental health care, jobs, etc). There is an issue with those in society who are likely to commit violence having access to weapons that can cause the most destruction, and since that seems like it is the place to make quickest change, that is getting the focus. But those other areas need a lot of focus and really are at the core of this issue. What are your ideas for how we go about making those larger societal changes?

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?"

But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.

someone should start a petition to have alex jones be committed to an insane asylum.

goingtoverona wrote:

why is shooting guns always about getting a boner for you? i don't get that, you usually come off with some sound reasonable opinions, then you toss in shit like that and i quit reading.
and for what it's worth my assault rifle bullets cost a dollar a piece not nickels, so it costs 30 bucks to fill a clip. no thanks on taxing that even more

Why don't you try answering some of the questions I posed instead of... in what has become the classic gun defender strategy... avoiding them? For example, Alex Jones yelled over Morgan; you chose to focus on the getting a boner from shooting your gun point (which, I contend, is legitimate). Wait a minute... you did answer a question. You said, "Fuck that!" to taxing bullets. You want your bullets cheap.

To your claim, I've used that expression two times in probably 50 posts (or more) relevant to this topic because... be honest: you have the gun for thrills, correct? It's a juvenille and self-gratifying hobby you have there and in order for you to have it... many people including your countries children are placed in harm's way. It's selfish to insist on preserving your lifestyle when you know damn well the counter argument has absolutely bludgeoned... I'm talking creamed... all feeble attempts to rationalize gun use and minimize the effects of gun use:
* gotta get ready for the government
* gotta be ready for home invaders (might be a good idea for an X-Box game)
* 300 years ago those guys told me I could have it
* alcohol kills more people (let's ban booze before guns!)
* old age kills more people (why don't we ban time?)
* drones (the latest one that might be the strongest!)

All idiotic. Sheer lunacy.

You sound like another non-compromising individual. How's this then: you live in a democracy... put it to a vote and live with the results: if the majority of the country says ban the guns then ban them... if the majority of the country says do not ban the guns then keep them- in which case you'd deserve them and every slaughter from here on.

Very simply put: can you admit there is a problem? And if so... what solutions do you present to do something about the problem? If not... please refer to my original post!

DS1119 wrote:

unsung wrote:

People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.

Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:

Your right. Guns themselves aren't the source of the problem, but since we live in the society with the issues you described maybe we should look at ways to reduce the massacres. Seems like the guns used in these things were in fact purchased or originally obtained through legal means so maybe some smart laws that make sense could reduce the amount of schools and theatres that are being shot up by the mentally ill.

Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I can't think of two people's conversation I would like to hear less than these two.

davidtrios wrote:

Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.

i bet alex's IQ is higher than most of us folks on here... this is a fact. alex jones may have been rude & loud but he is no idiot. alex knows more about declassified, classified information, world history & current global events than most people walking. he is snap your fingers sharp with answers to probably just about anything you feel like asking him.

idiot? i highly doubt alex jones is an idiot.

piers morgan frickin bites. never have enjoyed that man not for not even 2 seconds. bland as shit & boring. quite stuffy & whatnot.

dustinpardue wrote:

Alex Jones isn't an idiot, he is an entertainer. Ratings and publicity comes first and foremost, and it's working. This thread is a testament to that. He has had some good and interesting stuff through the years though. I do wish I could just smack and say "Give it up dude! Ron Paul is NOT going to be President!" Change the record please.
anyway..........
My 2 cents is that the constiution says 'arms' right? Just like the word 'decency' it must be more thoroughly defines what 'arms' actually means. I don't think anyone is trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Just should be clarified for the times. With the current logic, it would be perfectly OK for me to have a nuclear weapon in my closet. It's an 'arm' isn't it? We just need to draw the line between common sense and riduculous shit.

can you shoulder mount that nuke or hold it in your hand(s) and reload it farely easily? can you refill or purchase nukes at the store or refill them in your basement?