Alex Jones does real issues (gun rights and anti-depressant drugs) a dis-service

[myrkul]

But we're not taking arms or equipping our population with guns. Why? I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible. Either you speak, either you shoot, you can't do both. If a person talks freely, people will listen to his speech. If a person talk pointing a gun, people will focus on the gun. The only speech will be what the weapon say. We were never armed in our history, our speeches were never useful in the short-term, but made great victories in the long-term.

Who said anything about pointing? Owning, yes. Carrying, yes. Pointing? No. I should also point out that for all your speech and democracy, you're still subjects of a queen.

The right to bear arms is what protects the right to free speech.

[1715073507]

1715073507

[1715073507]

1715073507

[Rob E]

Are you one of those people who support one group of people being armed and another group of people being disarmed, effectively creating two classes of people, each having a different set of rights?

I'm taking this quote, but it's a general answer (I'm not a fan of posts with tons of quotes in them).

From my own experience and living in a country that support a group of professionals being armed (police and army mainly) and the general population being disarmed(except for hobbies, like hunting), it works pretty damn well. It's not perfect, there is occasional slip-up, I agree. But you would be surprised how crime is not that problematic, how guns mass murdering occur rarely and how the homicide rate is pretty low.

Also, keeping guns as a way to counter government tyranny....I think it's a pretty shitty argument. For the last 250 years, we've been conquered and had many(Many!) conflicts with the english/canadian government. In 1995, there was missing 30 000 votes to make the Quebec province a country and split up Canada. Imagine if 30% of the US population was on the verge of splitting your country, that was the equivalent back in 1995. I know what it is to live under a government that is not really your own, that decide for themselves first and don't care about your interests. An example? Afghanistan war. Quebec voted against at 75%, rest of Canada voted for at 75%. We ended sending soldiers over there that got killed, for something we were clearly against. Our history is full of those examples (world war 1 and 2, Canada goes into war, send French-canadians on the front line cause we're a good meatshield).

But we're not taking arms or equipping our population with guns. Why? I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible. Either you speak, either you shoot, you can't do both. If a person talks freely, people will listen to his speech. If a person talk pointing a gun, people will focus on the gun. The only speech will be what the weapon say. We were never armed in our history, our speeches were never useful in the short-term, but made great victories in the long-term.

We have different philosophies, you had your country by taking arms, we're aiming at getting ours by using democracy and freedom of speech. It's not about which one is better, it's about the results you want. Different philosophies gives different results in the end. The only thing I know is that for those nations out there who are oriented towards pacifism, democracy and freedom of speech, your philosophy is really unattractive and scary.

" It works pretty well"? Yeh it works " pretty well" for " some " people yeh. .

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.

You don't know that the American government is in Fascism.   

[foggyb]

All I saw was Alex Jones screaming at the interviewer, being completely impolite and disrespectful and also making some petition to deport him. And you're happy to give guns to people like this? No wonder you want a gun in your house when you know you have those Alex Jones with 52 weapons living in your country.

Jones was being disrespectful?

How about Piers Morgan being disrespectful as a citizen of the UK, towards the laws of the land to which he is a GUEST?

How about Piers Morgan being disrespectful towards Larry Pratt in this interview, even calling him "stupid" several times.

Piers Morgan does not deserve any respect. Way to go Alex. You may not admire Alex's form, the end result is what matters: Piers getting his ass handed to him.

You know who you're giving guns to when you advocate gun control? Criminals. They LOVE gun control. Gun control was in FULL EFFECT in Sandy Hook school that day. The 2nd amendment is banned in all schools in America. No self-defense for kids, its better they get slaughtered, right? That's sarcasm by the way.

[Brunic]

But we're not taking arms or equipping our population with guns. Why? I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible. Either you speak, either you shoot, you can't do both. If a person talks freely, people will listen to his speech. If a person talk pointing a gun, people will focus on the gun. The only speech will be what the weapon say. We were never armed in our history, our speeches were never useful in the short-term, but made great victories in the long-term.

Who said anything about pointing? Owning, yes. Carrying, yes. Pointing? No. I should also point out that for all your speech and democracy, you're still subjects of a queen.

The right to bear arms is what protects the right to free speech.

Yeah, I know we're "subjects" of the queen, but she knows how we feel about her. It must be like 25 years since she last came visit her "subjects".   Our province is probably the least safest place in the world for her, I hope she have a right bear arms  


*EDIT*
Rob E and foggyb, you just prove my point. The attitude of gun first, speech later is what makes it so that US citizens are not that well appreciated outside your own country. Stop using guns to promote freedom and start using freedom to promote freedom. The individual right of owning a gun doesn't equal freedom.

I'm not here to change your mind, just to be the "outsider" point of view. You guys are ridiculous with your 2nd amendment. If you want to continue, please go on, it's your country. But I'll keep the right, like many people outside the US, to think that you're going too far with your gun mentality and that instead of welcoming people in your culture, you push them backwards. There's probably a way to give the possibility of armed citizens while being responsible, but right now, you're really acting like a bunch of crybaby that can't act responsibly.

[foggyb]

From my own experience and living in a country that support a group of professionals being armed (police and army mainly) and the general population being disarmed(except for hobbies, like hunting), it works pretty damn well. It's not perfect, there is occasional slip-up, I agree. But you would be surprised how crime is not that problematic, how guns mass murdering occur rarely and how the homicide rate is pretty low.

Correlation does not imply causation. Mexico has a total gun ban for private citizens and their gun crime rate is near the highest on planet earth. I'm also a Canadian and I happen to be aware that in the (also peaceful) province of Alberta we have one of the highest rates of firearm ownership around, even compared to the USA.

Also, keeping guns as a way to counter government tyranny....I think it's a pretty shitty argument.

What?? are you talking about? You'd be bowing down to the King of England (or maybe France) if it wasn't for guns and fighting government tyranny. Unbelievable.

 I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible.

Nonsense. You can't have one without the other. Read a history book. PLEASE.

Edit: What you call "freedom of weaponry" is really freedom of self-defense.

[myrkul]

But we're not taking arms or equipping our population with guns. Why? I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible. Either you speak, either you shoot, you can't do both. If a person talks freely, people will listen to his speech. If a person talk pointing a gun, people will focus on the gun. The only speech will be what the weapon say. We were never armed in our history, our speeches were never useful in the short-term, but made great victories in the long-term.

Who said anything about pointing? Owning, yes. Carrying, yes. Pointing? No. I should also point out that for all your speech and democracy, you're still subjects of a queen.

The right to bear arms is what protects the right to free speech.

Yeah, I know we're "subjects" of the queen, but she knows how we feel about her. It must be like 25 years since she last came visit her "subjects".   Our province is probably the least safest place in the world for her, I hope she have a right bear arms  

Oh, trust me, she has not given up her right to bear arms, nor have the guards with which she (along with all other political leaders) surrounds herself with. She knows the value of a weapon to protect her safety, and she intentionally deprives you of that value.

[Bitware]

He made us look like lunatics.

The only reason he was on CNN is powerful people wanted him there, and he delivered in spades.

[foggyb]

He made us look like lunatics.

The only reason he was on CNN is powerful people wanted him there, and he delivered in spades.

Why, for being passionate? Heaven forbid you should raise your voice, little mouse.

[Brunic]

From my own experience and living in a country that support a group of professionals being armed (police and army mainly) and the general population being disarmed(except for hobbies, like hunting), it works pretty damn well. It's not perfect, there is occasional slip-up, I agree. But you would be surprised how crime is not that problematic, how guns mass murdering occur rarely and how the homicide rate is pretty low.

Correlation does not imply causation. Mexico has a total gun ban for private citizens and their gun crime rate is near the highest on planet earth. I'm also a Canadian and I happen to be aware that in the (also peaceful) province of Alberta we have one of the highest rates of firearm ownership around, even compared to the USA.

Also, keeping guns as a way to counter government tyranny....I think it's a pretty shitty argument.

What?? are you talking about? You'd be bowing down to the King of England (or maybe France) if it wasn't for guns and fighting government tyranny. Unbelievable.

 I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible.

Nonsense. You can't have one without the other. Read a history book. PLEASE.

Edit: What you call "freedom of weaponry" is really freedom of self-defense.

Oh, didn't know you were canadian in my edited post further up.

As for the history book, dude, do you know your own history? You know how Canada became independant of England? Was Trudeau armed when he brought the 1982 constitution?

Do you know also about the armed rebellion of 1837-1838 of the french-canadians? Yeah, we had guns back then, we even won a fight against the english army. You know how it ended up? It gave nothing. But some of the 92 resolutions sent to the english crown by the Patriots party back then were used to make the foundations of the canadian constitution of 1867.

Do you prefer that Quebec gets its own independance shooting at you with guns or do you prefer we use a democratic vote to get it? Because man, all this "government tyranny" argument, I have a long list of events where I can use it. We're forced to follow a constitution we never signed!!! I know what this "government tyranny" is about and you know what? Guns is not the answer. No fucking way I'm going to use a gun for a democratic project.

[Bitware]

He made us look like lunatics.

The only reason he was on CNN is powerful people wanted him there, and he delivered in spades.

Why, for being passionate? Heaven forbid you should raise your voice, little mouse.

CNN is a serious platform. When you go on CNN you are rqational, logical, and debate reasonably, else you appear somewhat unhinged...

The CNN viewers are not awakened masses knowledgeable of some of our harshers realities. They are not activists. They are your mom and dad. Your aunts and uncles. Your neighbors.

Has nothing to do with courage or bravado.

[Rob E]

But we're not taking arms or equipping our population with guns. Why? I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible. Either you speak, either you shoot, you can't do both. If a person talks freely, people will listen to his speech. If a person talk pointing a gun, people will focus on the gun. The only speech will be what the weapon say. We were never armed in our history, our speeches were never useful in the short-term, but made great victories in the long-term.

Who said anything about pointing? Owning, yes. Carrying, yes. Pointing? No. I should also point out that for all your speech and democracy, you're still subjects of a queen.

The right to bear arms is what protects the right to free speech.

Yeah, I know we're "subjects" of the queen, but she knows how we feel about her. It must be like 25 years since she last came visit her "subjects".   Our province is probably the least safest place in the world for her, I hope she have a right bear arms  


*EDIT*
Rob E and foggyb, you just prove my point. The attitude of gun first, speech later is what makes it so that US citizens are not that well appreciated outside your own country. Stop using guns to promote freedom and start using freedom to promote freedom. The individual right of owning a gun doesn't equal freedom.

I'm not here to change your mind, just to be the "outsider" point of view. You guys are ridiculous with your 2nd amendment. If you want to continue, please go on, it's your country. But I'll keep the right, like many people outside the US, to think that you're going too far with your gun mentality and that instead of welcoming people in your culture, you push them backwards. There's probably a way to give the possibility of armed citizens while being responsible, but right now, you're really acting like a bunch of crybaby that can't act responsibly.

More guns less crime. the statistics proof this you want to stick your head in the sand to avoiid the facts so your "peace" paradigm doesnt get rattled,  go abead do so, no skin of my nose. More guns less crime. Thats how it is. Those are the facts. You cant change that i cant change that. But you might want to look into it, no matter how contrary it is to what you are led to believe.

[foggyb]

SURPRISE: MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME FOR DC?

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/12/11/surprise-more-guns-less-crime-for-dc/

[foggyb]

CNN is a serious platform. When you go on CNN you are rqational, logical, and debate reasonably, else you appear somewhat unhinged...

The CNN viewers are not awakened masses knowledgeable of some of our harshers realities. They are not activists. They are your mom and dad. Your aunts and uncles. Your neighbors.

Has nothing to do with courage or bravado.

No, courage is not what made Piers Morgan run from his past sins in the UK. (faking news stories, fraud, etc.)

Did you watch the Larry Pratt versus Piers Morgan video on gun control? I suggest you do, and then tell me that Piers Morgan's platform is rational and logical. If you do, then you'll have to side with a guy who thinks "you really are a stupid person" is a rational and reasonable thing to say in a debate.

Who cares anyhow? CNN ratings are in the tank. I never watch them anymore.

[Bitware]

CNN is a serious platform. When you go on CNN you are rqational, logical, and debate reasonably, else you appear somewhat unhinged...

The CNN viewers are not awakened masses knowledgeable of some of our harshers realities. They are not activists. They are your mom and dad. Your aunts and uncles. Your neighbors.

Has nothing to do with courage or bravado.

No, not like Piers Morgan who runs from his past sins in the UK.

Did you watch the Larry Pratt versus Piers Morgan video on gun control? I suggest you do, and then tell me that Piers Morgan's platform is rational and logical. If you do, then you'll have to side with a guy who thinks "you really are a stupid person" is a rational and reasonable thing to say in a debate.

Who cares anyhow? CNN ratings are in the tank. I never watch them anymore.

You are missing the point.

It's about the perceptions of the viewer base... how they perceive Alex Jones. For the vast majority of CNN viewers, I am sure it's the first time they ever saw him. I believe he made a very bad first impression.

It does not matter what awakened people think. What matters is the other 99.9% of the VOTERS and what they think. That sway of public opinion.

Now, take into consideration the attacks on gun rights and the contitution - and the box of 'is antiquated or flexible', and add that to Alexs' lunacy and antics defending gun rights and the constitution... like I said, he made us look like lunatics to the only people who can help us retain the few freedoms we have left.

I dont think Alex is stupid. I think he is there for things just like this. The only question is, does Alex know it and participate in it knowingly. I believe he does, even if only as a dupe and a whore for the dollar and attention. No matter how you slice this, its bad for all of us.

[foggyb]

People who still watch CNN and have never heard of Alex Jones are the type of people who cannot help the cause of freedom because their tiny brains can't comprehend what freedom is.

Alex Jones has much higher media rating than CNN. Remember that this video will get millions of views on youtube, and will awaken people who do understand whats at stake.

Remember, the anti-gun crowd already thinks gun owners are lunatics.

If this video is so damaging for the pro-gun cause, why has youtube pulled the video from the front page? It had nearly 800,000 views in a matter of hours.

[Bitware]

People who still watch CNN and have never heard of Alex Jones are the type of people who cannot help the cause of freedom because their tiny brains can't comprehend what freedom is.

Alex Jones has much higher media rating than CNN. Remember that this video will get millions of views on youtube, and will awaken people who do understand whats at stake.

Remember, the anti-gun crowd already thinks gun owners are lunatics.

If this video is so damaging for the pro-gun cause, why has youtube pulled the video from the front page? It had nearly 800,000 views in a matter of hours.

but their tiny brains have opinions, and they vote, and they talk to their friends, and they gossip, and they send emails to their congressman and senators, and they invest money, and they run businesses...are you getting any of this yet?

Yes they are dupes and stupid conditioned sheeple. But they are the public .. the voters who have opinions that need swayed.

Alex Jones does not have a fraction of the ratings that CNN has, nor the exposure. He isnt even on tv except online. He has a medicre radio audience at best. Online he is king though.

[foggyb]

I know people with connections watch CNN, but I get the feeling most of those people will never be on our side.

By the way, did you hear the producer of FPSRussia, 3rd largest youtube channel was found shot in the back of the head, tied to a chair in his house? It wasn't a robbery, nothing was touched.

Also, John Noveske, the founder of Noveske Rifleworks, died in a car accident last night.

[myrkul]

By the way, did you hear the producer of FPSRussia, 3rd largest youtube channel was found shot in the back of the head, tied to a chair in his house? It wasn't a robbery, nothing was touched.

At work, actually...
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/20538156/fpsrussia

Ratliff also worked for FPS Industries in Franklin County, a company that makes weapons and weapon technology. He was found dead inside the business from a gunshot wound to the head, according to GBI spokesperson John Bankhead.

Holy shit.

[SgtMoth]

They knew he was going to fly off the handle, it was all planned. http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-detained-by-tsa/
But, for anyone who has listened to  AJ before, his behavior was no surprise.  Piers is a tool, anyone ever see the ventura interview. Why doesnt the media talk about the relationship of the anti-depressants and these shootings?  No one can argue that these people were mentally well.

[myrkul]

All is not lost, some good came of his visit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8D8b51EwrI