I cant believe Jones was baited into making an ass of himself so easily
( not that i like the guy ) but it reflects badly now on anything any one else has to say.
And now this ..
sheesh
m
I cant believe Jones was baited into making an ass of himself so easily
( not that i like the guy ) but it reflects badly now on anything any one else has to say.
And now this ..
sheesh
m
Watched it earlier, hilarious video.
Such a loud man, comes across as quite aggressive.
Does nothing but help the anti-gun side of things.
That, basically.
Jones basically gave a masterclass in how not to be a spokes-person, how to make a prize pillock of yourself on national TV, and how to be hopelessly outclassed by a slick interviewer without even noticing, all in one neat package.
I must admit, I generally can't stand Piers Morgan, but he did a world class job of well and truly kippering Jones. The sad thing is that the gun lobby do have some valid points and I agree with them on some of them, but Jones set their cause back hugely.
Yep.
I'm bemused and disappointed by many of the things the gun lobby come out with.
In the wake of Sandy Hook we have loons trying to deport Piers, and claiming that prayer in schools would have prevented it. It amazes me that people will champion the Second Amendment and in the same breath cast aside the First so easily.
comparing morgan to stalin and hitler - whilst totally true , doesn't really help the NRA now does it
the same alex jones that says the USA is preparing for the new world order....
Ok, I'll bite. What points do you agree with? The 2nd amendment to the constitution refers to the right for a well regulated Militia to bear arms not individuals per se. Outside a few edge cases, farmers for example, I don't see what the argument for guns is.
That being said, I think that there are so many guns in the US now that real gun control is impractical.
Pleiades (10-01-2013)
Someone making Piers morgan look like a nice guy? Does this count as the beginning of the end of the world?
How to make a complete
of yourself!![]()
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
![]()
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
ik9000 (09-01-2013)
I don't think any of it was really Piers' doing. Jones did that all by himself, and some of Piers' interventions actually took away from the spectacle - at one point he almost got Jones to start answering the questions and suddenly Piers was rather less comfortable. And you could tell his end plan was simply to cheap shot about Jones' 911 theories - this was just unclassy and there was no need because Jones had already made a tit of himself. It didn't add anything to the debate.
All the interviews from pro-gun people seem to get confused about what the 2nd amendment actually means, they harp on about the it being to protect them from the state. Again another example of how some Americans don't even know the history of the own constitution, and that is worrying.
As for this Alex Jones how does he think people will take him seriously, when he is acting like some deranged gun nut??
Well, it can't be denied that Alex is passionate about his opinion and I thought it made for an interesting 'debate' - much better than the bland stuff usually trotted out on mainstream TV these days.
America and Britain are different environments. I have no idea what it is like to live day by day in the States; perhaps it still feels like the wild west. How quickly do the police respond to 911 calls there? I've heard you can be queued.
Piers has bitten off more than he can chew here and I'd back off rapidly if I were in his shoes. The culture is different and as our culture changes so might our attitude. Not everyone lives in an ivory tower.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
It initially seems weird, but protection against the state is one of the primary reasons, perhaps the primary reason, for public gun ownership.
Perhaps TeePee or another American can speak more for themselves, for my part I'm married to an American, having spent a few years out there, and my father-in-law and one brother-in-law would regularly 'open carry'.
I think it can be summarised that there are three main reasons for carrying firearms:
1 - Independence from/Protection against (or perhaps better put as 'Reminder to') the Government.
2 - Personal protection. (Right to defend oneself since firearms cannot be fully outlawed)
3 - Protection of others. (This for me is the best argument. It was, and some would argue should still be, seen as a civic duty/responsibility.)
Arguments in defence of these:
1 - Democracy places power in the hands of the people. Yet, if 'those in power' have all the power ('power corrupts') you get either a weak populace totally dependent on the government or an abusive government who can strip you of your rights (or both). It comes down to a world view that sees corruption in people and so any society needs checks and balances to ensure stability. Your 'rights' are nice enough to have on paper, but who enforces them, especially if/when your rights get in the way of someone else's 'advancement'? Can you trust government to not take all power themselves? Guns are, in this way, a reminder that they do not hold all the cards and must remember to serve the people. It would be seen that the right to defend oneself under pins all other rights, but that right, like others, is useless if you lack the ability to use/perform it.
2/3 - In shooting incidents the Police generally show up to clean up. A firearm permits you defend your own life, that of your family, and the lives of others around you. Like this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19...will-not-face/
One rationale for this is the idea of shifting the balance of power. As is seen in the video, most criminals wield a firearm because it gives them a huge advantage in power. Generally people aren't trained, or have the desire, to engage in tactical gun fights. When others are able to counter the firearm advantage by producing their own firearm, criminals tend to flee rather than stand and fight. Thus you have the argument that more responsibly owned and carried firearms will reduce incidents by acting as a deterrent and also providing a method by which incidents can be cut short.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Rubbish. Assuming that by government you mean the state and that encompasses the army, police etc. What do they really care about a single gunman, or even a bunch of them. The firepower the military has way outreaches anything that the public can get. Sure the public can get hold of assault rifles, but the government have access to fly by wire missiles. Even if you accept that it's just a reminder, the state still nominally control who can own guns. You still need a permit, and you laws vary from state to state. If you want to go down that path, everyone should have access, including criminals, nut jobs etc etc.
In any case, do you really think ownership of a gun will protect your rights as a citizen? "Oh I don't like law x,y,z." Who will you shoot?
But if no one had access to guns, then the point would be moot. If the Batman killer was armed with a spork, chances are he wouldn't have killed so many people.2 - Personal protection. (Right to defend oneself since firearms cannot be fully outlawed)
See above.3 - Protection of others. (This for me is the best argument. It was, and some would argue should still be, seen as a civic duty/responsibility.)
The US allegedly has a democratically elected senate and congress. The way to fight unjust laws etc should be via the ballot box.
I will again caveat this with America is hosed anyway. There's way too many guns out there, and it seems trivial for even nutjobs to get hold of semi-automatic weapons.
Pleiades (10-01-2013)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)