Alex Jones EVISCERATING redcoat Piers Morgan on gun control in 2013 (shakes the gun control debate)

You missed the best part



Thanks man. Just can't really stomach his delivery. Totally agree though that foreigners coming here and bitching about our civil liberties is something they should be ridiculed for. Fuck Piers.
 
Except that you are wrong, crime in US is low, just as gun sales are plummeting.

US is at an all time low for gun possession per household. And the statistic that gun ownership reduces crime is 100% bullshit. Crime is higher in capital cities and lower in rural areas.. which is natural for any developed nation
Source?
 
Except that you are wrong, crime in US is low, just as gun sales are plummeting.

US is at an all time low for gun possession per household. And the statistic that gun ownership reduces crime is 100% bullshit. Crime is higher in capital cities and lower in rural areas.. which is natural for any developed nation
You are full of shit.....
 
Oh? After 8 years of Obama in the White House and years of sky high firearm sales, suddenly 'US is at an all time low for gun possession per household?'

Sorry, but that doesn't pass the bullshit test. Just because Hillary lost the election doesn't mean people sold their firearms to... well... who'd they sell them to, to make the national 'gun possession per household' statistic go down?

Firearm sales =/= firearms per household. Gun nuts stocking up does not mean more people own guns.

Also what the fuck does Hillary have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:
Firearm sales =/= firearms per household. Gun nuts stocking up does not mean more people own guns.

Also what the fuck does Hillary have to do with anything?

No, not all. We are constantly building more houses. More houses = more people. You can see a growth rate 10% in gun sales and it wouldn't match up to the rate of homes being built by a large margin.
 
Sorry, you don't pass the IQ test.. firearm sales =/= firearms per household. Gun nuts stocking up does not mean more people own guns

You're obviously, and convieniently, leaving out the rise of population.

Its not like everyone that owned a gun bought a second and third, but it just so happened that more households were built within the timeframe of decades.

It's not that you have a higher IQ than whoever disagrees with you, you're leaving out information.

Answer this question - In what year were there fewer guns amongst the nations population, than there was before?
 
Which are semi-auto.

He didn't say rifles so I was just pointing out that what he said is wrong.

He did say rifle in the actual video. He kind of corrects himself right after saying semi autos. So to be clear, semi auto rifles are low % So why fight to take them away and act lime it does anything?
 
Ah ha, the devil's in the details.

So more houses are being built and bought by non-firearm owners. That's a whole different thing than what ''US is at an all time low for gun possession per household,' implies at face value.

Even then, these statistics/surveys seem like they can be jury-rigged like political polls.
How is that different? You say it implies something so maybe we are thinking differently but lower ownership per household is pretty clear to me... less households have guns.

But yes, you're right, those surveys actually can be very volatile and you'll find left leaning sites showing surveys with the lowest percentages and right wing websites showing surveys with the highest percentages. The truth is probably in the middle, although a lower percentage of households owning guns compared to the 50s-80s is pretty much accepted.
 
He did say rifle in the actual video. He kind of corrects himself right after saying semi autos. So to be clear, semi auto rifles are low % So why fight to take them away and act lime it does anything?

I was just addressing what ts wrote.
 
The technocrats will ultimately decide whether we get to keep our guns or not.
 
The idea that gang violence being bad at this current time period means anyone, including Piers, can't explore ideas around regulating firearms is ridiculous.

Aren't the very first words of the 2nd "A WELL REGULATED militia"?

Well means very. Very regulated. As in a well done steak being a very done steak, this group of gun owners is described in the very first breath of the 2nd amendment as needing to be very regulated.

If you don't believe in the portion of our society that chooses to be armed being well regulated then you should be arguing against the 2nd amendment and advocating replacing it with an amendment that doesn't call for strong regulations. That is more genuine than ignoring the very first words.
 
I recently came across this video and I was in complete awe of how effortlessly Alex Jones besmirched Piers Morgan on this subject. For those who don't know, Piers is in favor of bans on semi-automatic weapons. Alex Jones was ready for all of Piers' talking points, and thoroughly destroyed him.

This isn't the first time Piers has gotten utterly destroyed on guns though, Ben Shapiro also made him look pretty stupid. Piers never has an answer for the fact that semi automatic weapons (rifles) are used very little in actual shootings. Alex Jones backed up everything he said with actual statistics

TBH, this just seems like a subject the left should drop at this point, because they aren't gonna win it. Most of the gun related crimes are gang related, assault rifles are rarely if ever used irresponsibly, and more, non gang-related gun ownership shows lower crime rates. What else is there to be said at this point?


Alex jones is a true conservative. He's afraid of EVERYTHING.

Alex jones believes in interdimensionsl time traveling pedophile vampires that run America and eat babies.

Alex Jones believes the government puts something in little kids juice boxes to make them gay.

Alex Jones believes sandy hook was staged.

Alex Jones believes Hillary had a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor.
 
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.


Seems pretty clear to me. If you want to ban any gun ownership, you should try to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it's an illegal law. I don't even agree with the idea that felons can't own firearms. I think it's absurd that you can be charged with a number of crimes unrelated to weapons or violence and lose your Constitutional rights after you've served your sentence.
 
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.


Seems pretty clear to me. If you want to ban any gun ownership, you should try to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it's an illegal law. I don't even agree with the idea that felons can't own firearms. I think it's absurd that you can be charged with a number of crimes unrelated to weapons or violence and lose your Constitutional rights after you've served your sentence.

I agree felons who weren't violent shouldn't have their right to arms revoked. Do you see all bans as being unconstitutional? Because that would include doing away with the ones that ban say a 6 year old from carrying a weapon to a birthday party's to chuck-e-cheese or someone with severe mental health issues carrying.

Also curious how you interrupt the "well regulated" description of gun owners that is opening sentence of the 2nd. It's obviously calling not just for regulation but strong at that, what is that suppose to look like? I don't personally don't see much strong regulations at the federal level.

I think the opening 4 words allow some bans. Your right to bear arms as part of an already well regulated group is to not to be infringed is how I interrupt it. I know others ignore the first sentence and believe simply your right to bear arms in any form is not to be infringed. I just don't think the founders would include a description for strong regulation first thing if they didn't want it.
 
The idea that gang violence being bad at this current time period means anyone, including Piers, can't explore ideas around regulating firearms is ridiculous.

Aren't the very first words of the 2nd "A WELL REGULATED militia"?

Well means very. Very regulated. As in a well done steak being a very done steak, this group of gun owners is described in the very first breath of the 2nd amendment as needing to be very regulated.

If you don't believe in the portion of our society that chooses to be armed being well regulated then you should be arguing against the 2nd amendment and advocating replacing it with an amendment that doesn't call for strong regulations. That is more genuine than ignoring the very first words.

<{cruzshake}>


This argument has been thoroughly destroyed on here over and over. I'll try to keep this short.

It's two separate clauses. The first part refers to the militia (the people as a whole), the second is for the people (individuals). You are attributing the first clause to the second, which is wrong. Just look at this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It would be incredibly contradictory to apply the first clause to the second.

There wasn't supposed to be a standing army as it's power could be abused (like Britain's was). A militia was the route the founders choose. If you look at historically context well regulated in this situation meant well trained, supplied, people be given proper ranks/jobs, etc(in times the militia is needed as again there was to be no standing army) is necessary to the security of a free state. Basically support, don't stifle the militia, have it be well supplied, trained and organized in times of need.

Also if you look at what private citizens owned back then... any and all guns available(including stuff like puckle guns), cannons, war ships, etc.

The founding fathers also talked about the 2nd protecting from tyranny. So infringing upon peoples rights to own guns would be counterintuitive. Also hunting, homesteading, protection (people & animals) was a way of life back then. The idea that they may have wanted to restrict guns to people would be ridiculous.


Edit

"Your right to bear arms as part of an already well regulated group is to not to be infringed is how I interrupt it."

No there was to be no standing army, citizens were the militia when needed
 
Back
Top