Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
This! While AJ might be a controlled opposition, a lot of people are soooo deep asleep that they need some shock and get yelled at to wake up.
90%+ of Alex says is true, but yeah a lot of ppl who do not control their state very well, can fall into state of fear from listening to him.
Interesting how Alex Jones is able to transform himself when he is talking to intelligent person like Joe Rogan:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh610x79URg"]Joe Rogan interviewed by Alex Jones (12-6-12) - YouTube[/ame]
I love these two arguements.
1. Guns are designed for one reason, to kill.
2. The founding fathers made the 2nd ammendment for guns of their time with no ability to understand the guns of our time.
Let me disect this quickly so you talking point regurgators can grasp the concepts.
1. Yes, mr wizard you figured it out, firearms primary purpose is to kill. the also work to deter, they are used for sport, target shooting, my uncle uses his to hammer in nails (he's a bit of a kook). Im not sure how this is relevant other than that its a short point thats easy to agree with. To be at least 2 degrees above plantlife you must understand the impact of guns on a society not the simply fact that their intended purpose is to stop or kill something (save for the sporting and target shooting referenced above) As has already been stated in this thread areas of the countries with strictest gun laws have the highest incendence of crime. Criminals understand that police arent everywhere and that if they can get at unarmed person they only have to worry about evading the police. However, if that criminal was concerned that the women on the street with a purse might have a gun in it that criminal might think twice about taking it since that women could use the gun for its intended purpose.
2. Our founding fathers were as amazed with their gun technology as we are with ours. They considered the lever action rifles of their time to be the top technology of its day. Im sure if there were panty wastes in their time that they would say repeating rifles and revolvers should be regulated because they allowed bad people to do more bad things faster. (by the way, I find the fact that you people work on the internet to be hillarious since the internet is easily the one thing that allows bad people to do the most bad things the fastest possible but I digress) They didnt regulate if people could have revolvers or repeating rifles vs muzzle loaders etc because the purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the indivual could protect themselves from other individuals or a tyranical government. remember they had just thrown off the chains of tyrany by the british, the understood that a state can and will go off the rails once it disarms its citizenry.
Lastly while AJ is a bit of a nut case he is accurate regarding the violent crime in the UK, the police state in that country and the absolute stupidity in comparing our society to theirs. We dont need to be disarmed, we need to be armed and trained. All it would have taken is for that brave principle in new town to come out of her office with a gun and mr wacko mc wackerstien would have been put down. But she didnt have a gun because she was in a gun free zone. Funny, your presidents kids are protected by armed guards, all those celebrities kids are protected by armed guards? why dont they just make their schools gun... free... ohhh right... cause bad people dont fucking care and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.
1. Guns are designed for one reason, to kill.
2. The founding fathers made the 2nd ammendment for guns of their time with no ability to understand the guns of our time.
Let me disect this quickly so you talking point regurgators can grasp the concepts.
1. Yes, mr wizard you figured it out, firearms primary purpose is to kill. the also work to deter, they are used for sport, target shooting, my uncle uses his to hammer in nails (he's a bit of a kook). Im not sure how this is relevant other than that its a short point thats easy to agree with. To be at least 2 degrees above plantlife you must understand the impact of guns on a society not the simply fact that their intended purpose is to stop or kill something (save for the sporting and target shooting referenced above) As has already been stated in this thread areas of the countries with strictest gun laws have the highest incendence of crime. Criminals understand that police arent everywhere and that if they can get at unarmed person they only have to worry about evading the police. However, if that criminal was concerned that the women on the street with a purse might have a gun in it that criminal might think twice about taking it since that women could use the gun for its intended purpose.
2. Our founding fathers were as amazed with their gun technology as we are with ours. They considered the lever action rifles of their time to be the top technology of its day. Im sure if there were panty wastes in their time that they would say repeating rifles and revolvers should be regulated because they allowed bad people to do more bad things faster. (by the way, I find the fact that you people work on the internet to be hillarious since the internet is easily the one thing that allows bad people to do the most bad things the fastest possible but I digress) They didnt regulate if people could have revolvers or repeating rifles vs muzzle loaders etc because the purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the indivual could protect themselves from other individuals or a tyranical government. remember they had just thrown off the chains of tyrany by the british, the understood that a state can and will go off the rails once it disarms its citizenry.
Lastly while AJ is a bit of a nut case he is accurate regarding the violent crime in the UK, the police state in that country and the absolute stupidity in comparing our society to theirs. We dont need to be disarmed, we need to be armed and trained. All it would have taken is for that brave principle in new town to come out of her office with a gun and mr wacko mc wackerstien would have been put down. But she didnt have a gun because she was in a gun free zone. Funny, your presidents kids are protected by armed guards, all those celebrities kids are protected by armed guards? why dont they just make their schools gun... free... ohhh right... cause bad people dont fucking care and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.
Isn't it amazing that of the two camps - gun control advocates on one hand and gun "rights" advocates on the other - only one camp as a group is willing to use the threat of violence to get its way?
Meanwhile, the camp that (as a group) remains peaceful is demonized as a bunch of nutjobs.
Ah, what a world.
Meanwhile, the camp that (as a group) remains peaceful is demonized as a bunch of nutjobs.
Ah, what a world.
I don't know. I think Alex Jones did exactly what he set out and planned to do during that interview.
Guns are a distraction. I don't suppose each neighborhood holds on to a nuclear weapon. Just to be on-par with the government.
People are voluntary surrendering 5 to 25 percent of there life paying interest rates. The system is setup to milk everyone. Slavery in the 21 century.
Amen! If anyone believes AJ is not controlled opposition, you're a fool.
How else does someone sneak into Bohemian Grove? Or have David Rothschild appear on your show?
His real money masters are the Banksters he preaches against. Anyone with basic common sense and some diligence can uncover his ties to Israel/Zionism.
You wouldn't even finish your sentence before he'd shout you down about something.
Wonder if he's ever done it during sex.
Only one thing to say to that...
Speaking as an American?
To quote someone on my Facebook RE this interview, "Alex Jones is the only person that can make Piers Morgan look like a nice guy".
Interesting to watch, gave me a headache though. Alex Jones can't be that stupid that he would lose his shit like that for 12 minutes straight? But even with people he respects he'll try and twist anything to fit with the globalist agenda he's always going on about.
Making himself look like a nutjob could well be intentional.
Piers Morgan is still a prat.
Making himself look like a nutjob could well be intentional.
Piers Morgan is still a prat.
I'll just leave this here
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAZRL3mlVv8]Ben Swann - Reality Check 08 January 2013 - Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAZRL3mlVv8]Ben Swann - Reality Check 08 January 2013 - Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
gun control advocates would say to this, "So what, at least so many people aren't getting killed here in the UK"
but if you got rid of the war on drugs here in the US, I'm willing to bet our homicide/gun violence rate (and incarceration rate) would drop by 70-80%. So then not only would the US still have a high gun ownership rate, but also a comparable homicide rate to the UK but most importantly much fewer violent crimes overall; thus making the case that protected citizens negate violence.
Just get rid of the fucking war on drugs, to get rid of the gangs, and we'll get rid of this correlation between US having more guns = more violence.
