CNN Jan 7th 2013: ALEX JONES on Piers Morgan Tonight

reply to post by kosmicjack


One big problem i have with them taking away military comparable weaponry is posse comitatus being changed to allow military takeover.

Recent legislative events In 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.

[5] Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that: The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

[6] In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act[7] that in its original form was written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness. In 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law. Section 1031, clause "b", article 2 defines a 'covered person', i.e., someone possibly subject to martial law, as the following: "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." [8]

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't feel safe knowing that armed troops can take over my country. Right after they give the military the right in certain situations to take over they want to take away any real means to protect our country from a corrupt government.

I know all Americans aren't gun nutters but i think most back the 'second amendment' so I really don't get it, the 'second amendment' is there to allow you to bear arms against a government you aren't happy with?

Or have I got that wrong? Aren't you a Democracy and wouldn't that mean your constitution allows the overthrowing of a Democratically elected government?, if that happened in another country would you guys not be among the first wanting to step in and defend the elected government. And wouldn't that sort of make the second amendment a threat to your Democracy in itself.

Or is it a dictator seizing power after an election your worried about, and surely if it went that way your armed forces would step in (and I can fully understand your fears of that being privitised). Where I live, in the UK we would sort of expect the Army to intervene in such circumstances, I think! (it is not something I have ever really thought much about)

I surely must have this wrong?

And yeah, keep Piers, fry him, send him to Guantanamo just don't send him back here!

Thank you Piers - that was brilliant
Creator of the 'Deport Piers Morgan' Petition Loses It on Piers Morgan's Show

"America was born on guns and whiskey. It's true we're a violent society."

You would think the NRA would only show off their smarter pets - you have to wonder if they have any

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Well Alex Jones is propaganda. Look at his old Co Host. He went to Fox News. And he is on that show with a official US Propaganda Board Member. Wow a conspiracy she quit the day of the Connecticut shooting?

RESOLUTION HONORING DANA PERINO
December 14, 2012
www.bbg.gov...

I guess because she is tied to Cerberus.

abcnews.go.com...

At a press conference Tuesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino confirmed that General Motors and Chrysler "have been in contact with the administration on various levels," but she would not say whether the two companies were in merger talks.

GM and Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a majority stake in Chrysler, declined to comment.

Troubled asset relief: Perino said that the U.S. Treasury Department would determine whether U.S. automakers and their finance arms are eligible for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a government program to buy up troubled loans from financial institutions. The program, commonly known as TARP, was approved earlier this month as part of the government's $700 billion financial rescue package.

And the Ex U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow was part owner of Cerberus.

reply to post by JBA2848

Well Alex Jones is propaganda.

No doubt - but after what we all just witnessed this past year - they're going to have to up their game

I am seriously looking forward to the coming new-and-improved age of right wing shenanigans - low brow histrionics aren't going to be enough anymore

While we should maybe be afraid of a more intelligent approach - it at least will make for more interesting viewing//reading than the Three Stooges/Keystone Cop approach to politics we've had to endure recently

They owe us an intelligent (and respectful) discussion if they want to keep their guns

Just sayin'

reply to post by JBA2848


Who is his old co-host?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
They owe us an intelligent (and respectful) discussion if they want to keep their guns

Sometimes I hate the ATS moderation rules.

I'll just say - we don't owe you jack. If you try to take our guns you'll have a fight on your hands and you are absolutely deluded if you think it'll be easy.

[edit]

..and I'm a freaking choir-boy and have this attitude - you'll be up against some seriously dangerous people ...

On further reflection, and from the few sentences Morgan managed to squeeze in to the pauses for breath in AJ's monologue, I would say that HIS agenda was to encourage the public to support a ban on large calibre self-loading rifles (or 'assault weapons' in psy-op parlance) by linking them to Sandy Hook, mass murder, dead little children, James Holmes, etc.
As almost everyone reading here will be aware, there is much discussion about the possibility of government complicity in both these incidents. Piers Morgan is an amoral and shameless media whore, he was sacked from the Daily Mirror in the UK for publishing obviously faked photos of UK troops pretending to abuse fake Iraqi prisoners, thereby inflaming the jihadi element, and further endangering the lives of UK and US troops. So he is an obvious shill for the UN led drive to disarm the world population, who gives not one damn about people getting killed with 'assault weapons'.
Then, there is much talk also about AJ being a zionist disinfo agent, and from his performance on this broadcast, I am inclined to wonder.
It seems to me that AJ could have been polite and urbane, listened to PM's concerns and answered intelligently, and the overall effect would have been the same, the conveyed message would have been the same, ie 'assault weapons should be banned'.
I broadly agree with AJ on gun control, but I have to say that if I was easily swayed, and that was the first time I had seen him, his performance would have perhaps made me think again
To sum up, I think this was a carefully stage-managed urinating contest to see who could do the most damage to your second amendment.
Dontcha just lurrve the MSM?

They owe us an intelligent (and respectful) discussion if they want to keep their guns

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

So gun owners owe you something?
Good luck with that. Even if they could give you what you want would it change your mind?

reply to post by CALGARIAN


I watched the show. (I'm begining to have doubts about Alex J and him being a plant.).

Your average person won't understand the ramifications of what was done on that show.
Sure Alex blew it by acting like a lunatic. People will ignore his statements without checking out the facts
and see the lunactic conspiracy nutcase. Perfect to be controlled. Piers stuck to one point
and ignored all the other points Alex made. The whole thing was a joke...

Dershowitz the douche' (imo) stated something along the lines about how these gun stats need to be
examined by academic. Sure I agree they do. By this he slipped up and admitted that he knows that
his views on things are slanted and views on belief. So why go on TV and preach about it? Politics anyone?

en.wikiquote.org...
I might be quoting out of context but didn't Ben Franklin say?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.."
So isnt the whole thing about freedom and it being taken away?

Sure people don't like lunatics with guns and Sandy Hook was a tragedy but what do we do ban them and give up another right to a government which potentially will become a tyranny?

Your real enemy isn't the government it is the dumbed down people. Those masses will eventually
become by democratic rule a tyrany over you.

Education is the way ahead and an educated person is very dangerous to those who want tyranical rule.

Hell there's even an agenda to keep the population dumbed and that has been admitted.
They make good workers no? Would you like to be one of those to know your life has been planned for you?

Limbo

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
They owe us an intelligent (and respectful) discussion if they want to keep their guns

Sometimes I hate the ATS moderation rules.

I'll just say - we don't owe you jack. If you try to take our guns you'll have a fight on your hands and you are absolutely deluded if you think it'll be easy.

[edit]

..and I'm a freaking choir-boy and have this attitude - you'll be up against some seriously dangerous people ...

edit on 1/8/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

Welcome - I've been expecting you

We all have

And you see this post you've written here? This is exactly why so many of us are concerned

Was that a threat choirboy?

reply to post by deadeyedick

So gun owners owe you something? Good luck with that. Even if they could give you what you want would it change your mind?

Do you seriously propose that they don't at least have a responsibility to discuss this situation reasonably, intelligently - calmly and with respect?

This is a national discussion. This idea that any one who questions your position is out of order - you don't see that a slightly fascist? All we ever hear are threats

You all are screaming about freedom - and your rights - but you won't even take part in a dialogue - everything is about what you demand

This is my country too

Damn straight - man up and talk about it - or start shooting

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
They owe us an intelligent (and respectful) discussion if they want to keep their guns

Here are some images to tug on your heartstrings.

Pray for the Victims of Sandy Hook

Remember Sandy Hook

No One Needs a High Capacity Magazine

The State Loves You

You Don't Need an AR15 to Hunt

We Need a Reasonable Debate on Why You Need Guns


Don't worry, can't happen here. America is a bastion of morality.

No one cares about the quarter BILLION murdered by people espousing this VERY ideology that you espouse.

reply to post by ararisq


In a decent society when two groups of people disagree with each other they sit down and talk and maybe come to a compromise, but you have just done what AJ did, lose his cool and use the threat of violence to put your point across.....well done.

I like it, AJ told Piers exactly what should be said to that sniveling establishment rat face to face and on national tv.

Sometimes people need to get riled up for their rights, and he got the point across, if they do try to take peoples guns the revolution WILL start again.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Do you seriously propose that they don't at least have a responsibility to discuss this situation reasonably, intelligently - calmly and with respect?

We have no responsibility at all. We pay attention and we understand that our fathers before us went through this and had to die by the thousands to secure our liberties. We aren't fools and we aren't deluded by communist propaganda. We are not discussing this any further. You don't like the law of the land - leave.

reply to post by ararisq


Those photos you just posted - what do they prove?

What you fail to see is that your continued demands will guarantee these very things. The only difference is - you will be on the side with the guns

Feel safe and righteous if you want - your worst fears are the stuff of self fulfilling prophecy

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Damn straight - man up and talk about it - or start shooting

It seems that we all have flaws and yours can be deemed as deadly.
I will take option c.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
In a decent society when two groups of people disagree with each other they sit down and talk and maybe come to a compromise, but you have just done what AJ did, lose his cool and use violence or the threat of violence to put your point across.....well done.

No you are the criminal. You propose to violate the United States Constitution without amendment which requires ratification by three fourths of the states of the Union. If you want to propose a legal amendment then go for it but you know it'll fail therefore you want to subvert the Constitution. Do that and none of us are under and legal obligation any longer and society will collapse.

I support the second amendment.

I support gun rights.

What Alex Jones did on that show was just plain stupid. He blew an excellent opportunity to get out some cold hard facts and put Piers on the defensive.

It is really very simple... the UK has less gun violence because they have no guns. Since guns became harder to get, rape has went up. Assault has went up. Robbery has went up. Violent crime across the board has went up. The ONLY thing that has went down is violence with a gun.

Instead of driving that point home Alex lost his mind, yelled, screamed and acted like a raving lunatic. Piers even set up questions that could have easily been torn to shreds with very basic facts. Did Alex do that? Nope. Instead he ranted like an idiot and came across like a fool.