'1776 Will Commence Again If You Try To Take Our Firearms'...

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did any even watch the video?? Alex jones on part 2 around 5:45 starts mocking morgan wit ha fake British accent.

The man is a lunatic. Is a disservice to conspiracy theories, and should be taking some of those pills hes yelling about it seems.


Everything he said could be right for all I know. He certainly was given a forum and a softball question on 9/11 and it was like it was too easy for Jones and he didnt know how to handle it. He was given a chance to tell the world some of the things we believe and know and he blew it.


Alex Jones discredited all of us on this interview. We should all be ashamed.

I don't share your view on guns or the 2nd amendment, I am pro constitutional and don't feel the government should be toying with our rights. Having said that however you are spot on imo in regards to Alex Jones, and it's sad. The guy is not stupid, makes alot of sense in most of his arguments, but he didn't do any of us a favor tonight. The best way to wake the masses up is to be prepared and argue points logically. People have said that the deck was stacked and the questions were bound to be biased, and that much is true. The best way to handle that situation would have been rationally and by using logic and reason, not froth at the mouth like a rabid pitbull. The man has a right to raise his voice if his answers were being ignored, but he came off as being a few cans short of a 6 pack. Our Constitutional rights, ALL of them have been under attack for many years now. The best way to stop this from happening is to wake up the drooling masses is to argue with logic and reason in a calm fashion. Beat them at thier own game using thier own rules. It will be hard to convince anyone when you scream like a raving lunatic. Just my $0.02.

reply to post by Superhans


You do realize the Fritzl case was in AUSTRIA right?
Not Australia.

reply to post by Superhans


Well, popular to contrary belief im sure theres a good % of Americans who do indeed sleep with a weapon like that in arms reach.

Question, your gun would be locked up tighter than a nuns..... bible. What good is it if someone breaks into your home? you think he's going to wait while you unlock the cupboard, load, safety off, point and demand he leave?

Having a bushmaster weapon in society for 'hobby' means, is an absolutely absurd argument. You should have stuck with the 'protect my home and my family from criminals and the government'. Atleast that has some sanity. Want a hobby? build a boat, fix a car. Why stock pile weapons that can be used to slaughter countless people? thats not a hobby, thats stupidity and an accident waiting to happen.

A car and a bushmaster rifle are completely different ends of the scale. Thats a flawed argument. People need a car, you have a large, proud and great nation. You want people to walk? A car is a utility for every day life.
A gun, is NOT, especially in common day suburbia. try again!

Im sure a gun that would mow down the British would have been cherished, your right. But, do you think they would have given those weapons to simple peasant families on the farm to own and enjoy at their leisure? I sure as hell dont.

There's no need, no use, no logical explanation for a weapon like that in the common people’s hands. Your position that the military would love it to murder British doesnt change a thing. We use nuclear weapons to eradicate enemies, the army seems willing to use and stockpile those, hell why stop there? lets give them to farmers and peasants too...

So I ask again,

If Americas forefathers could look into the future, and see a bushmaster rifle, do you think they would have written the 2nd amendment in such a way that families, farmers, peasants and common folks would be entitled to stockpile those weapons in their homes?

Unlike today, America's forefathers had some common sense and basic humanity, I have no doubt they'd have written that amendment a little differently.

Now you are making up your own wedge issue. Nowhere did i say that those guns would protect anyone from helicopters and APCs... But a modified hunting rifle would....

No you didn’t, but swaths of Americans on this board do believe the primary reason to stock weapons is because of protection against a tyrannical government. Which in itself is flawed, as tanks and apc's will not be stopped by bushmaster rifles and insane gunnuts.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Superhans

 

Well, popular to contrary belief im sure theres a good % of Americans who do indeed sleep with a weapon like that in arms reach.

Question, your gun would be locked up tighter than a nuns..... bible. What good is it if someone breaks into your home? you think he's going to wait while you unlock the cupboard, load, safety off, point and demand he leave?

Having a bushmaster weapon in society for 'hobby' means, is an absolutely absurd argument. You should have stuck with the 'protect my home and my family from criminals and the government'. Atleast that has some sanity. Want a hobby? build a boat, fix a car. Why stock pile weapons that can be used to slaughter countless people? thats not a hobby, thats stupidity and an accident waiting to happen.

A car and a bushmaster rifle are completely different ends of the scale. Thats a flawed argument. People need a car, you have a large, proud and great nation. You want people to walk? A car is a utility for every day life.
A gun, is NOT, especially in common day suburbia. try again!

Im sure a gun that would mow down the British would have been cherished, your right. But, do you think they would have given those weapons to simple peasant families on the farm to own and enjoy at their leisure? I sure as hell dont.

There's no need, no use, no logical explanation for a weapon like that in the common people’s hands. Your position that the military would love it to murder British doesnt change a thing. We use nuclear weapons to eradicate enemies, the army seems willing to use and stockpile those, hell why stop there? lets give them to farmers and peasants too...

So I ask again,

If Americas forefathers could look into the future, and see a bushmaster rifle, do you think they would have written the 2nd amendment in such a way that families, farmers, peasants and common folks would be entitled to stockpile those weapons in their homes?

Unlike today, America's forefathers had some common sense and basic humanity, I have no doubt they'd have written that amendment a little differently.

Now you are making up your own wedge issue. Nowhere did i say that those guns would protect anyone from helicopters and APCs... But a modified hunting rifle would....

No you didn’t, but swaths of Americans on this board do believe the primary reason to stock weapons is because of protection against a tyrannical government. Which in itself is flawed, as tanks and apc's will not be stopped by bushmaster rifles and insane gunnuts.

I'll chip in on this...YES I believe that the Constitution would be written the same exact way. The only difference between what is being dubbed "assault weapons" (a clearly broad term that can mean anything you want it to mean) and a rifle used for hunting is purely cosmetic differences. The weapons that they want to ban are strictly semi-automatic, they do not fire in burst mode or full auto. The United States is a huge land mass. People do live out in the middle of nowhere 50 miles or more from help. Who are we to tell people that need them for daily survival that they can't have them? You live in Alaska, Montana, Arizona, so forth and so on and are a long way from help so we should have the attitude "wow buddy...sorry....shucks to be you"? I don't think so. Not everyone lives in a city environment. It should be up to individual states and cities to make thier own laws regarding firearms, NOT the federal government. As far as not having a chance against the government, I'm sorry but that is total hogwash. It has been documented in other threads that alot of military and law enforcement would not obey a law that goes against the 2nd amendment. So who is going to take the guns if 75% of the military and law enforcement side with people who believe in the Constitution? Not to mention the sheer logistics of it all....likely 1.5 million gun owners vs. maybe 350,000 brainwashed LEA and military (and that is being generous). And if you say what is to stop them from dropping a nuke, or gas attacks, or what have you. The answer is simple, you don't crap in your own back yard. You don't slaughter millions of civilians because if you do that you no longer will have the available manpower to do all the dirty work that society needs to function after the dust settles. It is in essence, cutting off your nose to spite your face or shooting yourself in the foot. If guns were removed from the equation, well, then the whole game field changes.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Well, popular to contrary belief im sure theres a good % of Americans who do indeed sleep with a weapon like that in arms reach.

eh, not really. Most gun owners are pretty responsible and don't sleep with their gun right there. I know it does not fit the stereotype but most gun owners don't sleep in the same room as most of their guns.

Question, your gun would be locked up tighter than a nuns..... bible. What good is it if someone breaks into your home? you think he's going to wait while you unlock the cupboard, load, safety off, point and demand he leave?

This is where your stupidity shines through.
Now i will only speak for myself and i would like to think that i am speaking for the majority of gun owners.
I know there is a big difference between my life being realistically threatened and someone else suffering hard times and bad judgement. I know that someone breaking into my house is just looking for an easy score and not a gun battle. And like i said in earlier posts i keep a .357 (the dirty harry gun) under my be and its loaded with BLANKS. The fact is i really like my 56in plasma but when push comes to shove i know that another human life, no matter how badly lived is worth more than my TV.
As stated in other posts i have been held up twice by knife point and both times i was armed. My thinking was is that the 40 bucks i had on me was worth a lot less than the other guy's life, so i let him take it and run off.
Not everyone who likes guns are homicidal maniacs waiting for a chance to use their guns against another person.

Having a bushmaster weapon in society for 'hobby' means, is an absolutely absurd argument. You should have stuck with the 'protect my home and my family from criminals and the government'.

Not really...
Any man could defend his home with a C02 BB gun, but not every man could shoot and hit a bull's eye at 300 yards using a bushmaster "assault rifle".

Atleast that has some sanity. Want a hobby? build a boat, fix a car. Why stock pile weapons that can be used to slaughter countless people? thats not a hobby, thats stupidity and an accident waiting to happen.

Lol srssly????
You are really splitting up the issue here...
I could kill lots of people with a boat or a car. Who in the hell is talking about stock piling weapons????

A gun, is NOT, especially in common day suburbia. try again!

Yeah talk about flawed arguments...
A gun is pretty common out in the country where people need to hunt to eat. Just like owning a car is kinda rare in Manhattan. It all depends on point of view...

Im sure a gun that would mow down the British would have been cherished, your right. But, do you think they would have given those weapons to simple peasant families on the farm to own and enjoy at their leisure? I sure as hell dont.

Notice how i presented facts and you resorted back to hypothetical situations...
But i maintain that the founding fathers would have welcomed modern firearms and wanted the public to have them because the very idea of mass murder was abhorrent to them.

If Americas forefathers could look into the future, and see a bushmaster rifle, do you think they would have written the 2nd amendment in such a way that families, farmers, peasants and common folks would be entitled to stockpile those weapons in their homes?

Yes yes yes!!!
They actually wanted it but didn't get it because it was too expensive at the time!
en.wikipedia.org...

"sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time"

That is actually WAYYYYY faster than the bushmaster. The forefathers would have had to settle for a gun like that.

Unlike today, America's forefathers had some common sense and basic humanity, I have no doubt they'd have written that amendment a little differently.

LOL you forefather people crack me up... You do realize that the whole bill of rights thing and "freedoms" stuff did not apply to women or black people. If you really want to apply founding father's logic on todays world then fine, just keep in mind women have no rights and neither do blacks... Yeah they are not the founders of liberty you thought they were, were they?

No you didn’t, but swaths of Americans on this board do believe the primary reason to stock weapons is because of protection against a tyrannical government. Which in itself is flawed, as tanks and apc's will not be stopped by bushmaster rifles and insane gunnuts.

And tons of people on this board think aliens are abducting people to take their DNA to Niburu to celebrate the end of the world in 2012 i mean 2013, that is not exactly something to put stock in.

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread.

The only reasonable answer to gun control laws is the 2nd Amendment: Rights to gun ownership to the public shall not be infringed. It doesn't matter what guns you own...including rocket launchers...what you use your guns for....in the mean time....the 2nd Amendment is in place as check and balance between the people and the government. The 2nd Amendment is the reason we have the right to own guns. Period. Piers Morgan should be deported as an alien who is trying to sway public opinion away from the US Constitution.

Originally posted by missvicky
Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread.

The only reasonable answer to gun control laws is the 2nd Amendment: Rights to gun ownership to the public shall not be infringed. It doesn't matter what guns you own...including rocket launchers...what you use your guns for....in the mean time....the 2nd Amendment is in place as check and balance between the people and the government. The 2nd Amendment is the reason we have the right to own guns. Period. Piers Morgan should be deported as an alien who is trying to sway public opinion away from the US Constitution.

im going to go out on a wild limb here and say you are trying to be funny or satirical...
But think of this.
Imagine the other amendments. What would people say if they had to go through background searches and waiting periods before they used "free speech" or before they denied a search?

reply to post by Darkphoenix77

I agree. AJ did not do any favors for the pro 2A crowd. While one can appreciate his passion (assuming not staged) he did come across as ranting and raving like he needed medication. To many watching on the national stage (I saw it taped here) he connected the dot between gun advocacy and potential lunacy....which is not good when the mass shooters lately have all been mental cases. Hopefully, Jones the infowarrior was not acting out a part in a larger psy ops campaign against american's gun rights. There are many who think that he is not what he says he is.......

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

) he connected the dot between gun advocacy and potential lunacy....which is not good when the mass shooters lately have all been mental cases.

Which is another point totally ignored by the left! While people like Michael Moore say we need better mental health they completely ignore that most of these mass shootings were carried out by people that were on psychiatric medications.
You give a person an assault rifle, what are the side effects?
Now what are the side effects of the most common anti-depressant?

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Yes they would consider the AR-15 platform rifle the standard of the militia. #1 it is semi auto not full or even selective. #2 it is on the same design (sans firing features) as the government's standard weapon and #3 they didnt have mass shootings by crazy people back then. The population in 1790 was 1/94 of what it is today so if there were 94 deaths from mass shootings in a contemporary year that would be equivalent to just 1 death back then.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

As far as not having a chance against the government, I'm sorry but that is total hogwash. It has been documented in other threads that alot of military and law enforcement would not obey a law that goes against the 2nd amendment. So who is going to take the guns if 75% of the military and law enforcement side with people who believe in the Constitution? Not to mention the sheer logistics of it all....likely 1.5 million gun owners vs. maybe 350,000 brainwashed LEA and military (and that is being generous). And if you say what is to stop them from dropping a nuke, or gas attacks, or what have you. The answer is simple, you don't crap in your own back yard. You don't slaughter millions of civilians because if you do that you no longer will have the available manpower to do all the dirty work that society needs to function after the dust settles. It is in essence, cutting off your nose to spite your face or shooting yourself in the foot. If guns were removed from the equation, well, then the whole game field changes.

I was preparing to mention exactly what you said here but you said it for me. I don't think that the guns that civilians have at their disposal could take out tanks and helicopters, that's stupid. What I do think those guns would do is make it much less likely for the government to decide to attack or imprison their population because they know the civilians will put up a fight, an armed resistance. No, we wouldn't have much of a chance of winning if we only had hunting rifles and handguns but we would be able to fight back which means that if they want to totally subdue the populous, they'd have to bomb their own country which would totally change the game. If civilians didn't have access to guns, the government wouldn't have to fight anyone, they'd just come in and start arresting or killing them quietly with no serious resistance. The hassle and complications of that possible fight is all we have protecting us from a corrupt government, be it current or future.

I'm not putting down anyone not from America at all but if you aren't American, you simply don't have our best interests at heart. If the American government were to force all of it's people into slave labor building stuff for your country, some of you would probably be all for it, given some of the responses I've seen in this thread. When is the last time you saw an American on this site telling people from your country that you need to change your policies counter to what the majority of your country wants? The government likes to do that but I haven't seen many of our people doing that. I'm not trying to call people out but it's getting annoying to see all of these people who have no stake in what happens to our country or our people, trying to tell us how we should do things.

I am also one of those people that doesn't own a gun but cares about our rights. I am by no means a gun nut.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Guns?.....................YAWN.

God, I thought for one moment it might have been something serious.

God help they don't take your guns people, OMG!!!!! Everybody will invade you. The streets will be awash with murder! Just like the rest of the world.............

Not.

But, didn't our guns prevent a Japanese invasion during WWII???

The bomb did.

I have to ask a question and make a few points to the people who actually envision this independence 2.0 happening.

You do understand that if our worst fears are realized, it will result in the killing of average americans right? The politicians that led us here will be safe and secure. Only the "lower classes" will bleed on both sides.

Protest, call, mail, TALK to your representatives. Do EVERYTHING in your power to stop the madness. As in home defense, violence should be an absolute last resort. (Be very careful what you wish for)

I will tell you the same thing I always told my younger soldiers. "The only people that want to go to war, are people that have never been".

I will not partake in what I see down the road. When/if the day comes that I am loaded onto a cattle car, I will look around me and laugh at the people that thought this would only happen to "other" people.

Good luck all.

reply to post by AlphaX


I just thought I should point out that the other posters on this thread don't speak for all Australians. I personally don't believe you should give up your right to defend yourself.

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did any even watch the video?? Alex jones on part 2 around 5:45 starts mocking morgan wit ha fake British accent.

The man is a lunatic. Is a disservice to conspiracy theories, and should be taking some of those pills hes yelling about it seems.


Everything he said could be right for all I know. He certainly was given a forum and a softball question on 9/11 and it was like it was too easy for Jones and he didnt know how to handle it. He was given a chance to tell the world some of the things we believe and know and he blew it.


Alex Jones discredited all of us on this interview. We should all be ashamed.

Thankyou for regurgitating the MSM version of the argument along with the MSM version of Scientology. Now why don't you post that thread about Scn on a public forum so it can be picked apart.

What did I regurgitate? common sense that he was a rude loud obnoxious guest? He showed not an iota of decorum and fell back on yelling out personal attacks.


What's msm about that?


And bringing up my personal story about what happened to me? Seriously? Were you taking notes watching jones in that awful interview ?

reply to post by Flatcoat


Thank you for that sentiment. I totally understand and believe that not everyone from another country (Australians and British seem to be the most adamant on this site) feels the way the posters in this thread do. I know what we've seen here is only the loudest of the group and I was addressing only them.

First, the "Duck Hunting" comment by Alex Jones is a quote from here:

Secondly, Piers Morgan has "NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" because he is not an American Citizen. He is however, a Citizen of a Foreign Power (England) and has repeatedly made comments and threats against the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. If any visitor from a foreign county, here on a VISA , expresses any hostile anti-American sentiments he can be refused entry or deported and I believe an attack on the 2nd Amendment is exactly that.

However,I full well recognize that attacks upon our Constitution by Americans and Non-Americans alike, including by elected officials, military and law enforcement who have sworn supposedly solemn oaths to support and defend our Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic is common place today and their would not be enough prison cells and/or brick walls to line them all up against.

All this aside, or Constitution was written for a Moral and God Fearing People; for people who cherish the principals set forth in that document; for people who would support and defend those principals and in turn be supported and protected.

My family fought at the Alamo...literally. I am a Texan who knows, understands and agrees with Alex Jones but unlike Alex, I don't believe being born in American, in and unto itself makes anyone an American Citizen with the rights and privileges set forth in our Constitution.

If you do not cherish, value and are not defending and prepared to support and defend our Constitution, you are not a fellow American; you are either a person without a country or with the enemies of my country.

So, pick your side now or later but know that you will have to decide at some point sooner or later.


Constitution of the United States Bill of Rights


I Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II Right to keep and bear arms

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.


III Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V Provisions concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

They don`t have to take our guns to violate the constitution.
The constitution doesn`t say that we have the right to bear arms.The right to bear arms is a given and the constituition expands on that right by saying that the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.

Infringe:
intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb

Does every one of the gun control laws Infringe intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, or curb, our right to bear arms? They sure do! and as such they are ALL unconstitutional.

reply to post by MajorKarma


So according to you, piers Morgan should not be able to an express a viewpoint on a talk show and if we don't agree with your absolutist point of view, we aren't American? Funny, I thought I lived in America....

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by MajorKarma

 

So according to you, piers Morgan should not be able to an express a viewpoint on a talk show and if we don't agree with your absolutist point of view, we aren't American? Funny, I thought I lived in America....

I see you chime in a lot here and have not responded to you to avoid TOS Violations but this time, I am going to give you two answers to your comments 1) Freedom of Speech is a right provided for by our Constitution for American Citizens, it does not extend and protect that right for non-American Citizens, including visitors (you might know this had you ever read the Constitution and Bill of Rights) and 2) Yes, you live in America (you say) but as I also said, I personally do not consider you an American just because you live or were born here.,,,nothing funny about it.

This will be my last response to you.