Alex Jones life Threatened On National TV

page: 16
74
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taggart

So if someone says something about the US president along the same lines, do they get looked into by the Secret Service? I think so.

Unfortunately saying "it was a joke" afterwards is too late as the offender already said it. At minimum Piers and the other commentators should be looked at officially, sure nothing will come out of it since the elites got the police under wraps. Its the principle of it though.


AJ, despite what he may think of himself, is not the US president. That job title comes with far greater responsibility than I suspect AJ could ever hope to even have a wet dream about.


I snipped the rest, So basically Obama (or whoever in power at the time) is GOD and above us, anyone threatens him they must be persued. AJ is one if us, a little louder, has a show where he and others can plug their books and what have you, if he says something and gets a thinly veiled threat ON LIVE TV we are supposed to say "Its just that nutjob meh"
Sorry but I disagree. We are all worth the same, doesn't matter what your job title is, what house you live in, in law a LIFE is a LIFE.


Interesting that you snipped the rest of my commentary on the premise I was making because that is what gave the context behind my statement. No where did I mention that the US president is any kind of deity or has of any superior status to that of human being. My point was centered around the fact that because the job title of POTUS comes with several serious inherent risks, and because the job title of POTUS comes with a high responsibility (foreign relations, domestic affairs, etc.) a security force sponsored by the government is warranted.

A simple analogy I could make is the transport of money from one location to another. It isn't transported in armoured vehicles because we consider it precious and look at it with reverence (well, at least some of us don't). It is transported in armoured vehicles because of the high inherent risk of transporting large sums of money without the security. See my analogy?

Please, before you try to create a strawman from by putting words in my mouth, be sure to include ALL of what I said, and then challenge the points I was making.

Thank you.
edit on 10-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Trying to fix bad formatting




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by miniatus
 


Pssssssst, bears and wild animals still roam most of the country.


^^ EXACTLY!! We had a local story just the other day where a man and his nephew were mauled by a bobcat that got into thier garage. After yelling to his wife to get his gun she ran back in to get the pistol and came back out with it (all the while this man is trying to defend himself from the cat) When she gave him the gun he shot the cat and killed it. Come to find out the bobcat had rabies and him and his nephew were bitten and scratched by the cat multiple times. Now you tell me we don't need a 2nd amendment!!

Bobcat attacks man in Massachusetts

edit on 10-1-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by miniatus
 


The Second Amendment guarantees our right to weapons, ANY weapons. Once we start banning weapons, we lose the chance to defend ourselves against Tyranny. Before ANYONE says it cant happen, think again.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." ~ Mao

30-40 million people didn't have the chance to tell Mao if he was right or wrong......




Well technically the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.. and frankly, someone running at me with bear arms would be terrifying jk.

I'm not saying the 2nd amendment should be repealed or modified in anyway.. I still question why anyone NEEDS an assault rifle.. One important thing to remember is that the 2nd amendment was created during a different time... when cowboys were still fighting indians, when the british could still invade.. when bears and wild animals still roamed most of the country.. times have changed.. I'm not quite sure the 2nd amendment would exist if the same people wrote it for modern day America.. but that's neither here nor there.. I have NO issue with people owning any kind of weapon they want.. even rocket launchers =) .. my key point is that there needs to be serious effort to address the mental health issues of people who would own deadly weapons... again.. it's not the weapons that are the problem, it's the people...





dude! if thos. jefferson came alive today it would take him less than 5 mins. to start the next revolution--and they would shoot him down like a dog! he said that we needed one every 20 yrs. to have any chance of freedom, though he never imagined a government that possessed mega-computer complexes to store every single private communication of every citizen at all times, in addition to international traffic.

oh yeah, these high drama masked gunman incidents are all about mental illness, right, pal? not paving the way to disarming citizens starting with most lethal weapons of ressistance, right?

daddy bush came right out and said in plain english that they would have their new wprld order one way or another, enforced by the u.n. was he just kidding? was 9dotdot just a wonderful coincidence to enable a greatly enhanced police state that grows stronger by the day? you tell me.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 




Ive listened to AJ through the 911 years, but not so much lately..He is good for waking people up..
Bohemian Grove etc..

Reagan Nixon at the Grove..
but he will not discuss the Grove & its current members..
their Government positions or business attendees..

I have to say his co-host here has it completely right here..

and it seriously exposes the anti-gun control issue for what it is..

control.

its perfectly acceptable to kills those who oppose them.

yet entirely unacceptable Americans will not give up their guns

so the take over of America can proceed..







Jones Is Project Mockingbird


7 He receives mainstream media attention, but makes a fool of himself and the information he is trying to relay
9 Plagiarized William Cooper and took credit for his work. William Cooper was killed after he correctly "predicted" 9/11 and raised questions about Alex Jones. Jones of course takes credit for "predicting" 9/11, when in fact Cooper made the revelation 1 month before Jones.


AJ is the controlled opposition.. handcrafted in the image of Bill Cooper.

just listen to his show for people trying to get out valuable information

and see how he treats them.. or try it yourself. give him a call

and see how far that gets you.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
AJ doesn't debate,he rants and preaches..

PM knew how to windup AJ and he took the bait hook line and sinker

Anyone out side the conspiracy world tuning in would have thought AJ was a total nut job,so all his valid points were lost.. exactly what CNN set out to do

the shooting 'joke' was in bad taste further belittling AJ.....@ the very least they should apologize ...

when did gun debates turn in to Pantomime



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 


I am sick to death of all this brow beating and "creative" interpretation of the constitution. The sad, sad fact is that most who revere the constitution have NO idea what is actually in it. All that they know is the 1st & 2nd ammendments... There are presently 27 ammendments to the constitution with the most recent ammendment being enacted in 1992.

It is a living breathing document and these ammendments are evidence to the fact that it is NOT a prefect document because a perfect document would have NO need for any ammendments. The fact is that as situations arise that are no longer applicable to modern day or that are entirely new, they MAY necessitate further ammendments.

By now everyone should now know that the language of the 2nd ammendment talks specifically of the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia in defence of the free states. This extends to the protection of one's self in their own home. I am sure that many have already heard the argument about the how when this was written people still used muskets and how modern technology has changed the landscape so much that the 2nd ammendment is no longer adequate.

I feel at times that many gun enthusiasts think they are living in the wild west or something. Keith Ratliff (Producer of FPS Russia) made the following statement on Twitter on August 12, 2012. “I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!”. This is exactly what I am talking about, these guys think they are cowboys and are starring in their own personal action movie. I guarantee that some of these tough guys would soil their pants if they were in an actual war or combat situation. I say this as someone who has been in combat.

That is my problem with the whole debate, the image I have is of so many gun lovers just waiting for their chance to stand up, whip out their trusty AR15 and proclaim loudly and proudly, "Yippe Ki-Yay, MotherF'er!". The gun culture and glorification that occurs contributes to this and unfortunately because these ideas of gun ownership are tied to freedom then this becomes an emotive issue for many which makes a rational and logical discussion almost impossible.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


again, how has he managed to take in jesse v? will he learn the truth, or does he already know (i certainly hope he's for real, for what good it will do us at this point).



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AgFox
 


it is also true (though i'm not hereby advocating anything myself) that thos.jefferson stated categorically that without a revolution every twenty (i believe) years we would sink right back into tyranny.

i wonder what he expected patriots to fight with--sticks and stones like the palestinians?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ouvertaverite
 


I too hope Jesse V has been true to his word & its not an act for his wrestling days..

but, like the rest of us, since its so slickly veiled, it will take some for

him to figure it out..

like ask him some tough questions & get diverted..

who is currently attending the Grove?

how far does Masonry reach into Government..

then watch AJ dance around the issue's..



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ouvertaverite
 


Categorically or Metaphorically?

I have a hard time believing that he meant the literal "blood of tyrants and patriots". Maybe he did, but even if that was the case shouldn't we have moved on over the last 200 years and be more civilized than that? I would hope so but I am a little discouraged by all this lately.

I remain slightly discouraged but ultimately optimistic.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AgFox
 


I am sorry, but you are wrong. The second was written for individuals to bear arms, so that militias could be raised in the blink of an eye. Everyone 18+ was considered potential militia, and expected to be ready to do so if needed. Anything a common soldier can have, we are supposed to be able to have the same exact arms.

The supreme court has reaffirmed that as well(right to bear arms is individual right, not a collective right of the militia), when they overturned DC gun ban.
edit on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:44:24 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Alex Jones....lmao desperado



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


You are right about the individual right that but the supreme court ruling then goes on to say that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".

Soldiers have access to a multitude of weapons like; Squad Assault Weapons, Explosives, Rocket propelled Grenades, Anti Material Weapons, Anti-Tank rockets...

What is the interpretation of "Dangerous and unusual weapons" then? Is a dangerous weapon one which can fire off hundreds of rounds in minute? What is the definition of an "unusual" weapon? Is it one that is only available for military uses?

This ruling is much too vague for my liking.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AgFox
 


Judges do not get to circumvent the constitution. They are also but employees, and some times for a time, they screw things up, but basically they don't define anything. All a judge does is fire the cannon of justice, or misfire the cannon. And it takes continual work by the people to get things rectified clearly as they, the EMPLOYER GROUP, sees things.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AgFox
 


Yes there are a few who think they're cowboys, there's always some bad apples. What you fail to realize is that a lot of the gun owners are veterans who have been in combat and wouldn't "crap their pants" if something was to happen.

The 2nd is there to insure that the gov doesn't get too powerful. If we no longer have the means to revolt, then we would be sent like lambs to the slaughter.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Well, I have come to the conclusion after 3 days of watching segments of Piers Morgan that he is a total git. England, I beg you, have mercy!! Are you sure there is absolutely no way we can reach an agreement to take him back?


Only thing I found amusing was the first 5 minutes of his show when he was called out for dancing on the graves of the victims of Sandy Hook by pushing his anti-gun rhetoric. He really did not seem to like that too much as he said repeatedly "HOW......DARE YOU!!?!?" Gotta admit, I laughed pretty hard



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by AgFox
 


Yes there are a few who think they're cowboys, there's always some bad apples. What you fail to realize is that a lot of the gun owners are veterans who have been in combat and wouldn't "crap their pants" if something was to happen.

The 2nd is there to insure that the gov doesn't get too powerful. If we no longer have the means to revolt, then we would be sent like lambs to the slaughter.



If the 2nd was designed to insure that govt's don't get too powerful, it has failed miserably. Have you seen what your military budget is?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
Well, I have come to the conclusion after 3 days of watching segments of Piers Morgan that he is a total git. England, I beg you, have mercy!! Are you sure there is absolutely no way we can reach an agreement to take him back?


Only thing I found amusing was the first 5 minutes of his show when he was called out for dancing on the graves of the victims of Sandy Hook by pushing his anti-gun rhetoric. He really did not seem to like that too much as he said repeatedly "HOW......DARE YOU!!?!?" Gotta admit, I laughed pretty hard


We could just exile him to St Helena, like we did with Napoleon?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lolita64

Originally posted by CyberneticProphet
Alex Jones proved how crazy you gun fanatics are. You should all be thrown into a mental institution before you harm yourself or others.

And you should be deported for being treasonous against the constitution and ban from this site for being a troll or a total idiot with not enough IQ to handle an internet forum.

Go back to your cave, troll.


Last I checked the 2nd Amendment says guns could be owned by a well regulated militia which a bunch of drunken hicks and loonies are not.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I see the whole problem here. The government is staging events, to try and take away from the second ammendment:

“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.”

And trying to suggest this means the military can bear arms. And that the Supreme Court's findings, and indeed all court findings, that take into account the meaning of the fore fathers who were preserving the British freedom that was intrinsic to bear arms and self defense, and understood the spirit of this. But no fascist government does, they would like that to mean, their fascist military only, eh.

Thats why I keep reading this nonsense.

"right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The words are NOT ambiguous. Quite clearly put.

edit on 11-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
74
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join