This Is Why Non-Americans Houldn't Get Involved In Their Gun Laws

[Back In Black]

Admittedly Piers Morgan is a knob (and we don't want him back!) but this is a very angry man!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-...113924767.html

[marcus300]

hahahah no idea who Alex is but he sure has mental health issues, what a retard lol

[lovbyts]

hahahah no idea who Alex is but he sure has mental health issues, what a retard lol

And thats exactly why he was chosen to be on the show, to make gun owners look bad.

[alex18]

Can't believe u guys ratted me out on here

[cherrydrpepper]

Heres another clip I couldn't get that one to work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg

One of the most intense interviews I've ever seen.

Im for everything Alex says. I've never heard of this Alex guy before but everything he says is spot on. Also, you guys can call him a moron or whatever and my first thought was can we get someone whos not fat and loud to be the voice of pro gun lol but you can't deny he verbally butt rapes Piers in this interview. I was really hoping to avoid another thread in the lounge about gun control. What people need to understand is that the 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting. When that amendment came out everybody had a gun. If you had a family, you had a gun and it was not just about self defense you would actually go into the woods and find dinner. This was before factories were churning out chuck beef patties and chicken breasts.

The 2nd amendment is about Russia. Its about China. Its about every shit country (apologies if you're from there but not really) that people have tried to dress up like a big turd in an armani suit and say look what we do when THE PEOPLE ARE NOT FREE. They are not truly free and they are never going to be because the government isn't accountable to the people.

Going on a tangent but look at Olga Korbut. Olga Korbut wins 3 gold medals for Russia back in the 70s (USSR) as a teenager in gymnastics. She's a gold medalist for christ sake and you know where she lives. SHE LIVES IN ARIZONA FOR FS. SHE LIVES IN GOD DAMN ARIZONA AND SHES A RUSSIAN GOLD MEDALIST BECAUSE WE HAVE FREEDOM HERE (SPEECH, ECONOMIC, RELIGIOUS, ETC). Why do we have all that freedom? Because the government can't just come in and say I'm going to control the media and take your business and give you a shitty job and theres not a god damn thing you can do about it. Why is that? Because the 2nd amendment is here to protect us against tyrannical governments like those shit countries have.

[cherrydrpepper]

Piers VS Jesse Ventura on gun control from a week ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ENcfdAoWkU

A more level headed interview where Ventura makes some good points about the 2nd amendment.

[RaginCajun]

Piers Morgan is a right cvnt!

i wish everyone had a gun!

let's go back to the Wild West days!

maybe some people would have a lot more respect for a gun

that Alex guy is a little extreme i will admit.

@piersmorgan, i would not care if the man had 500 guns!

[songdog]

We are sending him back to the UK postage do!

[RA]

I dont know if its been posted but Obama is going to write an executive order on gun control. Not sure if its going to pass supreme court muster but hes attempting to bypass congress on the issue.

[gearbox]

Us americans always talk about the economy which will be death to america. I believe this issue could cause some serious civilian uprising. Not that anyone is a match for the military, but if you try to come between a man and his guns (to protect him and his family) you are going to have a disaster on your hands.

[RA]

The military is on the side of the gun owners. Wouldnt be a fight

Us americans always talk about the economy which will be death to america. I believe this issue could cause some serious civilian uprising. Not that anyone is a match for the military, but if you try to come between a man and his guns (to protect him and his family) you are going to have a disaster on your hands.

[OdinsOtherSon]

Heres another clip I couldn't get that one to work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg

One of the most intense interviews I've ever seen.

Im for everything Alex says. I've never heard of this Alex guy before but everything he says is spot on. Also, you guys can call him a moron or whatever and my first thought was can we get someone whos not fat and loud to be the voice of pro gun lol but you can't deny he verbally butt rapes Piers in this interview. I was really hoping to avoid another thread in the lounge about gun control. What people need to understand is that the 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting. When that amendment came out everybody had a gun. If you had a family, you had a gun and it was not just about self defense you would actually go into the woods and find dinner. This was before factories were churning out chuck beef patties and chicken breasts.

The 2nd amendment is about Russia. Its about China. Its about every shit country (apologies if you're from there but not really) that people have tried to dress up like a big turd in an armani suit and say look what we do when THE PEOPLE ARE NOT FREE. They are not truly free and they are never going to be because the government isn't accountable to the people.

Going on a tangent but look at Olga Korbut. Olga Korbut wins 3 gold medals for Russia back in the 70s (USSR) as a teenager in gymnastics. She's a gold medalist for christ sake and you know where she lives. SHE LIVES IN ARIZONA FOR FS. SHE LIVES IN GOD DAMN ARIZONA AND SHES A RUSSIAN GOLD MEDALIST BECAUSE WE HAVE FREEDOM HERE (SPEECH, ECONOMIC, RELIGIOUS, ETC). Why do we have all that freedom? Because the government can't just come in and say I'm going to control the media and take your business and give you a shitty job and theres not a god damn thing you can do about it. Why is that? Because the 2nd amendment is here to protect us against tyrannical governments like those shit countries have.

And I'll go one more and say the 2nd amendment is about our own country and protecting ourselves and families from the very BS that they're trying to cram down our throats as we speak.

CDP, spot on man!! Couldn't agree more!!

[dan991]

The Brits need to take that douche bag back.... its bad enough we have to have those stupid Mini Cooper's in the States.... quit sending your garbage to the US... its not a dumping ground for your rubbish...

[RA]

LOL Dont blame it all the Brits. Tons of good ones. Just a few douchebags soiling our once fine country.

The Brits need to take that douche bag back.... its bad enough we have to have those stupid Mini Cooper's in the States.... quit sending your garbage to the US... its not a dumping ground for your rubbish...

[OdinsOtherSon]

LOL Dont blame it all the Brits. Tons of good ones. Just a few douchebags soiling our once fine country.

^^ This!

[panntastic]

The Brits need to take that douche bag back.... its bad enough we have to have those stupid Mini Cooper's in the States.... quit sending your garbage to the US... its not a dumping ground for your rubbish...

Keep him we don't want the tools sack nobody likes him.
Just kick him out over the ocean and everyone's happy

[zaggahamma]

what cdp said

[thegodfather]

Us americans always talk about the economy which will be death to america. I believe this issue could cause some serious civilian uprising. Not that anyone is a match for the military, but if you try to come between a man and his guns (to protect him and his family) you are going to have a disaster on your hands.

Thats BS gearbox. The anti-gun side constantly harps on this issue when gun control advocates bring up the point that we need so called 'assault rifles' in order to protect our country from tyranny, and then some lefty liberal spouts off at the mouth something to the effect, "do you really think you and a bunch of guys with small arms are any match for the might and sophistication of the US military with their drones, F-22s, tanks, and smart bombs." Well, actually yes I do, a group of poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources, has been giving the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, a run for its money since 2001. Men with small arms, occasionally some indirect fire devices such as mortars, and direct fire rocket propelled grenades, as well as home made explosive devices, have been able to keep their orgnaization in tact a formidable thorn in the side of the US military, existing as a de-stabilizing force within the country of Afghanistan. Fighting insurgency's are unwinnable when the populace resfuses to be subjugated or have a foreign force control them, history has shown this time and time again. So, do I think if the US government decided to implement tyrannical policies that caused citizens to take up arms against their own government (which I pray to God never comes to fruition), they have significantly better weapons then those fighters in Afghan, they have significantly more resources and supplies at their behest, and most importantly they have superior numbers. There are millions upon millions of gun owners who would take up arms during an insurrection, the total number of military personnel in the United States numbers around 3 million men&women, and a large number of those are ancillary and support personnell, not direct combat forces. There also is the factor of whether or not US soldiers would fire upon their American brethren if they were given such orders. A study conducted a few years back indicated that if given orders to fire on unnarmed American citizens about 1/3 of people in the Armed forces indicated they would follow such orders. So, you would run into a situation SIMILAR to Syria, but different in that the numbers and SCALE is on a much much bigger platform then that conflict.

With regards to ANY comments about the "Wild West," made by Piers and his tabloid ilk, it simply has not happened. Piers is trying to deal in ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. Meaning when a person with an opposing view point says something, he extrapolates that into either an absolute or an extreme. When we say that people should have the choice to carry a concealed weapon into schools, movie theaters, bars, and other places where they're prohibited, his response is "So you believe that way to solve gun violence is to ARM EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MOVIE THEATER." Well clearly, that is not what the respondent said, he said people should be given the OPTION to do so. This notion that if it were permissible to conceal&carry into a movie theater or school, that EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PERSON would therefore buy a gun and carry it concealed into the theater is ludicirous. In all of the states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry has been established as a matter of law, the statistics are pretty CONSISTENT across all of the states issuing conceal&carry permits, and that is, that only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of that state chooses to get a conceal&carry permit, and from there, we have no evidence as to how many of those permit holders actually carry on a daily basis. This means that in a state with shall issue conceal&carry, with a population of 10 million people, about 100,000 people throughout that state have PERMITS to conceal&carry a firearm. Of those 100,000, its not clear how many actually exercise that right on a daily basis. The argument that myself and many others like me are advancing towards Piers, is to allow THOSE people who already posess the proper permits to carry their weapons with them into places like movie theaters, schools, banks, etc, to extend where they ALREADY carry their firearms, they are carrying their firearms with them all over town, running errands, going to the doctors office, going any number of places, we just want to expand the places those permit holders can carry their firearms, so we at least have a CHANCE at preventing unnecessary bloodshed. Unfortunately, Piers postulates that if we change a movie theater from a known "GUN FREE ZONE," into a place where licensed carry holders are able to carry their firearms, that EVERY SINGLE PATRON of the movie theater will then decide to become licensed, buy a firearm, and carry it into the theater.

Piers postulates that with "EVERYONE" being armed, something which is not only highly unlikely, but is proven statistically throughout the 42 states with SHALL ISSUE conceal&carry permits, EVERYONE will choose to get a CCW and carry on a daily basis, and that because of this, people will start to have shoot outs over trivial arguments such as parking spaces, cutting in line, and other mundane interactions of humans on a daily basis. Unfortunately for Piers, his postulates have been proven wrong by history and statistics. Since implenting shall issue CCW permits in Texas and Florida in 1986, the same arguments were made, but the incidences of those permit holders misusing their firearms for unlawful purposes was less <1.0%. Meaning, of the entire number of people who posess CCW permits, of that group, less than 1.0% of those permit holders committed some sort of crime which involved thier lawfully owned firearm and their permit. That is less than 1.0% over the ENTIRE TIME SINCE SHALL ISSUES INCEPTION IN 1986! So Piers' straw man arguments, fear tactics, and outright lies are nothing more than progressive liberal bias, having his opinions based completely on emotions, with absolutely no facts to back up such outrageous statements.

With regards to Piers himself, he came to America because he was embroiled in the phone hacking scandal of the tabloid news papers over in the UK. He is nothing more then a tabloid man who was for some reason unbeknownst to people with a functioning brain, given his own hour segment on CNN. He is not worthy of CNN, his credentials are seriously lacking with regards to being accepted as a serious newsman or political commentator. It is pathetic we have to listen to such people spout off their nonsense. No clearer example of the character of Piers (or lack there of), was his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, where Larry Pratt sternly expressed his disagreement with Piers, and Piers was unable to debate him civilly, and instead told Mr.Pratt, "You are an unbeievably stupid man aren't you?" Comments such as those are HARDLY the mark of a professional newsman or political commentator, but rather point to the true character of Piers, a glorified tabloid man.

With regards to his interview with Alex Jones. I found that painful to watch, if for no other reason than Alex made any valid points he tried to make rather inconsequential because of his irrate behavior, and essentially handed the debate over to Piers. Its one thing to be passionate about a subject and express your viewpoints rationally, but Alex Jones did the opposite, however that is sort of his "trademark" if you will, getting irrate, yelling, making a huge scene, being seen to take on 'the man,' or in Alex's case, the cabbal of "New World Order Reptillians," which he believes wants to enslave the planet, reduce the global population to 500 million, and make slaves out of the remaining people on Earth, while implanting them with RFID chips, and the complete dissollution of borders around the world. His news source is interesting only to get a completely different viewpoint and interpretation of the news, but for the most part, his so called 'news' is little more then a PR tool to get people to pay for his books,videos,etc. He's a shameless self-promoter, and I refrain from calling his ideas 'whacky' or 'looney,' because thats often what people do when they just simply want to discredit a person. However, I just believe his ideas are not based in reality much like those on the far left, I believe is ideas have an air of paranoia and lack real substance. His view points on some issues are correct, but a broken watch is right twice a day. I feel as though Pier's choice to include Alex Jones on his show, was a way to further degrade the gun rights advocates and to make them look like raving lunatics, like I said, Alex Jones large theatrics on television&radio program is widely known, there is no way that his producers did not know thats the result they'd get by bringing him on the air.

[EverettCD]

Well said godfather.

[-Ender-]

Thats BS gearbox. The anti-gun side constantly harps on this issue when gun control advocates bring up the point that we need so called 'assault rifles' in order to protect our country from tyranny, and then some lefty liberal spouts off at the mouth something to the effect, "do you really think you and a bunch of guys with small arms are any match for the might and sophistication of the US military with their drones, F-22s, tanks, and smart bombs." Well, actually yes I do, a group of poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources, has been giving the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, a run for its money since 2001. Men with small arms, occasionally some indirect fire devices such as mortars, and direct fire rocket propelled grenades, as well as home made explosive devices, have been able to keep their orgnaization in tact a formidable thorn in the side of the US military, existing as a de-stabilizing force within the country of Afghanistan. Fighting insurgency's are unwinnable when the populace resfuses to be subjugated or have a foreign force control them, history has shown this time and time again. So, do I think if the US government decided to implement tyrannical policies that caused citizens to take up arms against their own government (which I pray to God never comes to fruition), they have significantly better weapons then those fighters in Afghan, they have significantly more resources and supplies at their behest, and most importantly they have superior numbers. There are millions upon millions of gun owners who would take up arms during an insurrection, the total number of military personnel in the United States numbers around 3 million men&women, and a large number of those are ancillary and support personnell, not direct combat forces. There also is the factor of whether or not US soldiers would fire upon their American brethren if they were given such orders. A study conducted a few years back indicated that if given orders to fire on unnarmed American citizens about 1/3 of people in the Armed forces indicated they would follow such orders. So, you would run into a situation SIMILAR to Syria, but different in that the numbers and SCALE is on a much much bigger platform then that conflict.

With regards to ANY comments about the "Wild West," made by Piers and his tabloid ilk, it simply has not happened. Piers is trying to deal in ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. Meaning when a person with an opposing view point says something, he extrapolates that into either an absolute or an extreme. When we say that people should have the choice to carry a concealed weapon into schools, movie theaters, bars, and other places where they're prohibited, his response is "So you believe that way to solve gun violence is to ARM EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MOVIE THEATER." Well clearly, that is not what the respondent said, he said people should be given the OPTION to do so. This notion that if it were permissible to conceal&carry into a movie theater or school, that EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PERSON would therefore buy a gun and carry it concealed into the theater is ludicirous. In all of the states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry has been established as a matter of law, the statistics are pretty CONSISTENT across all of the states issuing conceal&carry permits, and that is, that only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of that state chooses to get a conceal&carry permit, and from there, we have no evidence as to how many of those permit holders actually carry on a daily basis. This means that in a state with shall issue conceal&carry, with a population of 10 million people, about 100,000 people throughout that state have PERMITS to conceal&carry a firearm. Of those 100,000, its not clear how many actually exercise that right on a daily basis. The argument that myself and many others like me are advancing towards Piers, is to allow THOSE people who already posess the proper permits to carry their weapons with them into places like movie theaters, schools, banks, etc, to extend where they ALREADY carry their firearms, they are carrying their firearms with them all over town, running errands, going to the doctors office, going any number of places, we just want to expand the places those permit holders can carry their firearms, so we at least have a CHANCE at preventing unnecessary bloodshed. Unfortunately, Piers postulates that if we change a movie theater from a known "GUN FREE ZONE," into a place where licensed carry holders are able to carry their firearms, that EVERY SINGLE PATRON of the movie theater will then decide to become licensed, buy a firearm, and carry it into the theater.

Piers postulates that with "EVERYONE" being armed, something which is not only highly unlikely, but is proven statistically throughout the 42 states with SHALL ISSUE conceal&carry permits, EVERYONE will choose to get a CCW and carry on a daily basis, and that because of this, people will start to have shoot outs over trivial arguments such as parking spaces, cutting in line, and other mundane interactions of humans on a daily basis. Unfortunately for Piers, his postulates have been proven wrong by history and statistics. Since implenting shall issue CCW permits in Texas and Florida in 1986, the same arguments were made, but the incidences of those permit holders misusing their firearms for unlawful purposes was less <1.0%. Meaning, of the entire number of people who posess CCW permits, of that group, less than 1.0% of those permit holders committed some sort of crime which involved thier lawfully owned firearm and their permit. That is less than 1.0% over the ENTIRE TIME SINCE SHALL ISSUES INCEPTION IN 1986! So Piers' straw man arguments, fear tactics, and outright lies are nothing more than progressive liberal bias, having his opinions based completely on emotions, with absolutely no facts to back up such outrageous statements.

With regards to Piers himself, he came to America because he was embroiled in the phone hacking scandal of the tabloid news papers over in the UK. He is nothing more then a tabloid man who was for some reason unbeknownst to people with a functioning brain, given his own hour segment on CNN. He is not worthy of CNN, his credentials are seriously lacking with regards to being accepted as a serious newsman or political commentator. It is pathetic we have to listen to such people spout off their nonsense. No clearer example of the character of Piers (or lack there of), was his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, where Larry Pratt sternly expressed his disagreement with Piers, and Piers was unable to debate him civilly, and instead told Mr.Pratt, "You are an unbeievably stupid man aren't you?" Comments such as those are HARDLY the mark of a professional newsman or political commentator, but rather point to the true character of Piers, a glorified tabloid man.

With regards to his interview with Alex Jones. I found that painful to watch, if for no other reason than Alex made any valid points he tried to make rather inconsequential because of his irrate behavior, and essentially handed the debate over to Piers. Its one thing to be passionate about a subject and express your viewpoints rationally, but Alex Jones did the opposite, however that is sort of his "trademark" if you will, getting irrate, yelling, making a huge scene, being seen to take on 'the man,' or in Alex's case, the cabbal of "New World Order Reptillians," which he believes wants to enslave the planet, reduce the global population to 500 million, and make slaves out of the remaining people on Earth, while implanting them with RFID chips, and the complete dissollution of borders around the world. His news source is interesting only to get a completely different viewpoint and interpretation of the news, but for the most part, his so called 'news' is little more then a PR tool to get people to pay for his books,videos,etc. He's a shameless self-promoter, and I refrain from calling his ideas 'whacky' or 'looney,' because thats often what people do when they just simply want to discredit a person. However, I just believe his ideas are not based in reality much like those on the far left, I believe is ideas have an air of paranoia and lack real substance. His view points on some issues are correct, but a broken watch is right twice a day. I feel as though Pier's choice to include Alex Jones on his show, was a way to further degrade the gun rights advocates and to make them look like raving lunatics, like I said, Alex Jones large theatrics on television&radio program is widely known, there is no way that his producers did not know thats the result they'd get by bringing him on the air.

thank you.

[OdinsOtherSon]

Thats BS gearbox. The anti-gun side constantly harps on this issue when gun control advocates bring up the point that we need so called 'assault rifles' in order to protect our country from tyranny, and then some lefty liberal spouts off at the mouth something to the effect, "do you really think you and a bunch of guys with small arms are any match for the might and sophistication of the US military with their drones, F-22s, tanks, and smart bombs." Well, actually yes I do, a group of poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources, has been giving the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, a run for its money since 2001. Men with small arms, occasionally some indirect fire devices such as mortars, and direct fire rocket propelled grenades, as well as home made explosive devices, have been able to keep their orgnaization in tact a formidable thorn in the side of the US military, existing as a de-stabilizing force within the country of Afghanistan. Fighting insurgency's are unwinnable when the populace resfuses to be subjugated or have a foreign force control them, history has shown this time and time again. So, do I think if the US government decided to implement tyrannical policies that caused citizens to take up arms against their own government (which I pray to God never comes to fruition), they have significantly better weapons then those fighters in Afghan, they have significantly more resources and supplies at their behest, and most importantly they have superior numbers. There are millions upon millions of gun owners who would take up arms during an insurrection, the total number of military personnel in the United States numbers around 3 million men&women, and a large number of those are ancillary and support personnell, not direct combat forces. There also is the factor of whether or not US soldiers would fire upon their American brethren if they were given such orders. A study conducted a few years back indicated that if given orders to fire on unnarmed American citizens about 1/3 of people in the Armed forces indicated they would follow such orders. So, you would run into a situation SIMILAR to Syria, but different in that the numbers and SCALE is on a much much bigger platform then that conflict.

With regards to ANY comments about the "Wild West," made by Piers and his tabloid ilk, it simply has not happened. Piers is trying to deal in ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. Meaning when a person with an opposing view point says something, he extrapolates that into either an absolute or an extreme. When we say that people should have the choice to carry a concealed weapon into schools, movie theaters, bars, and other places where they're prohibited, his response is "So you believe that way to solve gun violence is to ARM EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MOVIE THEATER." Well clearly, that is not what the respondent said, he said people should be given the OPTION to do so. This notion that if it were permissible to conceal&carry into a movie theater or school, that EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PERSON would therefore buy a gun and carry it concealed into the theater is ludicirous. In all of the states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry has been established as a matter of law, the statistics are pretty CONSISTENT across all of the states issuing conceal&carry permits, and that is, that only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of that state chooses to get a conceal&carry permit, and from there, we have no evidence as to how many of those permit holders actually carry on a daily basis. This means that in a state with shall issue conceal&carry, with a population of 10 million people, about 100,000 people throughout that state have PERMITS to conceal&carry a firearm. Of those 100,000, its not clear how many actually exercise that right on a daily basis. The argument that myself and many others like me are advancing towards Piers, is to allow THOSE people who already posess the proper permits to carry their weapons with them into places like movie theaters, schools, banks, etc, to extend where they ALREADY carry their firearms, they are carrying their firearms with them all over town, running errands, going to the doctors office, going any number of places, we just want to expand the places those permit holders can carry their firearms, so we at least have a CHANCE at preventing unnecessary bloodshed. Unfortunately, Piers postulates that if we change a movie theater from a known "GUN FREE ZONE," into a place where licensed carry holders are able to carry their firearms, that EVERY SINGLE PATRON of the movie theater will then decide to become licensed, buy a firearm, and carry it into the theater.

Piers postulates that with "EVERYONE" being armed, something which is not only highly unlikely, but is proven statistically throughout the 42 states with SHALL ISSUE conceal&carry permits, EVERYONE will choose to get a CCW and carry on a daily basis, and that because of this, people will start to have shoot outs over trivial arguments such as parking spaces, cutting in line, and other mundane interactions of humans on a daily basis. Unfortunately for Piers, his postulates have been proven wrong by history and statistics. Since implenting shall issue CCW permits in Texas and Florida in 1986, the same arguments were made, but the incidences of those permit holders misusing their firearms for unlawful purposes was less <1.0%. Meaning, of the entire number of people who posess CCW permits, of that group, less than 1.0% of those permit holders committed some sort of crime which involved thier lawfully owned firearm and their permit. That is less than 1.0% over the ENTIRE TIME SINCE SHALL ISSUES INCEPTION IN 1986! So Piers' straw man arguments, fear tactics, and outright lies are nothing more than progressive liberal bias, having his opinions based completely on emotions, with absolutely no facts to back up such outrageous statements.

With regards to Piers himself, he came to America because he was embroiled in the phone hacking scandal of the tabloid news papers over in the UK. He is nothing more then a tabloid man who was for some reason unbeknownst to people with a functioning brain, given his own hour segment on CNN. He is not worthy of CNN, his credentials are seriously lacking with regards to being accepted as a serious newsman or political commentator. It is pathetic we have to listen to such people spout off their nonsense. No clearer example of the character of Piers (or lack there of), was his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, where Larry Pratt sternly expressed his disagreement with Piers, and Piers was unable to debate him civilly, and instead told Mr.Pratt, "You are an unbeievably stupid man aren't you?" Comments such as those are HARDLY the mark of a professional newsman or political commentator, but rather point to the true character of Piers, a glorified tabloid man.

With regards to his interview with Alex Jones. I found that painful to watch, if for no other reason than Alex made any valid points he tried to make rather inconsequential because of his irrate behavior, and essentially handed the debate over to Piers. Its one thing to be passionate about a subject and express your viewpoints rationally, but Alex Jones did the opposite, however that is sort of his "trademark" if you will, getting irrate, yelling, making a huge scene, being seen to take on 'the man,' or in Alex's case, the cabbal of "New World Order Reptillians," which he believes wants to enslave the planet, reduce the global population to 500 million, and make slaves out of the remaining people on Earth, while implanting them with RFID chips, and the complete dissollution of borders around the world. His news source is interesting only to get a completely different viewpoint and interpretation of the news, but for the most part, his so called 'news' is little more then a PR tool to get people to pay for his books,videos,etc. He's a shameless self-promoter, and I refrain from calling his ideas 'whacky' or 'looney,' because thats often what people do when they just simply want to discredit a person. However, I just believe his ideas are not based in reality much like those on the far left, I believe is ideas have an air of paranoia and lack real substance. His view points on some issues are correct, but a broken watch is right twice a day. I feel as though Pier's choice to include Alex Jones on his show, was a way to further degrade the gun rights advocates and to make them look like raving lunatics, like I said, Alex Jones large theatrics on television&radio program is widely known, there is no way that his producers did not know thats the result they'd get by bringing him on the air.

TGF, I totally agree; however, I have to say that a bunch of "poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources" giving us a run for our money as being a complete assessment of the true nature of the situation may not be accurate. There's the little issue of ROEs...Rules Of Engagement, along with a litany of other "legalities," that our all knowing all seeing political leaders have hamstrung our fighting forces with that plays heavily into their ability and capacity to effectively neutralize those "poorly trained" forces. Let those guys do the job the way they were taught and trained to do it, and then let's revisit this notion that a 3rd world force is holding it's own against our forces.

[thegodfather]

TGF, I totally agree; however, I have to say that a bunch of "poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources" giving us a run for our money as being a complete assessment of the true nature of the situation may not be accurate. There's the little issue of ROEs...Rules Of Engagement, along with a litany of other "legalities," that our all knowing all seeing political leaders have hamstrung our fighting forces with that plays heavily into their ability and capacity to effectively neutralize those "poorly trained" forces. Let those guys do the job the way they were taught and trained to do it, and then let's revisit this notion that a 3rd world force is holding it's own against our forces.

Well, perhaps my statement was a little too broad, I don't want to get into the entire argument about asymmetrical warfare in and of itself. Perhaps I should focus on individual situations....For instance, US forces engaged in a small arms firefight with a group of AAF (Anti-Afghan Forces), needing to call in an A-10 Thunderbolt to make numerous strafing runs with 30MM DU rounds, and the drop 1 or 2 500lb bombs on them. It's the fact that our forces cannot neutralize them just with the use of their own small arms and some vehicle turret mounted .50cals and M240 Bravos... The point being, that the AAF forces, and yes there may be some highly trained and experienced Mujahadeen from the 80s, but I'd contend many of them are dead, and the younger generation fighting us are simply poorly trained sheep herders and what not. Just those facts alone, means that we have to use a disproportionate amount of force in order to kill 20-30 AAF militants, if we evaluated the dollar amount that it took to kill a single AAF fighter, like dropping a GBU-12 Paveway at a cost of $19,000 to kill 20 AAF fighters, because our conventional forces are unable to do it, at least without a high amount of casualties. My overall point though, is that AAF forces number in the thousands, as opposed to an American contingent which would number in the millions, are able to be a thorn in the side of an advanced force with superior firepower. And that liberal media sources believe that because we have such an advanced military, that if the US government declared itself a dictatorship tomorrow, and there was an armed revolt, the overwhelming firepower of the US military would make armed citizens numbering in the millions no match what so ever. I just reject this notion, as the government would need to destroy massive amounts of its OWN infrastructure in order to defeat the people, as well as the fact that the people could be taking shots at tyrannical forces one moment, and then put their arms down and blend in among the populace the next moment, especially in dense population centers. Look at what Bashar Al-Assad is doing currently, yes he might be killing some insurgents/terrorists/rebels, but he's also practically leveling the city of Aleppo, the countries financial district&hub. Would a tyrannical US government be willing to level NYC in order to kill people opposed to a tyrannical US government? I dont beleive they would, as identifying who is a fighter and who isn't, would be almost impossible. So, in conclusion, the extremely large ownership of capable firearms in the United States, is indeed a formidable check&balance against tyrannical government, if one stops to give it any thought and mull over the logistics of it.

[zaggahamma]

interesting

has there ever been such valid fears /debates/theories prior to the obama admin?

[Metalject]

Us americans always talk about the economy which will be death to america. I believe this issue could cause some serious civilian uprising. Not that anyone is a match for the military, but if you try to come between a man and his guns (to protect him and his family) you are going to have a disaster on your hands.

Keep in mind that the priority of the military is to protect the country, not the government. That is something many countries cannot claim. The idea that some hold to that the entire military would support the government if it turned fully tyrannical is a very naiv notion. There are many in the military that do not support the direction the country is going, and if true leaders were to step up in the best interest of the nation, you can bet a large portion of our military would follow them.

And I know some will say that could never happen, but it's happened time and time again through the history of man and man is no different than he was 150yrs ago (U.S. civil war) or at any other time in history.

[OdinsOtherSon]

Well, perhaps my statement was a little too broad, I don't want to get into the entire argument about asymmetrical warfare in and of itself. Perhaps I should focus on individual situations....For instance, US forces engaged in a small arms firefight with a group of AAF (Anti-Afghan Forces), needing to call in an A-10 Thunderbolt to make numerous strafing runs with 30MM DU rounds, and the drop 1 or 2 500lb bombs on them. It's the fact that our forces cannot neutralize them just with the use of their own small arms and some vehicle turret mounted .50cals and M240 Bravos... The point being, that the AAF forces, and yes there may be some highly trained and experienced Mujahadeen from the 80s, but I'd contend many of them are dead, and the younger generation fighting us are simply poorly trained sheep herders and what not. Just those facts alone, means that we have to use a disproportionate amount of force in order to kill 20-30 AAF militants, if we evaluated the dollar amount that it took to kill a single AAF fighter, like dropping a GBU-12 Paveway at a cost of $19,000 to kill 20 AAF fighters, because our conventional forces are unable to do it, at least without a high amount of casualties. My overall point though, is that AAF forces number in the thousands, as opposed to an American contingent which would number in the millions, are able to be a thorn in the side of an advanced force with superior firepower. And that liberal media sources believe that because we have such an advanced military, that if the US government declared itself a dictatorship tomorrow, and there was an armed revolt, the overwhelming firepower of the US military would make armed citizens numbering in the millions no match what so ever. I just reject this notion, as the government would need to destroy massive amounts of its OWN infrastructure in order to defeat the people, as well as the fact that the people could be taking shots at tyrannical forces one moment, and then put their arms down and blend in among the populace the next moment, especially in dense population centers. Look at what Bashar Al-Assad is doing currently, yes he might be killing some insurgents/terrorists/rebels, but he's also practically leveling the city of Aleppo, the countries financial district&hub. Would a tyrannical US government be willing to level NYC in order to kill people opposed to a tyrannical US government? I dont beleive they would, as identifying who is a fighter and who isn't, would be almost impossible. So, in conclusion, the extremely large ownership of capable firearms in the United States, is indeed a formidable check&balance against tyrannical government, if one stops to give it any thought and mull over the logistics of it.

Keep in mind that the priority of the military is to protect the country, not the government. That is something many countries cannot claim. The idea that some hold to that the entire military would support the government if it turned fully tyrannical is a very naiv notion. There are many in the military that do not support the direction the country is going, and if true leaders were to step up in the best interest of the nation, you can bet a large portion of our military would follow them.

And I know some will say that could never happen, but it's happened time and time again through the history of man and man is no different than he was 150yrs ago (U.S. civil war) or at any other time in history.

TGF, your point is completely valid and well taken, to which I completely concur. Taking your point along with Metalject's I suppose my question becomes, "would the U.S. government engage it's own citizenry who may be involved in some form of revolt in the same fashion as it does the AAF, or as Metalject stated, the military exists to protect the country as opposed to the government, would the U.S. government engage it's own citizenry by ignoring the ROEs it so magnanimously allows it's enemies?" I'm putting my money on "we wouldn't be allowed the same ROEs."

BUT, I honestly believe that (at least as of today) the majority of our military personnel would not follow orders along those lines.

[Armykid93]

Piers VS Jesse Ventura on gun control from a week ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ENcfdAoWkU

A more level headed interview where Ventura makes some good points about the 2nd amendment.

Wow that was actually very good. Makes me respect piers more knowing his audience is legit

[Armykid93]

That's extremely well put godfather. Good read.

[cherrydrpepper]

Good stuff Godfather

I assume you wear reading glasses when you lift in case you need to write a novel between sets lol j/k

[thegodfather]

Good stuff Godfather

I assume you wear reading glasses when you lift in case you need to write a novel between sets lol j/k

Lol no asshole....I wear contacts, and most novels are fiction...I prefer political anlyses.

[cherrydrpepper]

Lol--

[lovbyts]

TheGodFather always writes a novel but its always worth reading.

Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physiciansper year are120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physicianis 0.171Statistics courtesy of US. Dept of Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deathsper year, all age groups,is1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deathsper gun owneris .0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

[EverettCD]

Good stuff. It's sad that I trust my gun toting friends but I have to question my Dr about my TRT protocol.

TheGodFather always writes a novel but its always worth reading.

Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physiciansper year are120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physicianis 0.171Statistics courtesy of US. Dept of Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deathsper year, all age groups,is1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deathsper gun owneris .0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

Sent from my iPhone using Forum

[tankerlife4ever]

As a non-American I'd be interested to know if anybody on here wants any kind of gun control what so ever. The argument that 'we' need to protect ourselves from the government can go a long way (and too me seems to be the central argument made historical for no gun control). Didn't New York ban some form of gun's and experience an immediate drop in gun related killings or am I way off.
Personally I'm middle of the road... restrictive licensing to those smart enough to write the test. That is what exists in my country and it seems a decent compromise.

[cherrydrpepper]

Didn't New York ban some form of gun's and experience an immediate drop in gun related killings or am I way off.

In some parts of the country they have banned guns and seen total murders / violence go up. No one ever wants to talk about that statistic though but think about it. You're a scumbag and your whole deal is that you like to break into peoples' houses and steal their stuff aren't you going to be happy they can't have a gun? Also when people can't have a gun they don't magically not kill someone that they would have if they had a gun. They just pick up a pipe, a knife, a baseball bat hell many of the people on this forum could do it with their bare hands and kill.

[EverettCD]

Banning guns is not the answer. The media makes it sound like guns do all the killing and that it has nothing to do with the person pulling the trigger.

In my 12+ years as a career fireman I have seen way too many people killed by many different methods. I can honestly say that the majority of them were not shootings (we do go to a lot of violent crime calls with PD & EMS but they are not all gun related). Many are like cherrydrpepper is describing, stabbings & beatings with various types of "weapons". Knives, scissors, lamps, baseball bats, crow bars & the list goes on. Just last week we made a run were a dude stabbed his neighbor with a lawnmower blade multiple times.

Banning guns is like banning forks & spoons. People will still get fat if you ban forks & spoons just like people will still get guns if they are banned.

[Metalject]

I like what Joe Biden said the other day and then what Glenn Beck said in response:

Biden on gun control and specific gun bans: If it saves even one life it should be banned.

Beck in response to Biden: If it saves even one life we should ban cars, scissors, water, peanuts, and hammers if it saves even one life.

[thegodfather]

As a non-American I'd be interested to know if anybody on here wants any kind of gun control what so ever. The argument that 'we' need to protect ourselves from the government can go a long way (and too me seems to be the central argument made historical for no gun control). Didn't New York ban some form of gun's and experience an immediate drop in gun related killings or am I way off.
Personally I'm middle of the road... restrictive licensing to those smart enough to write the test. That is what exists in my country and it seems a decent compromise.

Yes I'm in favor of reasonable gun control, such as using both hands when you aim at your target, having situational awareness of whats behind the person you're shooting when saving your life or the life of others, and shooting the weapon in an accurate enough manner to shoot your target enough times to end the threat. Hazzah!

[Armykid93]

In some parts of the country they have banned guns and seen total murders / violence go up. No one ever wants to talk about that statistic though but think about it. You're a scumbag and your whole deal is that you like to break into peoples' houses and steal their stuff aren't you going to be happy they can't have a gun? Also when people can't have a gun they don't magically not kill someone that they would have if they had a gun. They just pick up a pipe, a knife, a baseball bat hell many of the people on this forum could do it with their bare hands and kill.

x2 banning guns and I'll even go as far as making stricter laws will do nothing good for this country

[lovbyts]

Yes I'm in favor of reasonable gun control, such as using both hands when you aim at your target, having situational awareness of whats behind the person you're shooting when saving your life or the life of others, and shooting the weapon in an accurate enough manner to shoot your target enough times to end the threat. Hazzah!

Is your real name Ben Shapiro and were you on with Piers Morgan the other night? Ben Shapiro sure schooled Morgan calmly and logically. I only heard part of it but it was good and reminded me of TheGodFather.

[EverettCD]

Two thumbs up for the correct type of gun control.

Yes I'm in favor of reasonable gun control, such as using both hands when you aim at your target, having situational awareness of whats behind the person you're shooting when saving your life or the life of others, and shooting the weapon in an accurate enough manner to shoot your target enough times to end the threat. Hazzah!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum