Alex Jones life Threatened On National TV

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I'm not saying the 2nd amendment should be repealed or modified in anyway..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...

reply to post by miniatus


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

reply to post by miniatus


Everyone keeps questioning needing an assault rifle. I don't. That is the most obvious thing needed.

Lets play the scenario of the current administration and their fight in court recently, over indefinite confinement of American's without a trial, and how the judge overturned that legislation for it is most definitely against the constitution and due process. But then mysteriously changed her mind???? So now Obama has signed it into existence.

Why would they want to make people disappear, who they don't like? They feel by signing an unlawful piece of legislation, one that is a crime against humanity and does not stand on the backbone of the constitution (hence no matter what judge lets it pass, its still intrinsically ILLEGAL and no different the Hitlers legislation): that they can make people disappear.

Now if you were armed militia going to apprehend a family on an organic farm that was going to "disappear", you're going to be armed with assualt weapons.

So if grandma, and uncle Harry, and Bertha, and Mom/Dad, and some teens greet you with hand guns, no biggie????

This assualt rifle scenario is very strongly linked to the illegal legislation that allows them to detain people indefinitely, ie. your raw milk guy down the road, your organic farmer, anyone they want the land from, at all.....!!!!

The more people have them, the messier apprehending those people will get.

I think we all need to be armed, and well trained with use of those arms and that includes some of those more exotic weapons that make capture of a family a lot harder.

Alex Jones is a planted bug working with Piers Morgan to take your guns away.

The evidence is provided here...

[spam link removed]

First off, did anyone expect anything different from AJ? He went on to kick the establishment in the nads and get people talking. The word "democide" was even trending right after the broadcast. www.abovetopsecret.com...

He also proved the hypocrisy of these so-called liberals. You can't have guns...and we'll kill you to get our way?
Same knuckleheads that support Obama running Bush's foreign policy for the last four years.

Piers Morgan should just change the name of his show to, "Repeal the 2nd Amendment." All he does is ask the same stupid questions over and over while using skewed, one-sided stats. GO HOME WANKER!

Stay Safe Alex!

reply to post by miniatus


A semi-automatic rifle that has some militaristic features is called a sport rifle, not an assault rifle.

To have an assault rifle means it must have automatic capabilities and they are usually called select-fire weapons.

The government has confused lots of people probably intentionally! There is no good reason to ban ANY semi-auto weapon regardless if it is for hunting, target shooting or as part of the militia effort. And the maximum 10 round magazine/clip allowance is also nonsense.

I have been saying for years only automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds could/should be banned. I have no problem with reasonable gun regulation just for the tiny possibility that some whacko finds the need to go on a shooting spree against unarmed innocents. Nevermind the hypocrisy that some schools can have 11 armed guards protecting kids(like the school obama's daughter attends) and others have 1 or none.

I couldn't wait for the Alex vs Piere showdown to come on. He lived up to my expectations it was awesome. If he had said this kind of crap about them they'd freak out. I love the put a uniform on him then it's ok to shoot him part. I see your true colors...

reply to post by DjembeJedi


apparently his purpose was to demonstrate that the "gun nuts" are indeed nuts, and that the soccer moms and "reasonable citizens" out there should accept the fact that they will have to be taken out through military assaults, sooner or later.

this guy is bad news -- how about that stratfor connection? and to think that jesse v has been taken in by him! jesse needs to get wise quick, if he's the man many of us want to believe he is.

reply to post by DjembeJedi


apparently his purpose was to demonstrate that the "gun nuts" are indeed nuts, and that the soccer moms and "reasonable citizens" out there should accept the fact that they will have to be taken out through military assaults, sooner or later.

this guy is bad news -- how about that stratfor connection? and to think that jesse v has been taken in by him! jesse needs to get wise quick, if he's the man many of us want to believe he is.

it looks to me like piers was very much in on the 'joke,' with his remarkable poise and indulgence of the 'raving maniac.' they performed well as a team, a little too well for anyone with an inkling.

You know.....
People like to say things about AJ like "Oh he looks like a lunatic" and such things. I thought about it some, and he's not the one that looks like a lunatic to me.

The lunatic is the one that sits there with a smile on their face, being paid to deliver propaganda day in and day out, putting a friendly smiley pretty spin on it. And the morons that swallow it hook line and sinker.

I think the sane people are the ones getting angry, and are actually concerned about our individual rights being legislated and EOed away year after year.

Originally posted by TKDRL
You know.....
People like to say things about AJ like "Oh he looks like a lunatic" and such things. I thought about it some, and he's not the one that looks like a lunatic to me.

The lunatic is the one that sits there with a smile on their face, being paid to deliver propaganda day in and day out, putting a friendly smiley pretty spin on it. And the morons that swallow it hook line and sinker.

I think the sane people are the ones getting angry, and are actually concerned about our individual rights being legislated and EOed away year after year.

edit on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:17:04 -0600 by TKDRL because: there their they're grrrr

I agree, I just think Alex could have been a bit more prepared to do some actual debating. Its true, that his anger should be seen in its proper context and light. People,are sick and tired of what is happening in the world.
Alex Jones has always been "over the top" and he has made some *Major* mistakes in the past, and that is a result of his own inability to reign himself in. In that sense, he is a "loose cannon"-but he does speak the truth on many serious issues.

reply to post by TKDRL


piers and his ilk aren't 'lunatics' if they know full well what their proganda role and rewards actually are; lunatics are those that buy their malevolent garbage. and just because aj acts like a lunatic doesn't make him one. look into his profile a little deeper--he doesn't add up (stratfor, hello!)

like i said, this dual performance tells mr. and mrs. middle america that 'these people' are crazy, and that the feds are going to be justified dealing with them accordingly. get it?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I personally don't care what they're called, semi automatics, assualt guns. Because as a Canadian, wasn't raised to know much about guns, in fact, we're not allowed to defend ourselves with mace. Although I did question a police officer once and found out we can make our own habanero pepper spray, (I've thought of loading some supersized squirt gun type things with them or maybe a tank and spray hose) and adding some neat, hair removal to the mix). I asked him if it was legal to use neat on someone as well. He was surprised and said yes, but why? I thought even better than turning them green with dye witness, would be to spray with homemade pepper spray and then leave them something to remember us by. The police would be able find the guy easily enough, the one losing chunks of his hair, all red and inflamed. That would limit the number of suspects.

To even be in a scenario of figuring something like that out, that we haven't implimented due to the expense of constantly making pepper spray, and alot harder to keep safe from the kids, who could use it to harm each other than to lock away a gun, is ludicrous.

But no matter what you call those kind of weapons, the reason why they can't be banned is because if they want to target family farms in the night, or people who speak up, and make them disappear without due process, they're going to have a harder time than a fully armed militia taking out someone's grandmother armed with a pistol.

Thats why TPTB want the semi automatics. Grandma with a pistol is a pushover to armed militia.

Its the armed militia that would round people up, dissidents and steal land from farmers!

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I personally don't care what they're called, semi automatics, assualt guns. Because as a Canadian, wasn't raised to know much about guns, in fact, we're not allowed to defend ourselves with mace. Although I did question a police officer once and found out we can make our own habanero pepper spray, (I've thought of loading some supersized squirt gun type things with them or maybe a tank and spray hose) and adding some neat, hair removal to the mix). I asked him if it was legal to use neat on someone as well. He was surprised and said yes, but why? I thought even better than turning them green with dye witness, would be to spray with homemade pepper spray and then leave them something to remember us by. The police would be able find the guy easily enough, the one losing chunks of his hair, all red and inflamed. That would limit the number of suspects.

To even be in a scenario of figuring something like that out, that we haven't implimented due to the expense of constantly making pepper spray, and alot harder to keep safe from the kids, who could use it to harm each other than to lock away a gun, is ludicrous.

But no matter what you call those kind of weapons, the reason why they can't be banned is because if they want to target family farms in the night, or people who speak up, and make them disappear without due process, they're going to have a harder time than a fully armed militia taking out someone's grandmother armed with a pistol.

Thats why TPTB want the semi automatics. Grandma with a pistol is a pushover to armed militia.

Its the armed militia that would round people up, dissidents and steal land from farmers!

You must be smoking some good stuff there. Your own country is known for it's low crime rates and you have just revealed that it has gun control laws in place. See the link?

And what is all this about attacking family farms? How do you come to this conclusion? Honestly, I find your totally unjustified paranoia sad and amusing at the same time.

Take a chill pill. You're in Canada.

Alex Jones is a showman who's job (it seems) is to stir peoples' emotions enough to make them look things up for themselves. Although the first couple of minutes of the interview made me cringe, it is clear what Piers Morgan was up to. He was going to play the calm, rational non-violent type while he asked bull-crap stat questions that would make it appear as though he had every sane and rational right to want to ban guns in this country. If Alex had let him do that, there would not have been any opportunity for Alex to get his point across. Morgan generally doesn't let his interviewees speak. This time he got a dose of his own medicine.

I don't listen to Infowars, I don't listen to Alex Jones (except on occasions like this), but I will acknowledge that he talks about subjects nobody else in the public eye is willing to touch. Some of them are truth, some of them are bunk. Pick and choose. Research. Morgan tried to make him out to be a crazy, paranoid, gun-touting idiot. Alex is not crazy, he's not an idiot, and he has every right to want to preserve his rights to defend himself even against the Government who will come at him with unbelievable firepower. Paranoid? Maybe... but aren't we all?

If you can watch that interview, take away Alex's crazy-sounding shouting and focus ONLY on the points he made during that interview, you will find that he made more than enough great points as to why we need to fight our politicians and keep our ability to defend ourselves with the same or similar type weapons that those in higher power would use against us. Disarming the public is not going to reduce crime. It will make us more vulnerable to those who either never gave a damn about the laws in this country in the first place, as well as those who make the laws.

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by GaucheDroite

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by Baguul
Say whatever you want about AJ, this type of rhetoric is insidious and heinous, not to mention illegal and hypocritical. I

"insidious and heinous" - Why? Because AJ's own organisation (predictably) saw an opportunity and sold it to their audiences as such? No one actually shot AJ or any of his family did they? This is a victimless "crime" made by a person exercising their right to freedom of speech.

"illegal" - Please can you point me to the law stating this as illegal. In fact, I recall a law supporting it. It's called the 1st Amendment. If the individual you're accusing had said it as a call to action (as opposed to satire and irony) to the viewers of the show, then I think there would be good reason get upset about it because then it could be directly attributed as malicious and with ill-intent.

"hypocritical" - Why is it hypocritical?

edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicBob because: Fixed some wording

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.