Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan - 1776 Will Commence Again' If Guns Taken Away

[SnusoMatic]

I am getting in late but have to put my two cents in on this one.

There should not even be a debate about gun ownership at all. The reason? The United States Constitution IS THE LAW. Not our presidents or anyone else. If someone makes a law that breaks THE law then that law is illegal. I can hear some of you already thinking "if a judge says its constitutional then it is legal". Go back to the Constitution

"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." Go back to THE LAW... at the beginning *our* constitution reads "We the People of the United States" not us government. All of our elected officials take this oath

I "solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God."

Military take a similar oath.

It is illegal for our (any and all of) our presidents to make executive orders. Period.

The framers of our constitution were absolutely clear about how it should be used and not used. When it comes to the Second Amendment they even put "shall not be infringed" at the end. If one studies their constitution the 2ed is one of the shortest and to the point of all the amendments. Why does that matter? Because less words leave less room for interpretation.

One needs to remember that article one section eight (says a lot more than just this. just being clear) states "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

The point? When they wrote these things they never intended for us to have a standing army outside of war. Their meaning of Militia was you and I *not* the federal government. They did not want the government to be stronger than the states or the people. As a matter of fact they wanted the federal government to depend on the states and not the other way around ( as it is now ).

We have to understand that no matter what we as individuals think gun laws should be The U.S. Constitution is the law. If *we* (as in We The People) want this changed legally the change must happen according to the constitution. If it gets done any other way then it is illegal. You might say well heck man there has been lots of laws made that break the constitution. What I say to that is those laws are illegal and the people responsible for making and enforcing them are criminals, oath breakers, liars and traitors to "their" country.

It should also be said that the constitution is written in simple language that almost anyone can understand. It is so easy to understand that even I can do it. I am willing to bet that not one in a hundred US citizens have ever read it through. I bet not 1 in 1000 under the age of 18 ever has read more than 50 words of it. It is online all over the place and easy to find. Also, if one wants to do some background study that is all over the net also.

Our government keeps us debating over should anyone have more than a single shot shotgun and we don't even know our rights. For those who want gun control you should learn how to make it happen and not wish some man we elected will do it for us. By the way, i will go on record as saying if they cut down any more on our gun rights that is the day you can really start kissing the rest of your rights away. Why? Because people in the know are aware that if they can take the little gun rights we have left away and get away with it then they can get away with anything they want. Not just because we need guns to keep them at bay (as the framers intended) but because We The People are dead set they won't get away with it. So if they do then we are toast.

My personal feelings about guns...... I own a few guns but overall I wish no one had them at all. But I also know that aint ever gonna happen. I live in a pretty high crime area. Just last night I heard a shoot out not 3-4 blocks away from my house. Why would I want to live here and just wait to be killed? If someone breaks into my house should I call the cops and wait? If I do most likely the cops will find me and my wife dead when they arrive. And yes guns ownership by citizens does detour crime. Notice I used detour because what's gonna happen is when Joe Lowlife gets ready to break in a house he will pass mine by and go to yours. I know many of people who have shot people coming in their homes. Just in the last year or so a guy a street over was broken into by 3-4 punks. Once inside they came at him but he pulled his 9mm out and blew one of their heads off and the rest ran. He has the safest house any where around here now.

I wish we lived in a safer country but be realistic, we don't. Right or wrong the only thing Our Constitution says about gun control is that there won't be *any*.

What we need to do is start raising our kids right and holding parents responsible for what they do. Quit locking people up 20 times for violent crime and either put them away for good or just take them off the planet. Oh and quit locking people up for silly stuff that the constitution don't allow. Such as using drugs, not paying taxes, and a slew of other "crimes" that involve people "breaking" illegal laws.

By the way, Obama is just one president who has done things wrong. Bush makes Obama look like a little kid when it comes to those things. I think we lost our last hope when we turned Ron Paul away. Bye bye what was left of the constitution. I personally would never react with violence. I believe that would be wrong. But hey, most gun owners I know are not like me. If guns get more control than a certain level I think it will start with what we consider nut jobs but slowly less nuts will fall in. It won't be nice. I hope that don't happen but history says it will.

Weeew guess I should feel better but I don't. I need to put some fresh snus in haha


Update: this thread was about Alex Jones and Piers Morgan. I think Alex Jones is a profiteer and it's pretty easy to tell when he gets a chance he blows his bag. iow, he is full of crap. Mostly i think he does those things to get attention. I also think sometimes he might tell a few big ones. At the same time not many other high profile people yell about our rights. I just wish he would act human when a lot of regular people are watching. in a nutshell (no pun intended) mostly the way he acts has gained him millions of listeners and probably dollars too.

Piers Morgan.... He does have the right of free speech to say what he wants. Even not being a citizen here he still has that legal right. I just wish he had enough sense to know why he has that right and respect our (not his) constitution. At the same time I have the legal right to say what I think too. I think he should get on the next plane back home where he likes it so well. Why in the world does he come over here for if he wants to change it? American rights have been guarded by a bunch of drunks and whores better than his sorry butt.

[sgreger1]

My point here is that while SSRIs may be perceived as beneficial, the side effects are serious, and can come on without warning. They are inherently dangerous, and their link to violent episodes is undeniable.

This same exact sentence could be applied to alcohol, and it would be even more true. I don't let fear run me. Having a bunch of people with mental health issues OFF their meds would probably cause more crazy shit than we see now. The reason you don't see double the shootings is because the other half of the crazies are on their meds.


Edit: Also, suicide on SSRI's is only prevalent in those who previously had suicidal thoughts, which is why you are asked about such things before being prescribed them. If you have had thoughts of suicide no doctor should prescribe them. No pill makes you get up and murder someone. There is no science behind that statement. Not any more than me saying alcohol makes you beat your wife. Sure I could find a website full of people that claim alcohol made them beat their wife, but they would all be wrong.

I agree with all your other points but the medication one is something that doesn't seem to have much evidence behind it.

[sgreger1]

I am getting in late but have to put my two cents in on this one.

There should not even be a debate about gun ownership at all. The reason? The United States Constitution IS THE LAW. Not our presidents or anyone else. If someone makes a law that breaks THE law then that law is illegal. I can hear some of you already thinking "if a judge says its constitutional then it is legal". Go back to the Constitution

"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." Go back to THE LAW... at the beginning *our* constitution reads "We the People of the United States" not us government. All of our elected officials take this oath

I "solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God."

Military take a similar oath.

It is illegal for our (any and all of) our presidents to make executive orders. Period.

The framers of our constitution were absolutely clear about how it should be used and not used. When it comes to the Second Amendment they even put "shall not be infringed" at the end. If one studies their constitution the 2ed is one of the shortest and to the point of all the amendments. Why does that matter? Because less words leave less room for interpretation.

One needs to remember that article one section eight (says a lot more than just this. just being clear) states "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

The point? When they wrote these things they never intended for us to have a standing army outside of war. Their meaning of Militia was you and I *not* the federal government. They did not want the government to be stronger than the states or the people. As a matter of fact they wanted the federal government to depend on the states and not the other way around ( as it is now ).

We have to understand that no matter what we as individuals think gun laws should be The U.S. Constitution is the law. If *we* (as in We The People) want this changed legally the change must happen according to the constitution. If it gets done any other way then it is illegal. You might say well heck man there has been lots of laws made that break the constitution. What I say to that is those laws are illegal and the people responsible for making and enforcing them are criminals, oath breakers, liars and traitors to "their" country.

It should also be said that the constitution is written in simple language that almost anyone can understand. It is so easy to understand that even I can do it. I am willing to bet that not one in a hundred US citizens have ever read it through. I bet not 1 in 1000 under the age of 18 ever has read more than 50 words of it. It is online all over the place and easy to find. Also, if one wants to do some background study that is all over the net also.

Our government keeps us debating over should anyone have more than a single shot shotgun and we don't even know our rights. For those who want gun control you should learn how to make it happen and not wish some man we elected will do it for us. By the way, i will go on record as saying if they cut down any more on our gun rights that is the day you can really start kissing the rest of your rights away. Why? Because people in the know are aware that if they can take the little gun rights we have left away and get away with it then they can get away with anything they want. Not just because we need guns to keep them at bay (as the framers intended) but because We The People are dead set they won't get away with it. So if they do then we are toast.

My personal feelings about guns...... I own a few guns but overall I wish no one had them at all. But I also know that aint ever gonna happen. I live in a pretty high crime area. Just last night I heard a shoot out not 3-4 blocks away from my house. Why would I want to live here and just wait to be killed? If someone breaks into my house should I call the cops and wait? If I do most likely the cops will find me and my wife dead when they arrive. And yes guns ownership by citizens does detour crime. Notice I used detour because what's gonna happen is when Joe Lowlife gets ready to break in a house he will pass mine by and go to yours. I know many of people who have shot people coming in their homes. Just in the last year or so a guy a street over was broken into by 3-4 punks. Once inside they came at him but he pulled his 9mm out and blew one of their heads off and the rest ran. He has the safest house any where around here now.

I wish we lived in a safer country but be realistic, we don't. Right or wrong the only thing Our Constitution says about gun control is that there won't be *any*.

What we need to do is start raising our kids right and holding parents responsible for what they do. Quit locking people up 20 times for violent crime and either put them away for good or just take them off the planet. Oh and quit locking people up for silly stuff that the constitution don't allow. Such as using drugs, not paying taxes, and a slew of other "crimes" that involve people "breaking" illegal laws.

By the way, Obama is just one president who has done things wrong. Bush makes Obama look like a little kid when it comes to those things. I think we lost our last hope when we turned Ron Paul away. Bye bye what was left of the constitution. I personally would never react with violence. I believe that would be wrong. But hey, most gun owners I know are not like me. If guns get more control than a certain level I think it will start with what we consider nut jobs but slowly less nuts will fall in. It won't be nice. I hope that don't happen but history says it will.

Weeew guess I should feel better but I don't. I need to put some fresh snus in haha


Update: this thread was about Alex Jones and Piers Morgan. I think Alex Jones is a profiteer and it's pretty easy to tell when he gets a chance he blows his bag. iow, he is full of crap. Mostly i think he does those things to get attention. I also think sometimes he might tell a few big ones. At the same time not many other high profile people yell about our rights. I just wish he would act human when a lot of regular people are watching. in a nutshell (no pun intended) mostly the way he acts has gained him millions of listeners and probably dollars too.

Piers Morgan.... He does have the right of free speech to say what he wants. Even not being a citizen here he still has that legal right. I just wish he had enough sense to know why he has that right and respect our (not his) constitution. At the same time I have the legal right to say what I think too. I think he should get on the next plane back home where he likes it so well. Why in the world does he come over here for if he wants to change it? American rights have been guarded by a bunch of drunks and whores better than his sorry butt.

Absolutely glorious, I wish this were published in the newspaper because you put it so clearly: "If someone makes a law that breaks THE law then that law is illegal."

Plain as day.

Now someone will of course come and start talking about "Well slavery was once THE law lol" etc etc, which will then prompt me to redirect you back to SnusoMatics point that if you want to change THE law, then there are channels to do that, as was done to rid our nation of slavery. Anything other than changing THE law is just pointless illegal bullshit that should be overthrown by the courts. Oh wait SCOTUS has already ruled multiple times Re: the right to bear arms. The discussion is over, we have a right to own guns plain and simple. I like Obama a lot more than I did when he first got elected, but if he uses an executive order to do something stupid I am going to be really pissed.

[Crow]

Now someone will of course come and start talking about "Well slavery was once THE law lol" etc etc, which will then prompt me to redirect you back to SnusoMatics point that if you want to change THE law, then there are channels to do that, as was done to rid our nation of slavery.

I'm not advocating this in any way, but as you just pointed out; there are ways to change the law (constitutional, in this instance):

Ratify an amendment to repeal the second amendment... Or, ratify an amendment to restrict the powers of the second amendment.

There are 2 avenues that can be taken to achieve this... First method would be that two-thirds of Congress propose the amendment OR through a national convention assembled by two-thirds of Congress (this method has never been attempted).

Of course, repeal of the second amendment through either channels is unrealistic. Restricting powers of the second amendment through a new amendment is slightly more plausible, but again, it's unrealistic (as you would not only need 2/3 of congress to propose or call a national convention, but after proposal; you would need 3/4 of the state's approval [38 states] or through state ratifying conventions in 3/4 of states.

... and I can easily name over a dozen states that would be firmly opposed to ANY amendment that abolishes or restricts the power of the second amendment.

[sgreger1]

I'm not advocating this in any way, but as you just pointed out; there are ways to change the law (constitutional, in this instance):

Ratify an amendment to repeal the second amendment... Or, ratify an amendment to restrict the powers of the second amendment.

There are 2 avenues that can be taken to achieve this... First method would be that two-thirds of Congress propose the amendment OR through a national convention assembled by two-thirds of Congress (this method has never been attempted).

Of course, repeal of the second amendment through either channels is unrealistic. Restricting powers of the second amendment through a new amendment is slightly more plausible, but again, it's unrealistic (as you would not only need 2/3 of congress to propose or call a national convention, but after proposal; you would need 3/4 of the state's approval [38 states] or through state ratifying conventions in 3/4 of states.

... and I can easily name over a dozen states that would be firmly opposed to ANY amendment that abolishes or restricts the power of the second amendment.

Exactly though, there are legal ways of changing it, but good ****ing luck doing it. That's why i'm saying it's not even a debate at this point, SCOTUS is on our side, THE law is on our side, unless you can get dems and reps to work together in an unprecedented constitutional convention and get 38 states to all agree on something (lol), than we can see why this will never happen.

And this is all by design. Removing rights SHOULD be hard. A bunch of scared housewives who hear about a shooting on the news should not be able to moan and scream until everyone else's rights are taken away so that they can maintain the illusion of safety. Because that's all it is, an illusion. I feel safe as shit in my house, as should anyone, because the world is a scary place but that's okay we can't change that, but when mass hysteria kicks in they'll have you taking off your shoes and checking your buttholes at the airport. I can not believe anyone is FOR taking away peoples rights it's mind boggling to me.

[SnusNoob]

This is ****ing hilarious.

[Frosted]

Nice to see you Sgreger.

Yeah - when Alex went on about the meds thing it blew me away. Two days ago we had a problem with a paranoid schizophrenic - to sum the incident up, he was off his medication, not on this planet at all and was a danger to himself and others. He was so off his head that it was plain scary.
The godparent of one of my children is on strong antidepressants which is why he's still alive. My own father's life was put back in order after a short spell on meds. Seeing what an ill person is like if they refuse to take their medication is worrying and depressing.

On the guns issue, as it's in your constitution, I don't believe the American government will change it. There's so much support for it that the Obama would be risking civil unrest if he were to try to change it.

[Bigblue1]

You guys are misunderstanding what Alex said about SSRI's. If any of you think they should be "pushed" the way they are you are insane. I've seen them work too. But that doesn't mean everybody who has a bad day/week/moth/year should be put on them. Same goes for ADDH drugs that are handed out like candy and half the kids that get them prescribed are selling them to others for cram sessions. I'm sorry were talking about the epitome of the term "hard drugs" here. Jesus Christ pot's still Illegal but doctors can spread about hard core Psychotropic meds willy nilly and that's ok. How bout the fact barring the last nutter and only because it hasn't been proven yet, has been on these drugs. Like Alex said the #1 cause of unnatural death in this country is now suicide. I know it's a bit of conjecture at this point but if Big Pharma wasn't the beast that it is we would see causation between the drugs and suicide/Murder... I'm glad it helps some but the way it is prescribed is nothing more than profiteering off of the week and feeble minded....

[Frosted]

The prescribing of drugs willy nilly is definately a problem where it exists. I remember queuing up at my pharmacist for something and the young child in front of me, I'd say they were about 7 years of age was getting antidepressants. But then again on the other hand I don't know anybody that has been prescribed drugs in the UK where they don't really need them - that's not to say it doesn't happen, I just haven't that experience. The US could naturally be a different story - I know that if you go private here they'll give you anything you want because you're paying.

[Crow]

You guys are misunderstanding what Alex said about SSRI's. If any of you think they should be "pushed" the way they are you are insane. I've seen them work too. But that doesn't mean everybody who has a bad day/week/moth/year should be put on them. Same goes for ADDH drugs that are handed out like candy and half the kids that get them prescribed are selling them to others for cram sessions.

While I recognise that SSRIs have the potential to incite violent tendencies in certain individuals; I don't think it's fair to blame the drug itself. Loosely prescribing said drugs and not adequately monitoring the patient could be considered a major factor in gun violence, but it's not the root cause of gun violence.

I might have to watch the video again if I missed something, but my understanding is that he is opposed to specific pharmaceuticals (SSRIs and the like) solely because it has the potential to cause violent tendencies (whether that's towards someone else, or themselves). Hence his coined term, "suicide pills" and "mass murder pills".

Also, this isn't the first class of medication that he opposes. He adamantly opposes flu shots as well...........and fluoridated water.

I'll be honest with you... I don't take him seriously, but I admire his imagination. It's like "1984" with a twist.

[Mordred]

Nice to see you Sgreger.

Yeah - when Alex went on about the meds thing it blew me away. Two days ago we had a problem with a paranoid schizophrenic - to sum the incident up, he was off his medication, not on this planet at all and was a danger to himself and others. He was so off his head that it was plain scary.
The godparent of one of my children is on strong antidepressants which is why he's still alive. My own father's life was put back in order after a short spell on meds. Seeing what an ill person is like if they refuse to take their medication is worrying and depressing.

What most people tend to forget is the simple fact that people taking anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and other such medications had a serious problem to begin with. And most of the time, the meds can suppress the problem but only rarely do they cure it. So yeah, blaming the meds is a bit silly.

Which is not to say that you should hand out Prozac, Ritalin et al. like candy, mind you.

[Frosted]

Oh they absoloutely don't cure it but they give some serious solid help.

[squeezyjohn]

I'm not going to get in to the whole guns thing on this forum again.

Just popping my head in to let you all know that my own unique brand of dyslexia read the title as:

"Aled Jones vs Piers Morgan ...."

That's a fight I'd pay to see

[Frosted]

I'm not going to get in to the whole guns thing on this forum again.

[sgreger1]

You guys are misunderstanding what Alex said about SSRI's. If any of you think they should be "pushed" the way they are you are insane. I've seen them work too. But that doesn't mean everybody who has a bad day/week/moth/year should be put on them. Same goes for ADDH drugs that are handed out like candy and half the kids that get them prescribed are selling them to others for cram sessions. I'm sorry were talking about the epitome of the term "hard drugs" here. Jesus Christ pot's still Illegal but doctors can spread about hard core Psychotropic meds willy nilly and that's ok. How bout the fact barring the last nutter and only because it hasn't been proven yet, has been on these drugs. Like Alex said the #1 cause of unnatural death in this country is now suicide. I know it's a bit of conjecture at this point but if Big Pharma wasn't the beast that it is we would see causation between the drugs and suicide/Murder... I'm glad it helps some but the way it is prescribed is nothing more than profiteering off of the week and feeble minded....

Well certainly they shouldn't be pushed, I don't think anyone is saying that. And yah just like w/ antibiotics I feel that they are over-prescribed. I don't think this is part of an agenda (aside form perhaps a money making agenda), and I think that these medicines, while they do have side efects, can be a positive force for many people. This last year was really bad for me as my anxiety for some reason got to the point where I constantly had to go to the ER because I was convinced I was having heart attacks or strokes, I even lost consciousness and everything but it's all in the mind and the mind is a powerful thing. A little extra seratonin and bam it's all better again now with no noticeable side effects.

Like with all medicine, it is up to the physician to weigh the benefits/risks and do what is right. If something like depression, anxiety, or anything else is disturbing your life to the point where it is having a detrimental effect on you, than perhaps prescribing medication may be the right choice. For younger kids though I am still convinced that medications should really be kept to an absolute minimum, I mean during the developmental stages I would be very hesitant to put my kids on ADHD drugs for example.

As far as the fact that these shooters are on psych meds, you must remember correlation does not mean causation. The people who perform these acts are mentally ill, hence it would be expected that the common denominator between them is that they are all on some sort of anti-psychotic medication. This is not to say the medication did it, as in fact it is usually the opposite, people off their meds are the ones who usually go crazy. Claiming meds made you do it is like the twinky defence, "the pills made me do it!". If people undrstood how seratonin reuptake worked and the mechanism behind it's action, you would see why it would be difficult to draw a causal link between them and murdering people. Serotonin isn't really responsible for that.