Opinions on Alex Jones

,

 

'If you sat in a room and knew i had a sidearm, You would keep your tone and temper under control wouldnt you? You wouldnt run off at the mouth would you?'

If you are saying people are not allowed to do that around you - that's bullying.
I suspect you meant that people would be frightened to step out of line.
You don't have the right to dictate what I do or say if I'm not harming you.
I should be able to call you a fucking dick head, and your response should not be: 'You feel lucky, punk?'

I think RooRshack was saying you are a little unhinged, and too quick to use a gun to settle your disputes, and might use it in the wrong way.

I said hysterical.

There are restrictions. You just can't restrict the hysterical or people that don't have good judgement - plus a multitude of other reason that would make a person use a gun in the wrong circumstances.

That's the crux - and my issue...

 

So you're saying you'd just bully people, and you think it would be nice if everyone had a gun, because then everyone would expect you to have a gun, so they would be afraid of you, and treat you more nicely than you deserve.

No, I would speak how I do, and act how I do. The difference is that all the people like you would have your way. I'm far from against guns, but you're obviously the type of person who..... should not even be in the same room with a gun, much less actually own one.

What we NEED is a way to ensure that americans as a whole keep the right to bear arms, but that people like you lose the right to bear arms. If you could not own a gun, 70% could still be armed, without having crazy "I DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE ARE CRAZY AND VIOLENT, THAT'S MY RIGHT, AND IF YOU TRY TO TAKE IT I'LL KILL YOU" typees like you running around.[/QUOTE]


I agree with your sentiment. I've always felt as though acquiring gun ownership should at-least come with a psychiatric evaluation. Those who are even somewhat functioning, capable, law-abiding citizens whom display relatively low-levels of inherit aggression deserve the right to self-defense by all and any means.

 

ugh, it won't let me fix the quote. oh wellz.

 

It will - YOU can't

 

Hah, my hipforums incompetence is showing.

 

If you know what should be at the start and end of a quote...

QUOTE=username;7509519
QUOTE
/QUOTE
(Including [])

...you can't really go wrong.

I have, also, though. No big deal.
'preview' is king.

 

I should have used "bob and joe".

Say bob had a sidearm and joe didnt. Joe gets all pissed off for some reason or another, And decides to throw a fit. Bob is sitting there calm and quiet.
In the back of joes head he knows bob never leaves home with out his .45.
Joe argues a little more and they calm down. Maybe he thought, If "I" piss this guy off and swing or threaten his well being in any way", He has the right to defend himself with every means possible.
Bob is not that type of guy, But if he is, He is in the right. Saying that bob would be in the wrong, Gun or no gun, He has his right to carry and is a humble man, Is the reason the world is today.

I like that "quick to bully" bullshit. Two types of people, You get bullyed or you are in one way or another, A bully yourself. How about, "stop blaming" for your slogan?

 

For some reason it looks like you removed your signature.

'People are a product of their environment. Now do you see the problem you stupid humans!'

I thought it very apt in this discussion.

Using "bob and joe"does not change the scenario or my response.
It's not really a good e.g.
It's almost a wild west mentality.
I do understand what you mean - I just don't agree with it.
Use that scenario with complete strangers and you have bedlam.

 

What do you mean?

Do you agree with Pressed Rat that - lets call them the elites - allow him on TV etc because he makes all conspiracy theorists look mad and stupid? (I didn't hear him disagree with Alex, though).

 

It is the "wild" west mentality that will cure the problem. They wont be able to dis-arm, Well, Anyone with out problems. So if it is the "wildwest" type, So be it.

The true "wild west" was nothing like the movies. Far less problems and "shoot outs" didnt happen often. Yes there were alot of noteable ones, But thats about it.
If you wanted trouble, You knew where to find it and you knew where to stay away. Its that simple.

Thats the way it is and the worse you try and make it, The worse it will be for the honest people and or the "ones" who save you from "them".
I understand its an agree to disagree.

 

You have made a fair point. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong.

 

That's kinda in the ideal world, though : /

 

Wrong person - deh. Tired.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0sE9hAXXB4"]Armed Mafia Are Stalking Us: Post Piers Morgan Debate - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKADh_XSsyk"]We Are In NYC: Prey For Us - YouTube

 

He is so calm and relaxed...

 

In theory I wouldn't be against an 'enlightened' nation state 'democratizing' its violence monopoly and allowing its citizens to carry (light) fire arms for personal protection. But they would have to be seriously regulated and (potential) owners subjected to extensive psychological background checks.

But America is a pretty far cry from such an 'enlightened' nation and to liberalize firearms in a highly coercive pressure cooker society like the modern US, where intellectual detachment is frowned upon as 'commie thinking' and 'conservative' seems to be synonymous with frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria and an inability to think through a single thought without making a spectacle of your ignorance - this is asking for trouble.

And it's not just asking for trouble in the form of school/work/cinema shootings becoming a regular occurrence - it's also an open invitation to that same federal government the gun-loving righties love to hate, to subject all citizens to extensive surveillance/spying programs and implement Patriot Act-style legislation, essentially authorizing the murder of US citizens at the FBI's discretion. Or have you not heard of the documents uncovered by the PCJF end of last year, detailing extensive surveillance programs of the Occupy movement and even plans to assassinate key activists. Doesn't matter the Occupy movement was principally non-violent, all they need to do is brand your movement a 'terrorist organization' and - boom - it's happy sniping season for the powers that be, no need to even pretend to be a constitutional democracy anymore.

 

It would help if the documents actually said anything about 'the gov'' having plans to assassinate key activists. It actually talks about plots by others.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7507103&postcount=9

Notice your article from the PCJF does not mention that either?

 

The right to bear arms is not an inalienable right but an agreement set aside in the constitution. I wonder where these, you can't take away my right to bear arms people would come down if the constitution were amended or we came up with some more restrictive agreements?

Certainly the right to bear arms doesn't translate into the right to bear a bazooka. The right to bear arms as it stands now does not translate into the right to bear proportionate fire power and offers no real protection from the overwhelming force of a governments military forces. A gun allows you to fight, but it does not allow to win the fight.

The majority of civilians are not trained in warfare
If it is important to you to go down in a blaze of bullets, then the right to bear arms, seems a reasonable protection against the opposite occurring.
That guns protect you from government oppression, is a false argument.

That guns protect you from people with guns, is a false argument. The argument that to know others may be packing keeps things respectful, is false. Perhaps for some the idea mitigates fear in their own mind but that is the extent of it. Our civil concourse survives to the extent it does on respect for convention, not on the right to bear arms. The idea that guns are for protection, is false. Guns are fundamentally designed to cause injury or death, and specifically to a more efficient extent than let's say, spears.

 

Yeah, I have to agree with that. I think many of his observations are correct, but I think he puts way too much credence into this whole NWO and Bilderburg thing. I think good old-fashioned, decadent and unrestrained theft, greed, and power lust is the primary motive behind 99 percent of his observations. Alex Jones would be doing this nation and perhaps the world a huge favor, if he just focused on simple, empowering steps that his audience could take to wrestle back their own power from the so-called elites, who rely on all of us for every morsel of food that goes into their mouth. If a large population of people suddenly decided to stop participating in the systems that are designed and in place to subjugate the serfs - the elites would find themselves powerless, just as suddenly. Now that is a dangerous message. Start promoting that idea and you'll see how desparately dependent the entire socio-economic strata is on simple complacency. 1 massive, long-term boycott is worth a thousand demonstrations and protests - especially in a society that is so willfully vulnerable to mass media propaganda.