CNN Video: guest Alex Jones Slams Piers Morgan

[Poman]

Certainly does, but it's something we would need to approach very thoughtfully and delicately. Lack of availability of mental health services, and disinclination to use them due to social stigma or other reasons, are both big problems in this country. The last thing we want to do is even further disincentivize people who need help from seeking it. If they're going to be put on some list for the rest of their lives, denied certain rights, be treated like 2nd class citizens or felons, you risk doing just that.

Quite true, and a great point.

[Dan T.]

Sure Dan. I own two handuns which I use for personal protection, though I hope I never need them. For both purchases my information was run through the FBI database to ensure that I could, in fact, legally purchase a handgun. The process took about 15 minutes each time. As I have no violent criminal history, the process was very easy.

EDIT The first time I bought a handgun, I was shocked that I could walk in and out the same day. I expected a waiting period, which I believe is a good idea.

So I learned that the five day waiting period was part of the Brady Act, but as a compromise to get the bill passed, the waiting period would eventually be replaced by the instant background check that you went through.

From Wiki:

While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.

--

The instant background check is something, I guess. The five day period provided time to conduct the same check before the instant system was up and running. What is lost without the five day wait is any conceived "cooling off" benefit for someone buying a gun in anger, though I wonder how prevalent that scenario is.

[Poman]

The instant background check is something, I guess. The five day period provided time to conduct the same check before the instant system was up and running. What is lost without the five day wait is any conceived "cooling off" benefit for someone buying a gun in anger, though I wonder how prevalent that scenario is.

I am/was a huge fan of the cooling off period. It makes all the sense in the world to me.

[mjah]

I think our country should lean more towards researching how to identify people with mental disorders, and helping them while trying to keep the public safe. Deranged people can use anything as a weapon.

I see this as an important part of any honest attempt to reduce massacre-style gun violence. Another part of is a more thorough and consistent (i.e. Federal) set of controls on what kinds of guns continue to flow into the marketplace -- because it will prove impossible to ferret out all of the crazies, no matter what magical people-filters we invent. I often hear "well, what about the guns that are already out there?" True -- but that's no reason to keep the gates wide open. Sadly, this particular barn is full of an inexhaustible supply of horses. The wildest of the damned things need to be kept inside.

Over New Year's Eve a neighbor pointed out that automobiles don't kill people. People with automobiles kill people. A fair point. I pointed out in return that he can't legally own or use any of the most egregiously large, heavy, and/or dangerous classes of automobiles, and that he willingly subjects himself and each of his vehicles to testing, registration, licensing, renewals, and routine workaday enforcement each and every year -- yet his right to drive is not being infringed in any real sense and he really never ****es about any of that (much, anyway). Not to mention that automobiles have entire classes of uses beyond embedding deadly projectiles into targets, etc. The whole usual spiel. We agreed in the end that it all seems reasonable. Aside from the whisky, the fire in his belly seemed to be gone...

[ZoEd]

I see this as an important part of any honest attempt to reduce massacre-style gun violence. Another part of is a more thorough and consistent (i.e. Federal) set of controls on what kinds of guns continue to flow into the marketplace -- because it will prove impossible to ferret out all of the crazies, no matter what magical people-filters we invent. I often hear "well, what about the guns that are already out there?" True -- but that's no reason to keep the gates wide open. Sadly, this particular barn is full of an inexhaustible supply of horses. The wildest of the damned things need to be kept inside.

Over New Year's Eve a neighbor pointed out that automobiles don't kill people. People with automobiles kill people. A fair point. I pointed out in return that he can't legally own or use any of the most egregiously large, heavy, and/or dangerous classes of automobiles, and that he willingly subjects himself and each of his vehicles to testing, registration, licensing, renewals, and routine workaday enforcement each and every year -- yet his right to drive is not being infringed in any real sense and he really never ****es about any of that (much, anyway). Not to mention that automobiles have entire classes of uses beyond embedding deadly projectiles into targets, etc. The whole usual spiel. We agreed in the end that it all seems reasonable. Aside from the whisky, the fire in his belly seemed to be gone...

Actually one of the most logical comparisons I've seen and I couldn't agree more...except.

Have you driven on 81? The "licensed" truck drivers are freaking NUTS! I mean, the same system that allows someo these crazy ass old people retain their privelages? I saw an old woman who could barely see over the steering wheel turn up the wrong side of a four lane highway just two days ago. Not to mention, if the system governing the jobs is anything like the DMV we're all ****ed! Lol

But seriously, its a great comparison. But I'm so put off by our current state of gov't, it worries me that once pandora's box is open, it won't be able to be closed.

BTW; I actually used a similar comparison with a guy to other day but I used TSA at the airports. ABSOLUTELY necessary and I don't mind a little extra time and inconvienience if it can prevent 9/11 from ever happening again. HOWEVER, we all know the intent, but we also know how it's been interpreted and enforced. Like I said earlier, for me it's not about disagreeing with stricter rules and safeguards, it's about making knee jerk decisions without proper research and bipartisian collaboration.

But there we go again, if politics are involved, real progress will probably never happen.

[CurseReversed]

Someone who owns an an AR type rifle most likely does not own one to hunt or for sport, nor do they own one to fight the US military in some sort of revolution They own one to protect themselves from other people with guns intent on violating their rights in the rare event that the government can no longer do so.

Its preparing for situations that you cannot predict but yet are still very possible that drive the sales of weapons like these IMO.

Just imagine what could happen if some disaster caused the goverment to make the decision that nobody should have guns because they think that in a crisis its better for nobody to be armed then for people to actually have to take care of themselves.

Think something like that can't happen? Apparently, It already has.

Here is a call in from a national guard soldier who was activated during katrina to "keep the peace" Yes its from the Alex Jones show, and no I am not a fan. Although I have found good information from time to time from some of this interviews, the majority of his programming is fearmongering the public over every news item. Unfortunately, Sometimes, although rarely, he is not far from the mark and his ability to fear monger is quite similiar to the what the MSM and US Government are capable of to push their agenda.

hope this post does not simply devolve into more Alex Jones bashing but instead illuminates the possibility of realities that many people just dont consider when trying to decided what weapons other people should and should not be allowed to own/keep.

There is also possible he is lying or exaggerating to the extreme, he is just a caller.

My instincts tell me that he is telling the truth. What do you think?

Its worth listening too it, despite the source, but you all can choose to take of it what you will.

[Corcaigh]

his ability to fear monger is quite similiar to the what the MSM and US Government are capable of to push their agenda

You believe that there is such an entity as the Main Stream Media and they have a united, specific agenda on any topic.

---------- Post added January-10th-2013 at 08:40 AM ----------

And are you arguing that President GWB was enacting a US Government policy of taking everyone's weapons, or that a local commander decided to disarm people he felt were a threat.

And if a couple of army trucks stack up outside your house and demand your weapons, are you going to engage in a shoot out?

[Bang]

You believe that there is such an entity as the Main Stream Media and they have a united, specific agenda on any topic.

Seconded.

for those of you who espouse this garbage, please realize it's like putting a big red IDIOT sticker on your forehead.

the only people who will listen to you when you come out with that crap are other paranoid idiots who share the same paranoid idiocy.

And you've no doubt realized that they are the only ones who don't roll their eyes and dismiss you when you start with it.

It's interesting this comes up in a topic in which we're discussing the moronica of constant comparisons to nazis and commies.

Please note, one of the most effective initial methods of the nazi propaganda model is to discredit all other sources of information except their own.. which was then filled with lies directed at a single group as a scapegoat.. (The commie model was much simpler.. they didn't care if the people agreed with them.)

And you've fallen for it again, all the while worried about Nazis in the White House. (because that's what your propaganda told you to be!)

It would be sort of funny if it wasn't so goddam disturbing as to how many of you there are who have swallowed it all over again.

~Bang

[CurseReversed]

You believe that there is such an entity as the Main Stream Media and they have a united, specific agenda on any topic.

---------- Post added January-10th-2013 at 08:40 AM ----------

And are you arguing that President GWB was enacting a US Government policy of taking everyone's weapons, or that a local commander decided to disarm people he felt were a threat.

And if a couple of army trucks stack up outside your house and demand your weapons, are you going to engage in a shoot out?

No, no and no. The msm and politicians often fearmonger to pursue their agendas, I did not say they were all the same. Perhaps I should have put an S at the end of agenda, if that makes it clearer. That is my opinion, I would think it obvious. What you stated is just a strawman you built up and worded the way you wanted too. Listen to the clip if you want, the soldier speaks for himself I do not need to interpret. He is the one who explained what they were doing and why. It seems like it is possible that someone somewhere in the chain of command decided to disarm people. So when I say "the government" it does not mean necessarily mean GWB, it means somebody with the power to do it, I do not claim to know who exactly. The way the soldier put it, they were systematically disarming people based upon arbitrary reasoning. This is why I said that it was possible that "the government" would engage in such a thing.

It seems like you did not listen. If you did and did not seem concerned with what happened well then that is your problem.

I am not saying that guns are for fighting soldiers only that things can happen in crisis situations that you cannot predict. The idea of defending yourself from other people and the army confiscating guns are not directly related just two separate possibilities that people should be aware of. I did not say that anyone should use any force against the government or its agents. Please dont turn this into a witchunt, I do not want to defend against your wild interpretations of what I am saying, or what I am thinking. Especially when they get that extreme.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Someone who owns an an AR type rifle most likely does not own one to hunt or for sport, nor do they own one to fight the US military in some sort of revolution They own one to protect themselves from other people with guns intent on violating their rights in the rare event that the government can no longer do so.

Don't you think some, maybe even a lot of, people own these guns because they think they are cool. Because they are the biggest, baddest guns they can get?

[twa]

Don't you think some, maybe even a lot of, people own these guns because they think they are cool. Because they are the biggest, baddest guns they can get?

you mean like guys that put spoilers on civics?...certainly there are

they are not the biggest or baddest either though

It's cause we're black,right?:pfft:

[Larry]

I see this as an important part of any honest attempt to reduce massacre-style gun violence. Another part of is a more thorough and consistent (i.e. Federal) set of controls on what kinds of guns continue to flow into the marketplace -- because it will prove impossible to ferret out all of the crazies, no matter what magical people-filters we invent. I often hear "well, what about the guns that are already out there?" True -- but that's no reason to keep the gates wide open. Sadly, this particular barn is full of an inexhaustible supply of horses. The wildest of the damned things need to be kept inside.

Yeah, I have to admit that, lately, every time I hear/read the argument of "There's millions of guns out there, already, therefore I oppose any restrictions on more of them being released into society", (or some of the variants, like the "killing people is already illegal, therefore I oppose all gun restrictions", or "making guns illegal won;t stop criminals, therefore I oppose all gun restrictions"), I find myself wondering how the speaker would feel about the same argument being applied to the subject of illegal immigration.

"There's millions of illegal immigrants out there, already. Therefore I oppose any effort to stop more of them from being added to society"

[Elessar78]

All I keep reading in the thread title is "Alex" "Morgan"

[CurseReversed]

Don't you think some, maybe even a lot of, people own these guns because they think they are cool. Because they are the biggest, baddest guns they can get?

Yes I am sure they are. There are probably far too many people buying them just to look cool for their friends, but that does not mean they are bound to do more harm then good with them and that they wont come to good use if ever they find them useful. People are not inherently prone to shooting people for no good reason. No matter how many crazys continue to do it.

For the most part though, If people have a belief that one day they might have to use these guns to defend themselves. Having the best ones they can get would seem to be a logical course of action. The AR is the most effective weapon you can buy for keeping multiple armed people pinned down from a distance. Does that same logic extend to missles and bombs, which most people would agree the public should not own, yes I agree it does. But that does not necessarily mean that there is not some sort of logical cut off. That logic is just not always objectively perfect, as in there is no perfect answer.

The most logical one to me is the one that seems to be pretty solidly in place, that is against automatic weapons. Because I believe a semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rifle, the AR type is not very far removed from any other rifle that has no manual reload and a clip. It is just the the easiest to use, lightest and most flexible of those, among other things. If some state or local govt decided to make their legal cutoff before the AR I could not call them crazy, although I would just probably disagree with their logic given the reasons I believe people tend to own these weapons and would hope it to be an isolated area, as they are flirting a dangerous line.

Because at some point, I believe there is a cutoff that I would have to proclaim as a violation of the 2nd amendment and would be definitively against it. That cutoff to me is dangerously close to banning the AR because it is such a close precursor to banning all semi-automatic weapons because in terms of functionality, it is essentially the same, and banning semi-autos would be a direct infringement on the 2nd ammendment. IMO

These are only my judgements of course, and while I will fight for them as making the most sense to me, I dont think those who disagree are idiots, but just misguided by not taking into account all possibilities. I hope and pray that the opinions of those who disagree do not become so anti-gun and so numerous that the battle over owning guns goes from just AR types to all semi-autos, because while one is a healthy debate, the other is dangerously close to loosing our second ammendment rights altogether.

The situations I was pointing out in my OP were about crisis situations. While I ended the post talking about gun confiscation, I was not referring to that as justification for owning more and bigger guns with the intent of fighting those who were confiscating. Just referring to possibilities or situations that government or its agents can and will disarm the public, which some dismiss as impossible but the soldier describes as already happened to a lesser degree.

In a situation where government is confiscating guns like the evironment described by the soldier during Katrina, that type of situation could be extremely dangerous for all citizens, when you call 911 nobody answers, only national guard trucks days later, who kick in your door and take your guns, just because you tried to call for help days earlier. WHich is what the soldier in the clip is indeed claiming. But I digress.. In that situation where help is not on the way, having a gun like an AR and also something simple like a shotgun could be the two guns that save your life. One can keep several attackers at bay from a distance while the other defend against several up close.

Hopefully nobody ever finds themself in this situation but history would suggest that we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

[ZoEd]

Yes I am sure they are. There are probably far too many people buying them just to look cool for their friends, but that does not mean they are bound to do more harm then good with them and that they wont come to good use if ever they find them useful. People are not inherently prone to shooting people for no good reason. No matter how many crazys continue to do it.

For the most part though, If people have a belief that one day they might have to use these guns to defend themselves. Having the best ones they can get would seem to be a logical course of action. The AR is the most effective weapon you can buy for keeping multiple armed people pinned down from a distance. Does that same logic extend to missles and bombs, which most people would agree the public should not own, yes I agree it does. But that does not necessarily mean that there is not some sort of logical cut off. That logic is just not always objectively perfect, as in there is no perfect answer.

The most logical one to me is the one that seems to be pretty solidly in place, that is against automatic weapons. Because I believe a semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rifle, the AR type is not very far removed from any other rifle that has no manual reload and a clip. It is just the the easiest to use, lightest and most flexible of those, among other things. If some state or local govt decided to make their legal cutoff before the AR I could not call them crazy, although I would just probably disagree with their logic given the reasons I believe people tend to own these weapons and would hope it to be an isolated area, as they are flirting a dangerous line.

Because at some point, I believe there is a cutoff that I would have to proclaim as a violation of the 2nd amendment and would be definitively against it. That cutoff to me is dangerously close to banning the AR because it is such a close precursor to banning all semi-automatic weapons because in terms of functionality, it is essentially the same, and banning semi-autos would be a direct infringement on the 2nd ammendment. IMO

These are only my judgements of course, and while I will fight for them as making the most sense to me, I dont think those who disagree are idiots, but just misguided by not taking into account all possibilities. I hope and pray that the opinions of those who disagree do not become so anti-gun and so numerous that the battle over owning guns goes from just AR types to all semi-autos, because while one is a healthy debate, the other is dangerously close to loosing our second ammendment rights altogether.

The situations I was pointing out in my OP were about crisis situations. While I ended the post talking about gun confiscation, I was not referring to that as justification for owning more and bigger guns with the intent of fighting those who were confiscating. Just referring to possibilities or situations that government or its agents can and will disarm the public, which some dismiss as impossible but the soldier describes as already happened to a lesser degree.

In a situation where government is confiscating guns like the evironment described by the soldier during Katrina, that type of situation could be extremely dangerous for all citizens, when you call 911 nobody answers, only national guard trucks days later, who kick in your door and take your guns, just because you tried to call for help days earlier. WHich is what the soldier in the clip is indeed claiming. But I digress.. In that situation where help is not on the way, having a gun like an AR and also something simple like a shotgun could be the two guns that save your life. One can keep several attackers at bay from a distance while the other defend against several up close.

Hopefully nobody ever finds themself in this situation but history would suggest that we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Good luck trying to reason with people with common sense. Even though I concur 100% with your post and have tried to say the same thing repeatedly! However, all that will continue to happen are the same comments about "Who says ban all guns!", "why do you need guns" or that everyone with a gun is a "gun nut". Like you, I think the biggest fear for the gun mongering masses is the door being opened and not able to be closed. No one wants to debate the validity of that point, even entertain that our politicians, legislators or judicious system would kick that door wide open once its cracked.

But what do I know? The NRA lobbyists no nothing about the system and how it works. They simply lobby because they're bunch of gun toting crazies who don't want to protect innocent people. No, the NRA wants to protect EVERY Americans right, crazy, mentally ill or convicts, to own a ammo cans full of rounds, 20 loaded 100 shot magazines and an automatic weapon in every room of the house. Yep, that's what they're lobbying for, it's ridiculous to think they actually know more about the little legal mumbo jumbo and bill riders that lay the groundwork for doing exactly what the NRA is trying to protect. They're just a bunch of crazy's, only the people on the opposite side of this are sane.

BTW, here's at least one politician that wants to ban ALL semi-automatic weapons.

http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14934&TM=35600.75

[Hersh]

Good luck trying to reason with people with common sense. Even though I concur 100% with your post and have tried to say the same thing repeatedly! However, all that will continue to happen are the same comments about "Who says ban all guns!", "why do you need guns" or that everyone with a gun is a "gun nut". Like you, I think the biggest fear for the gun mongering masses is the door being opened and not able to be closed. No one wants to debate the validity of that point, even entertain that our politicians, legislators or judicious system would kick that door wide open once its cracked.

But what do I know? The NRA lobbyists no nothing about the system and how it works. They simply lobby because they're bunch of gun toting crazies who don't want to protect innocent people. No, the NRA wants to protect EVERY Americans right, crazy, mentally ill or convicts, to own a ammo cans full of rounds, 20 loaded 100 shot magazines and an automatic weapon in every room of the house. Yep, that's what they're lobbying for, it's ridiculous to think they actually know more about the little legal mumbo jumbo and bill riders that lay the groundwork for doing exactly what the NRA is trying to protect. They're just a bunch of crazy's, only the people on the opposite side of this are sane.

BTW, here's at least one politician that wants to ban ALL semi-automatic weapons.

http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14934&TM=35600.75

Congratulations on finding one state senator who wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons. I wonder how long that took.

The funniest thing about your post is your claim that can't reason with us using common sense while at the same time you completely make up your own set of facts and create a world that doesn't exist. Who says everyone with a gun is a gun nut? You talk about this big fear of all guns being banned and no one is suggesting that and you can't find a single politician suggesting that.

[Lil Kenzo]

Alex Jones just made Piers Morgan seem like a competent man.

The mocking of his accent is priceless though...THAT'S GOLD JERRY!!! GOLD!!!

[Son of Gadsden]

Never got the whole 1770's logic as if gun rights is so people can overthrow the government. It says right in there that militia's "should be well regulated". Basically the army reserves.

To be able to actually take on the U.S. military you'd have to have equal capacity which is insane

Army Reserves are funded by government. They aren't a militia, the government owns their weapons.

As for the last part, tell that to the Afghans.

---------- Post added January-11th-2013 at 02:04 PM ----------

I had a friend post on Facebook that people needed to stock up on guns and ammo for the upcoming revolution :doh:

As far as I'm concerned, I totally understand the 1776 type argument, however, I won't be telling people to go to war until things get to that point (IF they do) and I, myself am going to be right beside them.

I'm not going to say, TAKE UP ARMS while I sit at home and watch people getting shot up on the news.

---------- Post added January-11th-2013 at 02:07 PM ----------

Bingo. He wasn't looking to have a real discussion on the issues. He wanted to tee up a babbling loon and let him rip. It served two purposes. 1. It gets people talking about a show that is getting destroyed in the ratings. 2. It elicits the response in the OP "Yeah we really want a bunch of these types of people running around loaded". As far as Morgan is concerned it couldn't have gone better.

And nothing gave it away more than bringing up 9/11 at the end. Everyone knows Alex Jones is an idiot, and his idiocy is the most severe on the subject of 9/11. Like you said, the whole point was to bring the most extreme fool he could find on TV and say "THIS is the average gun owner."

---------- Post added January-11th-2013 at 02:10 PM ----------

I am not a member of NRA< but do consider myself "pro gun rights". However. the thing I want to see is registration for every gun.

For a while I was for that too, but once I got my FFL and saw what Nazis the ATF is....no way. They're worse than the IRS. And I see no other point for registration other than a step closer to confiscation. Every dictator who took guns away figured out who had them first. Registration wouldn't have stopped any of these major massacres I can think of. Most of these people kill themselves after doing it anyway.

[ixcuincle]

http://twitter.com/guypbenson/statuses/289809943828262912

Brainstorm: CNN should change the show title to "How Dare You? with @piersmorgan." A full hour of feigned indignation every night.

[Son of Gadsden]

Well gee I guess citizens need nukes and tanks too! After all the government buys 'em!

Few things tick me off more than intentional obtuseness.

Absolute strawman argument, and you've got a bit of intentional obtuseness there yourself. The states restrict things like that, which is absolutely Constitutional. He's got a completely fair point.

There. Now that I've probably generated enough quote notifications to last me a month, I'll say how I feel on it:

"Whatever the states say" sayeth the Constitution. That is all.

[MattFancy]

s2thalayer, you seemed like a typical paranoid gun owner. You seemed to be caught up on the gov't coming after you for your guns.

[DjTj]

This seems relevant:

Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack

SAN DIEGO—Following the events of last week, in which a crazed western lowland gorilla ruthlessly murdered 21 people in a local shopping plaza after escaping from the San Diego Zoo, sources across the country confirmed Thursday that national gorilla sales have since skyrocketed.

“After seeing yet another deranged gorilla just burst into a public place and start killing people, I decided I need to make sure something like that never happens to me,” said 34-year-old Atlanta resident Nick Keller, shortly after purchasing a 350-pound mountain gorilla from his local gorilla store. “It just gives me peace of mind knowing that if I’m ever in that situation, I won’t have to just watch helplessly as my torso is ripped in half and my face is chewed off. I’ll be able to use my gorilla to defend myself.”

“Law enforcement and animal control can only get there so quickly,” Keller added. “And you never know when you’ll need to use a gorilla to save your life.”

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

[Son of Gadsden]

s2thalayer, you seemed like a typical paranoid gun owner. You seemed to be caught up on the gov't coming after you for your guns.

You seem to be the typical naive liberal.

I'm not paranoid about anything. I have guns.

[MattFancy]

You seem to be the typical naive liberal.

I'm not paranoid about anything. I have guns.

Not naive,but I don't think gov't is out to get me.

[Son of Gadsden]

Not naive,but I don't think gov't is out to get me.

History suggests otherwise. The government isn't specifically out to get you. It's on its never ending quest of greed for power, and we're all in it's way. It's the way of the world, it's nothing personal. If it was a paranoid fallacy, the founders would have found no need to add a 2nd Amendment.