Piers Morgan vs Alex Jones: Guns
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Well from my perspective alex made him look like the fool. He knew that piers morgan had some stupid agenda and he went out there and got out as much information as he wanted to and just talked over the host. Piers morgan was calling it a debate, not once did he respond to a thing that alex jones said (in the small opportunities he had to respond) and he had many chances and alex would have shut up if he had spoke. Morgan just wanted him to answer questions to make a specific point and alex refused to play in to it.
That macbook you are using,The first electronic digital computers were developed between 1940 and 1945 in the United Kingdom
designed by morons.
With a forum name of bitslice do you really think I need an education on the history of electronics?
So?
I didn't say they don't use guns, I said they still use bombs
IED's No#1 cause of death
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/06/combating-the-no-1-killer-of-troops-in-afghanistan/
Same in Northern Ireland, hardly anyone killed by gunfire, lots by bombs
9/11 using a plane as a bomb, thousands dead, nobody used a gun.
Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
Mostly bombings
If you have sources that support your point then post. My point remains that it is easier to kill with bombs than bullets, and terrorists like to do it the easy way.
Ban gardening!!!
The Arab Spring says otherwise, whole countries overthrown with the freedom to speak
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
Morgan's seemingly sole point of less guns = less murders was ridiculous anyway. It's obvious, but there are still stabbings and other such violent crimes committed in the UK. You take away one tool, people will use another.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Aren't Apple products 'designed' in the UK? I remember some British bloke winning some award or title for the jelly bean design on the mac.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
In fairness I think the point that less guns will equal less gun crime as statistically obvious. The less people that have guns the less gun accidents. Gun accidents is what I believed was used as the final straw, to take the guns away from the uk population? I would say that is the best argument for gun control. But if you look at Switzerland and i think norway, they have a high gun ownership rates per capita, but they don't have a high gun crime rate per capita. I do think that the high gun rates in the usa are due to various factors, like gang culture, drug prohibition, the pro gun culture and culture in general. But when looking at these crazy and terrible mass shootings specifically, the common denominator is the psychotropic pharmaceuticals but I do think that culture in general must play a part, but i can't explain it.
Imagine every soldier in Afghanistan had to bring their family over with them, and their family had to live outside the wire. Which side would you put money on now?
You only need to Google for "second amendment well regulated militia" to see that even Americans themselves are entirely divided on what the 2nd Amendment to their Constitution actually means. Even Congress has tried to clarify it over the decades.
Here is the sentence, by the way, that is so controversial:
"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."
My view is this. A militia's purpose is to be a force against the current government or status quo. Thus, this clause in the constitution was designed by their founding fathers as a way to prevent precisely what happened to so many countries in the middle east. It allows the citizens to overthrow their government if they choose to do so. Generally because the government is too possessive of them.
Think about it. What would happen if theoretically the BNP got into power in the UK? We'd all be defenseless. It wouldn't be long until the government puts martial law into place. And then we're all screwed as nobody has guns to actually do anything about it. It's a very powerful law that prevents this precise situation.
Here is the sentence, by the way, that is so controversial:
"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."
My view is this. A militia's purpose is to be a force against the current government or status quo. Thus, this clause in the constitution was designed by their founding fathers as a way to prevent precisely what happened to so many countries in the middle east. It allows the citizens to overthrow their government if they choose to do so. Generally because the government is too possessive of them.
Think about it. What would happen if theoretically the BNP got into power in the UK? We'd all be defenseless. It wouldn't be long until the government puts martial law into place. And then we're all screwed as nobody has guns to actually do anything about it. It's a very powerful law that prevents this precise situation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So?
I didn't say they don't use guns, I said they still use bombs
IED's No#1 cause of death
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/06/combating-the-no-1-killer-of-troops-in-afghanistan/
Same in Northern Ireland, hardly anyone killed by gunfire, lots by bombs
9/11 using a plane as a bomb, thousands dead, nobody used a gun.
Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
Mostly bombings
If you have sources that support your point then post. My point remains that it is easier to kill with bombs than bullets, and terrorists like to do it the easy way.
I didn't say you didn't say they don't use guns. You said they 'prefer' to use bombs even when they have easy access to guns. I don't think that, as a blanket statement, is true.
Now let's look at your examples.
Afghanistan - You said terrorists, not insurgents (unless you consider anyone brown and Muslim a 'terrorist') and the reason they use them there is because they are fighting an enemy with far superior fire power to them. They don't use them because it is "easy", they use them because they'd lose a fire fight if they entered one.
9/11 - They used the plane as a bomb....sorry but you nearly made me spit my tea out with that example. How desperate can you get.
Northern Ireland - When you say "hardly anyone killed with guns" it makes me wonder if you've been living under a rock for the the past 20 years.
Only the latest - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ullets-like-other-ira-shootings-16075191.html
As for other terrorist shootings, what about things like this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8449319.stm
Or just the other day, the school girl in Pakistan that was shot for going to school.
The problem is, bombings tend to kill more people (when successful) in one event and as such get the headlines but terrorists are shooting individuals all the time.
I would still bet that terrorists have shot more people in history than they've killed with bombs.
All of which is besides the point anyway because you can't realistically ban the ingredients of a lot of bombs and they have legitimate primary uses. The point you keep missing is guns only have one primary purpose, it IS a weapon. Everything else is merely a 'potential' weapon, a principle you keep missing.
Last edited:
that's great except the majority of combat arms personnel are gun owning conservatives themselves. Ron paul got more military contributions than any other candidate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
As I said earlier that may have made sense when the most powerful weapon the government had was the musket. Now they have fighter jets and nuclear weapons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I don't get your question.
But if you're trying to play the 'strength in numbers' game it doesn't work with the US government's current arsenal of weaponry. Their nukes alone would be enough to wipe out their entire population guns or not.
But it's silly anyway, they already have a political system that prevents a Tyranny. Power is divided into three so no one group can call the shots.
The US will never become a Tyranny, it's not suddenly going to from being a first world country to a Middle-Eastern style third world one with a dictator so it's pointless reasoning anyway.
All citizens have the individual right to bear arms. From that pool of armed citizenry a militia can be drawn (defined by most states as all able bodied state residents between 18-45).
At the time it was written "well-regulated" meant something more like well-functioning. I other words armed citizens are needed to form a well function (well equipped) militia. The government "regulating" it in the modern sense and supplying the arms would completely defeat the purpose.
It's supposed to be like a P2P military.
The individual states have their own constitutions too, here's Virginia's:
If you're fighting a guerilla warfare and going against drones and tanks you're doing it wrong. A guerilla war basically involves politicians/journalists/police/military people being murdered on their down time, and their families being murdered. Just look at what the RUC had to face. Gunned down while having a pint at the pub. Look at those journalists and police cheifs getting killed in Mexico.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
So what we might as well hand over our freedom because the government has f16 and big ships? submit, obey and shut up. It is still logistically more difficult to take over a country that is armed even moderately than one that is disarmed. Look at Afghanistan. the $trillion western military complex of isreal, America and Britain all of NATO, could not take over Afghanistan and they are barely armed.