Piers Morgan vs Alex Jones: Guns

The problem with the second amendment is that it was written in a time of relatively limited military technology - if you had a gun, you were pretty much on par with the best armed military personnel, short of some shooting practice. However, now the stereotypical obese, spur-wearing Texan with a few assault rifles is going to be annihilated by the M1A2 Abrams tank that storms in to town and starts shelling his house... from 3 miles away. You can assault rifle the depleted uranium armour as much as you like - you aren't going to do anything.

The only time any of these guns will become useful for their original intended purpose is during the apocalypse.
 
Last edited:
Here's a pretty sensible article about what it would be like

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

Federal Government Military

Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.

Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.

Federal Government DHS or TSA

The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective

Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.

State Law Enforcement

The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:
Seize guns
Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.

Local Law Enforcement

Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.

Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots

Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.
 
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.

Well unlike you I don't see the government as my enemy. The "us" versus "them" mentality is reflection of a poor society IMO.

And we did "take over" Afghanistan. By military standards we did it pretty easily as well.

The problem for modern western armies isn't well trained and armed opposition it is the politically correct nature of the citizens of their home countries and an increasing detestment for war and death.

We kill 100 Taliban fighters, their supporters call them martyrs and use it to rally more people into their cause. One of our soldiers dies and it's headline news and calls to bring the troops home are made.

It's exactly why the US failed in Somalia. On every military level you can think of the US were winning. But the Somalis knew what effect PR could play so when they go the opportunity to take soldiers from a downed chopper, they made sure they were filmed dragging the dead and injured through the streets. The result, US TV broadcasted it and the US public called for a pull-out, and eventually that's what happened.
 
Funny i would have punched that **** morgan in the face for asking the same dumb loaded question over and over.

We could do both at the same time , stopping morgans drivel and Jones' annoying, over the top rambling and accent. :D
 
I expect it will be nothing like that. I do not believe the majority of Americans are ready for civil war over the second amendment in light of the on-going highly-publicised mass murders of recent times. Most Americans do not have a gun, let alone hold such a dear attraction to it they are ready to start shooting the authorities to protect some old sentence on a bit of paper.
 
The problem with the second amendment is that it was written in a time of relatively limited military technology - if you had a gun, you were pretty much on par with the best armed military personnel, short of some shooting practice. However, now the stereotypical obese, spur-wearing Texan with a few assault rifles is going to be annihilated by the M1A2 Abrams tank that storms in to town and starts shelling his house... from 3 miles away. You can assault rifle the depleted uranium armour as much as you like - you aren't going to do anything.

The only time any of these guns will become useful for their original intended purpose is during the apocalypse.

Texas is actually the only state I beleive that maintains it's own separate state military. Complete with tanks and everything.

their motto is "TEXANS SERVING TEXAS"

http://www.txsg.state.tx.us
 
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.
No, I said "they still use bombs", nobody said prefer.
Maybe quote me instead of making stuff up?
They don't use them because it is "easy", they use them because they'd lose a fire fight if they entered one.
= easy :confused:
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.
Projectile filled with fuel, not unlike kamikaze planes in Japan - sounds like a bomb to me (something that goes bang)

Two people shot last year by the real IRA? I'm convinced.

I make it 502 people killed by explosives during their bombing campaign, which we can safely assume were all placed by the IRA. I can't determine if the shootings were done by the IRA or were actually related to their cause, as lots were internal matters.
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.
It's not terror if nobody hears about it.
I would still bet that terrorists have shot more people in history than they've killed with bombs.
Well, of course they have :D
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.
No, not missed, just pointing out what people will use if they ban all guns.

The people who do the school shootings want to die, the Taliban suicide bombers want to die, you can't really stop that.
 
Overthrowing a school = not cool. Gun laws are changing in the US. They will only go one way.

The UK evolved to outlaw guns progressively. The bill of rights meant that all protestants in England could be armed, initially this was a crossbow but later rifles and pistols as they were developed. This became law. As the colonization of new lands around the world occurred this law came with it. The US right to bear arms is the UK right to bear arms. Since then the law was changed in the UK to prevent the ownership of these weapons because of the crime they were causing. There were a lot of guns. The change to licensed guns happened. Further acts came into force to manage these guns and restrict them from access by children. Soon after WW2 automatic weapons were made illegal. Recently, in 1996 all pistols were made illegal after the Dunblane school massacre. Every single gun in the UK has to be licensed now and owning a gun is easily possible (not pistol or assault rifle) through a license. As a result the UK has the lowest rate of gun murders in the world. These changes were driven by public attitude.
 
Last edited:
I expect it will be nothing like that. I do not believe the majority of Americans are ready for civil war over the second amendment in light of the on-going highly-publicised mass murders of recent times. Most Americans do not have a gun, let alone hold such a dear attraction to it they are ready to start shooting the authorities to protect some old sentence on a bit of paper.

The majority aren't. But it doesn't take a majority. Only 3% of the population fought in the revolutionary war against the British and only about 15% supported it. The majority were against the idea or indifferent to it.

You have hundreds of thousands of combat vets who just watched their friends get blown up "defending freedom", ordering assault rifles in record numbers to pick up when the get home. If you look on gun forums its basically a non stop list of threads saying "I'm on deployment which brand of AR 15 should I order for when I get home?".

Now they're told by the government nah it's not going to happen sorry. Thanks for "defending freedom".
 
Very clever. Piers Morgan gets someone more of a **** than he is to make himself look good. Why on earth was the nutjob given airtime?

I dare say the nutjob beat him anyway. 11k vs 35 is a big difference, sure, but what we had here is Morgan making that point, Jones accepting that and countering it with a 20% increase in violent crime. Morgan then made it impossible to move the debate forward from that point. Its a fairly cheap tactic for a sound byte and not something that should be part of an intelligent debate.

I don't know if the is what he said was true or not, but if we really had a 20% increase in violent crime after banning guns (and we able to remove external contributors), that'd be a really good point. Especially if it included a similar increase in homicide and attempted murder. People like Morgan would be too thick to accept that was the better deal, if it were statstically true.
 
Most Americans do not have a gun
Where have you been?

The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.8 firearms per 100 people

(edit: technically about 50% of households have at least one gun, which makes your point almost right but somewhat misleading I feel)

and I think some 74% were in favour of keeping them
 
Last edited:
The mention of the name Piers Morgan makes me feel physically sick nowadays. I still strongly believe he was either in on the set up or knew it was set up when he published those ridiculously fake Iraqi beat up prisoner pics in the Mirror.

The situation was bad enough over there without his input. Who did he put in danger? Not the people who ordered the troops in but the innocent brave young men and women who were there to carry out orders.

He is the worst type of selfish scum and I hope he stays in the USA.
 
Where have you been?

The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.8 firearms per 100 people

and I think some 74% were in favour of keeping them

Not to take away from that fact but that is not entirely true in the context it is meant. The number of guns owned by a person is likely to be more than 1 or none rather than 1 per person. The figure that is more relevant and still significant is that 45% own guns.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom