Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 that was the gun lobby point...the massacres took place in the gun free zones. You cant disarm a nation without severe restrictions on freedom...this is the whole point of the protest...the measures required to carry out the law...it would be a tyranny. I completely agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 You bring up the valid example of Switzerland, but maybe there is some correlation between violence and gun ownership within the USA only? I've had a look with regard to statistics, and here's an article penned by Thomas Sowell (economics academic): Gun Control and Violence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 that was the gun lobby point...the massacres took place in the gun free zones. You cant disarm a nation without severe restrictions on freedom...this is the whole point of the protest...the measures required to carry out the law...it would be a tyranny. Which law? If you read the 2nd amendment you'll see that you're wrong. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms It really doesn't say anything about paranoid delusionals having the right to shoot school kids with semi-automatic weapons I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Which law?If you read the 2nd amendment you'll see that you're wrong. It really doesn't say anything about paranoid delusionals having the right to shoot school kids with semi-automatic weapons I'm afraid. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms A well regulated militia doesn't mean gun control, it means subject to the rule of law i.e. armed people do not march about shooting or threatening people (including school children) indiscriminately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Holy sheeeeit Alex Jones is a nutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Which law? If you read the 2nd amendment you'll see that you're wrong. It really doesn't say anything about paranoid delusionals having the right to shoot school kids with semi-automatic weapons I'm afraid. there is no law to collect the guns...yet... and criminals kill people...they are outside the law when they carry it out...constitution, Statute, Sharia or Biblical law. They have no right to do as you say. Why should the law say anything other than prescribe a penalty for the breach? EDIT, not sure where your "but" addition to the 2nd Amendment is coming from...Ive googled several and they are this: ( from the NYT) The following is the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuG III Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Its in the Constitution, and this was included at number 2 after free speech because the British were expelled by local militias using arms, which, apparently, the British were trying to disarm, as well as all the taxation without representation stuff going on at the time. Its an amendment to their constitution (the clue is in the bit where they refer to it as the second amendment). If you have any evidence that there was any attempt to disarm the colonists then you are welcome to post it. And the rebels won the war not through local gangs of militias but because of a French-trained regular army and a French naval blockade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperChimp Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I have never heard it mentioned but are there many people in the US in the pro gun lobby who would also be fine with people owning tanks/fighter jets, explosives etc or is it just guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuG III Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 How about anti-aircraft missiles? How about nukes? How about if you're muslim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperChimp Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm sure. Read "The Ungoverned" by Vernor Vinge, where a farmer in an anarchist USA defends his land from Mexican state invasion by burrowing down and setting off a nuclear weapon. Thank you for the link. It sounds an interesting read. I am looking through the anarcho-capitalist literature page which is linked. Looks like something I might enjoy. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmarks Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Its in the Constitution, and this was included at number 2 after free speech because the British were expelled by local militias using arms, which, apparently, the British were trying to disarm, as well as all the taxation without representation stuff going on at the time. My point is that Americans are happy to ram the history lessons down our throats at every opportunity but they aren't acting on them. The question still stands: what are they waiting for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Its an amendment to their constitution (the clue is in the bit where they refer to it as the second amendment). If you have any evidence that there was any attempt to disarm the colonists then you are welcome to post it. And the rebels won the war not through local gangs of militias but because of a French-trained regular army and a French naval blockade. I presume BL was referring to this... The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9][10] They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America.About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the enemy movement... wiki: Battles of Lexington and Concord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 My point is that Americans are happy to ram the history lessons down our throats at every opportunity but they aren't acting on them. The question still stands: what are they waiting for? The release of Police State 5: Let's Go Totally Batsh*t!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Its an amendment to their constitution (the clue is in the bit where they refer to it as the second amendment). If you have any evidence that there was any attempt to disarm the colonists then you are welcome to post it. And the rebels won the war not through local gangs of militias but because of a French-trained regular army and a French naval blockade. And we won the second world war at El Alamain. come on, a war is more than just a couple of battles...there is the unrest that leads up to it...could have been years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 A well regulated militia doesn't mean gun control, it means subject to the rule of law i.e. armed people do not march about shooting or threatening people (including school children) indiscriminately. Well regulated means subject to the rule of law. As you rightly point out. If the democracry decides that means you can't have a cupboard full of automatic weapons then the ranty idiot screaming nonsense at Morgan will have to suck it up. He's pretending to believe in a democratic republic but quite clearly just wants to do whatever he personally wishes and screw anybody that he doesn't agree with. Not the same thing at all, and not even what the constitution itself (which he pretends to defend) calls for. Not that there's any reason whatsoever why the democracy of today shouldn't change any part of the constitution anyway, whether him and his Texas nutjobs agree with it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Well regulated means subject to the rule of law. As you rightly point out. If the democracry decides that means you can't have a cupboard full of automatic weapons then the ranty idiot screaming nonsense at Morgan will have to suck it up. He's pretending to believe in a democratic republic but quite clearly just wants to do whatever he personally wishes and screw anybody that he doesn't agree with. Not the same thing at all, and not even what the constitution itself (which he pretends to defend) calls for. Not that there's any reason whatsoever why the democracy of today shouldn't change any part of the constitution anyway, whether him and his Texas nutjobs agree with it or not. automatic are banned in the US and have been for years. He beleives in the Republic..not democracy. He believes in the Bill of Rights ( the First 10 Amendments) He doesnt like foreigners coming over "here" and demanding a cessation of rights...specially Brits, and especially prize tools like Morgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 How about anti-aircraft missiles? How about nukes? How about if you're muslim? All allowed, according to the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 All allowed, according to the Constitution. er, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 er, no. er, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I really don't know how anyone can even think of suggesting Jones came across well during any of that. It was cringe worthy. What a missed opportunity! Jones is so used to ranting incoherent shite as his default setting, he's become woefully amateurish. However, i think that's more of an indictment on his audience considering how big his operation is. I'm certain he's on the CIA payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashedOutAndBurned Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Some say Jones is 'controlled propaganda' - ie. get a crazy person talking about government skullduggery and people will see talk of such things as crazy. He can also be used to blame nebulous conspiracies rather than actual public figures up to no good. It works too. Twitter was 99% talk of Jones the 'crazy man' with virtually no one asking if all the claims he breathlessly blurted out have any validity. A lot of them do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I really don't know how anyone can even think of suggesting Jones came across well during any of that. It was cringe worthy. What a missed opportunity! Jones is so used to ranting incoherent shite as his default setting, he's become woefully amateurish. However, i think that's more of an indictment on his audience considering how big his operation is. I'm certain he's on the CIA payroll. he blurted....pure an simple. a fail in the debate stakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azogar Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 he blurted....pure an simple. a fail in the debate stakes. he blurted!? he was a complete and utter shambles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 he blurted!? he was a complete and utter shambles he was...a wasted opportunity...I said so right up thread too Still, the presenters later joked about shooting him and his children. The whole affair with Morgan and mates id disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azogar Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 he was...a wasted opportunity...I said so right up thread too Still, the presenters later joked about shooting him and his children. The whole affair with Morgan and mates id disgusting. yeah, i'm no fan of morgan either but there's too many who cant see the woods for the trees here esp. on zero hedge were he 'totally pwned morgan' yeah right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.