Alex Jones on Piers Morgan

[Deafheaven]

Oh I see, nah I didn't post this pictures, I was rebutting them

I don't know why people think the pasty fat fuk is not dangerous or less dangerous than the Iraqi, physical ability stopped being important in warfare when the gun was invented

what makes a soldier dangerous is that he knows how to read and write, he will follow orders and is loyal, that's all you need to be an effective soldier

you can't asses somebody just by looking at those pics

so that insurgent isn't the bolded. These nikkas ready to strap bombs on themselves they that committed to their causes. Also that insurgent has probably been fighting for his life for years. You telling me a fat fukk from Alabama is going to strike as much fear/be as competent as a trained guerilla fighter from the middle east. Theres no way.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

i dont know where you are getting your numbers from but a fraction of 22 million would still overwhelm 1 million, that is not even counting civilians 280 million other civilians

Your link

And you are talking about a fraction of 22 million with handguns vs 1 million with fighter jets and Tomahawks missiles... not a street fight

but thats the whole point, if the government has to let the people take over or stop at nothing, most rational people in the government will let the people take over, thats why there is an second amendment

The irrational people in govt would and ARE ruling over the rational people in govt

But even if what you said applied, if govt were always rational there wouldnt be a need for the second amendment

i never touted any scenario, i was just analyzing the hypothetical scenario presented, and hypothetically speaking the pro gun people are right that an armed population is essentially impossible to conquer

the second amendment does guarantee that the us will never be conquered from outside and it keeps the government in check, if the government went to far

How will guns stop bombs?

 

[Ruutu]

Why do we need a semi-automatic rifle for protection ? People should be allowed to have a guns but rifles ? Isnt that the point ?

 

[theworldismine13]

Your link

oh ok, but even using a fraction of 22 million is a lot and you have to add civilians too

And you are talking about a fraction of 22 million with handguns vs 1 million with fighter jets and Tomahawks missiles... not a street fight

i think you are confused, in the hypothetical situation, we are talking about a fight in the streets, you cannot defeat an armed population with jets and tomahawk missiles, you have to have troops in the ground

and americans are not armed with handguns, isnt that the premise of the anti gun movement that there are too many military style weapons in america?

The irrational people in govt would and ARE ruling over the rational people in govt

i dont know what this means, but if you have a problem with the government then you should vote them out of office

and if you feel that it isnt enough or that the irrational people from the government are attacking you then you should exercise you right to leave the country or exercise your second amendment rights to defend yourself

But even if what you said applied, if govt were always rational there wouldnt be a need for the second amendment

yeah exactly, you are the one saying that the government will always be rational so you dont need a second amendment

im saying there is always a possibility, however small, that the government will behave irrationally and also that we can be invaded by a foreign government so therefore the second amendment should stay

How will guns stop bombs?

guns cannot stop bombs but bombs cannot kill 300 million people, and a barrel in the mouth can make people reconsider their actions and the orders they give

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

oh ok, but even using a fraction of 22 million is a lot and you have to add civilians too

The number of civilians dont matter

i think you are confused, in the hypothetical situation, we are talking about a fight in the streets,

Since when? What post limited this scenario to a "street fight"?

you cannot defeat an armed population with jets and tomahawk missiles, you have to have troops in the ground

Why not?

and americans are not armed with handguns, isnt that the premise of the anti gun movement that there are too many military style weapons in america?

The "assault rifles" we have are not automatic... functionally there is no difference, and they are several leagues down from what soldiers are armed with

i dont know what this means, but if you have a problem with the government then you should vote them out of office

Again if it were that simple we wouldn't need the 2nd amendment

and if you feel that it isnt enough or that the irrational people from the government are attacking you then you should exercise you right to leave the country or exercise your second amendment rights to defend yourself

Defend myself from what?

yeah exactly, you are the one saying that the government will always be rational so you dont need a second amendment

Not what I said at all.

im saying there is always a possibility, however small, that the government will behave irrationally and also that we can be invaded by a foreign government so therefore the second amendment should stay

If we are invaded by a foreign govt, us being armed wouldn't matter. They are more powerful than our military, who is more powerful than citizens. So we would be powerless to them.

And if there is a possibility the govt will behave irrationally, then my vote doesn't matter. And the "if you dont like it then leave" thing is a red herring... as a citizen of the US its my right to have a say in how the country runs

guns cannot stop bombs but bombs cannot kill 300 million people, and a barrel in the mouth can make people reconsider their actions and the orders they give

240,000 people died in the nuclear attacks on Japan... from 2 bombs... 70 years ago

US has over 5K nuclear warheads

So just on that, based on 70 year old tech, govt could wipe us out twice, just with nuclear warheads

President travels with a huge security entourage and flies with a military convoy. How the fukk do you think you'd be able to get a "barrel in his mouth" :biggaplease:

 

[PTBG]

A-Mafia don't play that shyt. Jones got them connections with Prodigy, KRS One, Paris, etc. Jones don't fukk around. at the British accent. He spazzed the fukk out. Jones is one funny ass and weird dude

 

[theworldismine13]

so that insurgent isn't the bolded. These nikkas ready to strap bombs on themselves they that committed to their causes. Also that insurgent has probably been fighting for his life for years. You telling me a fat fukk from Alabama is going to strike as much fear/be as competent as a trained guerilla fighter from the middle east. Theres no way.

i dont want to get into stereotyping people but what is the basis of you thinking an insurgent is more loyal to the cause then a fat fuk from alabama? on what basis do you assume that the guy with the gun is trained?

what makes an army powerful is not if it strikes physical fear, its discipline, its ability to coordinate and the competence of its leaders, insurgents are not known for those things

when an insurgent commander gives an order its an open question whether those orders will be followed and with what competence, thats the difference

you cannot tell any of that by looking at the picture except by stereotyping, and by sterotyping that the fat fuk is probably a veteran who can read and write, can guide himself where he needs to be using a map and will follow orders by pulling the trigger when he is told to he is much more dangerous than an undisciplined insurgent

but again thats just stereotyping, i dont have enough information to make any conclusion by looking at the pics, the fact that you think you can tell by looking at the pics shows that your military knowledge comes from hollywood

 

[Deafheaven]

nikka I'm in the military! its not stereotyping its damn near fact. Billy Joe from montana is most likely not going to have the military training or mindset of a person that has been fighting a holy war in his mind for years. These dudes will die for their beliefs readily. Not saying our soldiers won't either but that is something that indoctrinated to them over time. You are just not going to wake up one day like "oh I wouldn't mind strapping a bomb to myself to protect my religion/county" that shyt is months and years of brainwashing.

Here how about this. Take a random middle class white guy from anywhere in america that owns some guns, might go to the range a couple times a month as well. Experienced no combat at all.
Now take a Iraqi that has carried and used a rifle since he was to defend his life and home. You tell me which one is more likely to be a liability if shyt hits the fan?


I also think its fukking hilarious how you bring the number of vets up when many of them are disabled and or not specialized for combat in the first place...

 

[newworldafro]

nikka I'm in the military! its not stereotyping its damn near fact. Billy Joe from montana is most likely not going to have the military training or mindset of a person that has been fighting a holy war in his mind for years. These dudes will die for their beliefs readily. Not saying our soldiers won't either but that is something that indoctrinated to them over time. You are just not going to wake up one day like "oh I wouldn't mind strapping a bomb to myself to protect my religion/county" that shyt is months and years of brainwashing.

Here how about this. Take a random middle class white guy from anywhere in america that owns some guns, might go to the range a couple times a month as well. Experienced no combat at all.
Now take a Iraqi that has carried and used a rifle since he was to defend his life and home. You tell me which one is more likely to be a liability if shyt hits the fan?


I also think its fukking hilarious how you bring the number of vets up when many of them are disabled and or not specialized for combat in the first place...

The video was meant for you earlier........

This very composed Marine Veteran who wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein, that went viral, would disagree with you......from yesterday on Piers Morgan....





Also, tonite.......the 2nd interview between Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt....whom Piers called a "very stupid man" for supporting the 2nd Amendment....

 

[Deafheaven]

Okay watched the vid...what exactly am I supposed to get from this. He is a former marine of course he is going to advocate for guns and use of them. Plus he was fukking trained with one. If you are in the army/marines the rifle is like an extension of you. Obviously I'm not talking about him when I say dumbasses with guns. Still don't believe civilians need AR's.

 

[theworldismine13]

The number of civilians dont matter

how can the number of civilians not matter? the number of civilians and the numbers of guns matters a whole lot

Since when? What post limited this scenario to a "street fight"?

because you cant control territory from the air, thats military strategy 101, if you bomb a city but the civilians are still running around waving guns then you obviously failed, you cant subdue the people until you go in with soldiers

im not sure why i have to explain this???

The "assault rifles" we have are not automatic... functionally there is no difference, and they are several leagues down from what soldiers are armed with

it doesnt matter, a soldier cannot deal with multiple civilians pointing guns at him

Again if it were that simple we wouldn't need the 2nd amendment

im just giving you the options, you dont need a bill of rights either, you can just assume that we have come to an enlightened period of human history and that it will stay that way forever

Defend myself from what?

from an irrational government

Not what I said at all.

im actually not sure what you said

If we are invaded by a foreign govt, us being armed wouldn't matter. They are more powerful than our military, who is more powerful than citizens. So we would be powerless to them.

is this some kind of joke? how can somebody make a statement like this just looking at the past us wars, are you retarded? there is absolutely zero evidence to support a statement like this, and thats not even getting into the fact that you sound like a coward

the evidence shows that foreign armies are very unlikely to hold on to territory, and thats with a regular population, america is a very militarized and armed population relatively speaking

so there is really no chance of a foreign army taking over the US

And if there is a possibility the govt will behave irrationally, then my vote doesn't matter. And the "if you dont like it then leave" thing is a red herring... as a citizen of the US its my right to have a say in how the country runs

i didnt say like it or leave it but voting, leaving or fighting are the options if the government behaves irrationally but of course you can always simply accept the situation

but the second amendment is important because it keeps the option of fighting open

240,000 people died in the nuclear attacks on Japan... from 2 bombs... 70 years ago

US has over 5K nuclear warheads

So just on that, based on 70 year old tech, govt could wipe us out twice, just with nuclear warheads

240000 people out of what? the atomic bombs did not kill everybody in hiroshima, japan surrendered and the population had no choice but to go along with the government because the japanese government was the only people with guns in japan, they had no way of fighting the americans

but the only real way to wipe out populations is with soldiers on the ground, and the only real way to conquer territory is with soldiers on the ground, and when you have soldiers on the ground they become susceptible to armed civilians, and if the civilians hate you and they have guns it aint gonna happen

President travels with a huge security entourage and flies with a military convoy. How the fukk do you think you'd be able to get a "barrel in his mouth"

i wasnt talking about the president necessarily, im talking about government officials in general, sure the president would be safe from fat fuks with rifles, but nobody that the president sends in to subdue the territory would be safe

 

[theworldismine13]

nikka I'm in the military! its not stereotyping its damn near fact. Billy Joe from montana is most likely not going to have the military training or mindset of a person that has been fighting a holy war in his mind for years. These dudes will die for their beliefs readily. Not saying our soldiers won't either but that is something that indoctrinated to them over time. You are just not going to wake up one day like "oh I wouldn't mind strapping a bomb to myself to protect my religion/county" that shyt is months and years of brainwashing.

Here how about this. Take a random middle class white guy from anywhere in america that owns some guns, might go to the range a couple times a month as well. Experienced no combat at all.
Now take a Iraqi that has carried and used a rifle since he was to defend his life and home. You tell me which one is more likely to be a liability if shyt hits the fan?


I also think its fukking hilarious how you bring the number of vets up when many of them are disabled and or not specialized for combat in the first place...

wow thats crazy that you are in the military and think like that, i dont know how you can hang out with gung ho white dudes in the military and say that when these dudes go out in the civilian world they wont do anything or wont be a threat

iraqi insurgents always lost battles against the us army or marines because they run when it gets hot, they have zero discipline and zero coordination, how can you not know this if you are in the military? of course they will bust out with the IEDs and suicide missions because they are too afraid and too uncoordinated to go head to head

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

how can the number of civilians not matter? the number of civilians and the numbers of guns matters a whole lot

It doesnt matter cause one bomb can kill thousands or even millions of people

because you cant control territory from the air, thats military strategy 101, if you bomb a city but the civilians are still running around waving guns then you obviously failed, you cant subdue the people until you go in with soldiers

im not sure why i have to explain this???

If the govt bombs 1 city and then says "if you resist we will bomb you too", guess what, dont have to go in with soldiers

This isn't a game of Risk

it doesnt matter, a soldier cannot deal with multiple civilians pointing guns at him

He can from a bulletproof aircraft or tanker

im just giving you the options, you dont need a bill of rights either, you can just assume that we have come to an enlightened period of human history and that it will stay that way forever

Your whole argument for the 2nd amendment is based on the idea that the govt will need to be taken over one day

Not too many options

from an irrational government

People are armed now, but the govt is also irrational

Clearly guns dont protect us from that

im actually not sure what you said

Then why'd you comment on it?

is this some kind of joke? how can somebody make a statement like this just looking at the past us wars, are you retarded? there is absolutely zero evidence to support a statement like this, and thats not even getting into the fact that you sound like a coward

the evidence shows that foreign armies are very unlikely to hold on to territory, and thats with a regular population, america is a very militarized and armed population relatively speaking

so there is really no chance of a foreign army taking over the US

Then why did you bring up that scenario?

i didnt say like it or leave it but voting, leaving or fighting are the options if the government behaves irrationally but of course you can always simply accept the situation

but the second amendment is important because it keeps the option of fighting open

People are armed and unable to fight the govt, it doesn't make for another option in the context of govt change

240000 people out of what? the atomic bombs did not kill everybody in hiroshima, japan surrendered and the population had no choice but to go along with the government because the japanese government was the only people with guns in japan, they had no way of fighting the americans

It doesn't matter "out of how many"... 240,000 people died in the attacks, everything else you said is irrelevant to my point that 1 bomb is capable of killing 120,000 people

but the only real way to wipe out populations is with soldiers on the ground,

Have you seen what a nuclear bomb does to the area of impact?

and the only real way to conquer territory is with soldiers on the ground, and when you have soldiers on the ground they become susceptible to armed civilians, and if the civilians hate you and they have guns it aint gonna happen

US govt already has us conquered

i wasnt talking about the president necessarily, im talking about government officials in general, sure the president would be safe from fat fuks with rifles, but nobody that the president sends in to subdue the territory would be safe

President gives orders bro he is the commander in chief... a gun at some low level general's dome has zero influence over the decisions he makes

By this logic we will never have wars, any govt official being put in any kind of danger would cancel the whole operation

World doesnt work that way

 

[Rapmastermind]

Alex went on CNN and dropped a Bomb. Now that people are dissecting his statements they are seeing he did kick knowledge and he's not just some conspiracy nut. Alex knows his history. Yes he's an entertainer but he's a lot smarter than people give him credit for.

 

[theworldismine13]

It doesnt matter cause one bomb can kill thousands or even millions of people

some people will always survive any bombing, there is no bomb that can wipe out a population completely, so what really matters is how many people are left and how well those people are armed, there are 300 million people in the us

If the govt bombs 1 city and then says "if you resist we will bomb you too", guess what, dont have to go in with soldiers

This isn't a game of Risk

if the government doesnt go in after they bomb a city they do not control a city, they do have to go in with soldiers in the end, there is no way around that

the example that you are talking about only works if the population is not armed, and even then it requires sending in soldiers, that is what happened in japan and in france or in africa for that matter

He can from a bulletproof aircraft or tanker

bullet proof aircraft???? tanker??? what are you even talking about? there is no such thing as a bullet proof aircraft and a tanker carries fuel

but again that doesnt matter because what matters is boots on the ground

People are armed now, but the govt is also irrational

Clearly guns dont protect us from that

that sounds like a political opinion, how is the government acting irrationally?

Then why'd you comment on it?

i guessed at what you were trying to say

Then why did you bring up that scenario?

because that is the scenario under which the second amendment would become important to the survival of the nation 1) if the government starts behaving irrationally or taking your rights 2) foreign invasion

since it is essentially impossible for a foreign nation to control an armed population, the 2nd amendment essentially guarantees that no foreign invasion will be successful

People are armed and unable to fight the govt, it doesn't make for another option in the context of govt change

you can fight the government, if you feel like it, look at timothy McVeigh or david koresh, but most people just vote if they dont like the government

It doesn't matter "out of how many"... 240,000 people died in the attacks, everything else you said is irrelevant to my point that 1 bomb is capable of killing 120,000 people

it matters if the population is armed, the more people survive the more people would have been able to take up their arms to fight the invading americans

Have you seen what a nuclear bomb does to the area of impact?

do you know there are 6 billion people in this planet?

US govt already has us conquered

this is news to me, when did this happen? you sound like alex jones

President gives orders bro he is the commander in chief... a gun at some low level general's dome has zero influence over the decisions he makes

By this logic we will never have wars, any govt official being put in any kind of danger would cancel the whole operation

World doesnt work that way

but that is not the point, the point is that at some point the government has to pacify the civilian population, and he cannot do that without sending people amongst the population, if he doesnt have people amongst the population then he doesnt control anything

if the president sends a tax collector to a city and the civilian population kills the tax collector, how can he say he controls the city? at some point in time even if he bombs the city, it requires sending in troops or else he doesnt control anything