Local efforts are under way to help Oklahoma tornado victims. Find out how you can help here.
Alex Jones from Infowars vs. Piers Morgan on CNN. The subject is guns. The good part starts right around 2:04
One of these guys is crazy. Which one do you think it is?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
45 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
I saw this. Pretty sure the British didn’t have drones.
Alex Jones should be banned from having guns because he is truly and irrevocably mentally unstable
Dang, that is one angry man. He should not be allowed to own guns, Bud.
If someone truly believes that either the U.S. or the U.K. has “hordes of people burning down cities and beating old women’s brains out every day” as Jones claims at 4:17, then they can easily think that inflation’s out of control, and guns save more American lives than they take, and the “new world order” wants to comletely disarm them to facilitate tyranny. So yeah, he’s pretty representative of the massacre control opponents on this blog.
They’re both crazy, as is the author of this blog, for reducing a complex issue to the verbal equivalent of fingerpainting.
And yeah, trying to confiscate guns is a bad idea.
Jones is a lunatic, Morgan is a hosebag. Great combination for the ratings.
It seems that all the states pretty much have their own particular gun laws. If a federal law is passed banning certain firearms that conflicts with a state’s law, would a state have to enforce it?
Those states that recently legalized recreational marijuana are breaking federal law. Will federal law trump state law?
The same reasoning can be used for gun laws. What if a state passed a referendum to keep firearms banned by federal law legal in their state? Again, does federal law trump state law?
I look forward to your replies.
That is a good question Newman. I just no longer care.
Newman @#7: “Those states that recently legalized recreational marijuana are breaking federal law…What if a state passed a referendum to keep firearms banned by federal law legal in their state…does federal law trump state law?
The governing principle is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which creates federal preemption of state laws. While individual issues yield an ongoing interpretation of federalism, generally speaking federal law can trump an individual state law that is counter to federal law.
Among the most commonly invoked constitutional bases for this is the Commerce Clause, which puts interstate commerce in the federal regulatory realm. Since there is certainly interstate commerce in firearms and related items, they’re easily covered under the Commerce Clause, and there are other constitutional areas (including long established aspects of the Second Amendment) that bolster a wide and deep federal power to regulate them.
As for the disparate cannabis laws among the states and their conflict with federal law, until the recent legal issues are settled administrative implementation will determine de facto legal status.
With cannabis laws in flux, the DOJ has been variable in it’s philosophy but generally supportive of the status quo while making intermittent enforcement efforts, and state and local implementation has been more directly responsive to the shifts away from prohibition.
When the jurisdictional issues of cannabis laws are finally reconciled, the legal status of cannabis might be more apt for comparison with firearms. But currently, the difference in legal context and precedence makes an analogy between firearms and cannabis of little use in policy debate.
Jones is the kind of dangerous advocate for guns that will ultimately cause to happen the very thing that he is fighting. Radical, no compromise, threatening to use armed insurrection to overthrow the government, unable to accept reasonable restrictions and regulation,
anger bordering on violence, he is the prototype representative of the gun culture/ gun cult that is plaguing this country and giving a bad name to responsible gun owners.
It’s sad how when someone is passionate and angry about the attack on our rights that they’re labeled crazy. Arguing in an NPR voice with a limp wrist is not cutting it anymore. Gun control laws are a fallacy because criminals don’t care about the law. The emphasis is on “control”.
11.It’s sad how when someone is passionate and angry about the attack on our rights that they’re labeled crazy. Arguing in an NPR voice with a limp wrist is not cutting it anymore. Gun control laws are a fallacy because criminals don’t care about the law. The emphasis is on “control”.
Comment by Jack T. Miles — January 8, 2013 @ 11:44 pm
What’s sad is not being passionate about your beliefs. What’s sad is the paranoia that reasonable regulations and restrictions that protect people from the excesses of the massacre weapons and accessories for them is somehow an attack on someone’s rights. What’s sad is the willingness to resort to violence and unbalanced threats to overthrow the government to protect high capacity magazines and massacre weapons that are unneeded
in a modern world. What’s sad is the anti intellectualism of a commenter
denigrating “arguing in anNPR voice with a limp wrist” This is the machoism of paranoiacs who can only feel like a man if they are carrying a gun.
So Alex Jones is going to stage a revolution if the feds outlaw 30-round & up cartridges,and require background checks on semiauto rifles?
Puh-lease!
Why didn’t he try that back during the Clinton years? The dude is all (Mad)hat(ter) and no cattle.
Jones is a screaming lunatic, but anyone “concerned” about a coming revolution here just needs to read Mark’s piece. If anything’s going t generate a revolution, it’s going to be the disparity in wealth distribution here, the same as MOST revolutions. Pretty sure zero revolutions to date have been stimulated by gunners anywhere scared of losing their guns.
Anti-gun people are such hypocrites. Anti-gun advocates threaten to shoot pro-gun speaker.
http://www.infowars.com/veiled-threat-piers-morgan-guest-says-shoot-alex-jones/
“Arguing in an NPR voice with a limp wrist is not cutting it anymore.”
You just lost any argument you might try to make. Pushing the auto-ignore button.
I agree that Alex Jones is a nut ball.
That doesn’t change the fact that Piers Morgan is either a)sorely misinformed or b)purposely dishonest.
A “proper debate” as he says, would be a good thing. However, it is not in the spirit of proper debate to propagate misinformation. Piers has repeatedly referred to AR-15 rifles as “machine guns” in the past couple of days.
I also get the distinct feeling that he doesn’t really know what “semi-automatic” means.
It is impossible to discuss whether or not banning semi-automatic rifles would be useful unless everyone participating in the discussion knows exactly what they are talking about. If the people on one side of the debate think that “semi-automatic” equals “machine gun”, there is no rational discussion to be had.
I am also wondering if possibly this show was just a stunt to boost ratings. The whole thing has given both Piers Morgan and Alex Jones tons of material for their respective audiences. Alex Jones has some out there ideas, but I have a hard time fathoming that he is stupid enough to think that his frothing tirade in any way helped the cause of gun rights advocates.
“Gun control laws are a fallacy because criminals don’t care about the law”
Really. The same statement could be applied to crack.
Kristen:
“Pretty sure zero revolutions to date have been stimulated by gunners anywhere scared of losing their guns.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
The fact that Piers invited him on the show proves that he is desparate for ratings and is trying to prevent his show from being pushed off from primetime. He doesn’t want to lose his job and have to go back to the U.K. to face his phone hacking scandal charges.
Reality check, Piers…
http://youtu.be/OEeuMjG-94A
Yeah, Henry, there’s just a ton of us out there seriously threatening to do that.
Thanks Kristen you proved my point. Crack is illegal yet people still use it. The government can’t even keep drugs out of prisons.
Exactly, John T. Miles… a place where nothing goes in or out without scrutiny. The government can’t keep dangerous items off of planes, either. By the TSA’s own numbers, 76% of the prohibited items that they specifically look for get through the checkpoints.
More people signed the petition than watch CNN in a week.
Because nothing works, let’s do nothing? Wow, that is certainly substantive, meaningful discussion of the issue…Oh C-h-u-c-k!
Maybe THAT is the reason Alex Jones was allowed to show millions of people his POV.
26.More people signed the petition than watch CNN in a week.
Comment by Maloof — January 9, 2013 @ 7:04 pm
That’s a truly sad commentary that there are more nuts who agree with Jones than there are people who are actusally interested in learning something and getting information.
Wayne Goodman,
I don’t think it’s that people don’t want to learn something and get information, they just don’t want to get it from CNN.
John T Miles….so, you support legalization of drugs?
Yes, people should have the freedom to use drugs, guns, or whatever else if they want to as long as they don’t hurt anyone else and if they do they must be responsible for the consequences. I’m not an advocate of drugs, I’m an advocate of liberty.
So, John T. Miles, do you believe that if afforded the liberty to do whatever they want regarding drugs and guns, the subset of people who choose to be drug and gun users must pay the entire cost to society that their use creates, or could they expect the same economic subsidies they currently enjoy?
John T. Miles, Warren is asking if you should be held responsible, at least financially, for gang members shooting one another, since you and a gang member both have a gun.
Kristen:
“John T Miles….so, you support legalization of drugs?”
Kristen, do you actually support the failed war on drugs? That’s the better question.
I believe individuals are responsible for themselves. If someone abuses drugs or shoots someone with a gun they must bear the consequences. I don’t lose my rights because someone else made a mistake. Don’t reward or punish groups because of individual persons’ actions.
John Wilburn,
As you know, we already have new legislation that is going to be introduced in this session in Virginia that would make one citizen civilly responsible for the criminal acts of another.
“As you know, we already have new legislation that is going to be introduced in this session in Virginia that would make one citizen civilly responsible for the criminal acts of another.”
–Comment by Jack
Indeed! And there also is legislation to repeal the silly law Cuccinelli sponsored in 2009 that allows people who have never touched a handgun in their lives to procure a concealed carry permit!
The law should not require any training. Yes, training is a good idea if you have never had it, but the law should not require it.
JohnW…No, I don’t, as I have noted many, many times. I think drug use is a health, not criminal, issue. And the DEA a huge pointless drain on the budget. Happy?
Human beings have historically rewarded or punished groups because of individual actions. It is how we govern. When did they pass a law that said John Wilburn can or cannot _______? That is not how laws are made or how decisions are made. Any proposed action is looked at in light of the whole of society not just a subset with a yen for _________. The fact that individuals can get their rights stymied or even trampled while someone else gets to enjoy theirs is also a historical fact. Much like the difference in being born rich or poor. A lot of things happen due to circumstance, region, norms or events that no one individual was part of.
Simply allowing anything “until someone is hurt” is a ridiculous way for a society to operate, on any scale. Ask any parent. There are precautions and regulations for a reason and that they do not prevent every wrong or abuse is no reason not to have them. After the carnage action is too little too late. These mass shooting assault rifles are just not something society should ever have had, not something anyone needs, not something productive or viable in society. They are expendable on every level.
Not sure what you are whining about now, but we have had laws that hold accomplices and those who knew of some intent, responsible criminally for a long time. Why not civilly?
@Sandi Saunders,
We’re not talking about an accomplice or anything like that. We’re talking about your being the victim of a crime, and then the perpetrator of that crime commits another crime in the future and you are liable for it.
I agree about the accomplices thing.. but that is completely different.
In the proposed legislation:
You own a gun. You put it in your house. You lock your house. Your house is burglarized and the gun is stolen. You are liable for any future crimes committed with that gun.
You did nothing wrong.
Some would say you should have bought a safe for the guns. I would say that you stored them in your home and locked the doors and that should be enough.
“The driver licensure laws should not require any training. Yes, training is a good idea if you have never had it, but the law should not require it.”
You think that makes sense, Jack?
I’m not sure who is using cars for self defense. I guess that’s what they mean by “defensive driving”.
I won’t get into how I feel about driver’s licenses except to say that you should not have to have a license or special training to exercise a Constitutional Right.