Alex Jones Confronts CNN's Piers Morgan last night in Katy, Texas..!

[jackovesk]

Feb 5, 2013

Leading a pro-second amendment protest last night, radio host Alex Jones confronted Piers Morgan before the CNN host broadcast his show live from a gun store in Katy, Texas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3lKIUhm3ck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=G3lKIUhm3ck


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws28K8YJ04o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws28K8YJ04o

PS - Ted Nugent wipes the floor with NWO Puppet (Piss Off Morgan) with nothing but a little...


COMMON SENSE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkjIMxf0VyU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkjIMxf0VyU

:thumb:

[foreverfan]

New World Order Court Jester.
I can't believe this guy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i1nVMRHf6Jo/UOA647fdyUI/AAAAAAAATfE/cE3a-T8pVkI/s1600/piers_morgan.jpg

[Cjay]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

[gripreaper]

Sandy Hook Dad speaking at special committee on gun control.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYLr6u2FyY&feature=player_embedded

[gripreaper]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

You're not from America, so I'll answer these questions for you. The second amendment was set up so that the sovereign people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government, gone rogue. It's not about hunting or even personal protection, it's about restoring the Republic and taking it back from the banksters.


Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

Not at all. Americans should recognize the creeping covert and overt loss of their civil liberties, and the encroachment of totalitarian fascism, and get ready as quickly as possible.


This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

There is no line. The US corporate government has no jurisdiction over the sovereign peoples of this country, only those which have been delegated to the states by the people, and thus the states to the US government. It is at our behest that they exist at all.

What they are doing is unconstitutional, tyrannical, treasonous, and outright fraud.

Now do you get it?

[ThePythonicCow]

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?
Whether or not there should be such a limit is a separate question from whether or not it is any business of the Federal government to impose any such limit.

In my view, it's none of their damn business.

[Star Tsar]

Lair Liar pants on fire-arms...

yGlx7-M5Zho

[Happyjak]

Its not that Americans support the actions of the criminally insane as alluded by the "court jester". with things like the fast and furious coming to light it seems their planning and execution knows no limits. We were given a document and instructed by the great men who came before us what rights they saw as most important. The 2nd amendment was only second to free speech so very important! many of us are unwilling to allow it to be taken from us, especially by people willing to give these same guns they are claiming is the problem to the criminals who actually are the problem. The see I told you so ask for our security failed and how Watergate was more damaging than fast and furious I have no idea.

[Timreh]

And you want to ban Assault Rifles?
What hypocrisy!


Three words (out of a long list).. Drones and Innocent Civilians
Is this a case of “the pot calling the kettle black” or “people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones” ? :wacko2:

[BMJ]

Hi Guys,
This should make some people happy, Alex wanted a few rounds in the ring with Piers, it looks like Jeremy Clarkson beat him to the punch.

Link:
vfzu2ObrYzc

[kaon]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

Nugent is a gun collector. Does he need hundreds of guns? Of course not. Does a coin collector need more then one coin? Of course not. There should be no limit to the number of guns and the U.S. government does not need to know who owns what either.
As far as ammo, same opinion. One could expend a few hundred rounds in a single day at the range. If you home is invaded by 3 perps and you only have one bullet, you are quite probably going to die.

[jackovesk]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

Shows you just how aloof your post 'above' reads...:faint:

You 'Forgot' 2 things...

Firstly, and most importantly "The 2nd Amendment"...:yes4:

&

Secondly, the very same part of the Constitution the US Govt. wants to tear up...! (Piece by Piece)

If you don't understand that, then you really should'nt be commenting on something you obviously know nothing about..! :nono:

[MR Mojo]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?


Why should anyone NEED that many guns? Maybe for the same reason that DHS NEEDS 1.8 Billion (with a B) hollow point rounds.
(Approx 6 rounds for every man woman and child in America.)

Just sayin

[Tangri]

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?
Whether or not there should be such a limit is a separate question from whether or not it is any business of the Federal government to impose any such limit.

In my view, it's none of their damn business.

In America 20.000 people dies from car accidents.
Jay Leno. Perhaps the most famed celebrity who loves all that is auto; Leno’s luxury car collection includes approximately 200 specimens, including Bugatti and a jet-powered motorcycle. Hey, whatever grinds his gears, and we all know Leno loves Cougars (the car…relax). Did you know that Leno employs a full time staff of four mechanics/fabricators to maintain his fleet of luxury cars? He also has a complete workshop, and simply calls on his way to work to have the car of his choice ready for him.
Why does he have that many car? "Should there be a limit on the number of Car per person? Should there be a limit on gas consumption for those people?

[Akasha]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

So that when an illegitimate government decides a legitimate citizen can't have one, he can still get one off Ted ?!!

[Cjay]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

You're not from America, so I'll answer these questions for you. The second amendment was set up so that the sovereign people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government, gone rogue. It's not about hunting or even personal protection, it's about restoring the Republic and taking it back from the banksters.

Firstly, don't assume that non-Americans can't see or understand what's going on in USA. We see it all the time and shake our heads in dismay. Yes, the government and banksters are rogues. We hear that all the time too. Wake up your neighbours, overwhelm the rogues with large numbers of good people, remove the rogues from power and hold them to account for their actions. Please, do it soon and do it without shooting people.



This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

There is no line. The US corporate government has no jurisdiction over the sovereign peoples of this country, only those which have been delegated to the states by the people, and thus the states to the US government. It is at our behest that they exist at all.

Saying "there is no line" implies a total unwillingness to compromise. It is like saying that anyone who has a different opinion to your own is wrong and has no right to have a different opinion.

What if the majority of Americans voted to CHANGE the 2nd Amendment? Would you respect that change?


What they are doing is unconstitutional, tyrannical, treasonous, and outright fraud.

Now do you get it?

I always "got it". What I don't get is, why is it taking so long for the American people to wake up and rise up to put an end to the tyranny, treason and fraud?


In case you did not read the first phrase in my post, here it is again.


I support his right to own guns

To clarify, I support the principle of the right to bear arms. I support the principle of having the means to defend yourselves against a tyrannical rogue governement.

I also support the right of all non gun owners to live free from the threat of bullets flying around them or through them.




Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?
Whether or not there should be such a limit is a separate question from whether or not it is any business of the Federal government to impose any such limit.

In my view, it's none of their damn business.

In theory, the government gets its power from the people, therefore, the people should decide the limits, if any and the government must do what the majority of people decide. Even people who disagree with the majority should respect the decision of the majority.

In reality, the government do whatever they want or whatever they think they can get away with, regardless of the will of the people and regardless of the law. When the government don't do what the people want, the people should remove the government and remind them who they work for. When the government break the law, they should be held accountable.

I have seen a lot of contradictory statistics bandied about - probably manipulated by both sides to emphasise their varying opinions. The situation has been so muddied by attempts to manipulate or even hijack public opinion and debate that it is unclear what the majority of people want. It is also unclear what questions to ask to get closer to a true picture of the will and desire of the majority of people without inflaming the passions of people who hold different views.



I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

Shows you just how aloof your post 'above' reads...:faint:

You 'Forgot' 2 things...

Firstly, and most importantly "The 2nd Amendment"...:yes4:

&

Secondly, the very same part of the Constitution the US Govt. wants to tear up...! (Piece by Piece)

If you don't understand that, then you really should'nt be commenting on something you obviously know nothing about..! :nono:

Jack, my post is not aloof. I merely asked some questions that make some people uncomfortable. These ARE difficult issues. Millions of people hold different views on these issues. Their opinions and wishes are just as valid as the opinions and wishes of the pro-gun (or pro-2nd Amendment) people. I did not forget the 2nd Amendment. I know that the government is acting way beyond it's Constitutional authority. I actually do know quite a lot about it. I wonder how much more condescending you would be if I held opposing views (which I don't).



Why should anyone NEED that many guns? Maybe for the same reason that DHS NEEDS 1.8 Billion (with a B) hollow point rounds.
(Approx 6 rounds for every man woman and child in America.)

Just sayin

I'm aware of DHS ordering those hollow point rounds. That is another symptom of the overall problem - the US government has gone mad. It is the responsibility of every adult American to reign-in your rogue government. If you don't do that, then by your inaction you are acquiescing to the government's agenda.

[jackovesk]

I support his right to own guns but Ted Nugent stated that he owns "hundreds and hundreds of guns". Why does ANYONE NEED that many guns?

Should there be a limit on the number of guns per person? Should there be a limit on ammunition?

This is a tough problem. Both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate have some good points. Both sides need to compromise but where do we draw the line?

Shows you just how aloof your post 'above' reads...

You 'Forgot' 2 things...

Firstly, and most importantly "The 2nd Amendment"..!

&

Secondly, the very same part of the Constitution the US Govt. wants to tear up...! (Piece by Piece)

If you don't understand that, then you really should'nt be commenting on something you obviously know nothing about..!

Jack, my post is not aloof. I merely asked some questions that make some people uncomfortable. These ARE difficult issues. Millions of people hold different views on these issues. Their opinions and wishes are just as valid as the opinions and wishes of the pro-gun (or pro-2nd Amendment) people. I did not forget the 2nd Amendment. I know that the government is acting way beyond it's Constitutional authority. I actually do know quite a lot about it. I wonder how much more condescending you would be if I held opposing views (which I don't).


Hear-Ye Hear-Ye...:director:


Jack, my post is not aloof.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuKNIUqobQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuKNIUqobQs

All you need to know is this...

The American 'Republic' was founded on the US Constitution & Bill of Rights...:yes4:

The 'Founding Fathers' wrote the Constitution for the (People by the People)...:yes4:

'Not' for the (Govt. by the Govt.)...:nono:

The Constitution was written to keep the Govt. in check..! (Govt. for 'The People by the People')

The Constitution was 'Never' written to be tampered with...:nono:

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, right...:yes4:


2nd Amendment

"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".

Following me so far...?

Ok then, I don't care what your opinion may or may not be on Gun-Control...Its a (Pointless) exercise...


Their opinions and wishes are just as valid as the opinions and wishes of the pro-gun (or pro-2nd Amendment) people. I did not forget the 2nd Amendment

Starting to 'Catch-On' yet...???

You see how aloof and pointless your argument is now...?!!!

Once again for (All) those wish to weigh-into any kind of debate on the 2nd Amendment/Gun Control...

One 'Last' time, just in case it hasn't 'Sunk-In' yet...:faint:


2nd Amendment

"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".

The 2nd Amendment - "shall not be infringed"..!!!!

So, you see. You have no validation &/or argument...Period..!!!

Get it..?
Got it..?
GOOD..!!!

PS - Crikey-Charlie, some people just 'Don't-Get-It' do they...:faint:

[gripreaper]

You are right Cjay on many things, but our form of government is not a majority. A majority, is a lamb and a wolf deciding what to have for dinner.

We are a Republic, and the Constitution is unalienable. Yes, we get what we do not want because most people, not just American's, have acquiesced.

[Tangri]

[QUOTE=In theory, the government gets its power from the people, therefore, the people should decide the limits, if any and the government must do what the majority of people decide. Even people who disagree with the majority should respect the decision of the majority.
[/QUOTE]

I am slightly disagree with you at this point. Democracy is not give guaranty to majority to bully or silenced minority since majority can be obtained by campaign founding.(which can be provided from another minority.)

[Akasha]

In theory, the government gets its power from the people, therefore, the people should decide the limits, if any and the government must do what the majority of people decide. Even people who disagree with the majority should respect the decision of the majority.

Cjay, your paragraph above would seem to be ethical and valid on the face of it until you start to consider how the majority of many of the nations of our planet are starting to think due to the brainwashing induced by the mainstream media.

Are you familiar with the movie "Idiocracy" ? Whilst ironically coming from Hollywood the parody of society it is presenting already bears some relevance to the social environment we now find ourselves in.

With that in mind, at what point in the controlled deterioration of society should those who recognize the manipulation cease to "respect the decision of the majority" because in your paragraph above, you are suggesting that the answer is never.

[Conchis]

I think you will find that the limits imposed by the Constitution upon the government were put there to protect the minority from a majority. They recognized that if you didn't keep a majority from running roughshod over the minority there would be a kind of oppression that stamps out freedom for everyone. Of course we've been convinced since then that majority rule is being abrogated by the minority and that this is a bad thing.

[Tangri]

In theory, the government gets its power from the people, therefore, the people should decide the limits, if any and the government must do what the majority of people decide. Even people who disagree with the majority should respect the decision of the majority.

Cjay, your paragraph above would seem to be ethical and valid on the face of it until you start to consider how the majority of many of the nations of our planet are starting to think due to the brainwashing induced by the mainstream media.

Are you familiar with the movie "Idiocracy" ? Whilst ironically coming from Hollywood the parody of society it is presenting already bears some relevance to the social environment we now find ourselves in.

With that in mind, at what point in the controlled deterioration of society should those who recognize the manipulation cease to "respect the decision of the majority" because in your paragraph above, you are suggesting that the answer is never.

Also, The majority can be created as an illusion, playing with numbers which depends on who the administrator is.