The Alex Jones InfoWhores Conspiracies Thread

[ELVIS]

Did you see all the mothers on there who killed her kids on SSRIs ??

One of them named Amy went to my church...

[ELVIS]

I just can't see myself needing to mow down an angry mob anytime soon, y'know?

That's your prerogative, dude...

But don't tread on me...

[Dr. Love]

Still not seeing the need for the "innocent" to have the ability to inflict that kind of damage, either... Trust me, I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, and self-defense, I just can't see myself needing to mow down an angry mob anytime soon, y'know?

If they aren't hurting anyone, then who cares? Laws should be there to provide consequence for action, not as a way of preventing the action.

Essentially you're saying "murder is wrong, but since it's already illegal to murder someone and that doesn't seem to stop some people, I'm going to limit everyone in an effort to make it harder on the extreme few."

If they banned assault rifles it wouldn't matter. There's so many out there already that it won't do a damn thing.

Rather than limit everyone's freedom, you could just close the gun show loophole and let background checks do what they are intended to do. They will be as effective as outlawing the guns at this point. If someone is crazy and they are determined, they'll find a way to do it regardless.

[jhale667]

If they aren't hurting anyone, then who cares? Laws should be there to provide consequence for action, not as a way of preventing the action.

Essentially you're saying "murder is wrong, but since it's already illegal to murder someone and that doesn't seem to stop some people, I'm going to limit everyone in an effort to make it harder on the extreme few."

If they banned assault rifles it wouldn't matter. There's so many out there already that it won't do a damn thing.

Rather than limit everyone's freedom, you could just close the gun show loophole and let background checks do what they are intended to do. They will be as effective as outlawing the guns at this point. If someone is crazy and they are determined, they'll find a way to do it regardless.

You've got a point... and totally agree the gun show loophole should be closed yesterday. But anyone worried about not passing a background check probably doesn't need a gun anyway....

[DONNIEP]

My state requires a pistol permit to purchase any handgun (except antiques) - including private sales. The law also requires a permit to accept a handgun as a gift. Do people break the law and sell them privately without the buyer obtaining a permit. Yes. But that's a criminality issue - not a gun control issue.

And before everybody goes nuts on me, I have no problem with background checks or waiting periods. I actually think everyone who wishes to purchase a firearm should have to complete a basic safety/proper use/handling class. What really concerns me is all the first time purchasers who may never have even shot a gun before. That's an accidental discharge and a tragedy waiting to happen.

[Hardrock69]

I will just say this:

It is within the capabilities for our government to conduct false flag operations.

A massacre of children is an entirely easy scenario to create for a gummint with the power ours does.

It is entirely possible the powers that be want to disarm the populace.

But the way they would do that is voluntarily. Not by force.

All they need to do is create a scenario so horrific, that the public would start to scream and cry that we outlaw all assault weapns, just for starters.

They did not succeed in banning them entirely the first time.

It is possible certain factions would love to try again.

However, there are too many armed gun owners in this great nation of ours who are against this sort of crap, and Congress is too slanted against anything radical like banning assault weapons. They know if they bite the hand that feeds, it will not be helpful to their political futures.


So....even if it IS some kind of "operation", it is not going to succeed in doing much. Congress will debate stuff. It will go back and forth between political parties, pro/anti-gun forces in Congress, then between Houses.

If they try to ban firearms, they need to enact bans on knives. Clubs. Hammers. Automobiles. Heavy machinery. Trees (which can be used to fashion clubs, or which naturally create "sticks"), and hands, as they all can be used to kill people.

And I have said before: Our government (mainly the Hawks), have a vested interest in keeping our citizenry armed.

In 2010, 12.4 million hunting licenses were sold in the US.

Lets say for the sake of arguments, 1/3 of those were bought by someone who had bought a different license that same year.

That would mean approximately 8,133,000 hunters exist in the US.

That is one helluva an army. Larger than the 10 largest armies on Earth combined.

So it is going to take an awful lot to disarm this nation.....IF it ever happens.

The Hawks in our government want the rest of the planet to think our country is full of armed crazies.

Hey, Assrammistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc. all do want that.

Seriously....these days, due to media influence.....you hear the names Iran, Assrammistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, etc., what is the first image that pops into your mind?

Raghead terrists with AK-47s.

There IS a lot of conflicting evidence from the Connecticut shooting. Just as there was with JFK, RFK, MLK, etc.

But even if there is.....my yelling and screaming about it is not going to help.....


We know return to our regularly scheduled programming......

[ashstralia]

If they banned assault rifles it wouldn't matter. There's so many out there already that it won't do a damn thing.

Rather than limit everyone's freedom, you could just close the gun show loophole and let background checks do what they are intended to do. They will be as effective as outlawing the guns at this point. If someone is crazy and they are determined, they'll find a way to do it regardless.

this makes me really sad. you're saying there will be more mass murder with firearms. even if everyone is armed.

[Hardrock69]

What defense is there against crazy?

At least there is usually a bit more defense against stupid.....


Just sayin...

[envy_me]

But we have crazy here in Europe. We also have medications here too.

Since you seem to be the ones with this particular problems, maybe the solution is to look at what differences there are between your country and a country where these problems don't exist.

[Hardrock69]

Of course. But see....Europe has 2000 years (more or less) of civilization.....

If America had the mindset of most European countries, it would be a different story.

For instance.....many European countries tone down the violent programming on TV (sure I can be wrong), but in general I am of the understanding nudity is far more acceptable than violence.

It is only sensible.

But over here, violence on TV is the norm, as that seems to be where the most money can be made.....and nudity is against the law (on network TV).

Is it any wonder the US is a violent country?

But then.....what about that asshole in Norway in 2011 who went crazy and killed 69 people??

It is hardly a problem limited only to the US....

[lesfunk]

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

[vandeleur]

I don't understand the fleeing tyrannical government angle .
A lot of the people who left were religious extremists who left Europe because their religions were to lax in their country of origin .
Nothing to do with tyranny everything to do with religious extremism .

Am sure I'll cop some shit for saying it

[envy_me]

Of course. But see....Europe has 2000 years (more or less) of civilization.....

If America had the mindset of most European countries, it would be a different story.

For instance.....many European countries tone down the violent programming on TV (sure I can be wrong), but in general I am of the understanding nudity is far more acceptable than violence.

It is only sensible.

But over here, violence on TV is the norm, as that seems to be where the most money can be made.....and nudity is against the law (on network TV).

Is it any wonder the US is a violent country?

But then.....what about that asshole in Norway in 2011 who went crazy and killed 69 people??

It is hardly a problem limited only to the US....

Nudity on TV is against the law??? Lol, wtf???
I guess you're right. It's different mentality.

Breivik was exception. We don't have problems with shootings of that kind.

[ELVIS]

A lot of the people who left were religious extremists who left Europe because their religions were to lax in their country of origin .
Nothing to do with tyranny everything to do with religious extremism .

Did you just make that up ??

[vandeleur]

If you like , maybe the puritans didnt leave because they were not happy with the English church's refusal to adopt their more radical practices.