The Alex Jones InfoWhores Conspiracies Thread

[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....

[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]

What defense is there against crazy?

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


Just sayin...

[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]

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......

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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...

[ELVIS]

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

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

[jhale667]

That's punishing the innocent because of the actions of the crazy.

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?

[Dr. Love]

Maybe you should click on my SSRI link, Doc...

I did -- but I was wondering if a more thorough study had been performed.

[Dr. Love]

That's punishing the innocent because of the actions of the crazy.

[jhale667]

If the meds really are causing these big shifts in behavior, then intent trumps access. They'll find another way to hurt other people. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between violent crime and medicines prescribed to attacker regardless of weapon used in the attack.

I'd agree, but I thoroughly believe if and when these people acted out, the damage they're able to inflict could be seriously minimized with tighter gun restrictions.

[ELVIS]

Maybe you should click on my SSRI link, Doc...