“…the second amendment isn’t there to protect duck hunting, it is there to protect us…”

dingbat Alex Jones

Sort of – the second amendment was put there to guarantee armed slave patrols and the continued genocide of the indigenous peoples.

Two pressing issues in 1787.

IMHO

Exposing the arguments of the gun nut is always good fun.

Jones’s hand guns will be no match for the US Military. Bring it on Alex.

Ugh…. The thought of Jones in boxing trunks has ruined my breakfast. Is there some rule that says conservative pundits must shout rather than just speak at normal levels?

And this guy should have access to multiple assault rifles ?

I don’t want every one of my neighbors armed with a 15 round assault rifle but that’s just me.

If it’s public policy debate you’re looking for you’re in the wrong neighborhood with CNN, and especially Piers Morgan. Just more distractions. Look at the shiny keys.

after signing ndaa, not vetoing, is now a good time to ban guns?

Jones went on to blame Prozac for the recent string of mass shootings labeling the entire class of antidepressants as “mass murder pills”

While I wish never to have sully myself by having to agree with anything this despotic con-artist has to say… I do agree, to an extent, with this sentiment. Like eCAHN, I tend to feel that BigPharma has played its own role in all of these mass murders by those who may be struggling with mental health issues, but then are often overly medicated & not given much else help.

That said, there’s also a role to be played in changing our dangerous gun & ammo sales laws.

And finally: would love to see Morgan deported. What a dolt.

I’m not sure I disagree with the argument that the over use of antidepressants as a panacea is part of the problem.

Otherwise, can’t Texans and the rest of the country just agree that it didn’t work out? maybe it’s time for Texas to get off its addiction to federal dollars and secede from the Union with our blessings.

denouncing Morgan as “a hatchet man of the New World Order”

Jones has obviously not been paying attention. Morgan is just a regular, garden-variety asshole (if a smarmy preening one), not a “hatchet man…blah, blah…”

As for Jones? He is personally responsible for generating incremental top-line revenue for the tinfoil hat industry – and that’s good for the economy, as we all know…

I remember a long time ago, there was an episode of 60 minutes where they exposed one of the secrets of the Japanese executive training program. The secret is that most Japanese were taught to be intimidated by loud bosses. So to be an executive, you had to learn to be loud when it suited you.

The summary of the rule is, “You are either right or LOUD.”

I admire Piers Morgan for not slugging that idiot Jones. It is one of the few times I admire Morgan.

Smithers! Release the crazies!

:)

nope……..

I was going to write about this. My point is that the people who want to argue for more guns and guns everywhere are not persuadables. They like to argue. They are busy figuring out how to “win the conversation”

So did Alex Jones change anyone’s mind? No. But that isn’t always how they win. They win (and by win I mean make more guns available to more people with fewer restrictions.) by behind the scenes haranguing. By, when someone wants to engage them *and few people do* changing the terms. Note how when Pier asked him, “What is the number of gun related homicides in the US” he changed his answer to higher violent crime.” Then when asked the number he said,”hundreds” and then he changed the subject.

one of the things that shows like Alex Jones and other rw Radio shows do is teach believers how to “win the conversation” if the another side isn’t motivated to engage they aren’t going to get into all the tricks and techniques they use.

So, what to do? Go over their heads. Be active in the ways they are active, because they are not going to stop. Not only are they not going to stop they are going to use each shooting as an opportunity to say we need more guns.

The people to convince are not Alex Jones. It’s the people who can be reached who make decisions. They need to hear from you in multiple ways.
All the time.
Now why would you do this? Because if you don’t, they will. The elected officials who make these kind of decisions will look at how much money they get as well as count the number of calls, emails, letters and lobbyist meetings they hold. They might take polls. they the decide.
They need to hear from you. That you will be a ferocious in desire for this to stop as the guns everywhere crowd is to keep it going.

You know, I feel like I’m as progressive as anyone on this earth. I believe health care (and education, but I digress) are RIGHTS, not privileges. I believe any man or woman that works 40 hours a week should NOT live in poverty. I believe in more government in the public sphere than what we have now but less inside our homes than we have now (telling us what we can and can’t do with our own bodies for example.

And I believe if the government came to take my guns, they’d have to do it by removing them from my cold, dead fingers.

Am I the enemy too?

You are an enemy but you are defrauded to think that your fucking gun is the reason.

Oh, ok, thanks for the honesty, probably something I said in the past then I guess.

The republican debate about militias, standing armies, and mercenaries goes back to Machiavelli. Not surprising, those trying to whip people into a frenzy against the second amendment are the very same people who have overseen the transfer of so much of the US/NATO war machine to mercenaries. Not surprising, the republic is breathing its last. Of course, if you think like Piers Morgan, there is nothing to learn from history and the American founders’ concerns about how tyranny grows, not that Morgan has ever read any history.

Progressives shouldn’t lie to others or to themselves. The debate is broader than just guns in the society. The debate is about the response to government tyranny. And one can actually be in favor of guns and against tyranny. I’m sorry, things aren’t always as simple as FDLers would like to pretend.

Once upon a time I thought issues might be carefully considered at Firedogalke. Unfortunately, the place has been overtaken by garbage name calling, and the general drift is now one of mindless agreement with Piers Phone Hacker Morgan and Alan Pro Torture Dershowitz. Of course politics makes for strange bedfellows, but when one finds oneself in bed with Morgan and Dershowitz, one should really do a bit of soul searching. Realities are complicated.

But Firedoglake has long since given up facing the complications. And now, the tone of the place makes it just seem like a Daily Kos for gray hairs and a po-mo crowd that still thinks it is 1993. Why think? If somebody is a couple of steps to the right, or far to the right on one dimension among many, call them names. If somebody is a couple of steps to the left, call them names. The shrillness of the place has chased away many knowledgeable and otherwise polite people. The message was sent that the “debate” at FDL will be extremely narrow. And so FDL is now simply far too narrowminded a place to have a real debate about Morgan vs. Jones. If the debate ever got good, the name callers would show up and destroy it. Have to go elsewhere to find a real discussion of it. Curious isn’t it, that everybody is talking about it today, but FDL has less than 20 comments?

Twenty hours of honest work from all capable people would be plenty to ensure decent conditions for everyone, if we eliminated the useless work that so many of us are forced to do. And no, your guns don’t make you may enemy.

And yes, antidepressants do make some people crazy.

Primary assertions:

those trying to whip people into a frenzy against the second amendment are the very same people who have overseen the transfer of so much of the US/NATO war machine to mercenaries.

Delusional.

one can actually be in favor of guns and against tyranny.

Of course. But one can actually be dubious that guns are protection against tyranny. So who’s providing distraction?

FDL is now simply far too narrowminded a place to have a real debate about Morgan vs. Jones.

You’ve not entered with real debate. Most likely Morgan v. Jones doesn’t warrant a real debate. Instead, you’ve only made a case that you don’t belong at FDL, comrade.

But bring it on, comrade, if you’ve got it.

Well I’ve been trying to write a long throughful comment to OFG and twice it got accidently deleted. (by me!) I think that is my hands way of saying. You take your time with this post. My recent post (Guns don’t Sell Guns, People do) examine the methods that the NRA uses to support extremists and ignore the mainstream of the american public both at large and in their own membership.

I was going to explain why OFG is not the enemy, and how he can support greater public safety for all. But maybe I’ll just write it down in a diary so it doesn’t get deleted my subconscious fingers.

You talk about broad debate. I agree. And one way of doing that is to look at who has set the terms of the debate and why.
I’ll bet that OFG could name three occasions where he things that guns SHOULD be confiscated by the government. And that he wouldn’t fit into any of those categories. And I’m not going to call him the enemy because of his gun. What I will do is point out how he has accepted (and owned) the strawman of the guns everywhere crowd that the government is going to take his hunting rifle or shotgun.

He might also tell us that the handgun that he keeps in his house that he has registered, obtained legally and got after a complete honest background check, is fine, but only because he knows how to secure it, use it and not use it. He might not want those who don’t follow the rules to have that same handgun.

As of narrow debate and name calling. I dislike it too.

There is no debate to debate, this was simply theater. Mogan is a talking head and Jones is a seriously crazy person who in the end is arguing for more dead children. And I have a bit of problem supporting noble ideals that intail the acceptance of having children shot in the face by gun weilding lunatics. Which I suspect is why there are so few comments here on FDL.

Agree, comrade, but:

Alex Jones and other rw Radio shows [...] teach believers how to “win the conversation” if the another side isn’t motivated to engage they aren’t going to get into all the tricks and techniques they use.

Disinformation warfare. The revolution is on. “The elected officials who make these kind of decisions” are not honest brokers.

Agreed. Too many of them are bought because they know a group like the NRA will deliver something, the good news is that is changing. The NRA is not the powerful mob they were.

This rant will be an outstanding election ad in 2 years – against the NRA. Every time I think of whackadoodle tea party freakazoids, I think of a guy like Alex Jones.

Well I’ve been trying to write a long throughful comment to OFG

No need to do so, I was less than clear on my comment. I’m so conflicted on this issue it sometimes hurts, but my comment was really ONLY about AJ’s comment that if the government did try to take all of our guns it would be 1776 again.

See, I agree with that, as I believe I too would “revolt” over that.

But I also understand and agree that what we have now regarding gun laws is simply not enough…. not even close.

I do support more thorough background checks, as well as more guns being completely banned, along with clips that hold more than 5 or 6 rounds.

I’m way closer to banning all guns than to the NRA position of almost none, and some days wonder myself whether ultimately that might be the only effective solution. But I don’t think I could support that, especially since I live in a rural area and hunted and am around hunters my whole life and see what a difference it is between this situation and a totally urban one. There may not be a solution that works for all parts of the country.

But my comment was ONLY about the 1776 happening again if the government ever did go that route. To me, AJ’s comment made taking them all away the “issue” of the this thread, and thus after reading the comments above mine I wanted to say I actually agree with AJ’s view, and wondering if that alone makes one an enemy.

Thanks OFG.

Recently some friends of mine who are progressive as can be got into an argument on this very issue. And it ended poorly. Partly it was people talking past each other, partly is was a desire to ‘win’ a discussion.

Since the whole issue of total confiscation has come up I like to find out if there are times when people
1) Don’t think some people should get guns
or 2) Believe that gun that these people who shouldn’t have gotten guns should be taken away.
3) Who should be in charge of taking these guns away?

Are you familiar with how Australia went about getting guns out of society?
(massive buybacks, voluntary turning in, limiting new purchases, licensing etc.)

And I mean that threat, that it’ll be 1776 all over again if the gov. took all guns, is moot.

Thank YOU spocko, for your work on this issue as well as your efforts on many others.

It is such a hard issue. I wonder what my opinion would be if I grew up in an urban environment where gun violence was a daily threat instead of a rural one where guns were as much a part of life as cars and trucks and gun violence was as rare as lottery winners.

I will say this, and have said since it happened, IMO the SCOTUS ruling a couple of years ago was as WRONG as a football bat, and that IMO it’s pretty clear with the language and especially the history of how we got that language that the framers did NOT indend an individual to have a right to own guns. Because the original amendment when in Congress made that expressly plain, and they chose to change it to language talking about militias.

Oh, sorry, forgot to answer your question.

Yes I was aware of the Australian model.