Is Alex Jones "Crazy"?

TheDemSocialist said:

Is Alex Jones "crazy"?

Click to expand...

Does the Pope **** in the woods?

Sherman123 said:

I don't think most of those things are happening, and those that are fall into two categories:

1. Good. Or subjective, but assuredly not evil.
2. Hardly salient predictions.

Moreover you ignore the insane reasons and context he gives for his predictions.

Click to expand...

In many ways these things are happening, or developing...

The biggest problem is the excess of information that serves to paint a picture of where the world is heading... There's too many sources to look at just one, and even then, not only would I have to put these sources, then I would further have to source how the "plans" Alex jones often sources are manifesting today around the world.

Campbell said:

LMAO....a clip is a magazine. I was in the army in 1957/58 and in the TN national guards for six years after that. When I was discharged I was a tank commander on an M-48 medium Patton tank....company C, 5th Btn, 109th armored division. Check your IPOD and see if you can find that.

As far as that NRA rhetoric.....you sound like my guts growling.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your service oldtimer. The military no longer uses clips, like you did in the olden days.



Clip on the left - magazine on the right

I find it hard to believe any servicemen would make the civilian mistake of calling a magazine a clip, or a semi-automatic an assault rifle.

TheDemSocialist said:

Is Alex Jones "crazy"? I just watched this interview Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan on CNN (FULL ORIGINAL) No Commercial - YouTube with him apparently just yelling at Piers Morgan and all he did was just yell and say "your not gonna get the guns!", "all your gonna do is your factoid questions!", "i already went over the questions", "your a hatchet man for the NWO!". Alex Jones just plays the victim card the whole time and wont even answer a question. Is Alex Jones crazy?!

Click to expand...

No more crazy than anyone else exploiting crazy people for a quick buck. Im sure he gets a good laugh from people that believe his act.

Thorgasm said:

Does the Pope **** in the woods?

Click to expand...

Only if there is a hole in the bullet proof glass.

So after seeing the infamous "gun debate" video, I've watched a few other clips of his. He seems like he's got some kind of paranoid schizophrenia (not diagnosing him, just saying the behavior looks similar to cases I've seen in the past).

FreedomFromAll said:

No more crazy than anyone else exploiting crazy people for a quick buck. Im sure he gets a good laugh from people that believe his act.

Click to expand...

If he's faking he's VERY good at it.

Republic Now! said:

If he's faking he's VERY good at it.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of Jimmy Swagart? He was just as good of a actor. But then you could be right since I havent spent more than two minutes listening to Alex Jones. I tend to tune out idiots like him.

Mustachio said:

Alex Jones is one of three things:
A) A liar who lies intentionally
B) A moron
C) A person afflicted with a very serious mood disorder

He got into SSRIs, so maybe he's been diagnosed bipolar or something in that neighborhood. But he seems pretty relentless and consistent, so maybe his mouth is simply bigger than his brain.

What I don't understand about the Piers Morgan interview is why Alex Jones made no attempt to counter Piers' attempted argument. There are super deadly guns out there - some found at the sites of the latest installment of mass murders - that serve no purpose whatsoever. Jones desperately tried to keep the "debate" off track and was clearly interested in one thing, and one thing only. If you think it's the 2nd amendment, think again. This guy wants money and he wants attention (ok, that's 2 things), and he built an audience with fear and conspiracies and lies and it's misguided to assume that what he says is what he truly believes. Unless he is just a moron.

Click to expand...

Because piers Morgan was attempting to say "see this gun was used in this crime so we must ban this dangerous gun"... He had no intention of discussing actual facts of the issue.

Also, piers tends to attempt to bully people that oppose him, and the best way to handle a bully is to just run them over.

In that way Alex was successful...

I miss the good, old days when a right, proper paranoid schizophrenic was ranting incoherently on some street corner to a bunch of pedestrians who were doing their best to suppress their giggles.

Noawadays, and thanks to the internet and other media, the modern paranoid schizophrenic has almost unlimited access to other paranoid schizophrenics who then pick up the call with a united voice.

It's almost like watching a zombie movie when the zombies somehow figure out how to work together instead of each hunting human brains on their own.

MoSurveyor said:

Wrong question because it makes a couple of false assumptions. For one, that complete disarmament is the goal. I do not believe this is the case. Secondly, it assumes this is some government plot when the impetus comes from the people.

Click to expand...

Not quite, the government desires disarmed populations. So, whenever something happens that can be used it gets hyped in the media in an attempt to sell people on the idea of disarmament.

Then people buy into the lies after the trauma and while fearful for themselves and their families.

So, the real, rational question is:

Why do a majority of the people want gun control?

Click to expand...

Because they have been sold (and bought into) the lie that they should be defenseless for their safety.

The answer should be obvious to anyone who's willing to do a little thinking. Gun ownership is in the minority and gun violence has a deleterious affect on many people.


Ed:
I'm not saying I agree with gun control. In fact, I'm probably more open toward guns than many in the NRA, probably including you two. I'm just pointing out what we're up against and, quite frankly, exaggerating the issue and making false assumptions doesn't help rational discourse.

Click to expand...

Yes, and car accidents have a deleterious effect on many peoples lives, but there's no talk about banning cars.

People must realize that a gun is a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a hammer can build a house or smash a skull. It's about the people wielding the tool, and since Theres a large mass of people on psychotropic drugs who might get their hands on a gun and try to shoot people, it's that much more important to be able to defend yourself and to increase the odds for yourself and any other potential victims.

But, nobody wants to discuss this issue as an issue of mental health and morality rather than an issue of guns...

Hell, why not ban spoons because that's made millions of people fat and obesity has a "deleterious effect" on many peoples lives.

To be honest Piers Morgan isn't exactly a saint either. He has to be the most hated English news reporter...

Lukas105 said:

To be honest Piers Morgan isn't exactly a saint either. He has to be the most hated English news reporter...

Click to expand...

He's never been a reporter. I think calling him a journalist is a stretch. He's a TV presenter, nothing more.

BmanMcfly said:

Because piers Morgan was attempting to say "see this gun was used in this crime so we must ban this dangerous gun"... He had no intention of discussing actual facts of the issue.

Also, piers tends to attempt to bully people that oppose him, and the best way to handle a bully is to just run them over.

In that way Alex was successful...

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the point Mr. Morgan wanted to make was that we allow people to purchase guns which are easily capable of killing hundreds of innocent people in a matter of minutes. There are guns for hunting. There are guns for self protection. There are guns for use in your friendly local militia. Then there are guns that aren't needed for any of those things. Even if you believe that (upon the hypothetical scenario in which entire constitution is ripped to shreds) you could somehow invade Washington and take over the White House with a few of your drinking buddies - what's the problem with gun control if people who pass background checks are able to purchase handguns for protection and rifles for hunting? Can you tell me how an AR-15 would be necessary for anything?

It's crazy. You said that Morgan didn't want to talk about statistics? Show me the statistics of how many people defend themselves with AR-15s.

Mustachio said:

Actually, I think the point Mr. Morgan wanted to make was that we allow people to purchase guns which are easily capable of killing hundreds of innocent people in a matter of minutes. There are guns for hunting. There are guns for self protection. There are guns for use in your friendly local militia. Then there are guns that aren't needed for any of those things. Even if you believe that (upon the hypothetical scenario in which entire constitution is ripped to shreds) you could somehow invade Washington and take over the White House with a few of your drinking buddies - what's the problem with gun control if people who pass background checks are able to purchase handguns for protection and rifles for hunting? Can you tell me how an AR-15 would be necessary for anything?

Click to expand...

3 guys burst into your house, you either a) call 9-11 and wait for 9-15 minutes that's 540-900 seconds, or
B) quickly unlock the ar-15, insert a clip, and loudly get the first bullet in the chamber, take a stance and aim at the nearest doorway... With practice 10-20 seconds.

It's crazy. You said that Morgan didn't want to talk about statistics? Show me the statistics of how many people defend themselves with AR-15s.

Click to expand...

I don't have the statistics on hand, but 2 days ago:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...y-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars

I suppose you would have rather seen those children defenseless against those burglars ??

Alex Jones is pretty ****nuts insane, but that said, I have been swayed to check out his site once in a while.

A lot of the stuff on his site is just straight-up Crazytown, but every now and then, something makes it on there that is really happening, but is just too bad for yellow-bellied mainstream journalists to risk their comfy kick-backs by publishing it. So it's not completely worthless to headline browse, as long as you're willing to put in the extra effort to look into things.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Alex Jones is pretty ****nuts insane, but that said, I have been swayed to check out his site once in a while.

A lot of the stuff on his site is just straight-up Crazytown, but every now and then, something makes it on there that is really happening, but is just too bad for yellow-bellied mainstream journalists to risk their comfy kick-backs by publishing it. So it's not completely worthless to headline browse, as long as you're willing to put in the extra effort to look into things.

Click to expand...

It's like WND one day you find an article about how Obama is paying off aliens and the next they are talking about how Obama's nose means he is Kenyan... oh wait. Generally things like WND and Alex Jones are websites you go on for a few laughs.

0bserver92 said:

It's like WND one day you find an article about how Obama is paying off aliens and the next they are talking about how Obama's nose means he is Kenyan... oh wait. Generally things like WND and Alex Jones are websites you go on for a few laughs.

Click to expand...

Yup, it's definitely more laughs than anything. But once in a great while, there's something there with a glimmer of truth that's worth following up on somewhere else. It's not hard to tell the difference, really.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Yup, it's definitely more laughs than anything. But once in a great while, there's something there with a glimmer of truth that's worth following up on somewhere else. It's not hard to tell the difference, really.

Click to expand...

I actually haven't seen anything on WND that doesn't make me laugh. That alien one though I was laughing for maybe a good hour. You know there is an issue when Rick Santorum is their most Liberal writer.

BmanMcfly said:

3 guys burst into your house, you either a) call 9-11 and wait for 9-15 minutes that's 540-900 seconds, or
B) quickly unlock the ar-15, insert a clip, and loudly get the first bullet in the chamber, take a stance and aim at the nearest doorway... With practice 10-20 seconds.

I don't have the statistics on hand, but 2 days ago:
15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders

I suppose you would have rather seen those children defenseless against those burglars ??

Click to expand...

Teenagers shouldn't have AR-15s, if that's what you're asking (although that's not what you were asking). 15 year old kids aren't able to drive legally, so I don't think they should be able to legally purchase and own AR-15s. There are cases in which kids could have survived had they been able to own and drive cars. That doesn't mean that 15 year olds should be able to own and purchase cars. The potential for dangerous and possible deadly situations is far too high to allow teenagers to have AR-15s.

I'm glad those kids are alright, but the fact that this kid did what he did doesn't change my mind. What if the burglars had robbed the house and then taken the gun? Then what? Then you've got criminals with an AR-15, which is the whole point. By allowing the production and sales of these weapons, they fall into the hands of the wrong people, even if they are purchased and owned by law abiding citizens who legally obtain them.

And further, I was saying - in what situation would a person need an AR-15 rather than a handgun? You've failed to present such a case and the one you cited only further illustrates the potential for dangerous outcomes present when an AR-15 is lying around.

Mustachio said:

Teenagers shouldn't have AR-15s, if that's what you're asking (although that's not what you were asking). 15 year old kids aren't able to drive legally, so I don't think they should be able to legally purchase and own AR-15s. There are cases in which kids could have survived had they been able to own and drive cars. That doesn't mean that 15 year olds should be able to own and purchase cars. The potential for dangerous and possible deadly situations is far too high to allow teenagers to have AR-15s.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right and I don't believe that under 18 should be able to purchase a firearm themselves. However, I do believe that by 8-10 a child is old enough to understand how to safely handle and fire a gun, and that includes understanding the RESPONSIBILITY of what it means to be armed.

Now, there is a different societal problem where parents are not properly teaching their kids how to become responsible adults.

I'll be coming back to this...

I'm glad those kids are alright, but the fact that this kid did what he did doesn't change my mind. What if the burglars had robbed the house and then taken the gun?

Click to expand...

Well, there's always the possibility of a gun jamming as well, the kids dealt with (killed or injured), and the guns still wind up on the streets. All the gun does in self defense is it INCREASES THE ODDS of a better outcome.

Then what? Then you've got criminals with an AR-15, which is the whole point. By allowing the production and sales of these weapons, they fall into the hands of the wrong people, even if they are purchased and owned by law abiding citizens who legally obtain them.

Click to expand...

Now, here's the whole point of having a strong and healthy culture of firearms:

Here's what happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_W765P_JE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

And further, I was saying - in what situation would a person need an AR-15 rather than a handgun? You've failed to present such a case and the one you cited only further illustrates the potential for dangerous outcomes present when an AR-15 is lying around.

Click to expand...

No, I presented a case, now multiple cases where weapons were used to deter crime rather than cause it.

Actually, there are statistics in the late 90's where there are between 1.5-2.5 million cases of self-defense with firearms a year, where approximately 200000 of them are women fighting off sexual assault.

Now, an AR-15 is not really concealable for personal self-defense, but I would serve well for home defense, though I personally would prefer a shotgun for home defense because the sound of cocking the shotgun is the international sound for "gtfo", and with the bullet spray its more just shooting...

But your original point that there's no defensive purpose for "assault rifles" is basically done.

Great, I picked the wrong answer. I intended to pick the "he's crazy, but I don't take him seriously" option.

I always make a mistake when it comes to polls.

BmanMcfly said:

Yes, you are right and I don't believe that under 18 should be able to purchase a firearm themselves. However, I do believe that by 8-10 a child is old enough to understand how to safely handle and fire a gun, and that includes understanding the RESPONSIBILITY of what it means to be armed.

Now, there is a different societal problem where parents are not properly teaching their kids how to become responsible adults.

I'll be coming back to this...



Well, there's always the possibility of a gun jamming as well, the kids dealt with (killed or injured), and the guns still wind up on the streets. All the gun does in self defense is it INCREASES THE ODDS of a better outcome.



Now, here's the whole point of having a strong and healthy culture of firearms:

Here's what happens:

Robbery Foiled By Gun-Toting US Pensioner - YouTube



No, I presented a case, now multiple cases where weapons were used to deter crime rather than cause it.

Actually, there are statistics in the late 90's where there are between 1.5-2.5 million cases of self-defense with firearms a year, where approximately 200000 of them are women fighting off sexual assault.

Now, an AR-15 is not really concealable for personal self-defense, but I would serve well for home defense, though I personally would prefer a shotgun for home defense because the sound of cocking the shotgun is the international sound for "gtfo", and with the bullet spray its more just shooting...

But your original point that there's no defensive purpose for "assault rifles" is basically done.

Click to expand...

Well said. Here's another story, not sure if it's been mentioned here yet:



Making gun ownership a crime would be criminal. I live in Canada; here, we can own guns, but we have to register all guns with the exception of long guns (the small arms type). We seem to be doing alright, although I don't think this is due solely to our gun laws; I think our social safety net may be more developed as well.