Piers Morgan interviews "Deport Piers Morgan" guy


I don't quite know what I expected.



    1. I don’t think he knows that the louder he screams & the more he interrupts, the more he makes an ass of himself. 

      Rope doesn’t hang people’s argument’s, giving them rope to hang themselves does!

  1. Really?  I am supposed to watch 7:30 of this scratchy-voice, redneck douchebag?  Why is this even on here?  Oh yeah… the second amendment is is really big trouble.  HHAHAHAAHAAA!!

    1. after watching a few episodes of alex jones’ show on youtube out of morbid curiosity, i started watching it for laughs. he’s pretty funny, and mostly harmless.

      i say “mostly” because he actually has followers (though i suspect a lot of them are also watching for laughs), and he hawks overpriced crazy like special water filters for removing government chemicals. but apart from that…

      by the way, he had cameo roles in “waking life” and “a scanner darkly” playing… well, basically himself. he and richard linklater go way back apparently.

    2.  Note that he was right, every time in history that an autocratic government wanted to take guns away from gun nuts, they just cowed down and handed them straight over.
      It has always been unarmed people, who fought against those autocratic governments and took the weapon they needed from the government.
      Gun nut’s all talk and no action, hmm, think about it, that’s why they need to own guns, they are cowardly fearful folk who need that psychological crutch to get by.
      Real brave people are the ones who can face every day unarmed and who can also keep their government under control without being armed.
      Note: the changes in violent crimes statistics represent corporate propaganda applied to government. In order to make it look like a reduction in violent crimes, a bunch of crimes were redefined as non-violent.

      1. It’s a good thing the people with handguns, shotguns, and assault rifles are here to save us from a government with automated aerial bombers, the biggest navy on earth, satellites, and nuclear bombs.

        For a moment there, I thought it wouldn’t be a fair fight.

          1. I hope that rwfresh (Now ‘guest’) comment wasn’t removed via moderation – it was a real gem…

            If it wasn’t removed via moderation can I link to a copy of it on Pastebin (Moderators?) – I have it in my email.

          2. It was removed via moderation.  Perhaps we’ll showcase it when we finally get around to opening the BB Comment Museum.

          3. Would you rather I not link to a copy of it, as I assume that would negate the point of you removing it?

            A museum would be fantastic, please do this. The list of people that are disappointed with BB could be a prize exhibit.

          4. I’d rather you didn’t but thanks for being polite enough to ask. Maybe Antinous can say more about it when he signs on.

            The museum will, of course, include a troll petting zoo.

          5. “spending more than” does not automatically equal to “more powerful than.” Military power depends very much on one’s goals and the specific situation, as Iraq and Afghanistan (and earlier, Bosnia) have amply demonstrated.

      2. “Gun nut’s all talk and no action, hmm, think about it, that’s why they need to own guns, they are cowardly fearful folk who need that psychological crutch to get by.”

        Rural American here; when you live out in the country and you have an angry, rabid skunk in your yard, and the animal control people are 30 minutes away from your house, and so is the sheriff’s department, we’ll talk about how gun owners are just cowardly fearful folk.  Rabies is fatal, and doesn’t care how nice you are.  Shooting a rabid skunk is a mercy.

        Guns kill, so we need to ban them!  By the same reasoning, we need to ban general-purpose computers and the free (as in speech) Internet, because they’re used to steal intellectual property.  Also, we need to be tougher on drug laws.  Because prohibition totally works.

          1. So you shout straw man, but don’t actually try to refute any part of the argument?

            Being dismissive does not forward the discussion. Pointing out logical fallacies may make you feel superior, but it doesn’t make you so.

            I grew up in ‘the country’ and I can tell you, a gun is a very useful tool. Nature is not kind. It will kill you given the chance. Shane has an argument there. One that deserves addressing.

            Namely, facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

            My problem with ‘gun control’ is the 2nd amendment  We simply cannot address the firearm without a hard look at it. The Bill of Rights does not grant you the right to own a firearm. It is an enumeration of natural rights as human beings and citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, the right to bear arms is inherent. It is a right the government is prohibited from infringing upon. 

            Many see gun control laws of any type and infringement upon their natural rights and question the governments authority to pass laws regarding the matter. They feel that the natural rights of a person cannot be legislated as the government has no power to do so.

            So, the question then becomes,in today’s America, is the ability to own a weapon, of any sort, a natural right? Or, does the 2nd amendment need to be stricken from the Bill of Rights?

          2. Shane, no one is trying to ban the weapons you need, or restrict you from them. 

            Just ask Rural Canada. We have guns galore, but only a small, tiny fraction of gun violence in our cities.

            Restrictions are not bans or criminalization, nor is demanding responsible ability be proven rather than just foolishly assumed. Ask any motor vehicle operator.

            He called it a strawman argument because everyone on all sides wants you to be able to shoot a skunk.

            edit- hm, seems I hit the wrong reply, meant for Shane

          3. “So you shout straw man, but don’t actually try to refute any part of the argument?”
            I’ll refute it.  The debate is not about taking away all guns.  It’s about gun control.  But that’s obviously not how a lot of gun rights advocates see it:

            “So, the question then becomes,in today’s America, is the ability to own a weapon, of any sort, a natural right? Or, does the 2nd amendment need to be stricken from the Bill of Rights?”

            That’s you arguing with yourself.  No reasonable person wants to ban all guns, or prevent people from shooting rabid skunks.  Whoever “they” are…the people who want the 2nd amendment stricken…they exist only in your head.  

            So, gun control then.  The question then becomes, in todays America, should we allow magazines which hold 20+ bullets.  Is this what a rural person would reasonably be expected to need to kill rabid skunks?  I know that the reason that my mom owns an AR-15 is because she is an old woman with shaky hands and bad eyes.  She knows this and feels like if she can fire off a lot of rounds quickly she’ll have a better chance of hitting something.  Of course, she won’t be shooting at skunks, she lives in a retirement community in Florida which has no pest problem.  She got that gun to shoot at brown people, the U.N., the dollar bubble and “them”.

          4. I would say a natural right is something you’re born with or need to continue living – like air or water. Since (and I can’t believe I have to say this) people invented guns, it’s not a requirement for our staying alive, though it makes hunting for things easier. 

          5. Funk Daddy:  “Shane, no one is trying to ban the weapons you need, or restrict you from them.”

            Yeah, don’t try to pull that one on me.  I live in Illinois, where lawmakers just attempted to pass a state-wide semi-auto ban that is so broad that it bans almost all modern firearms, even pump action shotguns…and it’s not limited to purchases.  Oh, warrantless searches, too.  It’s been canceled due to public outcry, but who knows?  We gotta keep those school kids safe, after all!

          6. Is it?  I was responding to the notion that “gun nuts” have guns because they’re cowards.

            I don’t think my last graf is as much of a straw man as you’d like to think, as we’re discussing Piers Morgan, who seems to think gun ownership is out of control.  And when we’re talking about gun control, well yes, we have gun control already, though implemented largely at local and state levels.  We’re already preventing legal ownership in many places by people who have been convicted of felonies.  Is it working?

        1. I meant to answer yo, but my reply to you and this guy not saying why he called it a strawman is below addressed to donavan.

          BTW, Skunks just carry that shit, the reason they seem rabid in manner is because they are mostly mean as shit all night all day. They don’t suffer from rabies that way. But yeah, shoot them, because they’ll come right at you as you probably know like I do. Crazzy buggers.

        2. You make no distinction between the actual “gun nuts” / NRA fanatics that the OP references, and regular people who don’t think they need assault rifles to dispatch a pesky varmint. Try that again..

          Also, we have skunks in my city of almost 3 million……I’m more afraid of the rats (that are almost as big) personally….

        3. That first paragraph was hilarious reading. An angry SKUNK?

          If Australians can survive without guns, so can you bud.

          Funk daddy makes some excellent points, most importantly that control doesn’t mean a ban. I live in the UK where we don’t have guns, except we do, if you have a license, and an actual reason for owning one. We just don’t allow instruments of murder to be carried by civilians. Nuts I know.

          1. Nathan – you guys in the UK are, however, allowed very wicked air-rifles (with less restrictions than firearms), that are more than powerful enough to kill all manner of varmints. 


            Can’t reply to Hal or Nathan ’cause comments are closed, so adding this here…I found the rules for the U.K. Airgun power is restricted there, but they’re still good enough to plinking, hunting game-birds, or small mammals.


          2. Any air rifle capable of  shooting at over 12fps  is treated like a firearm in England, probably Scotland too but they are in the process of modifying their law, so  unless you like rabbit which is about as much as 12fps  can humanely kill at 30ft it’s not overly powerful.Could knock off game birds too but they hardly fall into the definition of varmint. 

          3. I think you need some kind of registration (there’s paperwork involved, I’m sure) but yep, air rifles are OK. You can get a shotgun with the right registration and bureaucracy involved.
            BB guns however, are not looked upon favourably by the authorities.

        4. I don’t think anyone was talking to you. Okay, that wasn’t meant to be a rude as it sounds, I mean that nobody seems to be arguing that rural folks don’t use and need guns occationally. But you don’t need an assault rifle. I don’t think you’re even arguing for that though are you? You could kill that skunk just as humanly with a 22. 

        5. Shane below you claim that the recent proposal in the Illinois senate would “ban(s) almost all modern firearms, even pump action shotguns…and it’s not limited to purchases.  Oh, warrantless searches, too.”

          Even Fox News acknowledges that anyone who owns weapons that become prohibited would be allowed to keep them but must register the weapons. That is regulation and restriction for existing guns and a ban on selected weapons in the future.

          And it has not gone away, it will be reworded to protect pump action shotguns and semi auto hunting weapons with low capacity magazines and then be passed later. You will still have to register those firearms.

          You really should get your news -at least- from Fox News, if that’s the best you can do, but stop taking the word of gun nut sites.

          As well, if you can’t kill varmint or hunt prey with a .410/.22 once over then you shouldn’t be handling firearms without further instruction. /marksman

          1. “if you can’t kill varmint or hunt prey with a .410/.22 once over then you shouldn’t be handling firearms without further instruction.”

            How true. And I volunteer that your statement also is true for half-way decent air rifles, or air shotguns.

            From first to third grade (late ’70s.) I lived in a small town in Virginia in the Appalachians (about 20 minutes from WV.) I was between first and second grade and I was complaining to our 70+ year-old neighbor that I wanted a ‘real’ gun, a 22. He asked me to handover my kid-size-appropriate pellet gun waited a minute or so, then shot himself a snack – a fat squirrel. He handed the pellet gun back to me and said “this _is_ a real gun.” Then he retrieved the squirrel and began skinning it. I was convinced. 

            Over the last year or so, I’ve developed a renewed interest in air-weapons. My interest has brought me to various fire-arm enthusiast and Prepper websites. Both groups have respect, and real uses for air-guns. Both as a means of practising at home to look good at the firing range, and for actual stealthy suburban varmint removal, or very real survival situation hunting of small game. There are even air-gunners who are skilled enough to take down larger game. 

        6. Shane Simmons wrote: 
          “By the same reasoning, we need to ban general-purpose computers and the free (as in speech) Internet, because they’re used to steal intellectual property.  Also, we need to be tougher on drug laws.  Because prohibition totally works.”

          Liberal here: Good point. Thanks. I’ll add these to my list. Except for marijuana. And ironic black-powder muzzle-loaders. 

      3. What always gets me is that they seem to talk a big game about guns being essential to protect their liberty… but the only time they actually seem willing to rise up is when they take the guns themselves away.

        He mentions the drones in the skies targetting US citizens… so, what have you brave gun owners defending your country done to stop it?  Have your guns been much use there?

        No?  Because if not, you’re too late.  You’ve already allowed the oppressive government you think you’re protecting yourself from. 

      4. >Note: the changes in violent crimes statistics represent corporate propaganda applied to government. In order to make it look like a reduction in violent crimes, a bunch of crimes were redefined as non-violent.<
        Citation, please?

    1. When I saw the still-frame, I thought, “That guy looks just like Alex Jones.” Imagine my surprise. This is a real coup for him. He’s two steps away from getting his own show on Fox now.

    1. You should direct your request to the KGB (well, FSB, but same thing). They’ll just use an umbrella.

  2. The problem is he is shooting himself in the foot (no pun intended) with his inability to structure an argument against Mr. Morgan’s questions. Morgan brings up the recent shootings in relation to semi-automatic rifles and instead of pointing out the overwhelming majority of gun violence is from handguns, and that shootings like the ones that garner the most media attention are incredibly rare (I heard it once equated to winning the lottery but in reverse), he just berates and pushes the discussion to the side. Its sad because it could be a decent dialog if it was just approached in a different fashion.

    1. I think the mistake you’re making is in assuming that Morgan would be willing to have a “decent dialog.” All that’s happening here is that Jones is beating Morgan at his own game: railroading the other person and not letting them get a word in edgewise.

    2. Piers Morgan doesn’t have good points (kind of like how if the Daily Mail ran a story stating that the sky is blue, it would have to henceforth cease to be blue).

      This interview is actually some kind of scientific experiment to see what happens when two people that are wrong, but with opposing viewpoints, argue with each other.

      Unfortunately neither of them exploded.

      1. I doubt anyone would be able to make “good points” with someone shouting RAZZLEFRAZZLE in their face for ten minutes.

    3.  and that shootings like the ones that garner the most media attention are incredibly rare

      In what universe?  There’s a gun rampage every few weeks.

  3. Alex Jones is very entertaining! I loved the part at the end where he affected a posh British accent. What a character!

    1. The accent wasn’t too bad. It just needs a bit more work and attention to a few little (linguistic) factoids and he would have it nailed. Better than my or Piers Morgan’s Texan? accent, I strongly suspect.
      Even for a native speaker a posh British accent requires attention to detail on all levels. If you tried to rant you would just get flustered.

      1. It’s the vowels don’tch’know. Make a mistake there, a tiiny bit of extra rounding, insufficient clipping, uncalled-for fronting, and you will be immediately revealed as the upstart oik you are. It’s a very dangerous game.The stakes are so high.

    2. I was actually surprised by how good his British accent was; Alex Jones has clearly done some stage acting to be able to fake this level of rage on camera and switch accents fluidly. He’s up there with other comedians like Rush and Glenn Beck.

  4. alex what do.. alex! PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD you’ve got to try and answer some of the.. IT’S YOUR HITMAN JOURNALIS .. alex! THE US GOVERNMENT BLEW UP BUILDING 7.. no i do not have.. alex! … alex? … HITLER! .. those aren’t the questions… alex.. I PROBABLY EWN MEURE THEN 50 FEIHREHRMS.. alex.. but you’ve got to .. alex.. you’ve got to stop inter.. alex. alex. tell me.. stick to the.. alex! alex! alex? 

    anyone have a hannity clip? this guy is brain-dead outside of some seriously over-rehearsed talking points. (i probably own more than fifty firearms. fifty.)

    1. Shouting down Piers Morgan by screaming non-sequiturs isn’t exactly something to be proud of unless you’re Soy Bomb.

  5. Well, I appreciate that he’s a bit of a character and that he’s not one of these same insiders or pre-approved people from think tanks. 

    And, it speaks well of Piers Morgan that he had him on his show. 

    Alex Jones is less concerned about gun safety and violence as he is with preserving weapons rights against tyrannical government. That’s why he did not engage in a debate about gun deaths, probably.

    1. Alex Jones’ primary concern is actually keeping George Soros and Newt Gingrich from praying to a giant owl, then dropping DMT and opening portals to higher dimensions so that they can communicate with the Clockwork Elves and feed them the souls of hardworking Americans.

        1. I’m guessing he got his start by regularly calling open lines on Coast to Coast AM.

          The big question is always whether someone like Alex Jokes or David Icke really believes his screed, or is he just marketing to paranoid schizophrenics as a day job?

    2. Man, i would have loved to watch these two debate the subject in a non-ranting fashion. Instead, I just got to see a guy yelling for 10 minutes.

      What am I supposed to do with that information? Decide that all gun lovers are insane?

    1. Not only that, but he has cast a pall on all gun proponents as incapable of rational debate, therefore not worth listening to.

      Way to go, Mr. Smooth Talker.

  6. Way to depict gun owners and enthusiasts as rational and calm, Alex. Nobody is going to get the impression that gun owners are angry, violent, folks who probably shouldn’t have access to any weapon stronger than a pencil sharpener. 

    1. Some shouldn’t.  They tend to be blocked from legally purchasing firearms already, though.

  7. I remember when Alex Jones was just a nut with a cable access show back in Austin. He’d rant and rave about weeds being too high on government owned land. I kid you not. 

    1. Isn’t the counter petition the one to the British government requesting them to refuse Piers Morgan readmission to the UK and to keep him in the States?

      1. What they need isn’t a counter petition, it’s a co-petition to do the same with Alex.  Send them both to McMurdo or something.  Give them a radio, I don’t want to cut off their freedom of speech, but having these two isolated away from everyone else is probably a good idea.  You could film it and run it as a reality show too.  Big Brother – Antartica.  Except that Jones would probably have an aneurysm if he heard that he was actually connected to anything actually named Big Brother.

      2. Better still, refuse him admission to both countries and leave him floating in the Atlantic. Or send him to Australia – they’ve had it too easy for too long.

    1.  Because fear sells. Fear gets your followers to tune into your daily broadcast and to buy your books. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.

  8. Alex Jones is an extremely wacky guy….but he makes Piers look like a tool. He answers the questions that Piers is leading up to, and Piers still insists on going down this weird, petty road. And then Alex gets to blow up about Nazis and the Illuminati and Bilderburg. I would totally watch this if it were a full-time show. “Evening Report with Piers and Alex” or “Two Tools for You”.

    1. You’re absolutely correct. Alex Jones YOU’RE STEALING OUR AMENDMENTS looks, sounds, and COMMUNIST acts like a tool. Perhaps if the conversation ILLUMINATI had provided context for his HITLER responses he wouldn’t have sounded MASS-MURDER PILLS absolutely insane and STOCK UP ON WEAPONS TO WATER THE TREES useless.

    2. No, Piers looks like a person attempted to talk to Yosemite Sam on crack.

      There is no conversation here just one person trying to talk to somebody that is batshit insane that is trying to blurt out his entire belief system in 10 minutes.

      This guy makes Glen Beck look sane.

  9. Jones didn’t do himself much good on this one , even though I do not agree with Morgan calling for a ban. He is not a US citizen (nor am I) and I believe he should stay out of such discussions and let the Americans decide for themselves.
    The fact that “only” 35 people have been killed by firearms in the UK last year certainly does not make it a safe place to live. Having commuted between south London and my current home for a number of years makes me see this in a different light.Thumbs up for his (Morgans) professionalism thoughAs for Jones he points out a few things that are worth thinking about (if you manage filtering out the shouting and bullyish body language) though, but his ludicrous behaviour just kills it.

    1. Your first statement I half agree with. I’m also not a US citizen and whenever I rail on guns I always forget to add the disclaimer: “It’s not up to me though”.

      But unfortunately when it comes to the US, what they do IS important to everyone else.

      If we can justify telling middle eastern countries that they’re not allowed to research nuclear energy, then I’m afraid we also have the right to call for a gun ban in the US. Neither is likely to effect us DIRECTLY, but both have effects outside of their borders, in many weird and wonderful ways.

      However if you’re of the inclination that a nations business is its own business and its own business alone – then that’s something different entirely – I’m somewhere in the middle I think, ‘borders’ and ‘nations’ are all pretty arbitrary anyway, what’s more important is that people are happy and live full productive lives, irrelevant of their passport. But at the same time nobody likes being told what to do, especially when it’s based on a different cultural perspective.

      I’m debating with myself aren’t I?

  10. You guys know that in the UK Piers Morgan is just about as much of a hate figure as your man with the guns? He’s right about one thing… he’s a hatchet man who was fired for concocting war mongering, sensationalist stories.

  11. I’m a little out of the loop, why was the guy trying to get him deported in the first place?  Because he said assault rifles should be banned?

    Haven’t thousands, hundreds of thousands of people suggested the same thing?

    I made it half way through the video, and the guy attacking him didn’t answer the simple question of why try to deport Piers Morgan.

  12. Wow, they were both being absurd and pointless. The gun guy because of his crazy yelling and Morgan for his strawman-leading questions. Why are these the people speaking for the different sides of this debate?

    1. How do you know what Piers would have said? A discussion about gun violence statistics is a perfectly sensible way to open a discussion about gun violence, but this did not remotely resemble a discussion. It was more like a guy at a late night bus stop being cornered by a ranting psych patient off his meds.

      1. I’m talking about what Piers *did* say. When he asked about 9/11, his goal was simply to reinforce that this guy he was talking to was a nut. It had nothing to do with gun violence. The ranting psych patient off his meds still managed to make a point that Piers was never interested in addressing: Outlawing “assault rifles” won’t make a dent in bringing down gun violence.

  13. Alex Jones is part of the conspiracy. He’s just crazy enough to convince sane people that maybe giving up our guns isn’t such a crazy idea.


    1. Dude, Are you with the lizard people?

      Personally I don’t want to see the wrong lizard person get into office.

  14. If you are really into conspiricies, BoingBoing’s founder got CIA funding. Alex Jones would go crazy from reading the wikipedia page for boing boing because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pescovitz worked for a business that started the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. I know its not true, but I know how alex jones and their like think.

    Also, people are claiming to know what Piers Argument was, and he never gave his argument. That means you are filling in the blanks yourself and picking a side instead of thinking for yourself. When people do that it scares me, because I was raised to make my own decisions, not be a part of a uberdecision.

    Let us just recreate mental institutions that are state funded, instead of using radio show hosts to influence the schizophrenic people.

  15. Isn’t the guns stuff a bit of an entertaining sideshow? If you fronted a big tv doodah and heard that a bunch of people wanted rid of you, would you publicly debate with the reasonable advocate willing to engage rationally with your questions, or with the raving loony who won’t even let you speak? (I suppose I should add that I don’t require any integrity from you, just a good show).

  16. What a terrible decision to give this conspiracy kook a platform with higher visibility than his underground bunker.

  17. Set phasers on “crazy talk”. I got so sideways listening to that I had to stop and reload my brownies. 

  18. It’s funny viewing the comment threads below videos that appear in different venues. This one is filled largely with people who think Jones made an ass of himself by not allowing Morgan to talk. On YouTube, the commenters are almost entirely of the opinion that Jones masterfully “destroyed” Morgan.

  19. Wow! I never thought I’d watch Piers Morgan interview someone who’s an even bigger douche than he is!!!

  20. I find the whole ‘foreigners should stay out of America’s business’ thing remarkable. It is one of most hypocritical stances I can imagine given America’s history of non-stop involvement around the world.

  21. Morgan really missed an intercontinental meeting of the minds opportunity here. He should have had a round table between Alex Jones and David Icke. *That* would make for some interesting television.

  22. If more gun owners are like this Alex Jones fellow, I suddenly want them completely disarmed rather than better regulated.

  23. What I really want someone to explain to me is how exactly firearm ownership makes the Alex Jones crowd any safer from the prospect of a US government that has turned tyrannical?

    If your enemy has access to the resources the US Government does your collection of firearms will mean that you’ll last about 15 more seconds than if you didn’t.

        1. That they are, but I found the implication that an armed revolutionary force couldn´t cause much of a problem for any government exaggerated.
          Not to mention the US armed forces have proved often and continue to prove they are well capable of failure, even considering their massive resources.

          1. Everyone agrees that gun nuts could stage insurrections, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, and avoid total defeat by the US armed forces with such tactics.

            Everyone is quite certain they could shoot other Americans as a form of expression, because some of them already do here and there.

            History tells us that they would not be beyond targeting schools and hospitals and churches, to punish those who refuse to join them, and because attacking military targets requires greater force than insurrectionists have available on a daily basis.

    1. I am intrigued by these guys who say they are keeping their guns to defend against a tyrannical government then also say they believe that Obama  stole the election / isn’t the presidnet, that the government caused 9/11 and the country is actually run by Jews / bankers / communists etc – essentially that the government IS illegitimate and tyrannical.

      You can’t have it both ways, if you are keeping those guns to enable revolution against a tyrannical government and you also believe that you HAVE a tyrannical government, where is the revolution?

      1. If your own government is tyrannising you then you’re either going to knuckle under or you’re going to fight back, with armed uprising. The constitutional illegality of gun ownership in such a context isn’t going to be bothering you very much. “If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns” they scream. Of course, and so what? They will already be, by definition, such an outlaw in the situation they scream for. A constitutional right to bear arms against your own government doesn’t bloody matter.

        1. Oh, I agree that banks have crazy power, that wasn’t my point. My point was that this is an ingredient of some people’s definition of a tyrannical government, and the fact that that is demonstrably so surely makes their quandry all the greater – by their metric America is very clearly not free any more, so whither revolution?

          How will they know when to start shooting, and who?

          1.  oh, when food gets too expensive for the majority of people. That’ll be the tipping point. Food riots.

            The problem with the people like Alex Jones, is that they see the tipping point around every corner, and in every shadow.

  24. Alex Jones, man. God love ’em. Hours and hours of entertainment right there. How can you not marvel at his energy and passion?

  25. To quote that sage of our times, Homer Simpson:  “Son, no matter what you may have heard, no one wins a butter-eating contest.

  26. I really like the “Deport Piers Morgan” petition because it reads like, “Please Deport This British Guy For Using His First Amendment Rights to Speak Against Second Amendment Rights.”

    1.  I also like the concept of a constitutional amendment being sacrosanct. Surely this implies that the constitution itself isn’t sacrosanct, which then begs the question; why would the new bits be more important than the old bits?

        1. Not really, but I live in a country where we have constitutional referenda quite a lot.

          The whole point of amendments, of course, is that a constitution can adapt to new situations. To call them sacrosanct, in light of their inherent pragmatism, is absurd.

      1. The problem lies with a written constitution, as with any foundational text, religious, political, whatever. Is it the final word on any particular subject or the beginning of a debate?

        1. For purposes of law, it is. In Ireland, we’ve had 24 separate constitutional referenda where the public approved or blocked proposed amendments.

          As such, it embodies a democratically agreed legal framework. That said, the assholes can come out in force and tip the balance. In the 80’s the “right to life of the unborn” was written into law, and it’s still there, to our shame.

          Just recently we had changes to improve child welfare laws, which most of the country was in favour of, but when it was uncomfortably close when it came to it, the fundie christians and nutbag libertarians came out in force and gave everyone a bit of a fright.

          All that said, we have tight gun controls and nobody complains about it. Sectarian paramilitary organisations tend to take the shine off armed resistance.

      1.  Constitutional Rights only apply to US citizens, if you aren’t a US citizen we can deport you without any given reason we just revoke your Visa/Green Card and send you packing

        1. I thought the enemy combatants incarcerated in Gitmo had to be kept outside US territory because they would acquire the same legal rights as US citizens if they were taken to the US.

          1.  Sorry my bad, Constitutioanl rights do apply to everyone within our borders, but we can deport foreigners without giving any reason we simply revoke their visas/green cards and put them on a plan to elsewhere.

  27. Im from the UK, I have no idea who this person is, and have no real opinion on Morgan. However the impression I get from Alex is that of a thug who would have no problem with using a gun on anyone ‘to protect’ .

    I strongly feel that these are the sort of American citizens that are the cause of these gun problems in so far as they can’t get their point across so they resort to violent means.

    No one is born with hatred in their DNA, its taught to them from their peers.

    One mans passion, is another mans anger

    1. To me, he looks too much the red-faced blustering bully to be dangerous. No sign of the steely-calm white-faced anger. So I’m not sure he would actually use a gun. But I’m not going to stand in front of him when he does go off.

  28. And then they went for a round of golf, all the while laughing at the plebs who take them seriously.

  29. The best part of the Alex Jones show is the commercials. Not even remotely kidding, the best most hilariously unnecessary shit you can imagine! 

  30. The best thing is reading the comments  and adverts on Alex Jones’ website… 
    I really would be interested to know who’s behind this little ditty…
    Mod note: URL of attack page redacted.

    Can we get Maggie to pick this apart ?

    Just bonkers.
    Are far right wing nuts the easiest people to sell things to or what ?
    As someone who works in marketing I’m thinking I could clean up with these crazies and sell them a bunch of hokum and I can laugh all the way to the bank.

    1. I think the key word for the success (are they successful? let’s assume for the sake of argument they are) of this Living Research Institute is “testosterone”. They claim to sell a supplement that enhances its production. Somewhat, the cliche of nuts with guns, penis size and manhood all converges together in a festival of crackpottery and marketing. 

      For what it’s worth, the entire operation is registered through an anonymizer so a priori, I cannot track who’s behind it. Probably it’d be possible with more time.

      ETA: The British accent killed me, though. Especially considering Jones wants to have Morgan deported for being a foreigner against ‘murica.

  31. You know I probably agree with Piers Morgan on gun control, but I also wouldn’t mind seeing the smug bastard deported. Thinking about signing that petition …

  32. I’d be dreadfully tempted to send Alex Jones a lethality-biased fact sheet about dihydrogen monoxide, just to see him go on another tear…..

  33. The question I would have liked to have seen (not that it would have been answered) is why Alex worships the second amendment, but doesn’t care about the first, as evidenced by his desire to deport someone for something they say.

  34. I’m tempted to buy a gun just to defend myself from gun nuts like Jones.

  35.  There is an intriguing common thread between Jones, Beck and Limbaugh etc. A somewhat twisted charisma, rapid domineering delivery, theatrical blustery flashes of anger, overwrought victim-hood, constant fear mongering, pounding repetition of platitudes, a gift for accents and a strange almost fetishist interest in Hitler, Mao etc. Sad part is they display the same gifts, deploy the same bag of tricks and push the same buttons those notorious monsters of history did. Destructively impactful to our politics, they laugh their way to the bank driving demand for products that satiates the paranoia that they themselves create. (Gold, Guns, Water Filters, Survivalist Supplies and Fringe Right Wing Books)

  36. I can’t believe I watched the whole thing.
    But I’m going to bring out this video the next time someone suggests a stupid drinking game. “Drink to Alex” will have ’em all on the floor, puking.

  37. Alex is crazy, but he’s absolutely right that the second amendment was not written to protect duck hunters.

    But the pen is mightier than the sword.  Perhaps what we need is an updated amendment granting citizens the right to own the information that will protect them from their own government. Or do we already have that?

  38. Funny how a lot of people who zealously defend the 2nd Amendment are fine with trashing the 1st.

  39. There is a distinct difference between the roles of law enforcement and the military. 

    Law enforcement would be happy to enforce gun control and they have the ability and means.

    The military does not enforce any laws.

    The military doesn’t care as a whole, you misrepresent them.

    A hell of a lot of them would tell you that they are absolutely against unregulated weapon ownership, because they have been trained to use and respect firearms and believe that the responsibility of firearms ownership demands overseen training and upkeep.

    BTW you seem to be in an angry, crazed rant. Are you Alex?

  40.   I don’t see any of you whining fools protesting the slaughter of Iraqi families.

    I did many times. We missed guys like you….

Comments are closed.