Study – Grow – Know

Don’t Do Us Any Favors, Alex Jones

January 9, 2013 at 10:25 AM 2 comments

If you had the opportunity to watch the recent “discussion” between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones, you likely either enjoyed it or didn’t.  If you happen to be one who favors Jones’ approach to things, then you probably thought that Jones “brought it.”  However, if you prefer Morgan’s rather laid back style over Jones’ “in your face” rhetoric, then you likely enjoyed Morgan’s and gave him the point.

The problem is that I don’t particularly like either man.  While Morgan tends to come across as a snob, Jones tends to come across as a bulldog without teeth who sees a conspiracy behind every shrub. Here’s part of the video as hosted on YouTube:

Obnoxious, wasn’t it?  You know, we really need cooler heads these days, not someone like Jones who goes off half-cocked (no pun intended) and rams his opinion down someone’s throat with all the bluster of a wild goat!

In my opinion, Jones missed several opportunities to simply point out facts and allow the facts themselves to do the talking.  Instead, Jones decided that talking tough at Morgan was a good idea.  He even suggested that they should set up a boxing ring, for goodness sakes.  Ridiculous.

Look, the entire problem with guns is not that law-abiding citizens have them.  It’s that criminals and people with mental disorders have them and as I’ve stated before, even if purchase requirements become much more restrictive and constrictive, the problem of those who shouldn’t have guns will not be solved.

Some people are also not sure if the NRA should actually be willing to meet with Biden’s new task force dedicated to finding ways to making it tougher to obtain guns.  I think that since the NRA has actually been invited into the conversation, they should take the opportunity to join in.  By remaining outside the conversation, they will later be accused of not wanting to come together to find ways to solve the problem.

In my opinion – and I’ve said this before – the politicians are not approaching this entire situation correctly.  They are simply targeting law-abiding citizens and will be able to do nothing about the criminals. It’s a bit of joke, isn’t it?  We have the “war on drugs” which has amounted to throwing millions of dollars at a problem without finally fixing it.  Drugs won’t go away.  We at least need to recognize that all of our efforts against illegal drugs and illegal drug use is tantamount to something like the Vietnam War (conflict).  We didn’t win and eventually simply bowed out of the whole mess.  The difference of course with drugs is that we do not want to give up the fight, but we’re really not doing anything that would bring about a “win” for the government.  Government cannot eradicate social problems.  At best, it can merely send them underground that’s what routinely happens.

The politicians would like us to believe that by making it more difficult to purchase guns, criminals will have a harder time obtaining them as well.  There is really no connection at all.  The two simply do not equate.  Even if they did, all it means is that the law-abiding person will be further harassed because of what the criminals do and the additional laws/requirements put into place because of them.  Certainly, criminals are not affected by the additional restrictions on gun or ammo purchases anymore than they are bothered by all the restrictions placed on illegal drug use or purchases.  If they get caught, they get arrested.  To them, it’s worth the risk and no amount of laws will dissuade them from using drugs to gain the money and/or power they wish to have.

On a much smaller scale, it’s really no different from me buying Claritin-D (or a similar product), an over-the-counter allergy medication.  In order to buy it, I have to show my ID and sign on the dotted line.  Supposedly, all of this information is stored in case the specific governmental bureaucracy wants to look at the records.  I doubt if they’ve ever bothered to peek.  First of all, I don’t misuse or abuse this medication.  I only take it when it is absolutely necessary and rarely at that.  Yet, the government has decided that because there are people who tend to misuse that drug, then everyone must jump through hoops.

But take a “controlled substance” like Adderall (used for ADHD).  You cannot get this without a prescription and you can only obtain a 30-day supply at a time.  So, how is it that this is the most widely abused prescription drug in the United States?  It’s because people don’t follow the rules.  They get a valid prescription, then sell it by the pill to their college buds.  Apparently, there’s a lot of that going around.  I’m sure these people would consider themselves to be law-abiding citizens too.  The government cannot stop this type of abuse.  They can only enforce the law when they find someone who breaks it.  That’s what the government does, but the government has no ability to actually be the conscience of anyone, keeping them from breaking the law in the first place, and therein lies the problem.

But with respect to me having to show my ID when I purchase an over-the-counter medication, that leads me to ask several questions.  First, what about the people who do not have photo IDs?  We heard a lot about them during the most recent presidential election.  The Left did not want this to hamper voters, so in many states, no ID was required at the voting polls at all.  Yet, in order to purchase Claritin-D, I must show proof that I am who I say I am.  Amazing, isn’t it?  What do those people do who cannot “afford” a photo ID in this country?  Are they given a special dispensation because of it?  Are they allowed to buy Claritin-D even if they don’t have a photo ID?  They shouldn’t be, should they?  So, they are required to show some type of ID to buy Claritin-D, but not to vote.  That makes no sense.  Anyone else see a problem here?

Second, has this new law that requires me to show my ID when purchasing an over-the-counter medication put even a small dent in people abusing drugs like Clairtin-D?  I seriously doubt it.  In fact, I was watching one episode of COPS not long ago and they arrested a man on a bike who had nearly 30 boxes of over-the-counter drugs on him, still in the box!  He did not buy them.  He had allegedly stolen them by going to one store, stealing a few there, then going to another store and stealing more there.  He certainly found a way around the law, didn’t he?  Yes, he was caught, but how many others are not caught?  You mean he chose to not obey the law?  I guess so.  Meanwhile, I obey the law and am inconvenienced because of it even though I know there is absolutely no danger of me misusing or abusing Claritin-D.

Criminals always manage to get what they think they need and as we’ve seen, even law-abiding citizens will set aside laws at times.  It’s the rest of us who obey the law that are inconvenienced because of stricter regulations.  It’s crazy, but politicians obviously think that this should be the norm because they keep making laws that only law-abiding citizens continue to obey, don’t they?  Show me a law that a criminal obeys.  What that tells me is that law-abiding citizens generally do what is right even if the law did not exist, while criminals will never do what is right.  I’m speaking in generalities now.

I’m not saying all laws are bad.  I’m simply saying that there comes a point when the law can only do so much and all criminals worth their salt find ways around laws.  That applies to any new gun laws that come down the pike as well.  Only the law-abiding citizen will comply.  The criminal?  Pffftt…

I would no sooner buy an illegal gun on the street than I would steal Claritin-D from a CVS.  I simply would not do it because I obey the law as long as that law does not attempt to force me to go against God’s law.  For instance, if a law was passed that said I could no longer invoke the Name of Jesus Christ in my church during worship, well, you can bet that this law would be ignored and not only by me.

Regarding the video between Morgan and Jones, Alex Jones did not have his facts and he has no excuse for that.  He had no reason to not have the answer when Morgan asked him how many gun-related murders took place in England since the UK has essentially outlawed most guns?  Jones did not know.  He should have, but the fact that he did not know shows he’s not sincere about the information he has and why should anyone trust him?

There are plenty of things that Jones could have brought up and given to Morgan on a silver platter and many of them I have noted over the past few articles.  Instead of doing that, Jones simply talked over Morgan, shouted him down, and told him point blank that he (Morgan) was not going to take our guns away! So there!  I was waiting for Jones to stick his tongue out at Morgan at that point…

Look, the government has no real answers about gun control.  I can absolutely and sincerely understand the concern people have over gun violence, but it will not be solved by attempting to make guns more difficult to obtain or even by attempting to remove them from society.  There are too many people who will, in all likelihood, not give them up.  Then what, civil war?  Is the government going to arrest everyone?  It’s ludicrous.

To hear Diane Feinstein tell it, she wants so many restrictions that it would be best to not even own guns.  Yet, it’s fine for her to carry a gun legally because she has a concealed weapons permit.  She wants nearly all semi-automatic weapons banned.  That means that the only things left will be single-action (or possibly double-action) revolvers that shoot no more than six bullets.  Feinstein’s wording of what she wants leaves things open-ended and questionable.  It’s difficult to really know what she means by a “semi-automatic” weapon.  Much like the nebulous term “assault rifle,” things are left up in the air and frankly, I think that’s the way the Left likes it.

I was at an Army-Navy store the other day and looked at a few rifles that fire one bullet at a time.  You load a bullet, fire it, then remove the casing, load another bullet, then fire it, repeat.  They were kind of funny, actually.  Who would buy one of those, except possibly as a novelty?  I would never attempt to use one for home defense.  This isn’t the American Revolution.  It’s 2013 and semi-automatic weapons exist whether people like it or not.  Can you imagine using a weapon like this during a home-invasion?  It simply would not work after you shot the first individual.  There would not be enough time to reload.  The 2nd Amendment is about not only being able to protect yourself from criminals, but believe it or not, it appears to mainly be about protecting yourself from those forces outside the individual states.  Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice there is no type of weapon mentioned at all, in spite of the fact that Morgan has stated that the founders probably were not envisioning the types of weapons available today. I doubt they were envisioning any specific weapon.  But if we follow Morgan’s logic, we would have to argue that the “printing presses” of today were not envisioned by our founders and as such, also do not come under the freedom of the press amendment.  Who would argue such a thing?  A moron, I guess…

Notice also that the last four words guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be hindered (infringed) in any way, shape, or form.  Yet, our politicians believe that they have the right to put all sorts of infringements in front of the 2nd Amendment without actually touching it for the safety and well-being of the public.

Notice also that our Founding Fathers realized that there may well be a need at some point for individual states to have a militia in order to be and remain secure.  From what or from whom might the states need to exercise this right?  Apparently, it’s from anything, including the Federal government.  At least, this is what some individual’s believe.

If people willingly give up the right to bear arms, there is an excellent chance that history could easily repeat itself.  Under Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, and too many dictators to mention, when guns were confiscated, average citizens lost their lives.  This can be avoided if the Federal government decides to back down, but it doesn’t appear that they are interested in doing that.

But, you say, who cares about the 2nd Amendment?!  Well, maybe you don’t.  Maybe you’ve never picked up a gun in your life and you could care less.  All right, but what about your favorite amendment?  How about freedom of speech?  There are some in Congress who want to roll that back so that we cannot say certain things that might anger another group or sect.  Is that okay with you?  What about the fourth amendment?

The truth is that we have seen our rights as citizens being cut back and outright slashed by many administrations going back well before Jimmy Carter and continuing with every administration since his, regardless of party affiliation.  It seems clear enough that our Federal government is out to remove as much of our freedoms as it can until they have total sway over our lives.

I’m all for debate and honest discussion about situations like gun-control.  The problem is that I don’t hear a lot of reasonable voices now from either side.  I hear shouting and stupidity.

When the president of the NRA recently called for armed guards at every school in America, the Left came out to pan his remarks as being ludicrous.  Yet, several years ago, Bill Clinton had the same idea.

What is needed now is intelligent discourse, not emotional blustering.  If the government spent more time trying to find meaningful and realistic ways to take guns away from criminals, then I might believe they had my best interests at heart.  As it is now, they aren’t even dealing with the criminals because they know they can’t.  Instead, they attack the law-abiding citizen whom they know – by and large – will obey the law.

I think the government is going to have to tread very carefully regarding gun rights.  They may wind up finding out what it means to fall into a pit of angry vipers who are not willing to give up anymore of their cherished rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.  All I’m saying is that there are people who are not going to give up their guns and they will likely arrive to a point (if they have not done so already) where they have had enough and from this point forward, may simply choose to ignore any new law created by the Federal government regarding guns and more.

It seems that our government needs to realize that the average law-abiding citizen is tired of being pushed around.  They’ve had enough.  They are getting as mad as heck and simply won’t take it anymore.  Maybe that’s what our government wants to see.  Maybe that’s the excuse the Federal government will come up with in order to use lethal force on America’s own citizenry.  I hope that does not happen, but if it does come to that, all I can say is what a tragically sad day that will be for all involved.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: alex jones vs. piers morgan, gun control.