The right to bear arms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Had a few days off to think about this issue. I've been following Michael Moore's twitterings - and the contrary replies - and reading various articles published by Americans. Mostly to find a rationale for keeping things as they are.

The consensus seems to be that the NRA position that more guns are needed to keep people safe is ridiculous and insults the intellegence. - like drilling a hole in a sinking boat to let the water out. But there are some more thoughtful articles from those against gun control. Michael Moore, inspite of his reputation, pointed out that it was only the arrival of armed police that ended the Newtown massacre, an instance where guns did save lives. He also notes the the state of Connecticut has some of the strongest gun control laws in America.

What came over most strongly was the need to change attitudes towards the gun in America. Gun control can be a start but the problem is deeper rooted. Violence itself is deeper rooted compared with the rest of the world. Americans both fear violence and venerate it as the ultimate answer. Dirty Harry's magnum sets the world to rights.

I don't like cutting and pasteing large amounts of text, but this thread has about run its course and this extract (from Michael Moore again) seems pertinant and takes the debate on to the next step. He outlines 3 reasons for the violence and fear of violance rife in America.

". POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)

2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border?

No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?

I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.

3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine!

Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem.

And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't."

---

Interesting that Moore suggests that when people earn $50.000 per year they are not going to steal other people's property.
Interesting because, far from the average citizen earning that amount, according to these figures (always open to interpretation of course)it corresponds to the amount that every person in the USA owes if the Public Debt is divided among them.



The Outstanding Public Debt as of 31 Dec 2012 at 01:16:57 PM GMT is:


$16,352,150,369,302.63

The estimated population of the United States is 314,151,703
so each citizen's share of this debt is $52,051.89.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.82 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

Now that is scary.

We used to say that whatever the debt , America is good for it

prendrelemick, I think that Moore is definitely right in saying all this. Sadly it seems to me that if you tried to solve those three problems, there will inevitably be more crazed idiots screaming 'Communism! Socialism! The horror!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Now that is scary.

We used to say that whatever the debt , America is good for it

---

And so they were, the trouble is that they continued saying it long after it had lost its meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

prendrelemick, I think that Moore is definitely right in saying all this. Sadly it seems to me that if you tried to solve those three problems, there will inevitably be more crazed idiots screaming 'Communism! Socialism! The horror!'

---

You are quite right. Also, it's all very well saying - all we need to do is solve poverty! Like that is going to be easy.

Simple. Just end poverty. Voila. No problem.

Reminds me of a Steve Martin monologue on an old SNL episode, How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes:

You, can be a millionaire, and never pay taxes!
You, can be a millionaire, and never pay taxes!
You say, "Steve, how can I be a millionaire, and never pay taxes?"
First - Get a million dollars.
Now you say, "Steve, what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You, have never paid taxes'?"
Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!"
How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"?
Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal."
Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime; you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?"
Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"

Anyway, selling a program of collectivism to Americans may be a tougher sell than one of gun control. Guns are just guns but individualism goes to our very core. It is our identity. It's how we see our ourselves and how we'd like to be seen by others (if we really cared what anybody else thinks about us). It's one of the ideas that drives innovation and it's one of the pillars that makes this place the land of opportunity. You can call it a national myth; you can call it whatever you like, but the idea that the individual can rise above his or her humble roots and make a grab at the brass ring has been one of the engines that has driven this country from the get-go. Even further, I'd say that here the individual can rise up, make a grab for the brass ring, miss wildly, fall back into gutter, and then reinvent one's self and rise up again.

Even for all the flag waving here, by and large self has always come before country in the U.S. of A. I think Europeans find this odd. A few years ago, down in Guatemala, I fell into a drunken conversation with a couple of Dutch guys about just this subject. We all acknowledged that the Dutch have more a sense of community than Americans. We didn't argue that it was a better way, but just that it was different. Frankly, I like the idea of living life without a net, taking chances - bigger risks mean bigger rewards. Of course, bigger risks also mean more devastating consequences for failure. But hey, take a chance - Custer did.

And of course the United States does have a safety net. Despite the statistic in the previous post, I don't think many people go hungry here. The underprivileged aren't underweight, but the poor do eat poorly, from a nutritional standpoint. Poor folks in the United States tend to be fat, like Michael Moore.

Lol. Poverty is relative Sancho - now where's the closest McDonald's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

.

Even for all the flag waving here, by and large self has always come before country in the U.S. of A. I think Europeans find this odd. A few years ago, down in Guatemala, I fell into a drunken conversation with a couple of Dutch guys about just this subject. We all acknowledged that the Dutch have more a sense of community than Americans. We didn't argue that it was a better way, but just that it was different. Frankly, I like the idea of living life without a net, taking chances - bigger risks mean bigger rewards. Of course, bigger risks also mean more devastating consequences for failure. But hey, take a chance - Custer did.

And of course the United States does have a safety net. Despite the statistic in the previous post, I don't think many people go hungry here. The underprivileged aren't underweight, but the poor do eat poorly, from a nutritional standpoint. Poor folks in the United States tend to be fat, like Michael Moore.

---

To hear Mr Moore talk you would think that Europe was a cross between Shangri-la and Utopia - without the bad bits.

Threre's been a shooting in Switzerland - 3 dead 2 injured. Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, But within a properly run militia, all males (I think) have to do military service and keep their gun at home. The shooter was a ward of court who had, had his guns taken away in 2005. He had got hold of a vintage carbine for the attack. The victims are thought to be relatives of his.

Switzerland is a country awash with guns, nobody knows how many because there is no licencing there. But random shootings and domestic shootings hardly ever happen. Somebody in America should look very closely at Switzerland and find out why.

I would imagine it's primarily to do with the culture rather than the laws. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and gun crime is very rare (from what I'm aware).

An interesting article on gun law:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Threre's been a shooting in Switzerland - 3 dead 2 injured. Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws, But within a properly run militia, all males (I think) have to do military service and keep their gun at home. The shooter was a ward of court who had, had his guns taken away in 2005. He had got hold of a vintage carbine for the attack. The victims are thought to be relatives of his.

Switzerland is a country awash with guns, nobody knows how many because there is no licencing there. But random shootings and domestic shootings hardly ever happen. Somebody in America should look very closely at Switzerland and find out why.

---

Interestingly, there have been reports in the media that the Swiss are beefing up their military because they fear invasion from people trying to get in if it all goes belly-up in Europe as is looking increasingly likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

I would imagine it's primarily to do with the culture rather than the laws. Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and gun crime is very rare (from what I'm aware).

An interesting article on gun law:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

---

Yes, an interesting article - but essentially missing the point. Making a start is the point I think. Saying no more assult weapons (however you define them) will signal a change in attitude by the authorities. I too am a lefty gun owner by the way.


Emil : If Europe goes tits up the Swiss will too. Remember "We're all in this together":rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Yes, an interesting article - but essentially missing the point. Making a start is the point I think. Saying no more assult weapons (however you define them) will signal a change in attitude by the authorities. I too am a lefty gun owner by the way.

---

But as the article argues, an assualt ban will (although signalling a change I suppose) do very little to deter gun crime and mass shootings. Surely it would be better to introduce new policies that will actually work.

One terrible side effect of having a vast, influential, and liberal media is that tragedies, such as the one that took place in Connecticut a few weeks ago, become a springboard for the agendas of politicians desperate for something, anything that will help their case and in the process demonize their opposition.

I listened to a broadcast on Christian radio yesterday (*GASP!) and the host stated that the core issue of most, if not all, of the mass shootings in America dating back to 2011 Tucson, Arizona shooting involving Giffords (beyond even that, I'm sure) was NOT guns; it was the mental/emotional problems that were undiagnosed or ignored in the shooters themselves. I also read somewhere in this forum that there is a parallel between buying guns and buying alcohol; does the government have the right to close liquor stores because of those who are irresponsible enough to drink and drive? Prohibition didn't work out all too well, if I remember correctly. Ergo, the government does not reserve the right to take away guns. What would be wise, and what I can agree too as far as gun policy, would be an increase and consummation of background checks for those purchasing firearms. And if people with mental problems are thoroughly assessed and barred from having firearms due to their documented and unstable nature, then cases such as Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech would most likely not occur. I am not saying that all people with mental health issues are dangerous, but some clearly fall in to that category.

And, just to state something that should be common sense, I want to point out that when a government takes, or threatens to take, guns away from law-abiding citizens, they do just that. Criminals will always find a way to procure weapons, so really, the government kills the very people they are trying to protect by disabling a person's ability to defend themselves from an armed intruder/evil-doer.

And with that, I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas/holiday and that you are not spending too much of your free time shoveling driveways (make sure to bend at the knees, not the back.)

We may be going back over ground already covered here. The Sandy Hook shooter had known mental / emotional problems, and had received treatment, he would've probably failed a Connecticut background check. But if a country is awash with guns it's not difficult to get hold of them. He used his mother's guns. I think a surfit of guns are the problem and a blaise attitude about them.

The link between alcohol and guns seems a bit tenuous, a handgun is a weapon designed for the purpose of killing people.


I was going to bring up illegally held guns if the thread kept going. I read that in New York the authorities have made it practically impossible to legally buy a handgun there any more. (is this true?) And since then gun murders have fallen by over 60%. This is counter intuitive - there must still be millions of handguns in New York, unyet the measure seems to be working.

Meanwhile, how about taxing bullets to pay for mental health provision?

are trying to protect by disabling a person's ability to defend themselves from an armed intruder/evil-doer

How many times have we seen this argument-and yet, as I have already stated, in a country awash with guns, this rarely seems to help. We have plenty of guns now, remember?

Someone suggested regulating bullets. Also, a few pages back I posted a link to an article that looked at the former ban on assault weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

We may be going back over ground already covered here. The Sandy Hook shooter had known mental / emotional problems, and had received treatment, he would've probably failed a Connecticut background check. But if a country is awash with guns it's not difficult to get hold of them. He used his mother's guns. I think a surfit of guns are the problem and a blaise attitude about them.

The link between alcohol and guns seems a bit tenuous, a handgun is a weapon designed for the purpose of killing people.


I was going to bring up illegally held guns if the thread kept going. I read that in New York the authorities have made it practically impossible to legally buy a handgun there any more. (is this true?) And since then gun murders have fallen by over 60%. This is counter intuitive - there must still be millions of handguns in New York, unyet the measure seems to be working.

Meanwhile, how about taxing bullets to pay for mental health provision?

---

It's not difficult to get guns anywhere as long as you're determined enough and prepared to talk to some dodgy people.

The comparison between alcohol and guns I wholeheartedly agree is a silly one. Although I am pro-gun I also find this argument silly.

Also, you should never look at statistics for gun homicide as a sign regulations are working. Look at the overall homicide rate.

I really wish I'd found this at the beginning of this thread. It touches on what Volya said above^ .How can we tell regulations are working, there are so many variables.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...asoline?page=1


Its a long article that explains the rise of violent crime in the 60's 70's and 80's and its decline in the 90's onwards, on the levels of lead in the environment.

The author claims the correlation is exact from Country to State to City down to Neighbourhood. Areas that lagged behind in adopting lead free petrol, lagged behind in falling crime figures.

It's fairly convincing stuff, HOWEVER I don't know who or what "MotherJones" is . It may be a pressure group with an anti-lead agenda.

However it does weaken the gun control argument, and shows that stats are good at finding effects - but not causes.

Mother Jones is a serious publication and I don't think they have any specific agenda with respect to leaded gasoline, but they are an unabashedly liberal magazine. If I had place them on the political spectrum, I'd put them somewhere to the left of The Guardian.

As for the correlation between low-lead gas and crime - uh, I don't know, man. There were too many other factors back then, it seems to me, that had a more relevant effect: Vietnam, Civil Rights legislation, recession, OPEC crisis - just to name a few off the top off my head. Besides, the United States went to unleaded gas long before Europe did and I don't think the correlation holds up over there.

But speaking of stat's, I did read one a while back that rang true: the murder rate has gone down in the U.S. in a direct reverse relationship to the quality of Emergency Medical Services. That is to say, victims who would've died on the street a two decades ago, are now surviving because of good EMTs. Related to that statistic, not as many soldiers are dying from battlefield wounds now as did in previous wars.

It probably wouldn't hurt to remove the rest of the lead in the environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

...However it does weaken the gun control argument, and shows that stats are good at finding effects - but not causes.

---

Ah hah! I'm catching your drift now, Mick. It was too early yesterday morning when I posted. Also I ate way too many paint chips as a child.

Arms or weapons' primary and ultimate motive is to destroy. Anything after that is tragically obvious.

A weapon doesn't have a 'motive'. Different weapons have different purposes (although they are in general all ultimately used to kill something or another).

Interesting book I'm reading at the moment: 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker. It's not primarily to do with gun law, it's about the decline of violence throughout history (I would recommend you all to read it, it's a good book).
One of the points it raises is that violence and crime will generally rise when people - criminals and the innocent - no longer trust and believe in the law and order of their government/state.

Anybody else here a hopeless insomniac? Well anyway, last night at around 2am I was laying in bed, staring at the ceiling, mightily trying to get back to sleep, but I finally gave up and flipped on the TV. And there was Piers Morgan "debating" gun control with Alex Jones, a right-wing radio shouter. What fun.

First a little background: Piers is a British dude who has a talk show on CNN. He took over Larry King's slot a few years ago when Larry retired. He was formerly an editor for The Daily Mirror, and in my opinion he's pretty good, but his relative pommyness grates on certain element of the society here. Anyway, ever since the shooting at Sandy Hook, Piers has been on a gun-control rant, and more power to him as far as I'm concerned, but the last thing a bunch of dumb, gun-toting rednecks want to hear is a Nuevo Redcoat trying to take their guns away. So Alex Jones circulates a petition to have Piers Morgan deported - and he gets a bunch of siggies, (probably the same signatures that were on the petitions to secede from the union after the last election).

So, Piers invited Alex onto his show. And that's where El Sancho got involved, with his insomnia and his TV remote.

For the first thirty seconds or so everything was fairly civil. But then Jones went totally ape - a veins popping, eyes bugging, spittle flying, red-in-the-face rant. What a crackup. Piers, for his part, maintained his cool. He kept a stiff upper lip (but I swear I saw his chin quiver a couple of times).

So anyway, CNN went to commercial and during the break they got rid of the crazy man and replaced him with Alan Dershowitz, who among other things is a Harvard Law Professor.

Dershowitz said something like this: In the legal profession, we don't call someone like that a witness. We call him an exhibit.

Morgan came back with something like this: That's exactly the kind of guy I don't want to have guns.

[Sorry about paraphrases, I'm too lazy to look up the actual transcript.]

Anyway, it was entertaining - kinda like a train wreck is entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

Anybody else here a hopeless insomniac? Well anyway, last night at around 2am I was laying in bed, staring at the ceiling, mightily trying to get back to sleep, but I finally gave up and flipped on the TV. And there was Piers Morgan "debating" gun control with Alex Jones, a right-wing radio shouter. What fun.

First a little background: Piers is a British dude who has a talk show on CNN. He took over Larry King's slot a few years ago when Larry retired. He was formerly an editor for The Daily Mirror, and in my opinion he's pretty good, but his relative pommyness grates on certain element of the society here. Anyway, ever since the shooting at Sandy Hook, Piers has been on a gun-control rant, and more power to him as far as I'm concerned, but the last thing a bunch of dumb, gun-toting rednecks want to hear is a Nuevo Redcoat trying to take their guns away. So Alex Jones circulates a petition to have Piers Morgan deported - and he gets a bunch of siggies, (probably the same signatures that were on the petitions to secede from the union after the last election).

So, Piers invited Alex onto his show. And that's where El Sancho got involved, with his insomnia and his TV remote.

For the first thirty seconds or so everything was fairly civil. But then Jones went totally ape - a veins popping, eyes bugging, spittle flying, red-in-the-face rant. What a crackup. Piers, for his part, maintained his cool. He kept a stiff upper lip (but I swear I saw his chin quiver a couple of times).

So anyway, CNN went to commercial and during the break they got rid of the crazy man and replaced him with Alan Dershowitz, who among other things is a Harvard Law Professor.

Dershowitz said something like this: In the legal profession, we don't call someone like that a witness. We call him an exhibit.

Morgan came back with something like this: That's exactly the kind of guy I don't want to have guns.

[Sorry about paraphrases, I'm too lazy to look up the actual transcript.]

Anyway, it was entertaining - kinda like a train wreck is entertaining.

---

:lol: I hope that little lullaby sent you back to snoozeland!

Seriously, do they think that someone is going to come around in a big truck and confiscate all their precious guns? I'm sure there will be plenty to go around once everything is said and done.

My own son and I had a little tete a tete about the subject of gun control. Maybe they were discussing it at his job, I don't know, but he suddenly started in on Obama-"I wish I'd never voted for him," etc. and didn't he have more important things to do like balancing the budget and global warming?

And I responded, ahem, somewhat sarcastically, but also with an eye to getting him to see reason, i.e., they are not going to take away all the guns-and I said "Don't worry. This is America, where the right to own guns will always trump the lives of little children." Needless to say, it did not seem like a convincing argument to him. I really don't have a problem with acknowledging how he feels, but why exactly are he and other gun proponents so bug-eyed about this? I don't get it. My son doesn't even own a gun. He would like one, though.

But I also think that what I said is true.

Omg Sancho I watched that clip on Youtube and have to say if I was American, I would not want him to be my spokesperson on ANY issue whatsoever! His ability to engage in debate is non-existent and his body language is ludicrous. What an embarrassment.

Couldn't sleep, up at 4.30am to pour some Chicken liqueur into a chicken and apricot stand pie I made last night. It smells goood.

Alex Jones has been entertaining us for a couple of days now, he is the best spokesman for gun control I've ever seen. Anyway, whatever happens we DON'T want Piers back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Couldn't sleep, up at 4.30am to pour some Chicken liqueur into a chicken and apricot stand pie I made last night. It smells goood.

Alex Jones has been entertaining us for a couple of days now, he is the best spokesman for gun control I've ever seen. Anyway, whatever happens we DON'T want Piers back.

---

Why not? I don't know much about him other than he was a judge on American Idol, which I don't watch, but he seems OK. He's thinking of returning, anyway. He's taken some heat on this issue, although I haven't really been following it.

^ Haha. Oh great, Mick, you guys run him out of town, so he comes over here and gets the hillbillies all riled up. And they're a prickly bunch already.

Anyhoo, I agree with Delta, and I'll take Piers any day over Alex. At points during the interview he offered to take Piers shooting, then he challenged him to a boxing match, then he put on an awful English accent, and finally (I s**t you not) he called him a Redcoat.

I never did get back to sleep, Qimi. After the show I wandered out to the garage and rearranged my toolbox. I seem to missing a 5/16 inch box-end wrench. The horror.

Personally I think Piers should stick with the X Factor. He hasn't got any gumption but he can at least contain himself and yes with folk like Alex Jones, the need for gun control is only strengthened. Out of interest what is O'Reilly's position on the issue? My brother thinks he is God.

Here's a bit more of the Piers Morgan legend.

Piers Morgan: I was disappointed you didn't sing the National Anthem when you received your Olympic Gold Medal.

Bradley Wiggins: I was disappointed you weren't arrested and jailed for hacking phones at The Daily Mirror, but there you go.

I don't much care for Piers Morgan, but I'll give him credit: "Why do you want to deport me?" is as good an opening question to an interview as I've ever heard.

Basil, you're back! Good to hear from you.

Speaking of cycling, Mick, I hear Lance is going to talk to Oprah today. I don't know what he's going to say, but I'll bet he doesn't dig himself out of that hole he's gotten himself into. Reminds me of a joke bullet statement from a military performance report:

"This officer has reached bottom, and has begun to dig."

I honestly don't watch much TV news. I prefer print media or NPR. But then Piers and O'Reilly don't really do the news; they do opinion. I don't know what "Papa Bear's" opinion is on gun control, but I can probably make a guess that'll fall within the standard deviation. That said, I've never watched The O'Reilly Factor, but when I hear him speak elsewhere he sounds like a reasonable man. I don't usually agree with him, but at least he sounds reasonable, unlike the shouters - Rush Limbaugh et al. I'll give him this much - he's got brass - he'll show up on The Daily Show from time to time, and he maintains his cool and holds his own against Jon Stewart.

But then "reasonable" is relative. The other night, shortly after Alex Jones left, Piers had Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio on. At the time, even Sheriff Joe seemed reasonable. He said to Piers, "Hey, don't lump me in with that last guy."

Just watched Jon Stewart doing guns. We could do with a show like that over here.

I watched the video, or most of it anyway. oh. my. god. That guy is insane! And hilarious. :smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

Just watched the Piers Morgan/Alex Jones 'debate' (a very one-sided debate...). Now I'm gonna admit, Alex Jones does seem mentally unstable. You really don't come across in a good light if you spend your entire time ranting without letting the opponent get a word in, especially when you mock them as well.

However despite that, Alex Jones was still right in most of what he said in regards to gun control. The problem is he sounds crazy and he acts crazy, so all the little debate did was make gun owners seem like nuts.

Piers would have been better to just let Alex go off like a full automatic till his clip was empty then show the audience his bullet proof vest before going to break laughing his butt off.

Alex Jones is a sure fire sign that the US is heading for the exit but I can't help liking a guy who shuts down Piers Morgan.

Man! You guys really dislike Piers, eh?

What little I know about him and what little I've seen of him, I sort of like the guy - in the same way Americans who despised George Bush sort of liked Tony Blair - smooth delivery. Dubya would say something raw and grammatically awkward, and then Tony would dress it up and make it look respectable:

Dubya: We're gonna kill all the terr-rists! It's a war agin terr-rism. Yer either wit us, or yer wit the terr-rists!

Tony: Right, so, in the best interest of the people of the United Kingdom and the people of the United States, with whom we share a common history as well as many familial bonds, and indeed in the best interest of all right-thinking people the world over, we have decided to enter into an endeavor which shall have long-lasting and beneficial consequences to all peoples mentioned earlier in this sentence, and therefore...blah blah blah...blah blah blah...

Dubya: Yeah!

It's common to think to oneself "Wow, what a douche..." while watching Piers Morgan Tonight, but Alex Jones is the rare guest to be the target of this thought, usually it'd be Piers. He uses that "smooth delivery" like a used car salesman or corrupt lawyer, and consistently makes the show interesting/entertaining by delivering variations on "have you stopped beating your wife" in the guise of an eloquent innocent, only inadvertently veering into insulting insinuations that would NEVER have occurred to him...

I say let's keep him over here, it's entertaining and who knows what delicious moments we'll have if the phone-hacking takes him down eventually. Not worth watching, but easily the equal of the later Larry King years.

That's it billl. That is why I don't like him, he's sneaky and ruthless dressed as an eloquent smoothie, dishonest if you like. So he comes out strongly in favour of gun control, and you wonder - is he doing this because of his conscious, or is it to promote Piers Morgan? Then you think - has he even got a conscious?

I got a similar feeling about Alex Jones, how much of that was a performance? Was he being the simple passionate all American a la George Bush? Perhaps they were both performing for their respective audiences.