Alex Jones on Rahm Emanuel and Gun Control 11-7-08

[Ganseblumchen12]

We have the right to keep and bear arms

Just don't mess with our constitution and we'll be alright.

watch?v=Iqp_3ZboCjY&NR=1 especially from 8:20

[neffada53]

And how many handguns does rom have? For God sake, he looks like a hit man for the Godfather.

[sargon08]

they dont care about crimes they care about the second revolution !!

[Uinvestigate911]

If someone Broke into your Home and was going to KILL you or throw you in a death camp like Hitler etc has done. What would you rather have,Gun or Phone? FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE IS ((((((YOU)))))))

[monkeydude3987]

@Uinvestigate911 I'd go down swinging and free, before I let myself be taken and live a slave.

[Uinvestigate911]

@monkeydude3987 Best defense is be prepared for the worse bro and prepare everyone you know. Your fists won't get you out of trouble if Martial Law comes to America. These evil filth behind the New World Order agenda are going to try and pull off another event like 9/11 trust me bro.

[emosdieslow]

Alex Jones heed to keep exposing the real threat (zionists) or else he won't be taken seriously. People are waking up.

[BlackieHugeHands]

Some people are. Not NEARLY enough yet though

[joe80dman]

"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED". Luke 22:36, which is part of my religion, and cannot be interfered with by American government, mandates that I arm myself. Rahm Emanuel, nor any of his cronies, has the AUTHORITY to abrogate my God-given RIGHTS.

[Phishbowls]

using the bible to excuse your obsession with carrying a gun is pathetic. That verse talks about having a sword because the people were invovled in a brutal war in which they had to be able to defend themselves. You idiots are calling for Emanuel's head, when all he is doing is trying to get guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. Don't believe everything you hear out of this crack pot Jones.

[joe80dman]

I think it's pathetic that you try to split hairs between swords 2000 years ago, and today's modern firearms. Rahm Emanuel, the Israeli Lobby, or Eric Holder DO NOT have the AUTHORITY to abrogate the 2nd Amendment. This is an INALIENABLE RIGHT. I'm more perplexed about Israel's desire too disarm the American People. They're rapidly becoming our #1 Enemy. Why do the Israelis want to disarm the American people?? Anyone have an answer?

[Phishbowls]

Splitting haris between swords 2000 years ago? By splitting hairs you must mean NOT making conveiniant generalizations and reading the words as how I want them to read. Get your facts straight people. He wants to disarm Americans who are suspected terrorists who are on the "No Fly List." So long as you don't try to bring a box cutter on your flight to the next Alex Jones convention, you'll be able to carry your small-penis-compensating firearms.

[joe80dman]

You mean like the 5-year-old boy who was refused to board his flight with his parents because he strangely showed-up on a No Fly List? How convenient for the Gov to simply place people on the No Fly List to abrogate their inalienable right of self defense. DHS, and the Gov in general, are breaking the law! "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", what don't they understand about this? And Emanuel wants to CONTROL Free Speech? This Emanuel is a sick bastard. He can KMA, too!

[Phishbowls]

There was obviously some sort of mix up with this 5 year old kid, assuming that what you say is even true. Or maybe you're right, maybe its all a conspiracy to try to not allow his 5 year old ass to holster a gun!!! "Control free speech," i guess one might call it that when they advocate that free speech be limited to things that do not infringe on other people's right to equality. Oh thats right, your country does not have such a right to equality, you are too concerned with carrying a weapon.

[joe80dman]

The 5 year old had the same name of another. But, is TSA so stupid as to not realize this? Free Speech is just that, free. No strings attached, no limits. You believe speech should be curtailed to protect some sort of "equality"? If we are all supposed to be equal, who will burden the expense? Should productive, hard workers be forced to support couch potatoes? "Equality" is mainly a Marxist-socialist political word. Equal opportunity? Yes. Equal outcome? Impossible.

[Phishbowls]

I'm talking about discriminating hate speech directed towards racial and ethnic groups you fascist neo-con. America has equal oppurtunity? Is that what you think you have because of your worship of capitalism? You'll eat your words when the US is bankrupt and half your population have no choice but to be "couch potatoes." The "financial burden" will stay on you, because I bet you idiots stand by and watch your government give away your tax dollars to keep the status quo...... again.

[joe80dman]

I'm not a Neocon, God forbid! If racial groups seek to obtain taxpayer funded goodies for themselves, you bet I'm going to speak my mind about it. Wouldn't you? Or, have you been so guilt ridden that you'd never think of such a thing? I'm a populist, NOT a capitalist. Our government isn't what it should be. It's a corrupted, criminal government that's been usurped by a foreign country, and international financiers. I thought you'd know that by now? You must be Canadian, am I right?

[Phishbowls]

I am indeed a Canadian. We try to take care of each other in this country. Yes we pay more taxes, some of which gets into the hands of these "couch potato immigrants and racial groups," but most are quite satisfied with the services our government can provide us with. And no, I am not guilt ridden, I just think there should be an equal oppurtunity to be successful regardless of ethnicity. That means gov't programs to help immigrants become stronger with our languages and help finding jobs.

[joe80dman]

Well, it's commendable that people take care of each another. My only beef is; Should a large government bureaucracy be tasked into forcing people to partake in such an ideology? Immigrants 50 or more years ago learned English on their own. The costs of assimilating immigrants is astronomical these days. The gov can't solve all problems. It requires individualism to achieve happiness, not collectivism. Equal outcome, regardless of qualification, is disastrous, and outright evil.

[Phishbowls]

I don't think the costs are particularly high for providing avenues to ensure they have the skills to be successful when you consider the return on the investment. Instead of consuming welfare, immigrants can attain higher paying jobs which generates tax revenue. A country which does not try to assist its newcomers condemns them to be of the lowest class. We aren't talking about equal outcome, we are talking about an equal playing field.

[joe80dman]

The pursuit of an equal playing field could result in another having to surrender some ground. How much tax revenue could be received from any given immigrant compared to the initial outlay of tax monies? I would think it be much more cost-effective for them to learn English on their own, just like they use to. When I travel to a foreign country I don't expect them to speak English. That would be rude of me to think they should. Why do they move to Canada without knowing English first?

[Phishbowls]

"The pursuit of an equal playing field could result in another having to surrender some ground. " Your concern for your own individual self interest is characteristic of an ideology developed from the worship of capitalism. Is there really anything wrong with sharing? Also, you are comparing traveling through a country (apples) and immigrating to a country (oranges). Canada does not spend money on teaching tourists to speech French and English.

[joe80dman]

The problem with state forced socialism is that it erodes one's incentive to strive, and accomplish. It also devolves into restricting personal freedoms at some point. People with a "loafer" mentality LOVE socialism. It also allows the state to punish productive citizens via higher taxation. This isn't capitalism. It's free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Capitalism is practically on the same side of the coin as totalitarian communism.

[Phishbowls]

You are merely receiting lies and propaganda generated during the red scare. To say that capitalism is practically the same as totalitarianism is completely outlandish. Socialist states tend to be less involved in the daily living of citizens, and more involved in the economy. This does not meet the criteria of a totalitarianist state.

[joe80dman]

Capitalism is economic, just as socialism, yet socialism takes a turn towards mind-conditioning the proletariat as the rulers see first. Most state employees prefer socialism for it benefits the state's power over the economy. Socialism just doesn't work. Where's the incentive to strive when one's labor is confiscated by the state to support everyone else? It's stupid.

[Phishbowls]

We will never agree. I view capitalism as a unreliable, unsustainable, rat race, and you are so engrained in that ideology that you are blind to its faults. And socialism does work when implemented properly and on the right scale, excluding people only interested in themselves. To live with socialism one must first recognize the importance of the collective wealth and well being. You are still stuck using "me-first" mantra.

[joe80dman]

I'm not a capitalist by today's definition. I'm a Free Enterprise adherent, which is completely at odds with modern capitalism. Collectivism has it's useful place, but MUST be kept in check so as not to erode the power of the individual, or to render the individual in a state of bankruptcy. Say, how did we ever get onto this subject? The subject of this video is about Obama, Emanuel, and Liebermann dismantling the Bill of Rights, which the People won't stand for. They'll try everything.

[Phishbowls]

I've enjoyed our exchange of ideas. Indeed, we have strayed off topic. The Bill of Rights is a very important document to the citizens of America, however I encourage you to refrain from making generalizations such as "they are dismantling the BOR." You should look specifically at the statements made by Emanuel, they do not express any intent on ending your ability to carry a weapon (though many say that more guns =more gun crime), but only the ability of suspected terrorists to carry weapons.

[joe80dman]

Whom is to determine just who is a "suspected terrorist"? This would be a very easy backdoor means to disarm a lot of Americans, wouldn't you think? Simply refer to them as "suspected terrorists", and BINGO, no more guns! I'm also upset with the Israeli lobby interfering with American laws. This is telltale beyond words. And why the push to place limits on the 1st Amendment? In principle it would be impossible to draw lines into free speech, or thought.

[Phishbowls]

Perhaps it is time for you to reconsider the "everyone gets a gun" rule. I think there may be corrolation between this and the number of homocide deaths in your country. And it is very possible to draw lines into free speech. The Canadian Charter doesn't permit us to burn flags or conduct KKK meetings because it is hateful. Your rights are absolute, ours are subject to reasonable limits if they impose on the rights of others to be treated equally.

[joe80dman]

I must disagree with your position, Phishbowls. We must never allow the government to get their "foot inside the door", of ANY inalienable right. Once we do allow them to dilute any God-given right, they'll work swiftly to eradicate the right altogether. I would suggest to those who find KKK rallies offensive, to just ignore them. I don't agree with the KKK, but I wouldn't want to infringe on their rights either. People must stop being so "offended" about other people's opinions. Get thick skin.

[Phishbowls]

Free speech that preaches hate should not be valued by anyone, and I have no problem with it being against the law. None of your rights are "God given," especially the right to bear arms. It is a very silly and old law that indeed needs reforming. Why do you think carrying a gun makes you safer? Or is it simply "because we can?"

[joe80dman]

If one were to speak out against the government for a dubious law, would that be considered "hate" by that government? The definition of "hate" could be expanded to include almost ANYTHING the state would desire. Thus, a free republic turns into a despotic regime overnight. Not very good, wouldn't you think? And my Rights ARE God-given. Luke 22:36 mandates that I arm myself, even before I should clothe myself. C'mon, Phish. Are you saying a government, a man in a suit, is preferable to God?

[rickster348]

@Phishbowls Hey you sound like my kinda' guy. Why not give me some of your money? (HELLO)??

[kage574]

true, but we are concerned that what happened in the UK, our closest friend, may happen to us. The people in the UK are at the mercy of their government now that they have no means to defend themselves. What can they do but obey? The US people are concerned because the US state of mind is to "bow down to no one, not even the government." If our government is for the people, by the people, and represented by the people, as a republic should be, then it should not try to control the people

[ssnow05]

Molon Labe. Come and Get It. I'll die defending my beliefs and the freedom of my family and fellow patriots.

[thinkrevolution]

BAN Rahm Emanuel!

[BlackieHugeHands]

It eat an entire elephant poop if it would mean that this dude would leave politics. I would sacrifice for my cuntry.