Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Alex Jones is a patriotic American who is at the forefront of protecting the 2nd Amendment from gun grabbing traitors.
Would you say that Alex Jones, in that interview, well represented the gun owners of America?
I don't think he ever said he was there representing gun owners of America.
Would you say that Alex Jones, in that interview, well represented the gun owners of America?
I don't think he ever said he was there representing gun owners of America.
But would you say that Alex Jones, in that interview, well represented (unofficially, of course) the gun owners of America?
I don't think he ever said he was there representing gun owners of America.
But would you say that Alex Jones, in that interview, well represented (unofficially, of course) the gun owners of America?
He wasn't there unofficially representing the gun owners of America. False premise.
But would you say that Alex Jones, in that interview, well represented (unofficially, of course) the gun owners of America?
He wasn't there unofficially representing the gun owners of America. False premise.
^Notices you avoiding answering. What a surprise.
He wasn't there unofficially representing the gun owners of America. False premise.
^Notices you avoiding answering. What a surprise.
Did anyone other than YOU claim Jones was there representing gun owners? Whenever someone frames their argument on a false premise, then they don't have a point. Let's deal in reality.
Alex Jones is a loon...
^Notices you avoiding answering. What a surprise.
Did anyone other than YOU claim Jones was there representing gun owners? Whenever someone frames their argument on a false premise, then they don't have a point. Let's deal in reality.
Is Alex Jones a good representative of the gun owners of America? Yes or no?
I'm more along the line of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or whatever that cliche' is. If you look at this stat:
"According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year."
Does that mean that we should outlaw alcohol and automobiles? The aforementioned was a rhetorical question.
Except that we did outlaw alcohol.
Never underestimate the capacity of America to do stupid things.
Is this the proper tact to follow when you want to protect Our Second Amendment rights? I wonder some so-called 2nd Amendment activist have to act like fucking loons? It almost makes me wonder if they are really in favor of the 2nd Amendment. You can see how Jones' argument starts falling apart. I find it funny that he came out using "factoids" vs Morgan but then soon complained and evaded the question where Piers used his.
Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan on CNN - YouTube
People actually take Alex Jones seriously?
^notices you avoiding answering. What a surprise.
did anyone other than you claim jones was there representing gun owners? Whenever someone frames their argument on a false premise, then they don't have a point. Let's deal in reality.
is alex jones a good representative of the gun owners of america? Yes or no?
The Corrosive And Negative Impact of Conspiracy Theories
an essay by Matthew Bissonnette
In Dallas Texas in the year 1963, President John F Kennedy was assassinated by a lone assassin. The official record of what happened over the following decades became doubted by many who believed that powerful institutions and individuals had perpetrated the assassination; these theories where spread by books, media and film. This was the one of the first and most well known conspiracy theories but as time went on more of these alternative reconstructions of historical and current events entered the public consciousness. When the internet became widely available then these conspiracy theories became more pervasive. There are numerous individuals who spread there hypothesize of corruption at the heart of powerful institutions over the world wide web which is viewed by hundreds of millions; claims of governments perpetrating massacres of their own people and global powers seeking to enact a global genocide which will end the lives of billions proliferate on the information super highway. These internet commentators will tell those that listen the official record of significant events is a lie and present their suppositions as truth. Yet most of these sometimes paranoid theories may sound plausible, they tend to be a small part truth and mostly faulty information. But this phenomena of the dissemination of these theories may have detrimental consequences for society.
As I said before, one of the most common of these theories is that soon a shadowy organization known only as the New World Order will soon perpetrate a global holocaust killing most of mankind. If there is a individual who ardently believes that soon he and all those he cares for may soon parish then what would such a belief motivate him to do if he genuinely believes he is threatened? Would not such a belief in his own mind justify defending himself in someway which may be violent? How many men in society have been obsessively fixating on these theories and how many may feel that they must do something about it? Do those who accept these theories take the necessary time to research how much factual information is behind these claims? There have already been several instances where crimes have been committed by individuals whose actions where informed by their belief that shadowy threats exist all around them.
Another result of this conspiracy hysteria is that it leads to countless many distrusting their own governments not because of verified reasons but for surmised information which is mostly inaccurate. Though many times our governments act in a way people should be critical of, believing in ideas like they kill their own citizens directly may make individuals fearful and even hateful of their own authorities. It leads to a loss of trust between men and their own public institutions. If you want to be suspicious of powerful institutions, base those beliefs upon fact and not on information which is mostly speculation.
The conspiracy movement is a symptom of the breakdown of trust between some segments of the public and their own government. And it can lead to a oppositional situation where men may be moved towards destructive actions which are motivated by information which they have not researched themselves but have heard from a third hand source. Sometimes there is a differentiation between the accepted record of present and historical events, but your beliefs should be based on what you can prove to be factually true and not on what you surmise or guess.
It is called a conspiracy theory because a theory is not yet proven and is different from a fact.
The Corrosive And Negative Impact of Conspiracy Theories
an essay by Matthew Bissonnette
In Dallas Texas in the year 1963, President John F Kennedy was assassinated by a lone assassin. The official record of what happened over the following decades became doubted by many who believed that powerful institutions and individuals had perpetrated the assassination; these theories where spread by books, media and film. This was the one of the first and most well known conspiracy theories but as time went on more of these alternative reconstructions of historical and current events entered the public consciousness. When the internet became widely available then these conspiracy theories became more pervasive. There are numerous individuals who spread there hypothesize of corruption at the heart of powerful institutions over the world wide web which is viewed by hundreds of millions; claims of governments perpetrating massacres of their own people and global powers seeking to enact a global genocide which will end the lives of billions proliferate on the information super highway. These internet commentators will tell those that listen the official record of significant events is a lie and present their suppositions as truth. Yet most of these sometimes paranoid theories may sound plausible, they tend to be a small part truth and mostly faulty information. But this phenomena of the dissemination of these theories may have detrimental consequences for society.
As I said before, one of the most common of these theories is that soon a shadowy organization known only as the New World Order will soon perpetrate a global holocaust killing most of mankind. If there is a individual who ardently believes that soon he and all those he cares for may soon parish then what would such a belief motivate him to do if he genuinely believes he is threatened? Would not such a belief in his own mind justify defending himself in someway which may be violent? How many men in society have been obsessively fixating on these theories and how many may feel that they must do something about it? Do those who accept these theories take the necessary time to research how much factual information is behind these claims? There have already been several instances where crimes have been committed by individuals whose actions where informed by their belief that shadowy threats exist all around them.
Another result of this conspiracy hysteria is that it leads to countless many distrusting their own governments not because of verified reasons but for surmised information which is mostly inaccurate. Though many times our governments act in a way people should be critical of, believing in ideas like they kill their own citizens directly may make individuals fearful and even hateful of their own authorities. It leads to a loss of trust between men and their own public institutions. If you want to be suspicious of powerful institutions, base those beliefs upon fact and not on information which is mostly speculation.
The conspiracy movement is a symptom of the breakdown of trust between some segments of the public and their own government. And it can lead to a oppositional situation where men may be moved towards destructive actions which are motivated by information which they have not researched themselves but have heard from a third hand source. Sometimes there is a differentiation between the accepted record of present and historical events, but your beliefs should be based on what you can prove to be factually true and not on what you surmise or guess.
It is called a conspiracy theory because a theory is not yet proven and is different from a fact.
what a load of horse shit...
^Notices you avoiding answering. What a surprise.
Did anyone other than YOU claim Jones was there representing gun owners? Whenever someone frames their argument on a false premise, then they don't have a point. Let's deal in reality.
Is Alex Jones a good representative of the gun owners of America? Yes or no?
Alex Jones is a patriotic American who is at the forefront of protecting the 2nd Amendment from gun grabbing traitors.
Would you say that Alex Jones, in that interview, well represented the gun owners of America?
I don't think he ever said he was there representing gun owners of America.
If a beautiful girl with big tits said the SAME THINGS on FoxNews as Jones did on CNN I'm willing to bet the reactions would be more favorable.
Apparently it's OK to scream and yell about MFL Footsbawl but NOT about the 2nd Amendment?
