Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Wanna see why we need gun control watch this crazy loon. Perfect example of the idiots and boobs who overly populate this third world nation.

You are taking what I said out of context, and I don't have "fantasies" of such sort.
Let me make it clearer. On the off chance the government becomes oppressive and is not of the people, or not by the people, or not for the people, the people can voice their opinions and peacefully protest, and if still the government does not budge, people have the freedom to use force as necessary. And in such cases if government fights back, armed forces may side with the people, as they are people themselves, and sane enough to not blow up their own relatives and friends, nor their native homes.

And actually the "people" already did beat a government with "more men, better equipment and ... better armed." it was this little thing called the american revolution when the insurgents" took on the british military that was at the time the strongest, most battle trained, and equipped with the latest technology of the time, and the "insurgents" for the most part only had flintlock muskets and whatever gear they could steal from the enemy such as canons, etc.

That's pure fantasy. Especially that bullshit about the American Revolution. You obviously don't know **** about history.

Not at all. The colonies disagreement over the way in which Great Britain governed over the colonies by British colonial rules, as well as many events that didn't suit with the colonies, which ultimately lead to the American Revolution. Why don't you brush up on your history old man?

I don't think its Set that needs to brush up on his history or the facts about how the colonists were armed compared to the British army.

You're the one who needs to study hsitory, clown. The British army was not better equipped than the colonists--they had the same equipment. The British army used the various models of the Land Pattern Musket, .75 caliber. The colonial legislatures had purchased those muskets for their own militias so that both sides were using the same weapons. You're just making this **** up as you go along. Later, the United States received more than 70,000 .69 caliber Charleville msukets from the French.

At Boston, the local militias outnumbered the British troops stationed there. When, in March, 1776, Washington put artillery on Dorchester Heights, they were obliged to evacuate because Washington's artillery dominated the harbor, and the ships of the Royal Navy could not elevate their guns to return fire.

On Long Island, the Americans again outnumbered the British, but Howe's troops were better handled, so Brooklyn Heights had to be abandoned, and eventually New York had to be abaondoned. That jackass Charles Lee managed to pack thousands of troops into Forts Washington and Lee in time to surrender to the British. Nevertheless, beginning in December, 1776, Washington, although outnumbered in total forces, used quick marches against locally inferior forcs and ran the British right out of New Jersey.

In the Satatoga Campaign, the Americans outnumbered the British at all times. When Benedict Arnold finally decided to ignore "Old Woman" Gates (as the men called him) and attacked Burgoyne's army, it was all over in three days. Burgoyne's entire army were made prisoners of war and were marched off to Boston, where the Royal Navy was obliged to come and get them.

If you like, since you so obviously need the history lessons, i can canvas the rest of the war for you, too. The only major lack the United States suffered was that of navy. After Saratoga in 1778, the French supplied that deficiency, and it was just a amtter of time--about two years, in fact, until Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.

You don't know jack ****.

Before the french aided the colonies two years after this war started, the colonies were not on the same ground as Brittan's forces, old man.

I don't think it will be an asymmetrical warfare in the first place as you suggested because I disagree with your assumption that all those in the military would fire upon their fellow Americans. The french support to the colonies will be as the American military support to the American people if, unfortunately, such a time arises.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The French weren't going to come in to help a potential loser. Washington ran the British out of Boston, permanently, in 1776, as i've already pointed out. At the end of 1776, the beginning of 1777, he ran them out of New Jersey, as i've already pointed out. At the end of 1777, as i've already pointed out, Burgoyne's army was forced to surrender at Saratoga. In June, 1778, despite the ****-ups of Charles Lee, Washington mauled Clinton's rear guard at Monmouth Courthouse. It was not until all that had happended that the French decided to step in. Nations don't go to war to back a potential loser.

You're right about only one thing--the colonies were not on the same ground as the Briths. They were on their home ground, they vastly outnumbered the British, and every musket ball, every powder cartridge, every piece of hard tack the British used had to be brought 3000 miles before they could use it. By contrast, the Americans could run down to the West Indies to buy powder and shot and cannons from the French and Dutch whenever an enterprising mariner thought he could profit--and there were no lack of them.

At Guilford Court House, in March, 1781, with no help from the French, Nathaniel Greene's Continentals so badly mauled the British Grenadier Guards that Cornwallis turned his artillery on his own men, who were crumbling under an American bayonet attack, to keep the Americans from breaking through. That's what you call your basic Pyrric victory.

Once again, your bullshit about the people rising in arms against the American government is just an exercise in fantasy. Don't try to tart it up with historical analogies because you're too f*cking ignorant for that.

What a ******* senile old man?
The french didn't come into help a "potential" winner. They came to support the colonies to weaken the British nation, by the old adage of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Listen to me clearly ******* deaf loon. Before the french came to help in 1778 the colonies were not in equal footing with Brits in the frontier. Anyway George Washington roughly lost as many battles as as he won, thankfully he won the most important ones. The revolutionists had man power, just as it right now, 3 mill in the military w/ ~300 mill citizens.
My analogy is perfectly fine, unlike your "fantasy" that the war between the people and its government will be asymmetrical, and that is the smell of the stinking bullshit here.

You're analogy sucks because you're so f*cking ignorant of history. Your bullshit about "the people" rising in arms against the American government is an exercise in pure fantasy. You don't know a goddamned thing about the American Revolutionary War.

There is nothing wrong with my analogy old man. If you don't like the second amendment and would like to infringe it, then stay in Canada and while you're there, do try to relearn what you've forgotten about the American Revolutionary War.

I saw that loon on Piers Morgan--I'm glad Morgan gave him a wide berth to rant, it helps to expose the crazy mentality of people who think like that, and who seem to be just barely in control of their anger. We definitely need better mental health checks on those who acquire guns, judging by that nut.

Exposing people like that does help to strengthen the gun control movement--which was probably the point of the interview. I admire Piers Morgan's commitment to this issue.

Might as well put part 2.

I like the part where Alex talks in a British accent. Holy ****, that was the funniest thing ever.

Say what you want, but at least he shutdown Piers Morgan...on his own show.

As i've said, your analogy fails because of your ignorance. The strength of your argument is shown by your sinking to the level of name-calling. Nothing i've said here or anywhere else in these fora for a moment constitutes a call for the infringement of the second amendment. History is not the only subject about which you are obviously ignorant.

You got that right, P. Morgan is a crazy loon

He didn't shut down Morgan--Morgan allowed him to make a fool of himself by showing him evading the questions Morgan asked him, by pointing out his inaccuracies, and by getting him to expose his paranoid fantasies/delusions about the U.S. government being behind 9/11.

It was a win for Morgan.

So you are blind now? Nowhere have I said here or anywhere in these fora for a moment that you called for the infringement of the second amendment. Read what I wrote again. So you are blind and deaf, and added to that you are ignorant. Take care of yourself old man.

Yes, Alex wasn't being civil, however, it was quite a show, and a very hilarious one at that.

It was hilarious if you enjoy watching a hyper-agitated paranoid nut, with very pressured speech, who looks like he needs to be wrapped in damp sheets.

I didn't find watching Alex display his pathology funny. But I'm glad Morgan gave him the exposure to do that.