Alex Jones on Piers Morgan, Molon labe

With the introduction of the Feinstein bill, Vox made a fitting recommendation on how to handle the gun grabbers -

It's time to begin cranking up the volume and sending the anti-gun politicians scurrying back under their rocks again...

We all knew it was coming. You know the drill. If there is even the slightest squishiness on the part of your elected official, squeeze him until he squeals like an NRA piggy.

This is the proper response. Much like the right's so-called 'response' to terrorism, the left's 'desire to debate' is not an actual call to a reasoned, logical analysis of relevant points, rather it is a call to rhetorically paint those who possess guns as unreasonable, baby killing bastards, hell bent on disrupting their precious utopia. They are ideologically and rhetorically dishonest and as such should not be taken seriously. Knowing that this would be the case, Alex takes Vox's advice to heart and goes for the throat -

The answer is -- wait a minute, I have FBI crime statistics that come out of a year late, 2011, 20-plus percent crime drop in the last nine years, real violent crime because more guns means less crime. Britain took the guns 15, 16 years ago. Tripling of your overall violent crime. True, we have a higher gun violence level, but overall, muggings, stabbing, deaths -- those men raped that woman to India to death with an iron rod 4 feet long. You can't ban the iron rods. The guns, the iron rods, Piers, didn't do it, the tyrants did it. Hitler took the guns Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns, and I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! It doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there in the street begging for them to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?

That good people was a rhetorical 'shot hear around the world'. Alex knew full well that Piers has absolutely no inclination in a reasoned debate, Piers even intimated as much with his argument points trying in vain to direct the discussion towards a discussion on the level of gun deaths in Britain and thus revealing the true aim, disarming the people. (As seen with the call to eliminate knives in Britain and the gun ban in Australia)

Of course Piers can't allow AJ's points to stand, he needs to passive-aggressively bring in Alex's 'sanity' -

"He was the best advertisement for gun control you could wish for," Morgan told POLITICO.

"That kind of vitriol, hatred, and zealotry is really quite scary. I didn't feel threatened by him, but I'm concerned that someone like him has that level of influence," Morgan said. "There's got to be a level of discourse that can rise above what happened last night. It was undignified, unedifying."

Notice how he shifts the frame away from the actual discussion, gun control. Think it through once..

"He was the best advertisement for gun control you could wish for,"
Why?
Because he’s got “vitriol, hatred, and zealotry” (buzz words. Note the lack of subject? It allows it to be more ‘personal’ to the impressionable reader)
How do we know he’s got hatred? Because Piers is..
“really quite scar(ed)…concerned that someone like him has that level of influence,”
Oh. Why?
“It was undignified, unedifying."”

So to boil it down in reverse. (Because that’s how Piers is building his ‘case’) Because Jones was “undignified”, Piers, being the man’s man that he is is not scared but is concerned. (Implying mental illness) And because he’s concerned, over his undignified actions, AJ is filled with hate (They invoke the Southern Poverty Law Center later in the article.) And THAT makes an effective argument for gun control.

To boil it down a step further – While sitting with a foreign agent discussing gun confiscation, Alex believes that gun control is coming and want’s to defend his perceived right to guns, therefore he is mentally ill and should have them taken away.

To quote Vox (and Denninger) again -

No limits.  No restrictions.  No laws.  Nothing that infringes, even in the smallest and most seemingly sensible way, on the right to bear arms.  No compromise.