So, this is about the civil right to arm ourselves to the teeth, with AR15s and whatnot, which is allowed by the letter - and thus according to the strict hermeneutics of Jones and his followers - the spirit of the second amendment, added to the constitution by the Founding Fathers in 1791. A funny fictional debate between those founding pals recently appeared in the New Yorker. Here's a noticeable quote from that piece by Teddy Wayne:
Madison: Nay, for this hypothetical “interconnected net” would not debase itself as a mercenary marketplace, but instead provide a forum for only the most enlightened minds of the day to comment on scholarly works, and on previous comments, in a virtuous cycle of belletristic discourse. The scenario you envision for the “interconnected net” is as unlikely as its serving as an emporium for free daguerreotypes of semi-nude portraiture!Mr. Jones runs infowars.com and a number of other disturbing websites. The guy is immensely popular, and his ursine appearance, promising to think - or rather not-think - on behalf the American public, will prove an ace in any political race.
The problem is that he points at statistical evidence to support his claim. "In Mexico civilians are forbidden to bear arms, and the crime rates are much higher." I'm sure some of these statistics could support his progun point, and it's important to have a civilized conversation (as mr. Morgan attempted during his interview with Alex Jones, time and again addressing him with his polished Victorian accent)
After all, this is a real dilemma with no easy solution, with empirical evidence supporting both sides. But by calling pieces of legislation "sacrosanct" mr. Jones tries to support his case with a completely different type of argument. The thing is, if other statistics show up that don't support his point of view, he cannot accept them unless he abolishes the "sanctity" of the second amendment.
He doesn't realize that these two lines of argumentation are incompatible. You can't have the gun, and shoot it, too, as the saying goes. What mr. Jones (and the Joneses?) demonstrates are the convulsions of an arch conservative dogmatist - not the open-minded reason of an American pragmatist.
