Those Damn Guns Again

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
13GBmL.SlMa.91.jpeg
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Wait, what?

I believe in balance.

I can't put too much into science because science tends to not solve anything. It tends to give theories that can be disputed on the most part. That's my 2 cents...

BTW, I'm a conservative
.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

It wasn't even worth the two cent he paid for it.
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
:yawn: This board is getting boring.

Everything is predictable.

I just can't wait until the election. The gun control debate will not go anywhere. It's really a waste of time.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
:yawn: This board is getting boring.

Everything is predictable.

I just can't wait until the election. The gun control debate will not go anywhere. It's really a waste of time.

You're probably right, the gun debate won't get very far because the gun lobby, led most notably by the NRA, has both presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, in lock-step silence on the issue. Both candidates have taken drastically different positions on gun control than they are taking in this race, obviously fearful of bloody Gun-Money in a very tight race.

Its a sad commentary indeed, though true, when two intelligent presidential candidates on the one hand and then you on the other, have so much in common.



 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
:yawn: This board is getting boring.

Everything is predictable.

I just can't wait until the election. The gun control debate will not go anywhere. It's really a waste of time.


Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats have become emasculated by the republican rhetoric on gun ownership. Leadership on this issue is non existent.

It is also unfortunate that "your side" has won, at least currently on this issue, but the real losers are the people that will be killed by weapons that don't have to be.
 
Last edited:

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"

Ice-T: Well, I'll give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn't that make sense? If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, anchor, Channel 4 News: So do you carry guns routinely at home?

Ice-T: Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.


Anchor: And do you see any link between that and these sorts of incidents (Aurora)?

Ice-T: No. Nah. Not really really. You know what I'm saying, if somebody wants to kill people, you know, they don't need a gun to do it.

Anchor: It makes it easier though, doesn't it?

Ice-T: Not really. You can strap explosives on your body, they do that all the time.

On anti-gun laws: "That's not going to change anything. The United States is based on guns, you know."
 
Last edited:

Lamarr

Star
Registered
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U5EYaW1HZhw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U5EYaW1HZhw" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Ah, one of your heroes. Gangster rapper. Merchant of death!


ice-t-380x380.jpg
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Ah, one of your heroes. Gangster rapper. Merchant of death!

I started a near identical reply to Lamar's comment, but I stopped. I thought, why respond when he dodges every thread/post on this board - - and then drops in with this lunacy.

Now that you've responded, I guess I can add:

Gansta Rappers, Ron Paul, :smh: :smh: :smh:

The philosophical company you keep Lamar :(

 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
You're probably right, the gun debate won't get very far because the gun lobby, led most notably by the NRA, has both presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, in lock-step silence on the issue. Both candidates have taken drastically different positions on gun control than they are taking in this race, obviously fearful of bloody Gun-Money in a very tight race.

Its a sad commentary indeed, though true, when two intelligent presidential candidates on the one hand and then you on the other, have so much in common.




I know why Obama won't go against the NRA, it would endanger Dems in more conservative districts but I don't get what Romney has to lose. He will still get those votes because those people won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats have become emasculated by the republican rhetoric on gun ownership. Leadership on this issue is non existent.

It is also unfortunate that "your side" has won, at least currently on this issue, but the real looses are the people that will be killed by weapons that don't have to be.

:yes:
Debates are always boring when you're always on the intellectually dishonest, flat out wrong side.

Ah, one of your heroes. Gangster rapper. Merchant of death!


ice-t-380x380.jpg

Damn his ex wife was fine.

But for a group that detests celebrities involvement in politics, they run to show them off when they agree with them. Now "conservatives" are applauding Ice-T? "Cop Killa" Ice-T?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Well, he's winning me over with a message of liberty.

Do you understand the message????? "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"



You always write liberty without including justice. The two words must go together. Where is the justice for the murdered? This is the selfish flaw of libertarianism.


Ice T is no one to look up to.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Now "conservatives" are applauding Ice-T? "Cop Killa" Ice-T?


Let me re-emphasize that I am not apposed to guns wholesale, but the absurdly weak gun laws. But again someone that represents the worst of the Black community, an ex-drug dealer who had no compunctions about selling death to his own people is now the champion to the libertarian so called freedom loving with out justice crowd.

Lamarr you have set the bar low in the past, but now you have out done yourself.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I started a near identical reply to Lamar's comment, but I stopped. I thought, why respond when he dodges every thread/post on this board - - and then drops in with this lunacy.

Now that you've responded, I guess I can add:

Gansta Rappers, Ron Paul, :smh: :smh: :smh:

The philosophical company you keep Lamar :(



Especially when at least two of them claimed that cities with weaker gun laws have higher gun crimes and was throughly debunked and again, as you said, "dodges every thread/post on this board".
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Let me re-emphasize that I am not apposed to guns wholesale, but the absurdly weak gun laws. But again someone that represents the worst of the Black community, an ex-drug dealer who had no compunctions about selling death to his own people is now the champion to the libertarian so called freedom loving with out justice crowd.

I can't defend his lifestyle, but I respect his freedom of speech. From the interview, he's a legal gun owner. So no, I don't have a problem with him owning firearms. Just happens that we have a similar outlook in regards to personal protection. "the 2A is the last form of defense against tyranny!".
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
See how we do our own.

Throwing up "he used to be a gangsta rapper" because he disagrees with your side about guns.

Please don't refer yourselves as black anymore.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Thought1 feels safer if Dick Cheney had all the guns & the people have NONE. Ain't that right thought?
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
See how we do our own.

Throwing up "he used to be a gangsta rapper" because he disagrees with your side about guns.

Please don't refer yourselves as black anymore.

With your political and media preferences, do you really want to get into that rock throwing contest? Really?

But it looks to me that thought's main concern is Ice is his past as a drug dealer. The "gangsta rapper" part is just funny how people will conveniently forget a person's not that distant history when he says one thing you agree with, even if it's superficial.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
See how we do our own.

Throwing up "he used to be a gangsta rapper" because he disagrees with your side about guns.

Please don't refer yourselves as black anymore.

As a black man, it hurts me to say this, but slavery *during that time* was a necessary evil.

I can see why you you hold thugs as an example to support your opinions.

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KzAUybUj9so" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
With your political and media preferences, do you really want to get into that rock throwing contest? Really?

But it looks to me that thought's main concern is Ice is his past as a drug dealer. The "gangsta rapper" part is just funny how people will conveniently forget a person's not that distant history when he says one thing you agree with, even if it's superficial.

So fucking what if he was a drug dealer. He's out that life.

Oh, I get it, if they don't agree with the argument, it's time to make him PAY. Again, if you agree with this type of nonsense, do not consider yourself a legit black man. That is some Uncle Tom-ish type of thinking.

I can see why you you hold thugs as an example to support your opinions.

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KzAUybUj9so" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

You just lost all respect from me dude. I can't even take you seriously anymore.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
So fucking what if he was a drug dealer. He's out that life.

Oh, I get it, if they don't agree with the argument, it's time to make him PAY. Again, if you agree with this type of nonsense, do not consider yourself a legit black man. That is some Uncle Tom-ish type of thinking.

One
My "legitimacy" as a Black man isn't up for debate, neither is anyone else's and that includes blatant sellouts like Clarence Thomas and Allen West.

Two
As a longtime Ice-T fan, I don't have a problem with whatever his opinion is but let's not pretend Ice is one of the great social thinkers of our era. He's intelligent enough but his "last defense against tyranny" line is rhetorical nonsense full of the same old strawman arguments that get recklessly thrown around when people don't have reasonable points to make.
 

hershey1973

Star
Registered
This is an interesting topic to me, but it seems that the debate here has degenerated to rock throwing...so lets get down to brass tacks..stats mean a lot but stats for or against mean nothing in that terrible instant when it is you and yours at the business end of a bad guys gun. In my earlier days when I thought owning a gun was unnecessary,I was held helpless at the business end of a bad guys gun..it was , shall we say, most unpleasant, so I am looking for real world solutions. There were a plethora of laws on the books already making the bad guys every move illegal..felon in possession of the weapon, illegal..weapon to my head, illegal...holding me against my will, illegal detention, helping himself to my property, illegal..the woman he shot prior to putting gun to my head, illegal...the car he jacked, illegal...plenty of laws which he clearly held no regard for. With that in mind..MY question is this... Since there are roughly 270 million guns in the country...http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828 how will stricter gun control do anything other than hamstring the good guys? How will we stop bad guys from acquiring or constructing restricted weapon tech. Bad guys will not decide to carry a smaller capacity weapon or a different weapon altogether because their state happens to have a certain class, caliber, or capacity restricted. So now here I am Joe Citizen, and my very meager home in the hood is being invaded by armed thugs. I know that police response time is measured in minutes when seconds count...but since I am very law abiding, I decide to purchase only officially sanctioned small caliber and capacity firearms for my home defense ...unfortunately for me, the thugs dont seem to share my zeal for the law...Gun control has now put me at a terrible disadvantage. Right now in states with more open gun laws, at least we can achieve a form of parity with the bad guy...perhaps it is cold war-ish but until someone comes up with a way to make the restrictions actually apply to the bad guys who dont care about them..i prefer to at least be able to achieve a stalemate.

Aurora might be a different story if that theater werent a gun free zone. The fact that he had body armor and used gas obviously compounded the problem, but my current concealed carry handgun (yes I carry it everyday, and it is perfectly legal uh for now anyway)
101_0742-1.jpg
[/IMG]has a 30+1 round capacity and the rounds can penetrate 40 layers of kevlar...and I am now a highly proficient shooter..of course adrenaline dump negatively impacts fine motor skills, so yes I wouldve still been outgunned with my shorter sight radius vs his AR15, but I could have at least given him something to think about...and I genuinely implore some of the well reasoned and erudite members of the board who argue on the side of gun control to give me something to think about ...please explain to me how we can actually leave the good guys with an advantage at the end of gun control. I know bad guys personally, and they know bad guys who sell a disappointingly stunning array of guns illegally...how do new laws stop what old laws didnt, and make it so that I dont need to have these (which I own legally)in my home to keep the playing field level
101_0753.jpg
[/IMG]
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
This is an interesting topic to me, but it seems that the debate here has degenerated to rock throwing...so lets get down to brass tacks..stats mean a lot but stats for or against mean nothing in that terrible instant when it is you and yours at the business end of a bad guys gun. In my earlier days when I thought owning a gun was unnecessary,I was held helpless at the business end of a bad guys gun..it was , shall we say, most unpleasant, so I am looking for real world solutions. There were a plethora of laws on the books already making the bad guys every move illegal..felon in possession of the weapon, illegal..weapon to my head, illegal...holding me against my will, illegal detention, helping himself to my property, illegal..the woman he shot prior to putting gun to my head, illegal...the car he jacked, illegal...plenty of laws which he clearly held no regard for. With that in mind..MY question is this... Since there are roughly 270 million guns in the country...http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828 how will stricter gun control do anything other than hamstring the good guys? How will we stop bad guys from acquiring or constructing restricted weapon tech. Bad guys will not decide to carry a smaller capacity weapon or a different weapon altogether because their state happens to have a certain class, caliber, or capacity restricted. So now here I am Joe Citizen, and my very meager home in the hood is being invaded by armed thugs. I know that police response time is measured in minutes when seconds count...but since I am very law abiding, I decide to purchase only officially sanctioned small caliber and capacity firearms for my home defense ...unfortunately for me, the thugs dont seem to share my zeal for the law...Gun control has now put me at a terrible disadvantage. Right now in states with more open gun laws, at least we can achieve a form of parity with the bad guy...perhaps it is cold war-ish but until someone comes up with a way to make the restrictions actually apply to the bad guys who dont care about them..i prefer to at least be able to achieve a stalemate.

Aurora might be a different story if that theater werent a gun free zone. The fact that he had body armor and used gas obviously compounded the problem, but my current concealed carry handgun (yes I carry it everyday, and it is perfectly legal uh for now anyway) has a 30+1 round capacity and the rounds can penetrate 40 layers of kevlar...and I am now a highly proficient shooter..of course adrenaline dump negatively impacts fine motor skills, so yes I wouldve still been outgunned with my shorter sight radius vs his AR15, but I could have at least given him something to think about...and I genuinely implore some of the well reasoned and erudite members of the board who argue on the side of gun control to give me something to think about ...please explain to me how we can actually leave the good guys with an advantage at the end of gun control. I know bad guys personally, and they know bad guys who sell a disappointingly stunning array of guns illegally...how do new laws stop what old laws didnt, and make it so that I dont need to have these (which I own legally)in my home to keep the playing field level
101_0753.jpg
[/IMG]

Again, can this debate be handled without strawman arguments?

The fact that some people are going to break the law is not a reason to not have the law. Why make rape and murder illegal since thousands of them happen every year, going by that logic?

Gun laws don't handicap the average, law abiding citizen anymore than any other regulation on our other rights handicap us. If the sale and manufacture of high powered firearms and ammo is the law, then not only do the "good guys" not get them but the "bad guys" not get them either since the "bad guys" usually get their guns from someone who considers themselves a "good guy". I, as an adult citizen with no criminal record or history of mental illness or connections to terrorists networks, should be able to buy most firearms within limits. That's the stance of the vast majority of people.

Another person thinking that if someone had a gun things might have been different with no, zero, evidence to back that up. Here's a real situation: when Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, there was someone there with a gun and training and when he went to shoot his gun, the person he was going to shoot turned out to not be Jared Loughner.

You admit that adrenaline would negatively affect you, now add the darkness of a movie theater, hundreds of running, screaming people, and tear gas. It's more likely people would have considered you a partner of James Holmes instead of a wannabe hero.

No one is trying to take your guns but there is no reason to not do common sense things to try to prevent this type of foolishness from happening. It's not rational to believe if the authorities had not been notified that Holmes was buying that much ammo in such a short period of time, someone wouldn't have at least checked on him. Not stopped him from buying, just talked to him and got a feel for him. If the dude had bought 2 gallons of cough syrup, the Feds would have been knocking on his door. Why should cough syrup be more heavily regulated than guns and ammo?
 
Top