Mr. T Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Check out the reaction of the interviewer Krishnan Guru-Murthy with Ice T's response. sounds like he didn't get the answer he was searching for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5EYaW1HZhw 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." Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Well if Ice T said it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Well if Ice T said it But he is right in that it's the basis of the right to bear arms. the founders didn't trust the ruling class so they decided the population should be able to revolt. That particular right has long since been taken away for better or worse. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Well good thing nothing has changed in 200 years... And if you must "revolt" do it with pistols, not AKs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Maybe that's why Obamao wants 30,000 drones patrolling our skies. So he can declare war on anybody who doesn't have the number, and who try to protect our Constitution from being overthrown by him and the UN..... financed by spooky dude Soros. Really scary stuff. @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Well good thing nothing has changed in 200 years... And if you must "revolt" do it with pistols, not AKs Just pointing out the fact that it's time toSTFU about our rights. Left or right admit it kiddies, the constitution and bill of rights are archaic. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sorry, Steve, but you are "kiddieing" yourself. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are timeless, and worth fighting for. What other country has become a great nation in such a short time? None. Not one. And our country did it with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights as not only a guide, but an engine to the future, with our rights intact. In worldly terms, they aren't even old. "Don't Tread on Me" is an old admonition. But it's hardly "archaic". Millions and millions of Americans believe that. Our freedom guarantees are outdated? Nope. Never, ever going to be. And if our Constitution and Bill of Rights is ever "cancelled"? Not allowed to happen. "kickass" isn't archaic either. That's what our patriot freedom fighters did ... and what we are allowed to do too, as a last resort, to protect ourselves from the ultimate tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think cal is on a little too much if a patriotism high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 With all due respect, you're wrong Cal. Oh the constitution may have certainly been a cool thing in its day but the rights are gone. While we are allowed to have some handguns and some weapons usually up to the task of hunting gophers The government forces have enough firepower to destroy a nation. When washington and his pals mutinied against the kings forses they had pretty much the same weaponry. Let's not pretend that the people could mount an effective insurgence in this day and age. Just take the bill of rights. Pick any of those rights and tell me that it hasn't been diluted to the point of a slogan. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 After a very few years those in power learned how much fun it was to squeeze a few more tax dollars out of the great unwashed. Remember the whiskey rebellion? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 The whole point is that our government is set up to create change WITHOUT violence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 The whole point is that our government is set up to create change WITHOUT violence... Quaint. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Quaint. WSS Oh and it's better that whatever political ideology that isn't in power talk about saving up guns and ammo and fighting the government for their rights and there being scary times ahead etc etc Sure, my post may not be the actual way things always work, but it's better than Cal's "fantasy," land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is still in effect and reigns over all, it is the law of the land. Progressive liberals have masturbated the definitions over the last century and if some had it their way they would trash it and burn it. If you ask a prog if the ends justify the means I am sure they would agree whole heartedly. Case and point just look at how many people will vote for a politician who pledges to bring them free shit. These same people will vote away our rights in the name of so called fairness. If you have read the Constitution you will know that in the beginning it states We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So why would you want to discard this important document? Is it in your view that some people should have more special rights than others? Lets say minorities, are they more important in your view than the average Joe? some people believe that is true and that they need to be lifted up. We still have dummies who have been brought up believing that we are a democratic nation when in fact we are a republic. Maybe you guys should stop listening to the main stream and go back and educate yourselves before you start making statements that are not true. You can start HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Sorry, Steve, but you are "kiddieing" yourself. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are timeless, and worth fighting for. What other country has become a great nation in such a short time? None. Not one. And our country did it with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights as not only a guide, but an engine to the future, with our rights intact. In worldly terms, they aren't even old. "Don't Tread on Me" is an old admonition. But it's hardly "archaic". Millions and millions of Americans believe that. Our freedom guarantees are outdated? Nope. Never, ever going to be. And if our Constitution and Bill of Rights is ever "cancelled"? Not allowed to happen. "kickass" isn't archaic either. That's what our patriot freedom fighters did ... and what we are allowed to do too, as a last resort, to protect ourselves from the ultimate tyranny. Amen, perfectly put (did I just say that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Just pointing out the fact that it's time toSTFU about our rights. Left or right admit it kiddies, the constitution and bill of rights are archaic. WSS Wow your point of view is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Yeah it's much better to think that this document created hundreds of years ago still applies perfectly to our life today. Even though it can be amended and us supposed to be, let's not do that Let's pretend muskets are the pinnacle of gun tech and the Internet doesn't exist. I mean hell if you can believe the Bible this is child's play (yep, I had to take a shot at the Bible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Yeah it's much better to think that this document created hundreds of years ago still applies perfectly to our life today. Even though it can be amended and us supposed to be, let's not do that Let's pretend muskets are the pinnacle of gun tech and the Internet doesn't exist. I mean hell if you can believe the Bible this is child's play (yep, I had to take a shot at the Bible) well I mean after all they were using state of the art weapons at the time military grade everything. But what about those silly rights like the ability to say as you wish, freedom of the press all of those are out of date too, right? come on the point is silly if the document is out of date then all of it is. Just admit you don't like guns rather than trying to jam your viewpoint down everyone elses throat. the left really cries about the right doing it with abortion and gay rights so why does that argument not apply here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 The Soviets had superior weapons in Afghanistan. The Germans had superior weapons all over - read up on the French Resistance. You don't EVER want to be the UN and try to come in and take our little old shotguns, rifles and pistols, and our Constitution and Bill of Rights in our U.S.A. Or, UN, we will toss skunks into your tanks and cockpits. We'll torture the tires of your jeeps with cigarette lighters and pen knives. We'll stuff cowpoop up the mufflers of your cars. We'll dig ditches across your runways. We'll pee in your blue foreign helmets.... We'll toss ticks into your sleeping bags and tents. We'll put sugar into your UN truck gas tanks..... We'll turn all our stereoes up on the street and play Madonna music at ear piecing levels until you run for your lives to Mexico or some other country overseas. And, UN, we will make you cry and sneeze in your direction until you run for your sanity. Don't Tread on Us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 well I mean after all they were using state of the art weapons at the time military grade everything. But what about those silly rights like the ability to say as you wish, freedom of the press all of those are out of date too, right? come on the point is silly if the document is out of date then all of it is. Just admit you don't like guns rather than trying to jam your viewpoint down everyone elses throat. the left really cries about the right doing it with abortion and gay rights so why does that argument not apply here? There is no good reason to keep gays from getting married Same with abortion up to a point No one wants to take all of the guns, just the ridiculous ones no one needs What crazy world do you live in where if I say part of the constitution is out if date that means ALL of it is. Slippery slope arguments are stupid. Even if we rewrote the whole thing those rights and freedoms would return. Others would be updated for the 21st century. Idk how you can think everything I'm that document is timeless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 There is no good reason to keep gays from getting married Same with abortion up to a point No one wants to take all of the guns, just the ridiculous ones no one needs What crazy world do you live in where if I say part of the constitution is out if date that means ALL of it is. Slippery slope arguments are stupid. Even if we rewrote the whole thing those rights and freedoms would return. Others would be updated for the 21st century. Idk how you can think everything I'm that document is timeless... no one wants to ban all of the marriages just the gay(ridiculous in the context of your arguement) ones. but you and I both know that banning one set of guns just moves on to the next group of "ridiculous ones" until none are left look at the UK, and look Australia same thing will happen here it never stops at just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't think we should get rid of pistols and the like. I wouldn't campaign for that. Your first attempt at satire or a joke or whatever there didn't really work. Of course they want to ban the gay ones, that's the point. I still see no reason to ban gay marriage. We just have people desperately grasping onto their religious views that are, luckily, being eroded every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Woody, we've already listed the reasons to ban the phoney gay "marriage" fiasco. It rewrites what's normal and accepted as healthy family structure. Nobody anywhere, thinks that real marriage is offensive. Most people, the vast majority, figure that gay "marriage" is offensive, or at least unwise, and ridiculous. Sometimes I think that the whole gay "married" thing is just an inferior way of compensating for depression, and a self-deprecating attempted blow toward the way real things are and should be. The valid status quo of America. And any gun control is just a step in the direction libs want to go. Sneak a "simple" 100 round limit on magazines. Then make it 25. Then make it 8. Then make it 0. Define assualt weaspons as "Ak's" and "AR's" etc. Then define it as semi auto shotguns that shoot more than two shots. Then define it as any semi auto with two shots. Then define it as any bolt action with any magazine, or tube. Then define it as any gun. Because you can't subjugate a society with guns, you can't frighten and overrun home owners, and prey on the innocent Americans anytime, any place. It's the last line of defense against tyranny. Ask any citizen who lived through the nazi occupation of their country. Ask citizens in countries where all guns are outlawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Lol the definition of marriage has changed tons of times through history. Go read your bible. Look at the definitions in their. Also, find me a poll where "the vast majority" finds gay marriage offensive. I'm pretty sure the majority are pro gay marriage. It's just a matter of time until it's passed and the norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 "lol" no, Adam Eve. Man Woman. Never changed. Never was homosexual. Never. And, I don't know if I can find a poll to show it. Didn't say I could. In my life experience, that's my estimation. A poll is just an indicator of ...something; "should be legal" <> "offensive, perverted" I figure most polls reflect the confusion between "civil unions" and "marriage". It will never be the norm Only 1-3 % are gay. Hardly half? of those would consider something so stupid as "marriage". Tyranny of the extreme minority is hardly the "norm" that will ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 It's not a tyranny of the minority if the majority agree with it.... Also, using Adam and Eve to make a point basically throws away any if your credibility, lol. I guess you think hundreds of years on incest is normal too? And talking snakes? And fitting millions upon millions of sketches of animals on a man made boat? Lol ok. Bible definition means if you rake a virgin you pay her dad and are forced to marry her. Did you due and leave your wife a widow? She's now your bros wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I don't think we should get rid of pistols and the like. I wouldn't campaign for that. Your first attempt at satire or a joke or whatever there didn't really work. Of course they want to ban the gay ones, that's the point. I still see no reason to ban gay marriage. We just have people desperately grasping onto their religious views that are, luckily, being eroded every day. That is the point its not satire. I am just changing around the argument, you say we just want to ban the "ridiculous" guns, the right says we just want to ban the "ridiculous" marriages. if you can argue one way you can argue the other. personally I think the the government has no business in marriage whatsoever but that just ticks off both sides. also you do know that pistols are responsible for more deaths than rifles correct? and that cities like DC and Chicago with strict handgun bans are places where you are more likely to die by one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Well we'll never ban guns completely, so it makes no sense to try. Why do you think gay marriages are ridiculous? You argument revolves around the Bible and tradition. Not very compelling.... That's usually the type of arguments that dismesbt hold its ground for very long. Especially as religion works its way out of society as we become more educated the earth is so the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Well we'll never ban guns completely, so it makes no sense to try. Why do you think gay marriages are ridiculous? You argument revolves around the Bible and tradition. Not very compelling.... That's usually the type of arguments that dismesbt hold its ground for very long. Especially as religion works its way out of society as we become more educated the earth is so the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us... I don't think gay marriages are ridiculous I am simply taking your subjective non-point and rewording it as a right wing anti gay viewpoint. I am taking your point of view, ( no one needs a gun of insert your opinion here) and simply substituting in a viewpoint that you disagree with( gays don't get to marry). your subjective point has as much validity as an anti gay marriage point. At least the anti gay marriage community can make claims at first amendment abuses when the government forces gay marriage being that marriage is a religious institution. Meanwhile the anti gun crowd is fighting to remove constitutional rights rather than protect them. I stated that I believe NO marriages have a place in government at all. marriage being a religious institution should not be regulated by government and should have all traces of it removed. let the churches have their way with it I care not. please note that I am an atheist. just not the annoying in your face proselytizing kind I just nothing religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Lol, religious institution. If that were true you think more couples would take it more seriously. If that were the case, only one religion would need to be fine with gay marriage and then they're golden. You reversal of those points really doesn't make sense though. There are different levels of guns as far as lethally and killing power goes. Marriage is marriage and there are just some people but hurt about gays having equal rights. (ok, marriage isn't a right). There aren't different tiers of marriage. Like I said, no good reasons for stopping gays from getting married. Guns have evolved over the years. They become more powerful than our founding fathers could gave imagined. Marriage is still marriage. It would be restricting your amendment in the sense you could still keep and bear arms just not enough to take out a small army. Allowing gay marriage is giving more rights to a group of citizens. At least if you are an atheist I won't have to worry about you quoting the Bible or bringing up god when we argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.