the SECOND amendment.. y is everyone ignoring the OBVIOUS again? name ONCE where a gun actually protected a pro athlete esp at a strip club or bar?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from CommyContrarianOnTwitter. Show CommyContrarianOnTwitter's posts

    again, i have no beef with peeps who want to defend themselves and their property and with citizens having some access to some guns.. but we must have stronger safeguards and limits. herny is exhibit A. bloomberg is on to something. how did that work out for plaxico? taking a loaded gun into a club where peeps are drinking and high on machismo is always a bad mix. shouldnt herny's gun privileges esp his public one, been curtailed if not banned after shooting his "associate" (drug mule perhaps) right in the face? or when a gun was recklessly brandished involving a Jets fan taunting herny? or just from all the shenanigans he pulled at Tebow U?

    i'm sorry but guns, bars and strip clubs simply dont click. seems to me herny had an ALCOHOL issue. once imbibed he became a totally different guy or at least more aggressive (some get passive, he brings out the machismo). the character of guys who want to play tag along for that lifestyle should b immediately questioned. can see it happening once or even twice but there is a clear issue with a hern. add in the gun with sycophants and u have a bad mix.

    methinks there should b a law that ONLY trained or licensed on-duty bodyguards should b allowed to ever carry guns into a strip club or bar. so if a hern wants to party, just as he calls in a car service, he has to likewise call in some protection while he's partying. obviously, that guy is not allowed to drink whileon duty. just seems to me our gun laws are so out of whack with present humanity and any level of COMMON SENSE. yes, guns do kill peeps and in the hands of a trigger-happy, anger-challenged, machismo-imbibed entitled pro athlete can clearly become deadly. guess thats my conclusion.

    we keep hearing about accessory to murder or obstruction, my inclination based on the anecdotal evidence is that the trigger puller is very likely to be one AARON HERNANDEZ! wouldnt shock me if he' s charged with 2nd degree MURDER plus the other coverup charges! FIRST DEGREE WOULD REQUIRE some forethought. based on how he reacted after the fact, this appears to lack ANY foresight. just another jabro with a gun who should not have had one who feels superhuman and now has to face the consequences.

    its another sad day for sports, nfl, pats, fans, families, mothers and girlfriends.. but make no doubt about it.. just another NORMAL day for the American gun culture! how much longer will a civilized find this civil or NORMAL as is?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    CC quote "name ONCE where a gun actually protected a pro athlete esp at a strip club or bar?" Umm ok off the top of my head the following athletes were MURDERED while being robbed; Sean Taylor, Dernell Stinson (former Red Sox), Pasqual Perez, Vernon Forrest (boxing champion), Gus Polidor (MLB), Lorenzen Wright. The following were robbed but not killed; Antoine Walker, Sheldon Willimas, Jamaal Tinsley, Eddie Curry, and there are probably lots more.

    This thread is typical CC shoking "look at me" regardless of the facts. Everyone on BDC tells you that you are a LOSER. When will you start listening?! The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Now thatyou have been schooled (again), get lost tool.


    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    CC quote "name ONCE where a gun actually protected a pro athlete esp at a strip club or bar?" Umm ok off the top of my head the following athletes were MURDERED while being robbed; Sean Taylor, Dernell Stinson (former Red Sox), Pasqual Perez, Vernon Forrest (boxing champion), Gus Polidor (MLB), Lorenzen Wright. The following were robbed but not killed; Antoine Walker, Sheldon Willimas, Jamaal Tinsley, Eddie Curry, and there are probably lots more.

    This thread is typical CC shocking "look at me" regardless of the facts. Everyone on BDC tells you that you are a LOSER. When will you start listening?! The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Now thatyou have been schooled (again), get lost tool.


    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CommyContrarianOnTwitter. Show CommyContrarianOnTwitter's posts

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    CC quote "name ONCE where a gun actually protected a pro athlete esp at a strip club or bar?" Umm ok off the top of my head the following athletes were MURDERED while being robbed; Sean Taylor, Dernell Stinson (former Red Sox), Pasqual Perez, Vernon Forrest (boxing champion), Gus Polidor (MLB), Lorenzen Wright. The following were robbed but not killed; Antoine Walker, Sheldon Willimas, Jamaal Tinsley, Eddie Curry, and there are probably lots more.

    This thread is typical CC shoking "look at me" regardless of the facts. Everyone on BDC tells you that you are a LOSER. When will you start listening?! The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Now thatyou have been schooled (again), get lost tool.


    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"




    ok jabro, where did u mention were it helped them at a strip club or bar? hern likely is the murderer here.. he's the only one mentioned that actually has a history of shooting guys in the face or recklessly brandishing his guns outside of clubs. gimme a break. i grew yp in a home where we owned 3 guns for intruders or wild animals. i once had to shoot at  a snake. we all knew how to use our weapons. u dont grasp nuance like the rest of your ideo kin.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Once again our resident village idiot starts, what she/he considers a though provoking thread.  When discussing this issue amongst family/friends, I always ask the same question.  Since when are constitutional rights need-based.  Humans "need" few things for survival:  air, water, food, some semblence of shelter and the like.  We don't "need" the right to bear arms, we don't "need" the right to free speech, we don't "need" the right to vote, etc.  It makes me chuckle that because of the actions of a demented few, our citizenry is so willing to cede a right.  So, I ask:  when does it stop - what's the breaking point?  If our elected officials and the majority of our citzenry don't "like" certain free speech, should it be stopped.  I don't have "skin in the game," I neither own or desire to own a firearm, but I'm concerned that so many are too willing to cede this right in the name of "public safety."  I also love how folks put the word "assault" into the gun argument as it it really means something.  A rock or a fist or a foot is considered an "assault weapon" if it's used, for, you know - assaulting someone!  I guess too many are too comfortable in letting "mommy government" dictate how they should live their lives, but what can you expect when so many are in "need" of government taking care of their basic needs.

    This "rant" is mean to illustrate the potential downfall of democratic republics.  Eventually, the majority will vote for leadership that gives them the most stuff.  Unfortunately given scarcity and the lack of sustainability, that game can only be played so long.  Eventually, it bankrupts the republic.  Don't believe it?  Ask the majority of European nations how well things are working out.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Once again our resident village idiot starts, what she/he considers a though provoking thread.  When discussing this issue amongst family/friends, I always ask the same question.  Since when are constitutional rights need-based.  Humans "need" few things for survival:  air, water, food, some semblence of shelter and the like.  We don't "need" the right to bear arms, we don't "need" the right to free speech, we don't "need" the right to vote, etc.  It makes me chuckle that because of the actions of a demented few, our citizenry is so willing to cede a right.  So, I ask:  when does it stop - what's the breaking point?  If our elected officials and the majority of our citzenry don't "like" certain free speech, should it be stopped.  I don't have "skin in the game," I neither own or desire to own a firearm, but I'm concerned that so many are too willing to cede this right in the name of "public safety."  I also love how folks put the word "assault" into the gun argument as it it really means something.  A rock or a fist or a foot is considered an "assault weapon" if it's used, for, you know - assaulting someone!  I guess too many are too comfortable in letting "mommy government" dictate how they should live their lives, but what can you expect when so many are in "need" of government taking care of their basic needs.

    This "rant" is mean to illustrate the potential downfall of democratic republics.  Eventually, the majority will vote for leadership that gives them the most stuff.  Unfortunately given scarcity and the lack of sustainability, that game can only be played so long.  Eventually, it bankrupts the republic.  Don't believe it?  Ask the majority of European nations how well things are working out.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Once again our resident village idiot starts, what she/he considers a though provoking thread.  When discussing this issue amongst family/friends, I always ask the same question.  Since when are constitutional rights need-based.  Humans "need" few things for survival:  air, water, food, some semblence of shelter and the like.  We don't "need" the right to bear arms, we don't "need" the right to free speech, we don't "need" the right to vote, etc.  It makes me chuckle that because of the actions of a demented few, our citizenry is so willing to cede a right.  So, I ask:  when does it stop - what's the breaking point?  If our elected officials and the majority of our citzenry don't "like" certain free speech, should it be stopped.  I don't have "skin in the game," I neither own or desire to own a firearm, but I'm concerned that so many are too willing to cede this right in the name of "public safety."  I also love how folks put the word "assault" into the gun argument as it it really means something.  A rock or a fist or a foot is considered an "assault weapon" if it's used, for, you know - assaulting someone!  I guess too many are too comfortable in letting "mommy government" dictate how they should live their lives, but what can you expect when so many are in "need" of government taking care of their basic needs.

    This "rant" is mean to illustrate the potential downfall of democratic republics.  Eventually, the majority will vote for leadership that gives them the most stuff.  Unfortunately given scarcity and the lack of sustainability, that game can only be played so long.  Eventually, it bankrupts the republic.  Don't believe it?  Ask the majority of European nations how well things are working out.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Once again our resident village idiot starts, what she/he considers a though provoking thread.  When discussing this issue amongst family/friends, I always ask the same question.  Since when are constitutional rights need-based.  Humans "need" few things for survival:  air, water, food, some semblence of shelter and the like.  We don't "need" the right to bear arms, we don't "need" the right to free speech, we don't "need" the right to vote, etc.  It makes me chuckle that because of the actions of a demented few, our citizenry is so willing to cede a right.  So, I ask:  when does it stop - what's the breaking point?  If our elected officials and the majority of our citzenry don't "like" certain free speech, should it be stopped.  I don't have "skin in the game," I neither own or desire to own a firearm, but I'm concerned that so many are too willing to cede this right in the name of "public safety."  I also love how folks put the word "assault" into the gun argument as it it really means something.  A rock or a fist or a foot is considered an "assault weapon" if it's used, for, you know - assaulting someone!  I guess too many are too comfortable in letting "mommy government" dictate how they should live their lives, but what can you expect when so many are in "need" of government taking care of their basic needs.

    This "rant" is mean to illustrate the potential downfall of democratic republics.  Eventually, the majority will vote for leadership that gives them the most stuff.  Unfortunately given scarcity and the lack of sustainability, that game can only be played so long.  Eventually, it bankrupts the republic.  Don't believe it?  Ask the majority of European nations how well things are working out.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    What is Herns " history of shooting guys in the face or recklessly brandishing his guns outside of clubs." Huh what is it? Becasue your 12 years old and believe everything you read on the net?? Because his "friend" who lost his right eye is suing hime for only 100K??? And there in NO police involvement? School in session again for you ya loser! Oooooh you shot at a snake once I guess that qualifies you to speak on gun control! hahaha Again The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Get lost troll.


    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from CommyContrarianOnTwitter. Show CommyContrarianOnTwitter's posts

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    What is Herns " history of shooting guys in the face or recklessly brandishing his guns outside of clubs." Huh what is it? Becasue your 12 years old and believe everything you read on the net?? Because his "friend" who lost his right eye is suing hime for only 100K??? And there in NO police involvement? School in session again for you ya loser! Oooooh you shot at a snake once I guess that qualifies you to speak on gun control! hahaha Again The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Get lost troll.


    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"




    where is the dispute about the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun? stop foxing me. once more, guns arent allowed on airplanes and many other places.. r u whining about that too? there could b bad guys as well. my point is bars and strip clubs and any place where alcohol is at the core should likewise BAN THEM! JEEZ.. CAN KEEPPP IT IN YOUR CAR IF U WANT.. DONT CARE! i'm not for banning them ,just using more common sense. sometimes the good guy with a gun is the BAD GUY!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    There are laws already on the books prohibiting gun possession while intoxicated in most states. Some states prohibit gun possession in places that serve liquor.

    This is not some new thought you just had.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CommyContrarianOnTwitter. Show CommyContrarianOnTwitter's posts

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    There are laws already on the books prohibiting gun possession while intoxicated in most states. Some states prohibit gun possession in places that serve liquor.

    This is not some new thought you just had.

    ok, lets try ENFORCING said laws.. y wasnt herny automatically sentenced to jail like plax when he had that initialissue with the jet fan was seen throwing a gun under a car)... btw, the guy he shot in the face's lawyer was on TV last night. seems very credible, put her out there in front of 12 male jurors and he's getting PAIDDDD! enough said...


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    I'm pretty sure they do enforce those laws, but they have to catch the guy in the act or he has to be reported.  Neither of those things happened here.

    I understand the alleged victim in the FL case was shot in a vehicle, not in the club, so do we know that Hdz brought the gun in the club? Also, the vic refused to cooperate with the PD, so that's that.

    Now he wants to get paid. I'm thinking he may be SOL, because there won't be much left after Hdz gets done with the criminal matter, no matter how cute his lawyer may be.

     

Share