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. This post has been removed.

     
  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. This post has been removed.

     
  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. This post has been removed.

     
  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. This post has been removed.

     
  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.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share