Ice T

Mr. T

Mr. T

Verified User
Check out the reaction to the interviewer Krishnan Guru-Murthy with Ice T's response. sounds like he didn't get the answer he was searching for.


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
 
Mr. T said:
Check out the reaction to the interviewer Krishnan Guru-Murthy with Ice T's response. sounds like he didn't get the answer he was searching for.


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
Click to expand...

Typical yank who can see nothing wrong in anything if it is american. I liked the stolen land admission.
 
Lowaicue said:
Typical yank who can see nothing wrong in anything if it is american. I liked the stolen land admission.
Click to expand...

States pretty plainly that he sees nothing wrong because it is "legal in the United States". Your just a typical chinky who only sees wrong in everything American
 
Lowaicue said:
Typical yank who can see nothing wrong in anything if it is american. I liked the stolen land admission.
Click to expand...

So all of you stupid British people still live in a country that will not allow you to defend yourself against the thugs and gangs. You think you are free while yur country monitors your every move.
What the fuck do you know about freedomm because we are not listening to someone who has allowed themselves to live in a false reality while you still live in slavery.


Low IQ, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy guy.
 
Mr. T said:
So all of you stupid British people still live in a country that will not allow you to defend yourself against the thugs and gangs. You think you are free while yur country monitors your every move.
What the fuck do you know about freedomm because we are not listening to someone who has allowed themselves to live in a false reality while you still live in slavery.


Low IQ, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy guy.
Click to expand...

Grow up, boy. You are proving yourself to be a fucking idiot.
 
dixon76710 said:
States pretty plainly that he sees nothing wrong because it is "legal in the United States". Your just a typical chinky who only sees wrong in everything American
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry to disappoint. British through and through and back to before you had a country, arsehole.
 
Lowaicue said:
Fair point. But how far back do you go?
Click to expand...

Considering that we, as a nation, are less than 250 years old, any discussion that only looks at recent history is obviously slanted against us.

I am not apologizing for the wholesale slaughter of the American Indian. Just pointing out that most, if not all, nations have some similar histories. They just are not so recent.
 
Lowaicue said:
Grow up, boy. You are proving yourself to be a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice. But we cannot help it that you are a just another fucking moron who loves to tell people how to live their lives.


Nobody in America gives a shit about how you were fuckin compromised you fuckin twink.
 
:0)

NEWSFLASH: Ice-T is a rapper. His entire career is based on the glorification of guns and violence .. and the denigration of women.

Sure, let's ask him what he thinks about the important issues of the day .. then pretend that what he thinks has meaning.
 
Lowaicue said:
Fair point. But how far back do you go?
Click to expand...

Apparently just far enough back to say only the US did it. There was this nation that sent a bunch of people over here to steal land from Natives. It preceded the US. Can you tell me the name of that nation? I'll give you a hint... The king's name at that time was George.

The people here then fought with that nation to be able to steal their own land and make their own way.
 
WinterBorn said:
Considering that we, as a nation, are less than 250 years old, any discussion that only looks at recent history is obviously slanted against us.

I am not apologizing for the wholesale slaughter of the American Indian. Just pointing out that most, if not all, nations have some similar histories. They just are not so recent.
Click to expand...

The thing of it is, the history of this poster's nation shows that it was doing the same thing contemporaneously with the burgeoning young nation of the US. They even fought wars (like the war of 1812), etc. for the "right" to do it here rather than let us do it ourselves. The assumption that the US should solely hold the guilt for the policy of the past is based on the ability to ignore the reality of the history of his own nation.

There is a reason that English is the official language of India and it wasn't because they were nice to them. There is a reason that Canada exists, and it wasn't without its own slaughter. France was spreading itself to this place as well, there is a reason that we were able to make the Louisiana purchase and it wasn't because France didn't participate in that same slaughter. There is a reason that they speak Spanish and Portuguese in South America, and it isn't because Spain and Portugal weren't participating in that same slaughter...

These people who try to judge were, at the same time the US was, spreading through the exact same actions.
 
Lowaicue said:
Fair point. But how far back do you go?
Click to expand...
Depends who you ask. There's lots of people who feel Israeli's have a legit claim on Palestine based on their occupation of it 2,000 years ago. You may have your particular bias about the USA but I saw Ice's comments as objective observations. The 2nd ammendment to our constitution is our last defense against tyranny and the land we took by conquest isn't going to be returned to the native aboriginal peoples and that's not going to change anytime soon. Those are objective facts. How is that defending somethig wrong? Please specify.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Depends who you ask. There's lots of people who feel Israeli's have a legit claim on Palestine based on their occupation of it 2,000 years ago. You may have your particular bias about the USA but I saw Ice's comments as objective observations. The 2nd ammendment to our constitution is our last defense against tyranny and the land we took by conquest isn't going to be returned to the native aboriginal peoples and that's not going to change anytime soon. Those are objective facts. How is that defending somethig wrong? Please specify.
Click to expand...

Mott and I share the same opinion.....dear lord kill me.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Depends who you ask. There's lots of people who feel Israeli's have a legit claim on Palestine based on their occupation of it 2,000 years ago. You may have your particular bias about the USA but I saw Ice's comments as objective observations. The 2nd ammendment to our constitution is our last defense against tyranny and the land we took by conquest isn't going to be returned to the native aboriginal peoples and that's not going to change anytime soon. Those are objective facts. How is that defending somethig wrong? Please specify.
Click to expand...

A legit claim, the one that they were the chosen people of God who gave them the land? The claim that God loved them above all other people on the Earth. Even if you believe in God that is such a stretch. Thinking people should realize the absurdity of that claim.
 
Damocles said:
Apparently just far enough back to say only the US did it. There was this nation that sent a bunch of people over here to steal land from Natives. It preceded the US. Can you tell me the name of that nation? I'll give you a hint... The king's name at that time was George.

The people here then fought with that nation to be able to steal their own land and make their own way.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. The treaty of Easton in 1758 by Sir William Johnson comes to mind where by the British purposefully decieved the Indians out of the land between the Appalachians and the Ohio River basin. It also secured the trading rights in the Ohio valley region for the British in which in virtually every conflict between the British and the American settlers the British betrayed their Indian allies using their standard, divide and conquer, methods. The British were every bit as reprehnsible in their treatment of the American natives as the American colonist, settlers were. It's interesting to see that where ever in North America the British systems of administration were adopted the Native Americans were essentially wipped out but where the French systems of administration were adopted the Native American culture and presence exists to this very day.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Depends who you ask. There's lots of people who feel Israeli's have a legit claim on Palestine based on their occupation of it 2,000 years ago. You may have your particular bias about the USA but I saw Ice's comments as objective observations. The 2nd ammendment to our constitution is our last defense against tyranny and the land we took by conquest isn't going to be returned to the native aboriginal peoples and that's not going to change anytime soon. Those are objective facts. How is that defending somethig wrong? Please specify.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there were Jews living in Israel at the time that nation was created, no? If they weren't there already you'd have a hard time explaining Menachim Begin for one... You know that guy who was a former terrorist that became the Prime Minister... He lived there and fought for Israel. Many do not understand that the only reason that the people who now call themselves Palestinians were there is because Jordan kicked their butts out.

Do you think the Jews don't deserve their own nation because some ancient empire called it Palestine after taking it over? It can't be because Jews were non-existent there before it became a State, because that would be revisionist history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top