[Edited thread title] Jack Jones arrested for possession of firearms at airport

[Dingleberry]

Seriously? Only a black man can be a thug?? And I'm the racist? Show me from anywhere the definition of a thug that reads "a black man." That's in your heart and your mind, not mine. To me a thug is a person of any race with nefarious intent and conduct. For you seemingly that could only mean a black man, which ironically for you, sounds like a racist point of view. Nice job dipshit.


Ok Jackass. You apparently are another closet racist who believes only thugs can be black men. ****ing hypocrite, stick to subject next time.

Personally, I thought all thugs looked like this.

 

[Froob]

I think Jack stays. I think if we were cutting him, it'd have happened already.

 

[Kasmir]

Personally, I thought all thugs looked like this.

View attachment 51467

Fear the Gopnik thugs!



It's not racist to hate the Russians apparently.

 

[patfanken]

More reason for it to be re-written in a way that's better indicative of the time.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, THAT is what we should be doing, and doing it on other parts of the constitution that no longer reflects the time. It was designed to be a living breathing document that would evolve as the nation evolved. They are NOT inviolate

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting, Andy that you post this because there's nothing I disagree with. But timing is sometimes funny.

A poster on the opposite side of my opinion posted a quote from one of Madison's editorials in the Federalist papers to rebut something I said. Well 40 years ago I taught an AP history class on the Federalist Papers, of which I have almost zero memory of, but it DID spark my curiosity and the internet is a wonderful thing.

So I looked up the specific paper and read it again. It's pretty dense and too a half hour to get through. It turned out my rebutter only used half the sentence and changed a word, but the end result was much to my surprise the competed sentence actually supported MY position, which was and still is that first clause of the 2nd amendment isn't about "individual" gun rights in the 21st century, but the value of having an armed citizenry who will be available to called up into organized and regulated State militias run by "appointed officers".

Again within the context of the times, it made perfect sense, but not now. Well I won't bore you further, if you want "take the class" its in the thread.

I don’t need to take a class of your opinion. And that’s exactly my point, you are giving your opinion and incorrectly claiming it is fact.
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are wrong to call them fact. We have reached a point in society where it is common to mischaracterize opinion as fact.

 

[Ring 6]

Seriously? Only a black man can be a thug?? And I'm the racist? Show me from anywhere the definition of a thug that reads "a black man." That's in your heart and your mind, not mine. To me a thug is a person of any race with nefarious intent and conduct. For you seemingly that could only mean a black man, which ironically for you, sounds like a racist point of view. Nice job dipshit.


Ok Jackass. You apparently are another closet racist who believes only thugs can be black men. ****ing hypocrite, stick to subject next time.

The term thug has been widely recognized to be a racist pejorative.
You are the one who chose to use it to describe a black man.
Your response here digs you deeper in a hole.
It’s as if you used the n word then claimed it applies to all races and anyone who called you out on it is racist.
Or you have been living under a rock and dont understand a dog whistle is.

 

[Jim Beankie]

Any word on how the late round kids are doing (Speed and Bolden)? Based on their 20 to 40yd splits, they have exceptional top speed - Bolden's split is faster than Tyreek Hill's (while Speed is .01 away). Of course, that means nothing if they don't have it upstairs.

Methinks BB thought JKJ might not last toooo long after last year's kerfuffle.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I was skeptical of Jack right up until we picked him tbh. He was one of those ones that was in front of my face but I thought I knew better and was wrong. Pertaining to my PTP Board. I have to say I'm not surprised by this in the least. Sucks but Jack has made some poor decisions early in life. We have solid depth others don't in Mills, Jon, Marcus but this hurts. Him and Gonzo would have been sick together.

 

[Pape]

Seriously? Only a black man can be a thug?? And I'm the racist? Show me from anywhere the definition of a thug that reads "a black man." That's in your heart and your mind, not mine. To me a thug is a person of any race with nefarious intent and conduct. For you seemingly that could only mean a black man, which ironically for you, sounds like a racist point of view. Nice job dipshit.


Ok Jackass. You apparently are another closet racist who believes only thugs can be black men. ****ing hypocrite, stick to subject next time.

that's a cute reply... do a lot of people actually buy into that bs of an excuse?

 

[mgteich]

They did that by removing him from the flight.

They did that by removing him from the flight.

I'll give you an analogy.

A person has a cube on C4 is his backpack. TSA finds it and keeps him off the plane. Should I believe that there wasn't a dangerous situation?

 

[mgteich]

I think Jack stays. I think if we were cutting him, it'd have happened already.

Why would Kraft cut someone who was charged with a crime?

Perhaps, there should be some investigation by the police, the league or the police. There is no rush.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Young guy made a mistake. He should be suspended but not cut. People do worse things in this country routinely and suffer no consequences. What about the Jet player who was speeding with guns and drugs in his car?
We live in a gun crazy country. Don't act surprised.

 

[archstanton543]

The term thug has been widely recognized to be a racist pejorative.

It's not though. You may think it is but that's not what it means.

 

[mgteich]

There are a lot of things in our constitution that are outdated. The problem is the amendment process is crazy difficult. You need 2/3 of both members of the House and Senate to propose an amendment to the States, and then 3/4 of the States have to ratify. The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is the law whether people like it or not.The issue is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as is the case for hundreds of items in the Constitution and its ammendments. As they should our courts argue over the interpretation of various amendments.

It is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is at issue.
=====================================
Are the people allowed to retain the state militias (the National Guards)?

Do people have the right to own and carry firearms anywhere without limits, registration, tracking or training? Do felons have these rights? Children? the mentally ill? those with police protective orders relating to spousal or child abuse?

Do citizens who meet certain conditions have the right to own and use ANY weapons and any products? including howitzers? drones and missles? machine guns? high-capacity magazines?

IMO, there is need for restrictions. CLEARLY, everyone who lives in the US does not have the right to possess and use all weapons, in all situations.

Our government argues about the limits and the restrictions, as should be the case.

 

[archstanton543]

It is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is at issue.
=====================================
Are the people allowed to retain the state militias (the National Guards)?

Yes.

Do people have the right to own and carry firearms anywhere without limits, registration, tracking or training?

Yes. A government who has a list of who has what guns where can easily take them away. Private gun ownership should give them pause (and it gives other countries pause about invading the US.

Do felons have these rights?

They do not. Your rights can be taken away if convicted of certain crimes.

Children?

Yes.

the mentally ill?

Yes. But who gets to decide who's mentally ill or not? There would have to be some kind of court hearing to determine that.

those with police protective orders relating to spousal or child abuse?

Again, that depends on the state you live it and you've been tried and convicted of a crime.

Do citizens who meet certain conditions have the right to own and use ANY weapons and any products? including howitzers? drones and missles? machine guns? high-capacity magazines?

Yes. That was the intent of the Founders. People had privately owned cannons back in the post-revolution era. You can buy a Harrier jet if you're so inclined (they just became available for sale).

IMO, there is need for restrictions. CLEARLY, everyone who lives in the US does not have the right to possess and use all weapons, in all situations.

Our government argues about the limits and the restrictions, as should be the case.

There is no limit to the Second Amendment. "Shall not be abridged" is pretty cut and dry.

 

[Toofy]

Give him a big fine and round of community service and few game suspension and be done with it. No point killing a career for sheer stupidity . And yeah I don't want the pats to take high road and release him. There are others on teams with worse crimes.

 

[Froob]

Yes.

Yes. A government who has a list of who has what guns where can easily take them away. Private gun ownership should give them pause (and it gives other countries pause about invading the US.

They do not. Your rights can be taken away if convicted of certain crimes.

Yes.

Yes. But who gets to decide who's mentally ill or not? There would have to be some kind of court hearing to determine that.

Again, that depends on the state you live it and you've been tried and convicted of a crime.

Yes. That was the intent of the Founders. People had privately owned cannons back in the post-revolution era. You can buy a Harrier jet if you're so inclined (they just became available for sale).

There is no limit to the Second Amendment. "Shall not be abridged" is pretty cut and dry.

Only country in the world where mass shootings happen daily.

My wife wants to home school because she’s afraid of school shootings. Amendments are amendments, they can be changed.

It’s insanity we can’t have any reasonable gun control.

 

[patfanken]

I don’t need to take a class of your opinion. And that’s exactly my point, you are giving your opinion and incorrectly claiming it is fact.
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are wrong to call them fact. We have reached a point in society where it is common to mischaracterize opinion as fact.

Andy, I understand the difference between facts and opinions. I'm just wondering just where I was wrong in what I claimed was factual? Please enlighten me.

 

[FCB02062]

2A comes down to protect yourself, your family and your property from harm and protecting yourself and your family from government tyrants (ya know, the people who would rather protect foreign borders than our own)

Tulsi Gabbard, noted liberal, on 2A...

2nd Amendment: Our right 'shall not be infringed'

"Very simply, the second amendment exists for two reasons and two reasons only. First, every American has the inalienable God-given right to protect themselves and their loved ones from threats of violence."

"Second, our founders had a profound understanding of human nature – and the ease with which power could corrupt. To safeguard the very freedoms they had fought so valiantly to obtain, they realized the American people would need to be well-armed; as this would be the single most effective deterrent against government tyranny."

 

[crawhammer]

The term thug has been widely recognized to be a racist pejorative.

Thug doesn't mean "black criminal." It doesn't matter what the term means in your household.

You are the one who chose to use it to describe a black man.

No. Here's me making a choice... YOU are a douchebag. If someone else claims the word "douchebag" is a racist pejorative then that doesn't make it my intended use of the word. Because in the real world, douchebags can be white, black or whatever. Thug isn't a racial epithet. It doesn't mean "black man." I chose the word thug to describe Jones because his criminal conduct is reflective of one. His race is completely irrelevant (to me).

Your response here digs you deeper in a hole.
It’s as if you used the n word then claimed it applies to all races and anyone who called you out on it is racist.

Are you really this pathetic? Now thug is equivalent to use of the "n word"?? Under any circumstance has that word ever applied to all races? That word is defined and exclusively used as a racial epithet. We all know which race it applies to. It's so offense that you can't even type it out.

What other absurdity will you come up with now?