Killer Mike defends gun ownership during NRA interview

[JahFocus CS]

Soldiers are far better trained than police officers. If you content with an uneducated, selfish, hard headed, and emotional people with weapons more powerful than a handgun, then by all means write up your will and play your funeral early.

I'm comfortable handling myself against other civilians who aren't affiliated with a gang called the state.

Soldiers are better trained than police officers? At what, handling firearms or murdering people?

 

[Wild self]

I would much rather be able to have such a weapon to defend myself from mentally deranged white kids. Removing guns and rifles from this country is not even feasible so that shyt is a non starter.

If you want to talk about better mental checks so we get less crazy white boys with guns im with you there.

Why you think that banning assault rifles = banning ALL guns?

If you need anything more than a handgun to protect yourself, then maybe you live in the wrong areas whether its rural, suburban, or inner city.

 

[JahFocus CS]

It was a simple question that you should’ve been able to answer. If you can’t explain your position then why should it be respected?

Do you actually believe in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, as in the right of the civilian public population to be in a position to keep the military in check? If so, then why don’t you think that people should be able to own tanks, rockets, and everything that the military has?

It's a silly question, I don't need to debate on the terms established by people with little knowledge of firearms in the first place, and by people who are so scared that they're willing to sacrifice their rights.

I asked him why does it need to be enough? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear [small firearms so restricted in capacity and features as to hardly be modern], shall not be infringed." It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes I do believe in the spirit of it, and I support global demilitarization. If global demilitarization is on the table then I have no issue with across-the-board gun control.

Tanks, rockets, and everything else are not really designed for use by a single individual, nor are they used in practice in that fashion. Furthermore, they are so expensive that it would preclude most people from availing themselves of that hypothetical right, so it would be something only the rich could exercise.

But this is a bullshyt way for you to sidetrack the conversation. No one is talking about tanks, rockets, whatever else. We're talking about firearms, things that are constitutionally protected, and designed and practical for individuals.

 

[Wild self]

I'm comfortable handling myself against other civilians who aren't affiliated with a gang called the state.

Soldiers are better trained than police officers? At what, handling firearms or murdering people?

You can protect yourself with a handgun, as a last resort. If you handling all of your conflicts with guns, that ain't mentally stable.

Soldiers are better trained as in handling firearms. And have dire consequences of killing innocent people.

 

[Hugs]

Weird how the dude behind the #bankblack movement didn't plug a black gun associacion

 

[Marc Spector]

Colion Noir WORKS for the NRA, he's a blatant attempt by them to attempt to re-brand themselves in the social media age and gain some type of influence with a gun community that's thrived that's nearly opposed to them.

Peep his IG, while he might be out here listening to rap, wearing fitteds...he aint never gonna get out of line to fukk up his job.

He aint even actively campaigning to get blacks to join gun clubs, buy guns or even warn them against being so willing to give up their rights simply to appease liberal whites.

This. The nikka has to damn near talk in sign language as far advocating for Black Gun Ownership. fukking sickening. He's a c00n lap dog of the highest order but even more despicable because he seems to know better.

 

[Gravity]

It's a silly question, I don't need to debate on the terms established by people with little knowledge of firearms in the first place, and by people who are so scared that they're willing to sacrifice their rights.

I asked him why does it need to be enough? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear [small firearms so restricted in capacity and features as to hardly be modern], shall not be infringed." It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes I do believe in the spirit of it, and I support global demilitarization. If global demilitarization is on the table then I have no issue with across-the-board gun control.

Tanks, rockets, and everything else are not really designed for use by a single individual, nor are they used in practice in that fashion. Furthermore, they are so expensive that it would preclude most people from availing themselves of that hypothetical right, so it would be something only the rich could exercise.

But this is a bullshyt way for you to sidetrack the conversation. No one is talking about tanks, rockets, whatever else. We're talking about firearms, things that are constitutionally protected, and designed and practical for individuals.

You need to drop that bytchy ass tone. It’s like you cats can’t have a discussion where someone is challenging you without sucking your teeth and putting your hands on your hips.

This discussion includes the 2nd amendment, so discussing the intention of the 2nd amendment is certainly not a sidetrack. The shyt you said in bold is nothing but a bunch of weak excuses. I didn’t ask you how many people that it takes to man a tank, or how expensive rockets are. I asked you if you think that citizens should have the right to own those types of weapons keeping in spirit with the intent of the 2nd amendment. You ducked the question for a reason. You couldn’t just say “yes, I support people having them right to own any weapon available to the government”.

 

[MegaTronBomb!]

So what do you think would help stop some of the gun violence(in black neighborhoods)? Do you think that the availability of guns to people who shouldn’t have them contributes to the gun violence?

You could lower the rates, with more job opportunities,access to trades and community resources.... people would be less inclined to be involved in the streets if legal ways to make a living were more available and had resources to keep themselves as active members of their communities.

we need to get back to having black communities, not just places were black folks happen to live.

That's an issue that should be tackled at the local level, not by politicians looking to add resume points for later aspirations up the political ladder.

having Sullivan act type laws and city-wide gun bans do more bad than good for law abiding folk. You're more likely to become a criminal/victim because of such laws. Those laws promote gun trafficking and illegal gun sales.



The issue of who shouldn't own guns, and who isn't legally allowed to own guns and what steps should be taken to prevent that is a whole nother topic.

 

[JahFocus CS]

You can protect yourself with a handgun, as a last resort. If you handling all of your conflicts with guns, that ain't mentally stable.

Soldiers are better trained as in handling firearms. And have dire consequences of killing innocent people.

Really? Is that why hundreds of thousands of Koreans, millions of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Iraqis were murdered? With little to no consequences doled out to their murderers?

No Gun Ri massacre - Wikipedia
My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia
Haditha massacre - Wikipedia

Furthermore, I don't even know what your point is here. Soldiers are better trained in handling firearms than police. OK? Yes, they're more efficient and skilled murderers, as evidenced by their actions abroad.

And here...

Kent State shootings - Wikipedia

and let's not forget how they occupy the streets during every urban rebellion (60s-90s riots, Ferguson, etc.)

 

[Gravity]

You could lower the rates, with more job opportunities,access to trades and community resources.... people would be less inclined to be involved in the streets if legal ways to make a living were more available and had resources to keep themselves as active members of their communities.

we need to get back to having black communities, not just places were black folks happen to live.

That's an issue that should be tackled at the local level, not by politicians looking to add resume points for later aspirations up the political ladder.

having Sullivan act type laws and city-wide gun bans do more bad than good for law abiding folk. You're more likely to become a criminal/victim because of such laws. Those laws promote gun trafficking and illegal gun sales.



The issue of who shouldn't own guns, and who isn't legally allowed to own guns and what steps should be taken to prevent that is a whole nother topic.

Once big ass deflection to my simple yes or no question

Cats are just full of shyt for no reason.

 

[JahFocus CS]

You need to drop that bytchy ass tone. It’s like you cats can’t have a discussion where someone is challenging you without sucking your teeth and putting your hands on your hips.

This discussion includes the 2nd amendment, so discussing the intention of the 2nd amendment is certainly not a sidetrack. The shyt you said in bold is nothing but a bunch of weak excuses. I didn’t ask you how many people that it takes to man a tank, or how expensive rockets are. I asked you if you think that citizens should have the right to own those types of weapons keeping in spirit with the intent of the 2nd amendment. You ducked the question for a reason. You couldn’t just say “yes, I support people having them right to own any weapon available to the government”.

I'll take whatever tone I want, fukkboy.

It is a sidetrack for the reasons I previously stated.

If the choices were a) disarm the population and concentrate all capacity for violence in the hands of the state, and b) democratize access to tanks, rockets, etc., I will choose b. Does that answer your side question?

That is irrelevant because it's not on the table. Those are not the only options and if they were the only options, the situation is completely fukked anyway beyond repair for the foreseeable future.

You saying "weak excuses" is because your understanding of firearms, tactics, and strategy is weak.

What's on the table is unconstitutional restrictions on firearms, and that's what the topic is.

 

[Gravity]

I'll take whatever tone I want

Take your sassy ass on somewhere. If you’re not going to answer a simple question then fukk you.

 

[MegaTronBomb!]

Weird how the dude behind the #bankblack movement didn't plug a black gun associacion

There are no truly national level black gun clubs,nor are there enough/any blacks with political and legal backgrounds that exist in such clubs to lobby in re: black gun ownership.

Having an instagram, a shytty website or some printed up T shirts doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

You might fault the man for appearing on NRATV.... but I remember when he went to the Breakfast Club and they wanted no parts of his gun talk.

His views on the current state of the Democratic Party and Guns aren't things that mesh well with popular black media outlets.

 

[LurkMoar]

Why you think that banning assault rifles = banning ALL guns?

If you need anything more than a handgun to protect yourself, then maybe you live in the wrong areas whether its rural, suburban, or inner city.

Breh can you even define what an assault rifle is?

 

[Crude Abolitionist]

Weird how the dude behind the #bankblack movement didn't plug a black gun associacion

Yep