I can't stand gangbangers!!!

[AaronS]

imported post

davegran wrote:

Landose_theghost wrote:

Honestly if "They" come for the Bangers, who would really care? Also, on a side note,do youhappen to have "Thier" number? if so I'll callem toget the ball rolling with the gangsta roundup!:celebrate

That's what I figured; you see, that poem was written about the Nazis during World War II.

From [size=+1]Wikepedia[/size] "the poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control."

I just added some more victims....

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it...



So is there any OC info in this thread, or is this one just a hate thread again?

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

AaronS wrote:

davegran wrote:

Landose_theghost wrote:

Honestly if "They" come for the Bangers, who would really care? Also, on a side note,do youhappen to have "Thier" number? if so I'll callem toget the ball rolling with the gangsta roundup!:celebrate

That's what I figured; you see, that poem was written about the Nazis during World War II.

From [size="+1"]Wikepedia[/size] "the poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control."

I just added some more victims....

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it...



So is there any OC info in this thread, or is this one just a hate thread again?

WHAT!?

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

RE:Bailenforcer

Couldn't have sed it better my self man. Kudos.

 

[Parabellum]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

Hate clouds judgement. Those who are without hate are much better at assessing any situation than those with hate on their minds. I offer words from wise men.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The Jefferson misquotation appears in April 2000 in an essay, “Rule by Brute Force,” by Steve Kubby of the American Medical Marijuana Association.


This quote is truth itself. The two enemies of the people are government and criminals. So with that in mind...

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

Guard liberty above all else. Sic Semper Tyrannis

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

Hate clouds judgement. Those who are without hate are much better at assessing any situation than those with hate on their minds. I offer words from wise men.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The Jefferson misquotation appears in April 2000 in an essay, “Rule by Brute Force,” by Steve Kubby of the American Medical Marijuana Association.


This quote is truth itself. The two enemies of the people are government and criminals. So with that in mind...

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

Guard liberty above all else. Sic Semper Tyrannis

I beg to differ. Only irrational hate clouds judgment. A man who is incapable of righteous hatred of evil is not a man. He is in fact a coward.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

Parabellum wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

Hate clouds judgement. Those who are without hate are much better at assessing any situation than those with hate on their minds. I offer words from wise men.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The Jefferson misquotation appears in April 2000 in an essay, “Rule by Brute Force,” by Steve Kubby of the American Medical Marijuana Association.


This quote is truth itself. The two enemies of the people are government and criminals. So with that in mind...

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

Guard liberty above all else. Sic Semper Tyrannis

I beg to differ. Only irrational hate clouds judgment. A man who is incapable of righteous hatred of evil is not a man. He is in fact a coward.

Here, here; straight to the point and easy to digest. Kudos

I fail to see why taking criminals off the street is such a problem on this forum.

My suggestion is that for all of you that say, only in defense would you be able to wield your weapon against those who would do you harm; is to stay behind and guard the water-hole.

And when the rat-killing is over, and the real (wo)men return to quench their thirst; well then you will get to prove your cowardly premise.

 

[hardballer]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

RE:Bailenforcer

"Couldn't have sed it better my self man. Kudos."

Lurchiron wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Parabellum wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

Hate clouds judgement. Those who are without hate are much better at assessing any situation than those with hate on their minds. I offer words from wise men.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The Jefferson misquotation appears in April 2000 in an essay, “Rule by Brute Force,” by Steve Kubby of the American Medical Marijuana Association.


This quote is truth itself. The two enemies of the people are government and criminals. So with that in mind...

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

Guard liberty above all else. Sic Semper Tyrannis

I beg to differ. Only irrational hate clouds judgment. A man who is incapable of righteous hatred of evil is not a man. He is in fact a coward.

Here, here; straight to the point and easy to digest. Kudos

I fail to see why taking criminals off the street is such a problem on this forum.

My suggestion is that for all of you that say, only in defense would you be able to wield your weapon against those who would do you harm; is to stay behind and guard the water-hole.

And when the rat-killing is over, and the real (wo)men return to quench their thirst; well then you will get to prove your cowardly premise.

Lurchiron wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Parabellum wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

Hate clouds judgement. Those who are without hate are much better at assessing any situation than those with hate on their minds. I offer words from wise men.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The Jefferson misquotation appears in April 2000 in an essay, “Rule by Brute Force,” by Steve Kubby of the American Medical Marijuana Association.


This quote is truth itself. The two enemies of the people are government and criminals. So with that in mind...

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine

Guard liberty above all else. Sic Semper Tyrannis

I beg to differ. Only irrational hate clouds judgment. A man who is incapable of righteous hatred of evil is not a man. He is in fact a coward.

Here, here; straight to the point and easy to digest. Kudos

I fail to see why taking criminals off the street is such a problem on this forum.

My suggestion is that for all of you that say, only in defense would you be able to wield your weapon against those who would do you harm; is to stay behind and guard the water-hole.

And when the rat-killing is over, and the real (wo)men return to quench their thirst; well then you will get to prove your cowardly premise.

Agree 1000% !!!

These guys are criminals, gang bangers operationally define criminals and I have seen white, brown, black and yellow gang bangers at Woodman's and Best Buy. La Crosse is inundated with them. Thank HUD and in some cases, your local church for importing these undesirables. (HUD put ads in the Detroit and Chicago papers to invite occupants of their respective housing projects to Winona and LaCrosse because minorities were under represented in the social services housing developments.) This has been going on since the 80's.

I have no time for anybody whining and crying about profiling. I think profiling is good. Always worked well for me. Criminals are predators and need to be singled out and watched closely. If you don't they will cause you grief.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

Landose_theghost wrote:

Honestly if "They" come for the Bangers, who would really care? Also, on a side note,do youhappen to have "Thier" number? if so I'll callem toget the ball rolling with the gangsta roundup!:celebrate

before they come and get the Bangers, first things first...ICE needs to round up & deport about 20 million Illegals...

Many illegals are gang bangers so rounding them up will help reduce the numbers. Gangs despite the lies of television were in Mexico, Central and South America years before it came here.

yup, and they are the VIOLENT ones that enjoy killing people.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Who said they didn't want to take criminals off the streets? If they have broken any laws then get them off the street and in jail but wearing baggy pants, unlaced shoes, long t-shirt,dreadlocks and gold teeth is not a criminal act. As for me I find Hawiian shirts any where other than Hawaii just as disgusting as the baggy pants and don't even get me started on vests or bowling shirts. To each his own but those are a few of my dislikes. Until you can prove that they are criminals then they have just as much right to shop at Wal-Mart and carry a gun as you do.

Edited to add, I can't stand grown men wearing t-shirts as outer wear either or any shirt that doesn't have a collar. I also never trust a man whowears a bow tie without a tuxedo.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Who said they didn't want to take criminals off the streets? If they have broken any laws then get them off the street and in jail but wearing baggy pants, unlaced shoes, long t-shirt,dreadlocks and gold teeth is not a criminal act. As for me I find Hawiian shirts any where other than Hawaii just as disgusting as the baggy pants and don't even get me started on vests or bowling shirts. To each his own but those are a few of my dislikes. Until you can prove that they are criminals then they have just as much right to shop at Wal-Mart and carry a gun as you do.

Edited to add, I can't stand grown men wearing t-shirts as outer wear either or any shirt that doesn't have a collar.

i luv Hawaiian Shirts....k, grew up watching Magnum P.I. He got the chicks all the time wearing then things...:lol:

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Who said they didn't want to take criminals off the streets? If they have broken any laws then get them off the street and in jail but wearing baggy pants, unlaced shoes, long t-shirt,dreadlocks and gold teeth is not a criminal act. As for me I find Hawiian shirts any where other than Hawaii just as disgusting as the baggy pants and don't even get me started on vests or bowling shirts. To each his own but those are a few of my dislikes. Until you can prove that they are criminals then they have just as much right to shop at Wal-Mart and carry a gun as you do.

Edited to add, I can't stand grown men wearing t-shirts as outer wear either or any shirt that doesn't have a collar. I also never trust a man whowears a bow tie without a tuxedo.

Are you serious? Or are you playing a game here?

Gang Banger is a member of a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION! We never referred to look alikes, or style of dress. Quit trying to defend criminal by comparing him to some silly kid who dresses stupid. A CRIMINAL IS A CRIMINAL! I find your deliberate race baiting and deflection of facts detestable in the least. Quit trolling, we made the discussion clear as glass, we are talking about Gang Members who are by definition CRIMINALS.

 

[davegran]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Who said they didn't want to take criminals off the streets? If they have broken any laws then get them off the street and in jail but wearing baggy pants, unlaced shoes, long t-shirt,dreadlocks and gold teeth is not a criminal act. As for me I find Hawiian shirts any where other than Hawaii just as disgusting as the baggy pants and don't even get me started on vests or bowling shirts. To each his own but those are a few of my dislikes. Until you can prove that they are criminals then they have just as much right to shop at Wal-Mart and carry a gun as you do.

Edited to add, I can't stand grown men wearing t-shirts as outer wear either or any shirt that doesn't have a collar. I also never trust a man whowears a bow tie without a tuxedo.

Are you serious? Or are you playing a game here?

Gang Banger is a member of a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION! We never referred to look alikes, or style of dress. Quit trying to defend criminal by comparing him to some silly kid who dresses stupid. A CRIMINAL IS A CRIMINAL! I find your deliberate race baiting and deflection of facts detestable in the least. Quit trolling, we made the discussion clear as glass, we are talking about Gang Members who are by definition CRIMINALS.

Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the entire thread, you would've seen that it DID start out about style of dress:
Landose_theghost wrote:

Just venting out here guys, but I honestly hate these idiots....

It seems to me that these cool guys are the real source of why gun laws are the way they are right now. So we should figure a way to stop them,I vote gun storesenforce a"dress code", that'll stop (or at least curb)these retards from buying a legal gun anyways:lol:.

And this:
Landose_theghost wrote:

Souds silly I know, but "Dress code" would mean

-No baggy pants half off your a**

-No Tilted hats

-No shirts 10 times bigger than anyone should where...etc.

-No untied shoes and or boots

Now of course this is all just a thought, but hell think about it, you tellem at the door that they have to come back dressed better, and I garentee you they will respond with various curse words and walk out loudly, and because they were "disrespected" (or so they thought) they won't come back.

-Landose-

And then it degenerated into this:
Glock34 wrote:

Bangers could be a thing of the past, if it was ok to waste them on sight.

It wasn't until the third page of the thread that YOU decided that it was all about criminals:

Bailenforcer wrote:

WHAT!?

Gangs are criminal organizations always have been the original term gang meant criminal organization. Thus a gang banger is a criminal. So where's the hate? Anyone who fails to hate crime and criminal behavior is in need of education.

Your logic is false, thus you are the troll.

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

No my logic is logic and not false. You defined the term "Gang Banger" which is a criminal, so you are the troll Sir. If you misrepresebt something don't blame others. Gangs are criminal organizations and now you are trying to twist logic as if gang banging is now merely a dress style.
You defined the term by your continued use of GANG in the conversation is it's various forms. thus you are causing the problem. Learn English then you won't be a troll defending Gang Members as "you" defined them.

 

[hardballer]

imported post

DaveGran,

I have some personal experience here outside of a couple of sightings in La Crosse. It is all well and good to feel bad for the poor, misinterpreted, misunderstood gangbangers.

My pappy once told me, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, well son, it must be a damn duck.

Ya know, I think he just might be right.

If you don't want to be "disrespected", don't act like a gang member. Don't talk like a gang member, don't dress like a gang member and most of all, don't screw with me. I've seen the outcome and it is all bad for you.

The idea of inclusion is just dandy till you realize it does not "include" you. The disconnect here is with you. These guys are not nice guys. They are not kids who had a bad influence.

These are kids who are now adults and still act like gang members who want to intimidate and dominate there environment and in most cases, they also want your stuff. There is no cure for this except vigilance. Ignore this at your own peril.

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

hardballer wrote:

DaveGran,

I have some personal experience here outside of a couple of sightings in La Crosse. It is all well and good to feel bad for the poor, misinterpreted, misunderstood gangbangers.

My pappy once told me, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, well son, it must be a damn duck.

Ya know, I think he just might be right.

If you don't want to be "disrespected", don't act like a gang member. Don't talk like a gang member, don't dress like a gang member and most of all, don't screw with me. I've seen the outcome and it is all bad for you.

The idea of inclusion is just dandy till you realize it does not "include" you. The disconnect here is with you. These guys are not nice guys. They are not kids who had a bad influence.

These are kids who are now adults and still act like gang members who want to intimidate and dominate there environment and in most cases, they also want your stuff. There is no cure for this except vigilance. Ignore this at your own peril.

Applause all around my friend.:lol:Well spoke,Well put. Nuff Sed. Now if only we could all see things this way. Kudos!

-Landose-

 

[davegran]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

No my logic is logic and not false. You defined the term "Gang Banger" which is a criminal, so you are the troll Sir. If you misrepresebt something don't blame others. Gangs are criminal organizations and now you are trying to twist logic as if gang banging is now merely a dress style.
You defined the term by your continued use of GANG in the conversation is it's various forms. thus you are causing the problem. Learn English then you won't be a troll defending Gang Members as "you" defined them.

The last refuge of a lost argument is to try to put words in someone's mouth.

I didn't say that we shouldn't treat a criminal like a criminal; what I said was that we shouldn't assume somebody is a criminal because of the way they look or what they believe. When you criminalize appearances and beliefs instead of behaviors, you have just tossed the Constitution in the trash.

It's the same as being hassled or arrested when you are lawfully carrying... somebody assumes you are a criminal because of preconceived notions and your Constitutional rights are trampled. Would you agree that is not a good thing, or am I the only one on this forum who believes that?

From Wicktionary:
Noun Singular
criminal (pluralcriminals)

1. A person who is guilty of a crime, notably breaking the law.

Synonyms

• lawbreaker
• offender
• perpetrator
• See also Wikisaurus:criminal

 

[scorpio_vette]

imported post

davegran wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

No my logic is logic and not false. You defined the term "Gang Banger" which is a criminal, so you are the troll Sir. If you misrepresebt something don't blame others. Gangs are criminal organizations and now you are trying to twist logic as if gang banging is now merely a dress style.
You defined the term by your continued use of GANG in the conversation is it's various forms. thus you are causing the problem. Learn English then you won't be a troll defending Gang Members as "you" defined them.

The last refuge of a lost argument is to try to put words in someone's mouth.

I didn't say that we shouldn't treat a criminal like a criminal; what I said was that we shouldn't assume somebody is a criminal because of the way they look or what they believe. When you criminalize appearances and beliefs instead of behaviors, you have just tossed the Constitution in the trash.

It's the same as being hassled or arrested when you are lawfully carrying... somebody assumes you are a criminal because of preconceived notions and your Constitutional rights are trampled. Would you agree that is not a good thing, or am I the only one on this forum who believes that? 

From Wicktionary:
Noun Singular
criminal (plural criminals)

1. A person who is guilty of a crime, notably breaking the law.

Synonyms

• lawbreaker
• offender
• perpetrator
• See also Wikisaurus:criminal

+1. all i can say is WOW......amazing how quick some people are to judge others, but don't like it when they are being judged.

apparently nobody saw where i said that ALL people should be allowed to carry. it makes perfect sense. nobody wants criminals right??? so if EVERYBODY is armed, and now a lets say for example a rapist goes to attack a victim, and that victim shoots and kills the rapist. well guess what??? that's 1 criminal gone, and 1 less criminal without a gun.

the true criminals would disappear simply through natural selection.

but calling people criminals based on their skin, clothes, hairstyles, etc..etc..etc.. is NO DIFFERENT than the cops harassing us for carrying a gun. and it's VERY OBVIOUS on this forum that you guys don't like that a damn bit.


nobody here said that criminals shouldn't be dealt with. we are just saying to stop profiling based on looks. because there are plenty of good citizens who would fall into a "bad group" based on profiling.

 

[Brendon .45]

imported post

Davegran, Scorpio - Thanks for trying to help others see the light. This thread WAS started on the premise of infringing on someones rights purely based on a style of dress and appearance.

Profiling is ok. Everyone does it. As stated, if it looks like a duck... But ACTING on your assumptions is another thing altogether. If I see someone who "looks" like a thug, I'll keep my eyes open for anything that may happen; but I will not become judge/jury/executioner just because someonechooses to look likean idiot.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Brendon .45 wrote:

Davegran, Scorpio - Thanks for trying to help others see the light. This thread WAS started on the premise of infringing on someones rights purely based on a style of dress and appearance.

Profiling is ok. Everyone does it. As stated, if it looks like a duck... But ACTING on your assumptions is another thing altogether. If I see someone who "looks" like a thug, I'll keep my eyes open for anything that may happen; but I will not become judge/jury/executioner just because someonechooses to look likean idiot.

Well... I guess you'll be having fun at the water-hole then, eh comrade?

 

[davegran]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

Brendon .45 wrote:

Davegran, Scorpio - Thanks for trying to help others see the light. This thread WAS started on the premise of infringing on someones rights purely based on a style of dress and appearance.

Profiling is ok. Everyone does it. As stated, if it looks like a duck... But ACTING on your assumptions is another thing altogether. If I see someone who "looks" like a thug, I'll keep my eyes open for anything that may happen; but I will not become judge/jury/executioner just because someonechooses to look likean idiot.

Well... I guess you'll be having fun at the water-hole then, eh comrade?

That's the second time you used that "water-hole" analogy and I must admit that I don't understand your meaning. In the interests of clear communication, would you please explain what it means?