Citizen who believes in gun confiscation takes gun from a black guy

[aGameOfThrones]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5pOXfmqgQ


Note: :D

[TheTexan]

lol nice

[Origanalist]

You might get a better response if you leave out the "black guy" part. What difference does it make?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

You might get a better response if you leave out the "black guy" part. What difference does it make?

Horrible title too. That's self defense, not gun confiscation.

Or does that person really claim a belief in gun confiscation being a good idea? In the position he was in, it was a better move than attempting a draw, even if he were armed.

[aGameOfThrones]

You might get a better response if you leave out the "black guy" part. What difference does it make?

If he were Asian I would've put Asian, but since he's a black guy. At least I didn't go with my first choice, "White guy who believes in gun confiscation takes gun from a black guy".

[Origanalist]

If he were Asian I would've put Asian, but since he's a black guy. At least I didn't go with my first choice, "White guy who believes in gun confiscation takes gun from a black guy".

Well ok, I still don't see what race has to do with it.

[WhistlinDave]

Well ok, I still don't see what race has to do with it.

I agree... If I were a mod I would probably change the title on this because it's unnecessary, and it's collectivist to have to state the person's race when that has nothing to do with what happened.

[TheTexan]

Should probably change "gun" in the title to a "weapon"... what does it matter that it was a gun he took, and not some other kind of weapon? When weapon grabbers use words like "gun violence" we get all our panties in a bunch... hypocrites, we are

[Origanalist]

I agree... If I were a mod I would probably change the title on this because it's unnecessary, and it's collectivist to have to state the person's race when that has nothing to do with what happened.

I don't see where that's necessary, I'm just stating a opinion.

[BAllen]

I agree... If I were a mod I would probably change the title on this because it's unnecessary, and it's collectivist to have to state the person's race when that has nothing to do with what happened.

So, you'd censor speech in the name of 'freedom'? Doesn't sound like a liberty position.

[WhistlinDave]

So, you'd censor speech in the name of 'freedom'? Doesn't sound like a liberty position.

Censoring? No, it would be called doing my job if I was a mod.

From the forum guidelines:


+ Posts should not promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Such forms of collectivism include sexism, racism, antisemitism; they will not be tolerated here.

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't think of any reason to state the guy is black, other than to imply that maybe the reason he was going to commit a criminal act is because he's black and that's what black people do. Whether that was the intention of the OP or not, it would certainly strike a lot of people that way, imo.

Regardless, I don't make the forum rules. Nor am I a mod, so my opinion is probably irrelevant anyway.

[TheTexan]

Censoring? No, it would be called doing my job if I was a mod.

From the forum guidelines:



Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't think of any reason to state the guy is black, other than to imply that maybe the reason he was going to commit a criminal act is because he's black and that's what black people do. Whether that was the intention of the OP or not, it would certainly strike a lot of people that way, imo.

Regardless, I don't make the forum rules. Nor am I a mod, so my opinion is probably irrelevant anyway.

"black guy" is also sexist

[Origanalist]

Censoring? No, it would be called doing my job if I was a mod.

From the forum guidelines:



Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't think of any reason to state the guy is black, other than to imply that maybe the reason he was going to commit a criminal act is because he's black and that's what black people do. Whether that was the intention of the OP or not, it would certainly strike a lot of people that way, imo.

Regardless, I don't make the forum rules. Nor am I a mod, so my opinion is probably irrelevant anyway.

Not at all my friend.

[WhistlinDave]

I'm not sitting over here on a high horse or anything guys, I actually chuckled at the humor in the title with the bit about "gun confiscation" once I watched the vid.

I just thought saying "black guy" was unnecessary, and might've had rude intentions behind it, that's all. No biggie. Still a cool vid.

[Neil Desmond]

So, you'd censor speech in the name of 'freedom'? Doesn't sound like a liberty position.
Freedom of speech is about not being arrested & charged with a crime for what you say. This forum is private property & a mod can do whatever they want. If they censor something, no one is being arrested or charged with a crime, so that has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I get the title; it's clever. To me the intent was to be sarcastic about the notion that gun confiscation is bad in all cases with the exception that it's from someone who's black (which is all wrong). The title and what you see in the video clip points out the ironies involved, that the guy accosting the victim happens to be black; but it's not being black that makes it wrong, it's that he's trying to mug the victim that's wrong. Also, gun confiscation is wrong, only when the government is doing it to citizens, but not when it's a victim taking it from someone who's trying to rob him.

The only thing I would probably do myself is use the word "someone" in place of the word "citizen" in the title.

[WhistlinDave]

Thinking about it more, I think maybe I would've titled it, "When gun confiscation is the right thing to do." :D

[eric_cartman]

stupid title.

it's misleading.