Rapper Ice-T defends Gun Rights in interview

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian Pfleuger said:
I wish he'd stopped with "tyranny".
Why? He is correct -- except that the form of tyranny the 2nd was expected to defend against at the time it was written was a standing army rather than a police force. However, in those days we didn't have paramilitary police forces that have morphed into de facto standing armies. The police remark threw me at first glance, but he has a point.
 
I think posters here should remember there is a line between entertainment and reality. I don't remember Ice T being arrested for gun related crimes...
I don't know much about him before he became famous I'm referring to the last 20 or so yrs.
 
With regard to buzzcook claiming that the idea of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, divorced from the militia stipulation, is a new interpretation...

... That's only half-right.

It was also the original interpretation.

The militia phrasing only gained traction in the 20th century. In the framer's time, and through the 19th century, the 2nd was considered an individual right.
 
Aquila Blanca said:
Why? He is correct -- except that the form of tyranny the 2nd was expected to defend against at the time it was written was a standing army rather than a police force. However, in those days we didn't have paramilitary police forces that have morphed into de facto standing armies. The police remark threw me at first glance, but he has a point.

Because adding "police" is unnecessary. Might it come to that? Has it been that? Yeah, but it's not now. Saying it the way he does comes off, IMO, as a current purpose, justifiable today.

We need it for the potential of future tyranny, not today's police.

I think it sounds bad and tyranny covers it WITHOUT bringing into mind his cop-killer-glorifying rap music.
 
Brian Pfleuger
I wish he'd stopped with "tyranny".
Police are usually the first line of defense for tyranny: keeping law and order sometimes just be comes "keeping order."

I think that we have to remember that "today's police" are only 2 professional generations away from Bull Connor, one generation away from the police force that is having multiple cases overturned by the Innocence Project, and only one day away from "tomorrow's tyrannical police."

IceT has voiced this view consistently. In the 90s, he was asked about gun control and his answer was "when the police give up their guns, I'll give up mine" (or something similar that my memory is scuffing.)

Although I support my local police officers, we need to remember that police forces need to be monitored as carefully as politicians.
 
doofus47 raises a valid point.

I am as pro-police as anybody I know. A lot of my friends are cops (or former FBI or former Customs). I have a lot of respect for good cops.

But while doofus47 is invoking officers or departments who are now infamous for abuses against minorities, there have been other institutional flaws at times, too.

An example that leaps immediately to mind is the post-WWI period, when the US government and big business were scared, in virtually equal measure, of the communist and anarchist movements.

In the Boston area, multiple police departments were co-opted into effective goon squads, to literally break heads at picket lines.

There weren't that many black laborers in the area at that time, but BPD and other departments' officers severely injured a lot of Italian, Irish, and Polish workers, under color of authority.

Every once in a while, we do in fact have tyrannical episodes in our own country.

I'm pretty sure the Wounded Knee, and other incidents, might have been viewed as tyrannical too, at least by some segments of the population. (The Army, in that case, not a police force.)

Go back further, and we have the Trail of Tears. In the events that ultimately led to that move (under Van Buren), the previous Executive (Jackson) ignored the Judicial ("John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!").

We seem to have come a long way since then... and even since the days of McCarthyism. But we may not be as far removed from potential tyranny as we would like to believe.

Regards,

M
 
Brian,

It does.

My point is simply that, depending on who you are and where you grew up, tyranny has worn different guises.

For some, it has in fact been the police.

For others, the Army.

For others, a finger-pointing, press-seeking Congressman.

For others, the Church (take your pick).

For still others, their neighbors.

The police don't need to be singled out, but nor do they need to be exempted.

Regards,

M
 
I'm with Brian here. I think it wasn't necessary for him single out police like that because at first glance it seems to say 'arm yourself against all police!' it is not until second glance and some thought that I said 'ok, i see where he is coming from.' Obviously this is my opinion.
 
Do you suppose,,,

Do you suppose he is doing the same thing here that he did when he endorsed John McCain?

On June 5, 2008, Ice-T jokingly stated that he would be voting for John McCain in the 2008 American elections. Ice-T also speculated that his past affiliation with Body Count could hurt Barack Obama's chances if he endorsed him, so he'd choose instead to ruin John McCain's campaign by saying he supported him.

Click here for the Wikipedia page I obtained this from.

Being the cynic that I am, I wonder if it's not out of the realm of possibility that he is banking on the premise that his comments will do harm to the 2nd Amendment cause due to his past history as a Gangsta rapper.

Aarond

.
 
Being the cynic that I am, I wonder if it's not out of the realm of possibility that he is banking on the premise that his comments will do harm to the 2nd Amendment cause due to his past history as a Gangsta rapper.

I see your logic, but if that were the case, would a UK current affairs programme be the best platform?

It won't have much cover within the US electorate.

In that rspect, if it was an insidious attempt to undermine gunrights, he won't have much influence!
 
I think it's... odd... to single out the police as well, but I agree with another poster than said they shouldn't be exempted. I've lived near the 14th District Chicago Police Department (we call it the Shakespeare Pig Farm - it's just a joke, no panties in a bunch please, and it's on Shakespeare). This unit has been federally investigated for police brutality more than once, so it is known not to mess with 14th District policemen.
 
Actually, I think it is a very effective statement. By including "police", he makes it a present day issue. When most people hear "2nd Ammendment" and "tyranny" all they think about is England and King George. Using the police example, he makes it relevant to today's society. Just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top