Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-23-2013, 03:31 PM
huan huan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 56
Default and the UFC just become anti 2nd amendment

http://on.ufc.com/149JmhB

"UFC superstar Glover Teixeira has a niece who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School. Now he's joined the Mayors Against Illegal Guns' effort to Demand Action to End Gun Violence. "

Seriously UFC? I wonder how Matt feels about this...

(and maybe a mod can edit my typo'd subject line :P)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-23-2013, 09:44 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,969
Default



Are you mad that Glover is in favour of gun restrictions?? If so, isnt he allowed to have and express an opinion??

Or are you angry that the UFC have allowed him to make his own little advert?

Are we sure the UFC are in favour of this...?? They may have allowed the video, but was it their idea...would they allow some other superstar to make an alternate advert and host that as well?? Perhaps someone should ask them

Finally...have you considered that the UFC may not give a hoot either way...but that they are engaging in a political act which is close to the legislators heart in a State that refuses them access....Are you certain this hasnt got far more to do with New York...?

Perhaps you oughta ask some of the MMA newsmedia if they could get an interview with Dana White to get some clarity on this issue.

As for me, I havent really got a clue what you should do about guns in your country. I recognise that hunting in your country is not only well regulated, but also required for population control, so I have no problem with that. I also recognise that because firearms are so widespread in your country, you cant simply just ban them, and I do sort of follow that you cant expect criminals to abide by the law.

I come from a culture where guns are next to non-existant, where gun crime is quite minimal, and where even touching a firearm can get you fifteen years incarceration, so, personally, if I was a legislator, I wouldnt want guns about, but I wouldnt try and ban them...I would tackle the issue by controlling the ammunition instead...You tend to find that guns become obserlete if they dont have bullets...a bit like a car without petrol.

But...I am not american, I dont live there, I dont really know how well that would work in a place where everyone, criminals and non criminals seem to be armed. As I dont know, and it doesnt effect me, I dont really care...neither do I care what the UFC believe in that regard (IF they even do) and I certainly dont care if Glover believes in their complete erradication.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-23-2013, 10:41 PM
MattHughesRocks's Avatar
MattHughesRocks MattHughesRocks is offline
Stump Rules!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 9,790
Default

He said keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Not me and you. What wrong with saying that?
__________________


http://stumpdotcom.com/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-24-2013, 04:06 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,737
Default

Dave, I didn't read Huan's post as angry at all. He probably resents someone representing the UFC taking a political stand either way. I mean, it's on the UFC website, FFS!

I wonder how Matt feels about it as well.

I would respectfully submit, as to gun control in the UK, Lee Rigby may well not have gotten hacked to death if he or a bystander had been armed.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-24-2013, 04:17 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,737
Default

Here's another little factoid about the "Mayors against Gun Violence" group.

Quote:
Then, as the "No More Names" group commemorates victims of gun violence by reading their names out loud, bystanders are shocked to hear Tamerlan Tsarnaev listed among the "victims." Tsarnaev, you'll recall, was shot by police during a massive gun battle in the wake of the deadly Boston Marathon bombings, for which he and his younger brother were responsible. Tamerlan has also been implicated in three additional murders. AP follows up with a surreal question about "No More Names:"

As of this writing, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website says 6,170 Americans have been murdered by people using guns since Newtown; I canít believe I have to ask this, but does that list include criminals ó or terrorists ó killed by police in an exchange of gunfire?
Link here. Not surprising since this is Mayor "nanny state" Bloomberg's group.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-24-2013, 08:52 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post

I would respectfully submit, as to gun control in the UK, Lee Rigby may well not have gotten hacked to death if he or a bystander had been armed.
No...he would have been shot instead...coz thats soooooo much better
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-24-2013, 04:21 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
No...he would have been shot instead...coz thats soooooo much better
Well, if you were going to be killed and only had a choice between the two, which method would you opt for? These two killers were literally stopped in their tracks when the police shot them after the men started charging towards them. So Lee Rigby might be alive today if he or someone in the crowd had had a gun to stop them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 06-24-2013 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-24-2013, 04:58 PM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
No...he would have been shot instead...coz thats soooooo much better
Oh come on, that's silly. He was military. If he was armed with a gun, he would have defended himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
Well, if you were going to be killed and only had a choice between the two, which method would you opt for? These two killers were literally stopped in their tracks when the police shot them after the men started charging towards them. So Lee Rigby might be alive today if he or someone in the crowd had had a gun to stop them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE
Exactly.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-25-2013, 12:45 AM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
No...he would have been shot instead...coz thats soooooo much better
Tyburn, didn't the Muslim terrorists have a firearm? Despite your gun control, the only person at the scene with a gun was the terrorist (at least for the first 20+ minutes). We haven't received many follow-up details in the U.S. press on this story. How did the terrorist get a gun? Why couldn't soldier Rigby carry a firearm?
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-24-2013, 04:39 AM
Liddellfan Liddellfan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post


Are you mad that Glover is in favour of gun restrictions?? If so, isnt he allowed to have and express an opinion??

Or are you angry that the UFC have allowed him to make his own little advert?

Are we sure the UFC are in favour of this...?? They may have allowed the video, but was it their idea...would they allow some other superstar to make an alternate advert and host that as well?? Perhaps someone should ask them

Finally...have you considered that the UFC may not give a hoot either way...but that they are engaging in a political act which is close to the legislators heart in a State that refuses them access....Are you certain this hasnt got far more to do with New York...?

Perhaps you oughta ask some of the MMA newsmedia if they could get an interview with Dana White to get some clarity on this issue.

As for me, I havent really got a clue what you should do about guns in your country. I recognise that hunting in your country is not only well regulated, but also required for population control, so I have no problem with that. I also recognise that because firearms are so widespread in your country, you cant simply just ban them, and I do sort of follow that you cant expect criminals to abide by the law.

I come from a culture where guns are next to non-existant, where gun crime is quite minimal, and where even touching a firearm can get you fifteen years incarceration, so, personally, if I was a legislator, I wouldnt want guns about, but I wouldnt try and ban them...I would tackle the issue by controlling the ammunition instead...You tend to find that guns become obserlete if they dont have bullets...a bit like a car without petrol.
But...I am not american, I dont live there, I dont really know how well that would work in a place where everyone, criminals and non criminals seem to be armed. As I dont know, and it doesnt effect me, I dont really care...neither do I care what the UFC believe in that regard (IF they even do) and I certainly dont care if Glover believes in their complete erradication.
That is a typical response of a socialist and someone who was raised in a country of "we the sheeple". Someone who has never tasted an ounce of freedom or made their own personal choices.

"WE THE PEOPLE" are a free society and can make our own decisions. If we want guns, we buy them.

Gun crime is minimal yes BUT the crime rate in the UK blows that of these United States out of the water. Reason being, people don't have a means to protect their lives on your side of the pond. You will NEVER understand our way of life nor our god given right to self defense because you have been dictated to your entire life and are programmed by the socialist system.

Always spewing your nonsense here and it's an MMA forum. No need for your anti-American BS...If you don't like us tough. Enjoy your socialist society and keep quiet.

FYI : hunting has absolutely NOTHING to due with our right to keep arms. You sound like Piers Morgan saying uneducated things like that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.