Jump to content

Brink

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    493

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Brink

    The Hip Hop Thread

    in Music

    Posted

    i was just listening to mos def on my drive home about 20 minutes ago...i like some of the stuff he did with talib (black star) but for some reason, even with dope lyrics i cant put him on my top 10. guru (RIP) was dope but same thing as mos def, for some reason i just cant put him that high on my list...maybe late teens as far as ranking goes...thats just my personal opinion.....i cant stand jeru the damajas voice or style so he wouldnt make it high on my list...KRS has been around for a minute and while ive been to one of his shows and met him twice, i sometimes feel his lyrics are a bit corny...like talking about the "13 elements of hip hop" and shit.

    Fair enough, id still place Guru and Mos up higher on my personal list. But yea, KRS can get a bit corny

    The Hip Hop Thread

    in Music

    Posted

    im always surprised mos def doesnt make more top 10 lists. I think lyrically hes insanely talented, and he has a decent body of work. Guru as well would be top 10 for me, maybe Jeru and KRS as well

    The Hip Hop Thread

    in Music

    Posted

    What are you doing CALIgula?

     

    Oh nothing, just making a list. (Subject to change)

     

    1. 2Pac

    2. Biggie Smalls

    3. Eminem

    4. Big Pun

    5. Redman

    6. Tech N9ne

    7. Rakim

    8. Black Thought

    9. Busta Rhymes

    10. Masta Ace

    11. Wordsworth

    12. Nas

    13. Big L

    14. Apathy

    15. The Last Emperor

    tech over rakim and big l? ehhhh idk

    Great Quotes.

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    "Many a great man has dug his own grave with his dick".

     

    Unknown

     

     

     

    This quote has led me to making wise decisions many times over the years - think with the head on your shoulders, not the head in your pants!

    Unfortunately theres only enough blood to have 1 going at a time

    Las Vegas Shooting and the Gun Debate

    in News

    Posted

    Seems a post of mine is missing so will try to get back to a few comments later.

     

    In regards to your comment above... That's not necessarily true as there's a difference between muzzle loaders, which is what anti-gun crowds usually claim is all that existed and muskets, which was a single loaded smooth bore gun. Reality is that the weapons of the era, particularly combined with the science and medicine of the era did catastrophic damage in almost every instance. But truth is that small arms technology and military tactics we're evolving at a far faster pace in that century than what we've seen in the last 100 years. Guerilla Warfare being amongst the most notable.

     

    However, this doesn't speak to the reason that they decided that citizens being armed was the second most important right for a free society. You have to remember that at the founding of this nation, the people of the day paid a very heavy price to earn their independence and freedom. They we're vehemently distrustful of government and fought amongst themselves for years before reaching the consensus that government was a necessary evil and how they can form a new one while protecting individual freedom from a government that knew was going to evolve and grow stronger and eventually begin infringing upon the freedom and rights of the people. These days, we seem to think the United States Constitution, and namely the Bill of Rights portion of it, spells out all the rules that we as a people must follow. The reality is that the document was created to constrain the government with the hopes that there would be enough checks and balances to ensure we'd never fall victim to the constraints on individual liberty that we had just fought so hard to win. This process began with the Articles of Confederation, which collapsed in on itself because it limited government to such a degree that it could not operate properly. This began the process of debating a new version, which became the United States Contrition. In order to ratify the constitution, however, they all had to agree on a Bill of Rights beforehand, which in turn was mostly an amalgam of the Bill of Rights that each of the initial states had already put into place.

     

    Keep in mind that each state was free to do its own thing at this time and we're very weary to enter into any type of agreement to give up that autonomy to anyone else, especially a centralized government that was seated far away enough (considering the transportation of the era) to might as well be England. Even though they were largely spawned from very similar ideologies and all had participated in the fighting and sacrifices that led to independence, you can imagine how jealous they were to preserve this new found freedom. They all knew that this new government would eventually grow and that all government power comes directly from the freedom of the people, so to help preserve their rights they created a Bill of Rights and Constitution over a span of about 3 years worth of debate and revision before finally getting ratified. The only way they could pull this off was to ensure that the Bill of Rights could never be rescinded and the only way to ensure that was to declare that those first 10 amendments we're in fact rights granted by God. These days we dismiss it as them being puritans or highly religious, but you can actually read the minutes to those hearings, as well as all the corresponding newspaper articles (often penned by the person actually proposing or advocating the issue), many notes of correspondence that were preserved, as well as plenty of auto biographies and biographies written at that time what . their intent was and why they framed things the way they did. They were wise enough to include a method to amend the Constitution further, but only the first 10 amendments, which collectively form the Bill of Rights, we're intended to be untouchable. This is why the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy (crazy how many people don't know this). We have 10 unbreakable guiding principles and then everything else gets to be voted on beyond this.

     

    Anyhow, personally I believe the original intention for those first 10 amendments are as valid today (if not more so) than the day they were ratified and if you go through and read the manuscripts and debate that led to the legislation you'll likely be pretty blown away by how much of what they were concerned with has come to pass or is in the process of happening now. In any case, in order to remove any of the first amendments would literally require dissolving the United States and creating a new charter.

     

    This said, your comment also brings up another issue which is both that all the way through until the Korean War, conflicts created unimaginable death counts. Again, coupled with the science and medicine especially, any type of gunshot was almost always a death sentence. These days, no so much. In fact, all branches of the United States military is moving away from the 5.56 NATO round (slightly hotter charge) than the civilian version which is the .223 because its considered a puny round. Basically its the diameter of a .22 rifle (which I had when I was like 12), except its longer and has more powder packed into the cartridge. Though its legal to hunt with an AR-15, few people do so because its considered cruel to the animal due to how often it doesn't bring it down. Instead, hunters are using exponentially more capable calibers like 30-06, which ironically nobody ever talks about.

     

    Adding further context to this, gun control people have been going nuts over the AR platform for a couple decades now despite the fact that a small percentage of gun crimes are executed with long guns and only a fraction of those are carried out with an AR-15. Putting that further into perspective, you have about 11,000 firearms deaths in the USA (not counting suicide, which is rarely carried out with a rifle, let alone an AR-15) with about 70% of that being criminal on criminal violence. Included in that other 30% is justifiable homicides, whether carried out by police in the line of duty or legally permitted gun owners protecting themselves. I won't go into why nobody ever bothers to address gang violence in places like Chicago, Detroit and LA that actually make up most of that aforementioned 70%, but also that there's literally tens of millions of dollars being spent by guys like Michael Bloomberg on this and being sold to us as having reached epidemic levels, when its not in the top 10 reasons why people die in the USA. Call it crass, but compared to shit like heart disease which is preventable with diet and exercise yet claimed over 600,000 people in 2016, Cancer which killed 595,000+ people that same year, respiratory disease which killed another 147,000+ people that year, etc, etc... Much of it attributed to smoking and second hand smoke, yet cigarettes, shit diets and all the major catalysts for those illnesses aren't on the 24-7 news cycle. Think about that for a bit and question why that is.

     

    Also, not to ride off the reservation, but anyone take the time to read any of the data dumps that led Edward Snowden to fleeing the USA? Anyhow, getting pretty far off topic, but can't help but question everything I hear considering the depth of the deception put forth by those in office if you were to believe even a fraction of whats in those documents. And considering they never bothered to claim them as false and instead tried to say you'd be arrested if you went to the site or were in possession of copies of that data, kinda hard to dismiss it.

     

    I see the point that you're making. However, despite the founding fathers being incredibly visionary in the creation of a government, that does not mean they were 100% right in ever area. Simply because the right to bare arms as a part of a well regulated militia (which the US doesn't have, Switzerland does) is among the first amendments, doesnt mean it is infallible. One of the main arguments I have heard about taking a different approach to government, i.e following the Scandinavian model of democratic socialism, is that it wouldn't work in the US due to the difference in size of our countries, and the fact that many of the Scandinavian countries are largely homogeneous. However, when it comes to examining our own bill of rights under a critical eye, all of a sudden people seem to forget that our collection of colonies was very similar to what the Scandinavians have today. So, in a sense, we are operating on a system that was designed for an entirely different kind of country; yet, these guiding principles are supposedly unbreakable?

     

    also

     

    Fun Fact: The US is no longer even considered a democracy, but rather a flawed democracy. Which on the global scale ranks our government with that of Italy based on electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture.

    Las Vegas Shooting and the Gun Debate

    in News

    Posted

    At this point its especially hard to determine motive, simply because the main source of that information is dead.

     

    Even so, im not sure how determining motive would help us progress further with preventing this sort of thing from happening again?

    Las Vegas Shooting and the Gun Debate

    in News

    Posted

    As a side not, in relation to the whole "founding father's intentions" argument...

     

    At the time of the 2nd amendment's creation, the founding fathers were utilizing an arsenal of single shot muskets that took about at least 15 seconds to reload. I don't think anyone could have fathomed what the world experienced from World War I, and we've only become more advanced since then.

    T-shirts / Hats?

    in Style

    Posted

    i'm about to get some insane clown pose shirts and a zune off ebay.com. about how many people use this site? I didn't see much in the paper chase blackbooks section. I thought there would be more than that I wisht that puregraffiti.com was still around. that site used to be with the shit.

    People are still around... I think online forums as a whole have died in popularity a bit since we got social media platforms.

    Triumph is going to destroy the 'BUSA :(

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    You make a reasonable point, though I still cant fathom being trapped with a bunch of people trying to hide myself so I'm not the next one slaughtered by some murderer on a killing spree. Guess that's why I dont really go to places like that.

     

    In any case, I've mentioned the cultural differences before in previous comments. I'll admit when I lived in NYC it was hard to imagine people being armed despite the fact that I was still often traveling to go shoot. Likewise, when I left NYC to where I am now, it was an eye opener to see random people walking around with guns on their hip. Now, I don't think twice about even when I'm in big social gatherings and there's an obvious presence of armed people. Ironically (or perhaps not), its actually a much more passive and friendly environment than most public events I've ever attended elsewhere. Really does suck that as a society we live amongst people that would do the type of shit we just saw in Las Vegas. Just don't know what the solution is when it shows up in front of you other than to hope you're prepared to stop it before you get claimed with the rest of the victims.

     

    Anyhow, lots of great input and thought in these comments. Happy to know we've been able to discuss a pretty loaded topic without it blowing up into an emotionally fueled argument. Doubt anyones position on the matter changed much and wasn't expecting us to solve the issue ourselves here on the forum, but still has been an interesting discussion none the less.

    Its as much cultural as it is just where you've grown up. Being from a suburb in New England is vastly different from growing up in, say, NYC. I have conflicting feelings about carrying, simply because I do agree with your concerns about being trapped with no possible way to defend yourself. However, I don't trust many people to keep their emotions in check, and having a firearm literally at your waist could escalate a small argument to something way larger. There's a lot of fucked up people in this world who will (clearly) abuse their right to a firearm, but trusting everyday citizens to act as law enforcement is a tricky path.

     

    And I enjoy open discussions about these issues so long as people are level headed. I think dialogues, even on a forum, can force people to challenge and defend their own thoughts. Who knows, maybe opinions will change.

×
×
  • Create New...