Golden Hound
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 778
I was listening to an interview with Henry Rollins and here is what he had to say on guns:
"Well, I think you should have a gun in your house if you want to defend your family. I don't think any family - you or me - needs an assault weapon. If I was a policeman in your town, and I know I'm going up against people with bullets that can go through my door, through my body and the body of my partner, and I'm not given ceramic-plated body armor that stops an AK-47 round, I've got a real problem with that. And I don't think any citizen...what are you going to shoot with a gun? An intruder? Yourself...on a bad day? Or maybe, a deer. You're not shooting Al Qaeda. So you don't need an AK-47.
A shotgun, a handgun - fantastic. An assault weapon..."
The host says: "But see once you start restricting, they can restrict it all. But throughout history, tyrants have sought to disarm their people."
Henry Rollins: "Yeah, and I don't think you'd ever be able to disarm America, I just think it can be delicately regulated to where even Charlton Heston's ghost would be satisfied. I just don't think Americans need assault weapons."
Full interview here (gun portion begins at 4:50.)
Henry! What are you thinking? Do you even know what you're talking about? Is he making these statements out of pure ignorance or does he genuinely believe the nonsense that he's spouting off? Henry, are you aware that there are plenty of readily available rifle rounds, for the hunting rifles that you say you approve of, that can go through your door, and go through body armor? Are you aware that the AK-47's round is much weaker than most regular deer hunting cartridges? Are you aware that hardly ANY crimes are actually committed with these so-called "assault weapons?"
More troubling though is the fact that he seems to think that we don't "need" "assault weapons" because we're "not fighting Al Qaeda" and he only thinks that home defense from criminals, and hunting, are the only acceptable uses for a weapon. Doesn't he have any concept of guerrilla warfare? How can he call himself a punk rocker and not understand that? This is a guy that has "SEARCH AND DESTROY" tattooed across his back but he really has that much of a defeatist attitude about fighting against oppression? He really doesn't think that Americans might need to fight an organized enemy - foreign OR domestic - and he doesn't think that they should be allowed to have the capability to do so - and yet he continues to present himself as a 100% anti-authority, anti-government, anti-oppression, pro-freedom "punk rocker?"
RIGHT. Henry, you are not a punk rocker with that kind of attitude. Sorry, all your tattoos and your badass persona are nothing but hype if you honestly believe what you do. It seems that for all his talk about fighting the government, fighting "the man," and individual freedom, in the end, he's a gigantic fraud.
I'm pretty disappointed.
"Well, I think you should have a gun in your house if you want to defend your family. I don't think any family - you or me - needs an assault weapon. If I was a policeman in your town, and I know I'm going up against people with bullets that can go through my door, through my body and the body of my partner, and I'm not given ceramic-plated body armor that stops an AK-47 round, I've got a real problem with that. And I don't think any citizen...what are you going to shoot with a gun? An intruder? Yourself...on a bad day? Or maybe, a deer. You're not shooting Al Qaeda. So you don't need an AK-47.
A shotgun, a handgun - fantastic. An assault weapon..."
The host says: "But see once you start restricting, they can restrict it all. But throughout history, tyrants have sought to disarm their people."
Henry Rollins: "Yeah, and I don't think you'd ever be able to disarm America, I just think it can be delicately regulated to where even Charlton Heston's ghost would be satisfied. I just don't think Americans need assault weapons."
Full interview here (gun portion begins at 4:50.)
Henry! What are you thinking? Do you even know what you're talking about? Is he making these statements out of pure ignorance or does he genuinely believe the nonsense that he's spouting off? Henry, are you aware that there are plenty of readily available rifle rounds, for the hunting rifles that you say you approve of, that can go through your door, and go through body armor? Are you aware that the AK-47's round is much weaker than most regular deer hunting cartridges? Are you aware that hardly ANY crimes are actually committed with these so-called "assault weapons?"
More troubling though is the fact that he seems to think that we don't "need" "assault weapons" because we're "not fighting Al Qaeda" and he only thinks that home defense from criminals, and hunting, are the only acceptable uses for a weapon. Doesn't he have any concept of guerrilla warfare? How can he call himself a punk rocker and not understand that? This is a guy that has "SEARCH AND DESTROY" tattooed across his back but he really has that much of a defeatist attitude about fighting against oppression? He really doesn't think that Americans might need to fight an organized enemy - foreign OR domestic - and he doesn't think that they should be allowed to have the capability to do so - and yet he continues to present himself as a 100% anti-authority, anti-government, anti-oppression, pro-freedom "punk rocker?"
RIGHT. Henry, you are not a punk rocker with that kind of attitude. Sorry, all your tattoos and your badass persona are nothing but hype if you honestly believe what you do. It seems that for all his talk about fighting the government, fighting "the man," and individual freedom, in the end, he's a gigantic fraud.
I'm pretty disappointed.
