Rapper T.I. sentenced to one year on gun charges

Status
Not open for further replies.
His original conviction that took away his right to own a gun was a crack conviction. That is illegal. That was a crime. That consumes the time of the police and the justice system of which I'm mandated to pay taxes to to support.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's nonresponsive response to my question of

What crime did he commit which "fueled his drug habit?"
Click to expand...

That crime (possession of a CDS) did NOT fuel his drug addiction, as you had previously said (what you're saying now is something different). Rather, the drug addiction caused the possession, but not the other way around. The possession charge & conviction are a product of his being a drug user and probably an addict. There are NO OTHER CRIMES of which he was convicted which "FUELED" (your word) his drug addiction, such as committing a larceny/robbery to get money to "fuel" or further the drug addiction. There is NO evidence of that; so I'm sorry, but that was an incorrect statement of fact, for the way 98% of the populace uses the word "fueled" in that context. Most would take it to mean a *separate* theft crime used to procure money to buy the drugs. Now if he committed a theft crime, too, then I'm all ears.

Now if you were trying to use the word "fueled" to mean that the possession ITSELF fueled the drug habit, then I disagree with your definition, because it would be absurd to say that a mere possession fuels a drug habit, since all users ALWAYS possess the drugs at the time of intake into their bodies. So that would mean that all possession crimes "fuel" a drug habit, which doesn't make a lot of sense. I would say that perhaps THESE things may all be said in various circumstances to help fuel a drug habit (but not mere possession), including alcohol:

1. Some crimes used to procure money to buy the drugs: Theft (larceny, robbery, embezzlement, etc), and related crimes (burglary, receiving stolen property, unauthorized use of a MV, etc.)
2. Wealth / Excess Disposable income, used to buy the drugs.
3. Mental illness (OCD, Schizophrenia, Depression, Anxiety, etc.) & Poverty/Hopelessness/Disenfranchisement
4. Abundance of a particular drug in your locale.
5. Excess time (no job / no hobbies)
6. Divorce, death of a loved one, etc. (See # 3 above)
 
Last edited:
I don't know why people are defending TI and his 2nd "rights". Would you want to support someone's RKBA who is a CONVICTED felon and glamorizes violence? That's playing into the anti's hands.
 
Would you want to support someone's RKBA who is a CONVICTED felon and glamorizes violence?
Click to expand...

Glamorizing violence is protected by the 1st amendment. It wouldn't affect my opinion on whether I'd support his RKBA or not.
 
He know how to "play the game" and he did it for the simple reason of getting a reduced sentence. The rest of us wouldn't have the media clout to pull it off.
 
I don't know why people are defending TI and his 2nd "rights". Would you want to support someone's RKBA who is a CONVICTED felon and glamorizes violence? That's playing into the anti's hands.
Click to expand...

I can summarize it fairly easily.

Our opponents have a goal. They want to disarm us because they think it is scary that we would choose to arm ourselves. They will follow whatever path gets them to their goal.

You are saying "if someone does _______ they should be disarmed." If they commit a crime of level X, if they glamorize violence. If they take drugs...whatever you will go along with....if they do one of those things you will not only look the other way but actively go along with the anti's goal in that case.

That is a concrete path to victory. All the anti's have to do is broaden the dragnets until everyone has a record. Those convictions don't hurt their goals ... they aren't so stupid as to go along with the idea that felons shouldn't vote, shouldn't be college professors, shouldn't be able to hold public office... there is nothing they want to do that they would EVER go along with saying a felon shouldn't be allowed to do it too, so if the net catches them, well, they never wanted to own a gun anyway.

You, on the other hand, say you want to be armed...yet you have embraced a way for the anti's to disarm you. Talk about, "Playing into the anti's hands."

Do you understand now?

That is just one of several reasons why you should not accept the idea of prior restraint of any right. You should not accept prior restraint of free speech, OR of bearing arms, or even of the right not to self incriminate. A more basic reason is that denying people their human rights creates social dysfunction by enforcing a have/have-not dichotomy which locks in and perpetuates injustice... and, to quote a well known civil rights leader, injustice anywhere is a threat to security everywhere. What he was saying is that by disarming felons, by creating that injustice, you are actually lowering your security.

There is a reason felons commit more crimes... they have lost almost everything you can take and they have no way of getting it back, so there is no point in them staying on the straight and narrow -- because you think it's a good idea to take away their rights forever.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Ed Ames here.

Ethically, it doesn't bother me that T.I. was a felon in possession of guns, it doesn't bother me that he was illegally in posession of machine guns and silencers, it doesn't bother me that he was in possession of crack, and it wouldn't bother me if he had smoked it and stayed up for two days cleaning his kitchen. None of these things harm me, or any of you for that matter. Had he done something illegal with these guns, or while under the influence of crack, we would be discussing a different story. Did he break the law? Of course. Do those laws save lives? I'm sure they do. Does that mean it is ethically-sound? In my mind, absolutely not.

Natural rights come with negative side effects. Period. The Bill of Rights was not meant to help everybody be happy and want to hug each other all day. It was meant to assure that we do the right thing as a modern society, even if that means that extremists scare everybody with riotous speeches, bad guys get their hands on machine guns, you have to shoot a soldier who demands that you let him spend the night, or if a cop has to let a guy go who might have a dead body in his trunk due to lack of evidence, etc.

It may upset a lot of you who support "reasonable restrictions" on any and all of your rights, and you may call me a "libertarian loon" or something, and I don't care, but I do respect your freedom to call me whatever you want. I'm willing to deal with those negative side effects (felons with guns, crackheads, aborted fetuses, having to shoot someone, etc.) for the sake of individual freedom. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to fight for it. I thought we all were, but threads like these remind me that many would sit idly by and throw their brother under the bus if it meant saving their own skin.

When it comes to gun control and the Second Amendment, those folks may have made one grievous error. You've assumed politicians will never try to throw YOU under that same bus.
 
Last edited:
Blued Were you channeling Ayn Rand?


Ames you have to wonder which founding father, or philosopher, or even 20th century great leader, would have tolerated societal controls of private behavior we see today. Voltaire or JSM, Washington, Churchill or Kennedy, they'd probably all be felons.


feedthehogs said:
Justice is not fair
Click to expand...
That's an oxymoron.
 
I have lived my whole life in a place called Clayton County, Georgia.
TI (Clifford Harris) received his high school education in our county.


Our county borders on the line Atlanta and Fulton County which we have seen a lot of undesirables crossing over. Reason is the 1996 Olympics, where a lot government housing were torn down and those residents was given cash vouchers to live elsewhere.


First thing we saw was the shift of our local government, from white to black and the opposition our State and Constitutional Rights to self protection. I'm not a bigot or a racists but I have seen a part of the nation I am not fond of; I have seen it all.

What has happen with TI, is going everyday in our court systems, and every day across the our county. I seen these thugs and gangster wanna bees, escape murder charges by the same dysfunctional unqualified corrupt elected officials who ignored their sworn duties as District Attorneys and Judges.

Do yourself a favor; Google Clayton County Georgia or visit it :

 
I consider myself a law abiding citizen; that is the reason I have the absolute the right to posses a legal firearm. I'm not a convicted a felon and I haven't toyed to such notions.
 
Does everyone know what the definition of a felony is?
Its a crime that can be punished by more than a year in prison.

Rich and Famous + Multiple Felony Charges = 2 days more in jail than the max for a misdimenor.

This doesn't illustrate anything but the two tier legal system in the country. Rich gets a pass, Poor can rot in prison for not being a more productive peon.

T.I. gets caught with actually fully automatics & supressors without paper work, and is a prohibited person and only gets 366 days in prison. Wow that seems so fair.

How about if you or cut down the barrel on a rifle or a shotgun. Probably at least 5 years in prison.

But he's speaking to the Youth!! So what lock him up for 20 years that will show those little gangbangers it doesnt matter how good you "flow or rhyme", break the law you go to jail. I cant belive it, a couple of years ago this was this big blowup over the violent lyrics in rap.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Doesn't his actions matter more than what he says to sell records!?!?

If this is about anything other that his celebrity status or his money, please show me some proof, this isn't about his "speaking out to the community" have any of you watched "T.I.'s Road to Redemtion" he has his own damn reality show trying to scare kids strait. It all seems trite, and contrived.

Urg . . .

And I enjoy his music, cant wait to hear what others will say . . .
 
I have no dog in this fight but, T.I. only gets a pass because putting him behind bars for like 60 years does nothing for the government. Letting him make 10 more albums generates who knows how much money in taxable revenue. Just think about it.

Judge: "Hmmm, T.I. in jail for 60 years making 0 dollars in taxable income, or slap on the wrist and back to big business so we can tax the crap out of the endorsements, advertisement, and movie deals that are sure to follow this new found attention. Which makes more cents(and dollars :rolleyes: !!)

PS- The Federal government would actually lose money imprisoning him for that long. They cant just let him go though, so we get this rediculous 1 year crap. Trust me, the government wants T.I. back on the streets as soo as possible, You and I, not so much.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
 
Last edited:
Bravo, Mr. Ames!!! I like the cut of your jib sailor! Now don't get me wrong - this guy should not be made the poster boy of gun rights by any stretch. But a deep logical analysis appears to reveal that he did nothing more than hurt himself as he has (or at least should have) a right to do (intaking drugs into his body), and then later possess weapons that I believe are protected by the constitution.

Now, I *WOULD* believe that the 34 act (NFA) machine gun registration scheme was/is constitutional, which would make the guy a non-defensible felon.....

BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE 86 BAN/"MORATORIUM" IS A DE FACTO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RKBA, due to its limiting of the right to those who are wealthy, and with each passing year further and further restricts the right to a smaller and smaller class of wealthier and wealthier people.

Would we accept a situation where the right to speech (post freely on the internet for example, criticizing a politician) were allowed ONLY by those with a large amount of wealth / disposable income?

Now make no mistake - you or I would get somewhere between 15 and 50 years for what he did, but that doesn't make the laws about machine guns right or constitutional, for either him or you and I.
 
What ever happened to the guy who's firearm accidentally fired more than one time?

Did he get 10 years or something?
 
How did this not come up yet?

Can anyone identify what the two black guns in the forefront of the picture are?

In particular the black one with what appears to be a red dot sight below the AK varient? Is that some uber AR varient?

And the other black handgunish thing under what appears to be a .357 magnum.

It would be nice to feel that people that break the drug laws don't infringe on others rights.

But the true reality is by commiting crimes to fuel the drug habits, they infringe on my rights.
Click to expand...

And come on. I've know a few individuals that are habitual marijuana users, but have never robbed anyone and are valuable contributing members of society. Hell quite a few of my teachers in HS and Professors in college were rather open about their "former" habits and I dont think they infrindged on the rights of others pursuing their own form of happiness. From my observations marijuana users dont tend to be the robbing, murdering bunch. I dont speak about the dealers, or other drug users such as crack and heroin addicts because that stuff is dangerous and so are those people.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...

But even as the founding fathers wrote these words, they understood that certain people give up these rights when they choose to break the law. We are born with a right to life and liberty, but give these rights up if we decide to go into a Chucky Cheese and shoot the place up. The crime of rape, dissolves your right to liberty, the crime of murder dissolves your right to life in many States.

I don't think you can argue that the Rights, handed down in The Bill of Rights, are non revocable. How about John Walker Lindh, who was fighting with the Taliban...does he get to retain his rights? How about the Columbine shooters, Klebold and Harris, if they had lived, should they have kept their right to bear arms? Should anyone who rapes and murders a child have the same rights as everyone else?

I know these are extreme examples, but I think we fall into a trap when we defend the second amendment to the extreme of foregoing all reason. If we say that everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, no matter what they've done, we will lose credibility with the non shooting public, and I believe rightly so. (The anti's will alway's be against us, so it doesn't matter what they think.)

I think we must be careful not to make blanket statements. If I don't think possession of crack should be a felony resulting in a loss of my rights, then it is a problem with the drug laws that I have... not a problem with the second amendment. To say that everyone has a right to own and use any firearm, regardless of what they have done, or the crimes they've committed, is an unachievable course of action.

For the record, I think all law abiding citizens should be able to own any automatic weapon, supressor, or grenade they want. I just don't think Joe Smith the child killer should have the same rights as me.
 
When a criminal is incarcerated their civil rights are suspended as punishment. When they are rehabilitated and released that debt should be considered paid and their rights should all be restored. Why? Because if someone can't repay their debt there is no incentive to try. What about people who have not been rehabilitated or have not paid that debt? Perhaps if our prisons weren't full of people whose crimes have no victims (any "posession" crime) we would have room and resources to deal with the dangerous people that shouldn't be released just yet.
 
Last edited:
T.I., whose real name is Clifford Harris, originally faced up to 20 years in prison and the effective end of his career but performing community service as part of his plea agreement with prosecutors reduced his sentence.
Click to expand...

He was sentanced a year and a day? From 20 years? What magical community service deed could possibly earn you 19 years off your sentance? Probably rolled over on who he got em' from, then they let em go. Great.
 
robone111...I think you are on to something being missed by others. From my experience whenever charges are dropped outright or lowered significantly through a "plea deal" the accused usually turns informant. Every once in a while a sweetheart plea deal is agreed to if a due process mistake threatens a successful prosecution. Any friend or acquaintance of Clifford Harris (T.I.) should be wary if they engage in criminal activity around him from here on out. These guys will continue committing all manner of crimes together while ratting each other out behind each others back if it doesn't get them in trouble. We may not agree with it but that is how business is done.

And I wish it wasn't true but our "Rights" are not guaranteed. Laws and even Governments change unless citizens keep a vigilant eye peeled. Words scribbled on a piece of paper mean nothing without men willing to take up the fight to preserve them. And I have never seen God's signature on squat guaranteeing anything. It is up to the supporters of the 2nd Amendment to protect it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Anyone familiar with rapper T.I.?
Replies
1
Views
355
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Y
  • Locked
Rapper arrested for machine guns
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
Pigspitter
P
jfh
  • Locked
The AP is starting to get it: we need MGs....
Replies
0
Views
586
jfh
jfh
Y
  • Locked
Machine Gun Case
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
M
  • Locked
Do celebrities really get preferential treatment? Time to find out.
Replies
1
Views
646
Bartholomew Roberts
B
Back
Top