# UFC bans all gun/weapon/hunting related sponsors from FOX/FX/FUEL events



## Budhisten (Apr 11, 2010)

> Although the UFC’s seven-year deal with Fox is still in its infancy, the effects of the deal are beginning to trickle through the MMA world.
> 
> The MMA Corner has learned from sources close to the situation that the latest impact is that guns and ammunition sponsors, such as The Gun Store and Ammotogo.com, have been banned from events that take place on the Fox family of networks.
> 
> ...


*Source: TheMMACorner.com*


----------



## hellholming (Jun 13, 2009)

Tough break for many fighters.


----------



## MMAnWEED (Aug 8, 2010)

Is DW having it out for Jim Miller or something?


----------



## trimco (Feb 4, 2011)

MMAnWEED said:


> Is DW having it out for Jim Miller or something?


He won the submission bonus last night.

It won't be hard for him to find many (better) sponsors being that he finishes damn near every fight.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Good thing Hughes and Lesnar are retired.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

This would be less surprising to me coming from any other network. I would have thought that Fox and fuel would welcome THE GUN STORE.

oh well... for some reason this story reminds me of this one.


----------



## hellholming (Jun 13, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Good thing Hughes and Lesnar are retired.


Hughes isn't retired. He's just taking a break.


----------



## Thunder1 (Aug 16, 2008)

"Tough break for many fighters."

Tougher break for all American's. Part of the pussification and political correctness movement of America.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Real men kill with their own hands. Or a spear maybe.


----------



## HaVoK (Dec 31, 2006)

Meanwhile, tune into FOX networks next week for one of their many shows depicting guns and violence. It's seems FOX don't care as long as they are profiting. What's new?


----------



## SerJ (Sep 17, 2009)

HaVoK said:


> Meanwhile, tune into FOX networks next week for one of their many shows depicting guns and violence. It's seems FOX don't care as long as they are profiting. What's new?


Exactly! What a stupid rule they have implemented. These guys air Cops on their network. Family Guy depicts an idiot putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger among other things. Come on Fox, this is stupid.


----------



## 2zwudz (Apr 9, 2007)

Looks like I wont be watching any Fox fights. Dana just got sucked up by the big machine. The way I take this is anti guns and hunting. Anti guns....what happened to supporting the troops Dana? People..... if you like your guns and hunting stand up NOW!!!!
Mark


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

This is hypocritical for sure from a network that profits from gun use in their films. People are so brainwashed about guns. Gun violence is mostly represented by a small number of repeat offenders - criminals! Guns are not a bad thing.

And to go after hunting? If a person eats meat of any kind, how can they knock hunting? They just rather someone else does their killing for them?


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

You guys are targeting Fox but Dana made this rule. Im okay with it. Were trying to sell this as a classy legitimate sport, sacrifices have to be made. "Condomdepot.com" ads will probably be next to go.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Nov 3, 2009)

While they're at it, they should break their affiliation with the Marines, too.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> You guys are targeting Fox but Dana made this rule. Im okay with it. Were trying to sell this as a classy legitimate sport, sacrifices have to be made. "Condomdepot.com" ads will probably be next to go.


What's wrong with condoms? Real men should be able to satisfy their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend without having to worry about STDs once they come home from the forest where they slew ten boars with their bare hands.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

khoveraki said:


> You guys are targeting Fox but Dana made this rule. Im okay with it. Were trying to sell this as a classy legitimate sport, sacrifices have to be made. "Condomdepot.com" ads will probably be next to go.


Condom Depot's been banned for a while now, haven't seen them in ages.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

MLD said:


> This is hypocritical for sure from a network that profits from gun use in their films. People are so brainwashed about guns. Gun violence is mostly represented by a small number of repeat offenders - criminals! Guns are not a bad thing.
> 
> And to go after hunting? If a person eats meat of any kind, how can they knock hunting? They just rather someone else does their killing for them?


yea, because all meat comes from hunters, and not giant corporations like Smithfield...

Can't believe all the people up in "arms" (lol I made a funny) over this. It does seem like an odd move, especially for a right-wing network like Fox, but I was expecting some changes with the UFC going to Fox. 

Personally, I'm more disappointed with the football music, and Kenny Florian / Kenny Florian sound-alike announcing.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

RedRocket44 said:


> yea, because all meat comes from hunters, and not giant corporations like Smithfield...
> 
> Can't believe all the people up in "arms" (lol I made a funny) over this. It does seem like an odd move, especially for a right-wing network like Fox, but I was expecting some changes with the UFC going to Fox.
> 
> Personally, I'm more disappointed with the football music, and Kenny Florian / Kenny Florian sound-alike announcing.


I didn't say all meat comes from hunters...I said if you eat meat and don't hunt, you're justing preferring to have someone else do the killing for you. Whether that is a mega meat company, a rancher or a fisherman. Animals die to put the burger patty in your Big Mac, regardless of who does the killing.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Real men kill with their own hands. Or a spear maybe.





Hammerlock2.0 said:


> What's wrong with condoms? Real men should be able to satisfy their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend without having to worry about STDs once they come home from the forest where they slew ten boars with their bare hands.


This guy is taking this matter the right away. :thumbsup:


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

I will not watch Another ufc on fox again.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> I will not watch Another ufc on fox again.


We totally believe you.


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

It's not Fox:



> *UPDATE Part II* – The MMA Corner has learned that the ban will include all UFC events, not just those broadcast on the Fox family of networks.


Unbelievable.:thumbsdown:


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

Time to start pirating UFC events. He's not getting any more of my money.


----------



## Wookie (Jul 20, 2008)

Although I seriously doubt we will get one but what is the UFC's explanation for this? I wouldn't think they would gamble with their 18-35 demographic over this. I won't go as far as to say I won't watch any of their FOX programming over this but WTF are they thinking? I really lost a lot of respect for Dana, Zuffa, and the UFC as an organization over this! F*cking gun hating hippies and combat sports don't mix!


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Are they gonna ban the cage next? Strikes on the ground?


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

Wookie said:


> I really lost a lot of respect for Dana, Zuffa, and the UFC as an organization over this!


Me too. I thought they had balls. 

Turns out, they don't.:dunno:


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

wow

You guys really love your guns.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

I don't have a problem with this because I don't sit in an underground bunker masturbating to videos of guns being fired.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

AmdM said:


> wow
> 
> You guys really love your *Freedom*.


Yep. :thumbsup:


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

NotDylan said:


> Yep. :thumbsup:


Except you don't because what you are stupidly objecting to is someone else having freedom.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

osmium said:


> I don't have a problem with this because I don't sit in an underground bunker masturbating to videos of guns being fired.


Apparently 90% of UFC fans do. lol


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

khoveraki said:


> We totally believe you.


I don't give a s**t what you believe but this pisses me off. One its hypocritical political BS ad two it makes it much harder on the fighters (especially the lower name ones) who dont get paid shit anyway all so baldie can make a buck. 

if I want to watch one of the fights I will find it online.


----------



## Budhisten (Apr 11, 2010)

Incredible how fired up people are over this - does it really mean that much?

It's not like they're wearing advertisements for porn-flicks eiter, and porn is just as legal as guns are...


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Budhisten said:


> Incredible how fired up people are over this - does it really mean that much?
> 
> It's not like they're wearing advertisements for porn-flicks eiter, and porn is just as legal as guns are...


DERP DERP THEY TAKING MY GUNS AWAY BY CHOOSING NOT TO PERSONALLY ENDORSE THE PROLIFERATION OF KILLING MACHINES!!


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

NotDylan said:


> Yep. :thumbsup:


Is that what you call freedom?
I'd rather take a walk in the street knowing that probably no one around me has a gun except cops.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

osmium said:


> Except you don't because what you are stupidly objecting to is someone else having freedom.


And Dana is limiting other people's freedoms. This can go around and around.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

NotDylan said:


> And Dana is limiting other people's freedoms. This can go around and around.


No he isn't. He owns the advertising space allowing them to use it in any way expands the freedoms they have.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

BobbyD said:


> It's not Fox:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thing is: It's the UFC image on the line here,
and having a bunch of gun advertisement gives the wrong idea that only hillbillies and ******** are UFC fans.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Budhisten said:


> Incredible how fired up people are over this - does it really mean that much?
> 
> It's not like they're wearing advertisements for porn-flicks eiter, and porn is just as legal as guns are...


The reason I am upset has nothing to do with guns it has to do with political BS and the fact that the fighters will be losing some of their major sponsors. And it would be one think if it was the top ten higher paid fighter but these ar the up and cunning fighters that arent big names and not going to get much money unless they win fight of the night, sub of the night, or ko of the night.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

osmium said:


> No he isn't. He owns the advertising space allowing them to use it in any way expands the freedoms they have.


Do the fighters not have the freedom to use any sponsor they want? No. Then their "freedoms" are limited. We are getting off topic though, I won't comment about this anymore.

The issue here is bigger than *GUNS*. Don't be so quick to label people.

If Dana is that narrow minded and willing to conform to the P.C. bullcrap, then I choose not to support him with my money any more.


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

AmdM said:


> having a bunch of gun advertisement gives the wrong idea that only hillbillies and ******** are UFC fans.


Pssst, hey, your ignorance is showing. again.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

BobbyD said:


> Pssst, hey, your ignorance is showing. again.


I can totally understand your pov on the matter. :thumbsup:


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

NotDylan said:


> Do the fighters not have the freedom to use any sponsor they want? No. Then their "freedoms" are limited. We are getting off topic though, I won't comment about this anymore.
> 
> The issue here is bigger than *GUNS*. Don't be so quick to label people.
> 
> If Dana is that narrow minded and willing to conform to the P.C. bullcrap, then I choose not to support him with my money any more.


Sorry but places of business have rules and standards and whatever you are allowed to do is extra there is no less freedom because the owner is lending their rights to you. It is kind of like no shirts, no shoes, no service; something that no doubt also ruffles your mullet. 

I own guns, have been hunting multiple times, and go to shooting ranges every few months. Yet I am not having a psychotic reaction like you are because I am not crazy. 

You have no idea what his reasons are. Maybe he just doesn't want his company selling guns and now that the sport has grown and there are more sponsorship opportunities he has decided to ban it. No one went crazy when he got out of the condom selling business. OMG HE IS TRYING TO SPREAD AIDS!!!! IM NEVER PAYING FOR ANOTHER UFC!


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

osmium said:


> No he isn't. He owns the advertising space allowing them to use it in any way expands the freedoms they have.


Except he's also banning fighters from wearing endorsements from gun companies or thanking them as sponsors, so he's not just exercising his own freedom but infringing on his employees'.

But I forget, freedom is only for corporations and copyright owners, employees and the 99% have no soul or rights. 




osmium said:


> Sorry but places of business have rules and standards and whatever you are allowed to do is extra there is no less freedom because the owner is lending their rights to you. It is kind of like no shirts, no shoes, no service; something that no doubt also ruffles your mullet.
> 
> I own guns, have been hunting multiple times, and go to shooting ranges every few months. Yet I am not having a psychotic reaction like you are because I am not crazy.
> 
> You have no idea what his reasons are. Maybe he just doesn't want his company selling guns and now that the sport has grown and there are more sponsorship opportunities he has decided to ban it. No one went crazy when he got out of the condom selling business. OMG HE IS TRYING TO SPREAD AIDS!!!! IM NEVER PAYING FOR ANOTHER UFC!


You think this comes under rules of admission? What if a company decided you needed to be a white caucasian in order to work for it? There's legitimate company policy, and then there's one bald boss pushing his views over the entire company.


----------



## Wookie (Jul 20, 2008)

osmium said:


> DERP DERP THEY TAKING MY GUNS AWAY BY CHOOSING NOT TO PERSONALLY ENDORSE THE PROLIFERATION OF KILLING MACHINES!!


:confused02: I still see car commercials on UFC broadcasts! They are at least if not more killing machines.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Wookie said:


> :confused02: I still see car commercials on UFC broadcasts! They are at least if not more killing machines.


Serious?


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

AmdM said:


> I can totally understand your pov on the matter. :thumbsup:


Pssst, hey, your age is showing. again.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Except he's also banning fighters from wearing endorsements from gun companies or thanking them as sponsors, so he's not just exercising his own freedom but infringing on his employees'.
> 
> But I forget, freedom is only for corporations and copyright owners, employees and the 99% have no soul or rights.


His broadcast not theirs. You can't just do whatever you want with something that doesn't belong to you and scream FREEDOM! and expect everything to be alright.



gazh said:


> Serious?


Didn't you know that cars are made for the purpose of killing things and have no other uses.



Liddellianenko said:


> Free speech is not a company perk.


Actually it is.

*Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't recall Dana White being the US Congress. You comparing this to racial discrimination is beyond retarded; kill yourself.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

osmium said:


> Sorry but places of business have rules and standards and whatever you are allowed to do is extra there is no less freedom because the owner is lending their rights to you. It is kind of like no shirts, no shoes, no service; something that no doubt also ruffles your mullet.
> 
> I own guns, have been hunting multiple times, and go to shooting ranges every few months. Yet I am not having a psychotic reaction like you are because I am not crazy.
> 
> You have no idea what his reasons are. Maybe he just doesn't want his company selling guns and now that the sport has grown and there are more sponsorship opportunities he has decided to ban it. No one went crazy when he got out of the condom selling business. OMG HE IS TRYING TO SPREAD AIDS!!!! IM NEVER PAYING FOR ANOTHER UFC!


A psychotic reaction? I'm not giving him my money, I'm a LOON! 

You seem to be unable to respond to someone without resorting to insults, that says a lot. Not to mention the over-exaggerated, illogical diatribe that fills in the spaces in-between the insults.

I'm going to clean my guns and carve you name in some hollow points, it's been fun!


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

osmium said:


> Didn't you know that cars are made for the purpose of killing things and have no other uses.


I know right? Man i learn so much on MMAForum.com


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

NotDylan said:


> A psychotic reaction? I'm not giving him my money, I'm a LOON!
> 
> You seem to be unable to respond to someone without resorting to insults, that says a lot. Not to mention the over-exaggerated, illogical diatribe that fills in the spaces in-between the insults.
> 
> I'm going to clean my guns and carve you name in some hollow points, it's been fun!


He's not insulting anyone.
You're the one screaming freedom and meanwhile denying the UFC the freedom to run his business the away they feel better.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

osmium said:


> His broadcast not theirs. You can't just do whatever you want with something that doesn't belong to you and scream FREEDOM! and expect everything to be alright.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah ok now racial discrimination is evil. 50 years ago and for centuries before, it was perfectly legit company policy. The only difference is changing opinion. 

But I suppose uneducated morons with no concept of history wouldn't get how the comparison works.

And you give me the law that congress CANNOT impinge on a company/organization's free speech as an example of how the company/org CAN impinge on free speech of employees? Congress can't restrict religious freedom either, does that mean companies can?

It takes a special kind of retard to draw the opposite meaning of a law. Geez, I hope you can KEEP from killing yourself with your own stupidity.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

AmdM said:


> He's not insulting anyone.
> You're the one screaming freedom and meanwhile denying the UFC the freedom to run his business the away they feel better.


I've screamed nothing (other than LOON?), nor denied anyone anything. I have the right to not support the UFC. 

With all due respect, when it comes to issues concerning the US, outside of foreign policy, you should probably keep quiet.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

NotDylan said:


> I've screamed nothing (other than LOON?), nor denied anyone anything. I have the right to not support the UFC.
> *
> With all due respect, when it comes to issues concerning the US, outside of foreign policy, you should probably keep quiet.*


I'm sorry but has it come to this?

:confused03:


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Yeah ok now racial discrimination is evil. 50 years ago and for centuries before, it was perfectly legit company policy. The only difference is changing opinion.
> 
> But I suppose uneducated morons with no concept of history wouldn't get how the comparison works.


You are the clearly uneducated one thinking that denying someone access or rights based on race is equivalent to choosing which products your company endorses. No you are right; it is completely feasible that we will become a communist country eliminating the concept of private property which is the only way to institute what you are suggesting.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

NotDylan said:


> I've screamed nothing (other than LOON?), nor denied anyone anything. I have the right to not support the UFC.
> 
> With all due respect, when it comes to issues concerning the US, outside of foreign policy, you should probably keep quiet.


You have a short memory, are you a fish?
http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/99167-u...ponsors-fox-fx-fuel-events-3.html#post1538733

Besides, this isn't any internal politics matter, so even if you don't like it, you're stuck with having to read my opinion on the matter. Feel free to add me to your ignore list.



gazh said:


> I'm sorry but has it come to this?
> 
> :confused03:


Really shows what type of "person" he is.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

gazh said:


> I'm sorry but has it come to this?
> 
> :confused03:


I'm no more fit to comment on political issues involving citizens of England than you are fit to comment about the same for US citizens. What's good for one country isn't necessarily good for another.



> You have a short memory, are you a fish?
> http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/99167-uf...ml#post1538733


I changed a word in one of your quotes and made it bold so the change would be apparent. This is your definition of me screaming freedom?



> Besides, this isn't any internal politics matter, so even if you don't like it, you're stuck with having to read my opinion on the matter. Feel free to add me to your ignore list.


That's quite alright, I enjoy watching you eat your foot.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

osmium said:


> You are the clearly uneducated one thinking that denying someone access or rights based on race is equivalent to choosing which products your company endorses. No you are right; it is completely feasible that we will become a communist country eliminating the concept of private property which is the only way to institute what you are suggesting.


Yeah ok, employees right to wear a t-shirt are clearly communism and abolishing private property. While we're at it, so are unions, weekends and sub 100 hour work weeks (you probably wouldn't know but that was the norm at one point). 

Clearly in order to institute a company not being able to mandate what logos show on an employee's chest, we need to fire up the gulags and start massacring the capitalist pigs.

And you thought my comparison was extreme.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

NotDylan said:


> With all due respect, when it comes to issues concerning the US, outside of foreign policy, you should probably keep quiet.


So you claim to argue for freedom and free speech in a case where the UFC acted completely legal according to US law, but want to restrict AmdM's freedom to express his opinion at the same time¿ Well... :confused02:


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

AmdM said:


> Really shows what type of "person" he is.


http://www.mmaforum.com/1538743-post39.html

The kind of person who labels anyone who owns a gun as a ******* or hillbilly? Again, what is your frame of reference? Do you live in the US? How would you know what kind of person owns a gun in the US, other than what is portrayed on television?


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> So you claim to argue for freedom and free speech in a case where the UFC acted completely legal according to US law, but want to restrict AmdM's freedom to express his opinion at the same time¿ Well... :confused02:


I'm not asking for restriction, you're reading what you want to read. It was merely a suggestion. And if you want to get technical, this issue is about rights in the US, AmdM's rights are not protected by the US bill of rights.


----------



## Wookie (Jul 20, 2008)

[/QUOTE]


Didn't you know that cars are made for the purpose of killing things and have no other uses.



[/QUOTE]

Obviously guns have no other use than killing things either. Ever hear of target shooting? But I digress, you wouldn't get the irony of having cars kill more people in the US than guns. Of course Dana doesn't either. He makes his living off people going to bars to watch his product, getting drunk off a product he does advertise, and then getting into another product he has no problem advertising, driving to their (or someone else's) death. But heck why don't we ban gun products (because they are so bad) because some people choose to use them improperly leading to death? If you don't see my point by now, it's probably wasted on you anyways!


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

NotDylan said:


> I'm not asking for restriction, you're reading what you want to read. It was merely a suggestion. And if you want to get technical, this issue is about rights in the US, AmdM's rights are not protected by the US bill of rights.


The Portuguese Constitiution protects AmdM's right to free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Portugal

But you probably have no knowledge of that, i would be quietly confident that AndM's knowledge of US culture and customs are good enough for him to have his opinion, sadly i doubt i can say the same for you with regards to Portugal, mate.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

NotDylan said:


> http://www.mmaforum.com/1538743-post39.html
> 
> The kind of person who labels anyone who owns a gun as a ******* or hillbilly? Again, what is your frame of reference? Do you live in the US? How would you know what kind of person owns a gun in the US, other than what is portrayed on television?





NotDylan said:


> I'm not asking for restriction, *you're reading what you want to read.* It was merely a suggestion. And if you want to get technical, this issue is about rights in the US, AmdM's rights are not protected by the US bill of rights.


You point out my post, interpret it in the dumbest away possible and afterwards you accuse someone of "reading what you want to read"... ridiculous.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

I don't care that this has happened, there are millions of businesses out there to sponsor fighters. I don't condone gun legalisation (aside from people with hunting licenses, but they should be quite arduous to get and come along with reference checks and psychological tests) I also don't condone War, so i don't care if we don't have "who would win in a UFC fighter or a trained marine" advertisements anymore. 

You have to respect the marines, obviously, they are giving their lives.. but the cause is ridiculous, they are going and murdering innocent people because some corrupt mother effers in a suit and tie in a giant office say it's okay? 

I don't think that's right, how come they can lock you up for 25 years if you make an orphan out of a child in the states but then they will pay you to go overseas to do it to others?


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I applaud Dana's leadership and I look forward to the day when he BANNS violent video games, alcoholic beverages and RAP MUSIC.

Let's have a respectable sport. we don't want people thinking that UFC fans are a bunch of alcoholic, thug wannabe gamer boys.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

NotDylan said:


> How would you know what kind of person owns a gun in the US, other than what is portrayed on television?


Well, announcements like the following might give him an impression:


NotDylan said:


> I'm going to clean my guns and carve you name in some hollow points, it's been fun!


I'm not sure whether that could also be interpreted as a direct threat at a fellow MMAF member.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

While they're at it, can they ban fighters from thanking fictional characters after fights as well?

That would be swell.


----------



## fightfan76 (Sep 29, 2011)

Thunder1 said:


> "Tough break for many fighters."
> 
> Tougher break for all American's. *Part of the pussification and political correctness movement of America.*


Couldnt have said it better myself.....


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

rygu said:


> While they're at it, can they ban fighters from thanking fictional characters after fights as well?
> 
> That would be swell.


Give it 50 years!


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

gazh said:


> The Portuguese Constitiution protects AmdM's right to free speech.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Portugal
> 
> But you probably have no knowledge of that, i would be quietly confident that AndM's knowledge of US culture and customs are good enough for him to have his opinion, sadly i doubt i can say the same for you with regards to Portugal, mate.


The very post you quoted mentions that this thread is about US issues, rights, freedoms, whatever, that are covered under the US Bill of Rights and Constitution. The Portuguese Constitution is irrelevant. What point are you trying to make?

Yes, AmdM has the right to speak about any issue, no matter how ill-informed he is. I don't wish to limit his right, either.

Though, it you truly believe you know what's best for another Nation's citizens without having actually lived there, you are a very dense person.




Voiceless said:


> Well, announcements like the following might give him an impression:
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether that could also be interpreted as a direct threat at a fellow MMAF member.


All sarcasm seems to be lost on you.
(P.S. I have hollow points with your name on them as well)


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

*I WILL SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE BITCH*






I'm joking obviously, i don't own a gun and never intend to.


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

AmdM said:


> You point out my post, interpret it in the dumbest away possible and afterwards you accuse someone of "reading what you want to read"... ridiculous.


The sad truth: there's no other way to interpret your posts.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

BobbyD said:


> The sad truth: there's no other way to interpret your posts.


At least the dude is trying to intelligently defend his arguments, not that he's being successful at it but at least hes trying. 
You on the other hand are only here with the clear objective of baiting, so as far i am concerned, you can go be yourself to the likes of you.


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

AmdM said:


> At least the dude is trying to intelligently defend his arguments, not that he's being successful at it but at least hes trying.
> You on the other hand are only here with the clear objective of baiting, so as far i am concerned, you can go be yourself to the likes of you.


Maybe it's because of the neg reps you little twat. NotDylan hasn't learned that it's futile to argue with an idiot. I have.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

MRBRESK said:


> I don't care that this has happened, *there are millions of businesses out there to sponsor fighters*.


And that's the important issue here. MMA has become mainstream, so White maybe just wants to make place to attract bigger mainstream sponsors that might not want to sponsor along with weapon related sponsors. I really doubt that those fighters will lack of sponsors, they will just find other sponsors.



NotDylan said:


> All sarcasm seems to be lost on you.
> (P.S. I have hollow points with your name on them as well)


You tell me that all sarcasm seems to be lost in me while missing the sarcasm in my post¿ Now that's ...IRONY :thumbsup:


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

BobbyD said:


> Pssst, hey, your ignorance is showing. again.


Is this what you call "arguing"?



BobbyD said:


> Maybe it's because of the neg reps you little twat. NotDylan hasn't learned that it's futile to argue with an idiot. I have.


I call it baiting and neg rep deserving.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> You tell me that all sarcasm seems to be lost in me while missing the sarcasm in my post¿ Now that's ...IRONY :thumbsup:


Re-reading your post with my sarcasm detector set to max...nope, not getting anything. Try again :thumbsup:


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

NotDylan said:


> Time to start pirating UFC events. He's not getting any more of my money.


I havent paid for one in over a year, and I havent missed but one.
I use all the money I save on PPV's to buy new guns.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

MRBRESK said:


> I don't care that this has happened, there are millions of businesses out there to sponsor fighters. I don't condone gun legalisation (aside from people with hunting licenses, but they should be quite arduous to get and come along with reference checks and psychological tests) I also don't condone War, so i don't care if we don't have "who would win in a UFC fighter or a trained marine" advertisements anymore.
> 
> You have to respect the marines, obviously, they are giving their lives.. but the cause is ridiculous, they are going and murdering innocent people because some corrupt mother effers in a suit and tie in a giant office say it's okay?
> 
> I don't think that's right, how come they can lock you up for 25 years if you make an orphan out of a child in the states but then they will pay you to go overseas to do it to others?


How can you say "you have to respect the marines" in one sentence, and then call them murderers in the next? Which is it? Do you respect them, or do you think they are murderers? 

I have tremendous respect for the armed services, and almost no respect for the politicians who dispatch them to various parts of the globe to do political bidding...but I could never arrive at the point where I generically call the marines murderers. 

I'm a bit surprised how some of the folks outside the US have not learned the lessons of history regarding gun restrictions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many other despots have started their reigns of terror by first restricting the gun rights of others. This isn't my opinion, this is historical fact. It may be that the reason the US hasn't had a despotic regime (yet) is that we've managed to maintain our 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

MLD said:


> How can you say "you have to respect the marines" in one sentence, and then call them murderers in the next? Which is it? Do you respect them, or do you think they are murderers?
> 
> I have tremendous respect for the armed services, and almost no respect for the politicians who dispatch them to various parts of the globe to do political bidding...but I could never arrive at the point where I generically call the marines murderers.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised how some of the folks outside the US have not learned the lessons of history regarding gun restrictions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many other despots have started their reigns of terror by first restricting the gun rights of others. This isn't my opinion, this is historical fact. It may be that the reason the US hasn't had a despotic regime (yet) is that we've managed to maintain our 2nd amendment rights.


Do you disagree that they are killing people that don't deserve to be killed? The people they are killing are the same as them, just from the other side of the globe. Joining their military cos it's a noble thing to do. 

What I am trying to say is that I hate war and I hate the corrupt politicians that condone it and i hate that people profit from war as the majority of the people that are killed do not deserve to be killed.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

MRBRESK said:


> ...I hate war and I hate the corrupt politicians that condone it and i hate that people profit from war...


I agree wholeheartedly with this portion of your post. We'll leave it at that.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

MLD said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with this portion of your post. We'll leave it at that.


If you agree with that part of the post you should probably agree with the rest of it, it's not like my thoughts are very confronting.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

MLD said:


> How can you say "you have to respect the marines" in one sentence, and then call them murderers in the next? Which is it? Do you respect them, or do you think they are murderers?
> 
> I have tremendous respect for the armed services, and almost no respect for the politicians who dispatch them to various parts of the globe to do political bidding...but I could never arrive at the point where I generically call the marines murderers.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised how some of the folks outside the US have not learned the lessons of history regarding gun restrictions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many other despots have started their reigns of terror by first restricting the gun rights of others. This isn't my opinion, this is historical fact. *It may be that the reason the US hasn't had a despotic regime (yet)* is that we've managed to maintain our 2nd amendment rights.


That's most likely because the USA never had a monarchy.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Thunder1 said:


> "Tough break for many fighters."
> 
> Tougher break for all American's. Part of the pussification and political correctness movement of America.


Because a sport that is struggling to break the mold of blood sport bans guns and firearm sponsors.....yeah that is politically correctness. Owning guns for non hunting purposes is beyond pointless and it's just asking for problems.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Life B Ez said:


> Owning guns for non hunting purposes is beyond pointless and it's just asking for problems.


yeah because defending yourself and your family is pointless. :confused05:


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

now that we've gotten rid of those lowly gun and ammo ads.

IT'S TIME TO BANN THE ADVERTISEMENT OF SCUMBAG VIDEO GAMES AND MUSIC THAT PORTRAY GUNS IN A POSITIVE WAY.

why stop at such a half assed position? 

BANN THE ADVERTISEMENT OF MOVIES THAT PORTRAY GUN VIOLENCE.

if you're going to censor then censor. don't be hypocritical pussies about it.


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

i dont think you can lump call of duty etc with actual guns and ammo

reminds me of the torres thing. cant blame his comments for the existance of ****

but guns and ammo do a fuckload more harm than good

and if you need guns to protect your family you might wana think about moving hey


just my opinion


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

Life B Ez said:


> Owning guns for non hunting purposes is beyond pointless and it's just asking for problems.


I don't know about you but I plan on surviving the Zombie apocolypse :thumb02:





> and if you need guns to protect your family you might wana think about moving hey


If only it were that easy. 

And do realize that there are more to firearms than the shooting of others. There is a sporting/recreational use for them. Hell, the Olympics features events with firearms.

Also, criminals having firearms versus law abiding citizens owning firearms are two separate issues.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

double post.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

JWP said:


> *i dont think you can lump call of duty etc with actual guns and ammo*
> 
> reminds me of the torres thing. cant blame his comments for the existance of ****
> 
> ...


why not?? 

Please explain to me why guns are bad yet games that realistically glorify gun violence are not bad.

why would anyone play those games except because they secretly wish to kill people with guns?


----------



## Swiss (Jul 19, 2011)

oldfan said:


> why not??
> 
> Please explain to me why guns are bad yet spending your time playing games that realistically glorify gun violence is not bad.
> 
> why would anyone play those games except because they secretly wish to kill people with guns?


I was reading an article the other day about gun crime in America. It was saying that since Martin Luther King and Kennedy got shot, more than a million people in America have died from guns. More than a million! America has about 100,000 people injured by guns each year including about 10,000 dead. I think the UK has about 15 gun deaths a year and as far as I can make out computer games are pretty much as popular here as they are in the US. Sure the UK is a smaller country and I'm no statistician but wouldn't you say those figures say something, however un-American it might be to admit it?


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

those are very interesting statistics but they do nothing to answer my simple question.

If guns are bad. Why are games realistically glorifying gun violence not bad?

are they good? why?


----------



## Swiss (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm not saying these games are necessarily a good thing but I think the acceptance of gun culture as a normal part of life is a much more dangerous thing. The influence of computer games that glorify guns just doesn't seem to make an impact in countries where the vast majority of the population would never come into contact with a firearm in their lives and gun crime is pretty much restricted to a small criminal element and a few crazies.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

AmdM said:


> That's most likely because the USA never had a monarchy.


.. which is because the US populace always had the means to defend itself and keep a monarchy i.e. generational dictatorship from establishing itself.

And technically the US was under a monarchy until 1776, if with some local colonial autonomy, but they kicked that monarchy's butt back across the pond. Guess what enabled them to do that?

Our guns were never about bringing home another deer when the constitution and it's early amendments were drafted. The founding fathers knew what they were defending against even if this generation has been slowly taught to forget history.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

My point is the censorship of legal companies and products because of one man's sense of propriety.

if you approve of this then it makes perfect sense to carry it further. There are plenty of people who object to those violent games. just like there are a LOT of people with real and valid concerns over violent movies and ads that promote alcohol.

Their opinions are just as legitimate as the anti gun people. In fact you're on the same side. I say let's bann all that stuff at one time. get it over with so we can have a respectable sport.

It's about time to put some damn clothes on those ring girls too. seriously. That's disgraceful and degrading to women. grow up. There's no place for that if we want to be respectable.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

oldfan said:


> My point is the censorship of legal companies and products because of one man's sense of propriety.
> 
> if you approve of this then it makes perfect sense to carry it further. There are plenty of people who object to those violent games. just like there are a LOT of people with real and valid concerns over violent movies and ads that promote alcohol.
> 
> ...


Agreed.:thumbsup:

It's absurd to ban guns but think that violent gun based video games are ok. I know some people might point out the differences. One is *real* guns and the other isnt. But I could just as easily point out that the one involving real guns rarely has anything to do with people shooting people. Lets face it, the vast majority of gun use in the US is NOT shooting dudes. Rather, target practise and hunting. The games, however, are ALL about shooting and killing dudes, even if it is fantasy.

They are both the same thing as far as ethics are concerned. Neither is more ethical than the other.


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

As long as it gets MMA more acceptance in places like NY, I'm all for it.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Soojooko said:


> Agreed.:thumbsup:
> 
> It's absurd to ban guns but think that violent gun based video games are ok. I know some people might point out the differences. One is *real* guns and the other isnt. But I could just as easily point out that the one involving real guns rarely has anything to do with people shooting people. Lets face it, the vast majority of gun use in the US is NOT shooting dudes. Rather, target practise and hunting. The games, however, are ALL about shooting and killing dudes, even if it is fantasy.
> 
> They are both the same thing as far as ethics are concerned. Neither is more ethical than the other.


Exactly. Apparently violence kicks ass as long as it's easily emulatable, gratuitous, or homicidal (GTA anyone?) with age restrictions that can be bypassed by giving another 5 bucks to your high school senior. 

It's only when it can be used to protect your rights or property or pursue legitimate hobbies that it's completely unacceptable.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> .. which is because the US populace always had the means to defend itself and keep a monarchy i.e. generational dictatorship from establishing itself.
> 
> And technically the US was under a monarchy until 1776, if with some local colonial autonomy, but they kicked that monarchy's butt back across the pond. Guess what enabled them to do that?
> 
> Our guns were never about bringing home another deer when the constitution and it's early amendments were drafted. The founding fathers knew what they were defending against even if this generation has been slowly taught to forget history.


Well stated.

I can understand where the viewpoint "the UFC should be able to choose who or what products they associate themselves with" comes from. I really can't argue with that even if I don't like it because it is their perogative. It is sad if it impacts fighter sponsorships. 

What I cannot understand is how uniformed and opposed to legal gun use and ownership so many of these posters appear to be. You are free to choose not to have a gun, fine. But don't infringe on the choice of others to do so. Gun violence statistics are blown out of proportion by repeat offenders. Don't let the jackasses out of jail to repeat their crimes and you'd see a substantial reduction in gun statistics. Furthermore, separate out the suicide statistics from gun violence statistics. People who want to kill themselves will do it with or without guns. 

I choose gun ownership for hunting, recreation, and most of all protection. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away! I'd hate to have my family harmed because I chose not to have a gun available to protect them and myself. I sure hope I never have to defend my 2nd amendment rights from being taken away by a totalitarian government, but instead I'll probably just watch my uniformed fellow citizens vote gun rights away based on the ignorance they've acquired via anti-gun proponents.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Swiss said:


> I'm not saying these games are necessarily a good thing but I think the acceptance of gun culture as a normal part of life is a much more dangerous thing. The influence of computer games that glorify guns just doesn't seem to make an impact in countries where the vast majority of the population would never come into contact with a firearm in their lives and gun crime is pretty much restricted to a small criminal element and a few crazies.


Really? You think the absence of guns will prevent people from acting out on violent tendencies? Do I have an article for you my friend (set in tightly gun controlled UK mind you):

http://neovox.journalismaustralia.com/video_games_spawn_sey.php



> Graphically violent video games may be seen as escapism, but incidences of adolescent murder driven by violent games sparked debate over whether they should be banned.
> 
> The use of explicitly violent video games had been a hot topic, with correlations made between real world and virtual violence as far back as 1999 after the notorious Columbine High School massacre.
> 
> ...


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

this is absured, and yes it makes me debate on wether or not i want to support the UFC.... ive long supported them in the past... but this... yes it upsets me...


and for thos who say less guns means less violence... check this out



> First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.
> 
> In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
> 
> ...



ok after many trys, the link wont work google "florida concealed carry crime rate change" and its the second link i believe. but im sure any of the links will show the same changes.

thats for the poeple who think guns = violence. it doesnt! infact it deters criminals who now have to wonder if that person has a gun.....

and yes, i hunt, i eat what i kill and if someone was to break into my home to cause me harm? they would meet a hot lead death. and i feel great about that.


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

I don't think it has anything to do with them being anti-gun and everything to do with getting MMA in more countries. If they want to be a respected company they need to eliminate sponsors that don't fit the American/foreign standard. You don't see the NFL, NBA, or Nascar having gun sponsors because it's cliche to support guns and it gives ammo to people who are anti-UFC.

The UFC are trying to build a respected brand and move away from their older image. Same reason they got rid of sponsors like condom depot.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MikeHawk said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with them being anti-gun and everything to do with getting MMA in more countries. If they want to be a respected company they need to eliminate sponsors that don't fit the American/foreign standard. You don't see the NFL, NBA, or Nascar having gun sponsors because it's cliche to support guns and it gives ammo to people who are anti-UFC.
> 
> The UFC are trying to build a respected brand and move away from their older image. Same reason they got rid of sponsors like condom depot.


If that's the case then IMO the first they need to do is have a president that can go 3 seconds in public without drop F-bombs, or making misogynous comments while firing his employees for the same thing etc. 

I think that would go a much longer way in making the brand professional than any amount of pandering to European political standards.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

MikeHawk said:


> Same reason they got rid of sponsors like condom depot.


I gotta admit, seeing condom depot on a fighter's arse makes me think that the fighter is a light hearted dude and doesn't mind being the butt of a joke (sorry, the lame pun was intended).


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Gun control isn't the answer. Bad guys will always have guns. Whether good guys have guns to defend themselves and their loved ones is the important issue here.

Imagine how much less crime there would be if every time a bad guy went to rob a bank he knew there was 10 armed good guys inside?

I don't use the words "common sense" much, but in this case they seem to be more than appropriate.


----------



## Swiss (Jul 19, 2011)

Liddellianenko said:


> Really? You think the absence of guns will prevent people from acting out on violent tendencies? Do I have an article for you my friend (set in tightly gun controlled UK mind you):


Not too sure what that article proves or why it disagrees with what I've said. My point is simply that without gun culture or guns, people are a whole lot less likely to be shot. Computer games or not that makes guns a little bit dangerous and not the sort of thing that is particularly smart to promote imo. Like a lot of people that sort of subscribe to that whole American right to bear arms thing you seem to prefer to ignore that and any logic and reason sort of goes out the window on this subject. There are no reputable studies that show a causal relationship between gun crime and computer games and while game usage has increased dramatically over the last few years, gun crime hasn't. The harsh truth is guns are real and computer games aren't. Nobody ever got shot by a copy of Mario Super Kart.

I did point out that there are always a few crazies who are going to be influenced by this sort of thing and I don't think stating one example doesn't really proves anyone's point. I did look into that case though, since you brought it up. Turns out it was just a story that got jumped on and sensationalised by campaigners and the media. In fact, and the police confirmed, that the Manhunt game was actually found to be the victim's and not the murderer's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3538066.stm

Anyway, let's agree to disagree.

Good luck defending against invading monarchies (just joking).


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

First they came for the porn sites, and I didn't speak out because I have a girlfriend. Then they came for the gambling sites, and I didn't speak out because I don't like flushing my money away. Then they came for the condom manufacturers, and I didn't speak out because I always thought having condom depot on your ass made casuals think the sport was gay. Then they came for the gunstores, and I didn't speak out because I don't have a small penis. Then they came for Rick's Tire Barn... and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Seriously though, if you couldn't tell by that, I think people may be overreacting to this a bit.

I've seen pix of the Fertitta brothers and Sheikh Tahnoon* posing with rifles during a boar hunting trip. That's 91% of the UFC's ownership that hunts. So I doubt this is something where the UFC hates guns.

This isn't about gun control or free speech. The UFC owns the cage and the broadcast. They could tell the fighters they can't have any logos at all like most other sports do. C'est la vie.

*I know he's not a direct owner, but he seems to be the decision maker in Flash Entertainment with regards to the UFC.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Swiss said:


> Not too sure what that article proves or why it disagrees with what I've said. My point is simply that without gun culture or guns, people are a whole lot less likely to be shot. Computer games or not that makes guns a little bit dangerous and not the sort of thing that is particularly smart to promote imo. Like a lot of people that sort of subscribe to that whole American right to bear arms thing you seem to prefer to ignore that and any logic and reason sort of goes out the window on this subject. There are no reputable studies that show a causal relationship between gun crime and computer games and while game usage has increased dramatically over the last few years, gun crime hasn't. The harsh truth is guns are real and computer games aren't. Nobody ever got shot by a copy of Mario Super Kart.
> 
> I did point out that there are always a few crazies who are going to be influenced by this sort of thing and I don't think stating one example doesn't really proves anyone's point. I did look into that case though, since you brought it up. Turns out it was just a story that got jumped on and sensationalised by campaigners and the media. In fact, and the police confirmed, that the Manhunt game was actually found to be the victim's and not the murderer's.
> 
> ...


The issue is very much open to debate as most things in research are and you'll find plenty of evidence and reputed studies on both sides. 

What stands up as "reputed" in government and media in the end though is what has more money and interests behind it. Video game violence = money = good. Citizens with guns = threat to govt. authoritarianism = bad.

Who said anything about invading monarchies? Most of these things are home grown. I suppose you'd love to be in North Korea's shoes, bowing before Kim Dong Ill's picture 3 times before eating your delicious cup of rice.

But then Switzerland doesn't need guns, it has a much better defense, the entire world's cache of illegal, plundered, bribed and black money. When every dictator from Hitler to Gaddafi is allowed to stash away his money in your vaults, you don't really need much more leverage do you? The US sadly doesn't have that option, so we have had to resort to more primitive means.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Gun control isn't the answer. Bad guys will always have guns. Whether good guys have guns to defend themselves and their loved ones is the important issue here.
> 
> Imagine how much less crime there would be if every time a bad guy went to rob a bank he knew there was 10 armed good guys inside?
> 
> I don't use the words "common sense" much, but in this case they seem to be more than appropriate.


Very true

If UFC comes to Louisville again I am going to show up wearing my springfield armory shirt with my NRA hat on maybe even have a big old Glock sign to show the camras.


----------



## Swiss (Jul 19, 2011)

Liddellianenko said:


> The issue is very much open to debate as most things in research are and you'll find plenty of evidence and reputed studies on both sides.
> 
> What stands up as "reputed" in government and media in the end though is what has more money and interests behind it. Video game violence = money = good. Citizens with guns = threat to govt. authoritarianism = bad.
> 
> ...


Lol. Kim Jong Il, Hitler and Gaddafi all in one post. Classic.

Seriously dude, I was joking about the monarchies. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

I'm not actually from Switzerland but your take on international security in an interesting one.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Swiss said:


> I'm not actually from Switzerland but your take on international security in an interesting one.


And the irony in this all is that in Switzerland nearly every adult male has a rifle for militia duty and has one of the lowest crime rates.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> And the irony in this all is that in Switzerland nearly every adult male has a rifle for militia duty and has one of the lowest crime rates.


Not because of the guns but because they throw everyone out who's causing trouble.

Or has no job. 

Or no money.

Basically all the guys who would commit crimes.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Not because of the guns but because they throw everyone out who's causing trouble.
> 
> Or has no job.
> 
> ...


Yeah I am sure the fact that everyone has a gun in their house has no enfluence on the decision of wether to atempt to break in and try and rob someone or not.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

americanfighter said:


> Yeah I am sure the fact that everyone has a gun in their house has no enfluence on the decision of wether to atempt to break in and try and rob someone or not.


I am sure of that because the Swiss government prohibits the possession of ammo.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Swiss said:


> Lol. Kim Jong Il, Hitler and Gaddafi all in one post. Classic.
> 
> Seriously dude, I was joking about the monarchies. No need to get your knickers in a twist.
> 
> I'm not actually from Switzerland but your take on international security in an interesting one.


It'd be passing interesting if it weren't true. I'd consider it a bit more than that considering it is true:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/discovered-hitlers-secret-swiss-bank-account-1361935.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...afi-assets-How-dictators-stash-their-cash-101

Not to mention hundreds of run of the mill dictators, banana republics and corrupt politicians. There's a reason Switzerland remained blissfully untouched in both world wars, and that's because the people that profit from these wars need a place to stash the loot. 

This isn't an offbeat theory, it's something most historians agree as a major factor on Hitler not invading Switzerland which was right next door.

But I digress. Back to the article you posted, it doesn't say anything about the police conclusively finding the game to belong to the victim, it says the game was found in the victim's possession while the victim's mother claims it belonged to the perpetrator and was lent to the victim.

What's the truth? While the mother may have a motive to lie and claim damages from game companies, one can't completely ignore her claim of how ridiculously similar the killing is to an exact scene in the game. 

I mean why in the world would you also need a claw hammer if you already had a knife, a far superior weapon, if not to emulate that scene? Why bludgeon and stab the poor kid over 50 times if the motive was simple *robbery* as the police claim? Are you kidding me?

But still I digress. Back to the thread, the point I'm making is that to outlaw something for your employees that is explicitly defended by the constitution of the country (and not just general laws of the day, copyright laws, case history etc. all of which are in principle subordinate to that constitution) smacks of arrogance and heavy-handedness. Especially when we have highlighted the hypocrisy of such a change (with respect to videogame sponsorships) and slippery slopes. 

You may not agree with our point of view, but all I'm trying to tell you is why a lot of the uproar here is legit and explaining the reasons for it, so you guys don't automatically make a snide comment about ******* america with it's guns and go back to blissful ignorance without regard for history or liberty.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Strict gun control isn't an option for this country because of the size of our country and the fact that we border two countries filled with guns. It is clearly a proven fact that gun control is beneficial to society in a country where it is possible like Japan or the UK. 

Private gun ownership doesn't prevent attempts and almost never actually stops home invasions. That is a nonsense fantasy of gun nuts where they kill someone trying to hurt their family; it isn't based in reality. It is far more likely that your gun causes an innocent person to die than someone who is attacking you.

Fully automatic assault weapons and other instruments of war(explosives etc) shouldn't be owned by any private citizen. The government could setup a licensing system for ranges for people who want to try firing assault weapons while preventing idiots from having them in a residential area.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Gun control isn't the answer. Bad guys will always have guns. Whether good guys have guns to defend themselves and their loved ones is the important issue here.
> 
> *Imagine how much less crime there would be if every time a bad guy went to rob a bank he knew there was 10 armed good guys inside?*
> 
> I don't use the words "common sense" much, but in this case they seem to be more than appropriate.


You mean, like in those good old cowboy movies?
You just remind me i have Silverado on my DVR! :hug:


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

The UFC isnt trying to ban guns.


----------



## Sousa (Jun 16, 2007)

Yep not surprised that the UFC wants to take more money away from fighters...don't get it


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

osmium said:


> Strict gun control isn't an option for this country because of the size of our country and the fact that we border two countries filled with guns. It is clearly a proven fact that gun control is beneficial to society in a country where it is possible like Japan or the UK.
> 
> *Private gun ownership doesn't prevent attempts and almost never actually stops home invasions. That is a nonsense fantasy of gun nuts where they kill someone trying to hurt their family; it isn't based in reality. It is far more likely that your gun causes an innocent person to die than someone who is attacking you.*
> 
> Fully automatic assault weapons and other instruments of war(explosives etc) shouldn't be owned by any private citizen. The government could setup a licensing system for ranges for people who want to try firing assault weapons while preventing idiots from having them in a residential area.


Says you. This is complete uneducated opinion. One example:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/4702890/detail.html

Here is a blog with dozens such links, all to reputed news sites.

http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Says you. This is complete uneducated opinion. One example:
> 
> http://www.wlwt.com/news/4702890/detail.html
> 
> ...


OH NO A COUPLE DOZEN!

http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp

"From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings." 

Silly facts; that doesn't include all of the idiots who shoot people on purpose who haven't done anything to warrant death because they are paranoid.

I'm pretty sure home invasions happen more than a couple dozen times a year also. So good job not disproving my factual statement.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

osmium said:


> OH NO A COUPLE DOZEN!
> 
> http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp
> 
> ...


Oh no a couple thousand! Here's a couple million for you:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html



> There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.


And the reason we have surveys for that sort of thing is that the govt. doesn't aggregate statistics on gun self-defense in their crime reports.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> I am sure of that because the Swiss government prohibits the possession of ammo.


There are certain moments when the internet term 'OWNED' actually applies, i believe this might be one of those instances.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> I am sure of that because the Swiss government prohibits the possession of ammo.[/QUOT


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> I am sure of that because the Swiss government prohibits the possession of ammo.





gazh said:


> There are certain moments when the internet term 'OWNED' actually applies, i believe this might be one of those instances.


Only in the last four years. The rest of it's history it was quite free. 4 years is too short to judge the effects of such a drastic change.


----------



## samhain (Jan 8, 2007)

Sousa said:


> Yep not surprised that the UFC wants to take more money away from fighters...don't get it


I'm curious, do you think there are certain sponsors that it would be appropriate for the UFC to not allow?


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

A very simple analogy, compare guns to nuclear weapons.
The sad thing is now many countries want nuclear weapons as a means of 'defending themselves' from other countries with nuclear weapons. It's a cycle. The perfect solution isn't for everyone to have nuclear weapons (or for certain countries to take a police role in this regard.) No. The perfect solution is for no one to have weapons. It's the same regard for guns.

I've honestly heard the arguments against gun-control and none of them ever convince me. They all seem like loose based claims around freedom or theoretical situations where owning a gun might be beneficial. Additionally I find a lot of evidence supporting civilian ownership of guns to be anecdotal, out of context or manipulated to create a sub verse point.


However that is not the subject here. Ignore my rant.

The UFC banned these sponsors in order to have a more 'legitimate' sense of branding and it helps to slip the sport in to mainstream acceptance. No if's no buts. That is exactly what it is. It's not a conspiracy against guns, it's not to limit sponsorship of some fighters. I mean really- name me a fighter that heavily relies on weapon sponsorship so badly- that he will now be unable to receive sponsorship from more traditional sponsors?

I guess you could argue that it is an impeach of freedom via limitation. However- I do not know this for a fact. But I would be HIGHLY surprised if I was wrong. I do not know of any other major sport or team that is sponsored by a weapon manufacturer. The reason being is they have a horrible negative image connotation. The UFC is trying to move away from the 'human cock-fighting' reputation it has with some people. And no please don't draw parallels to banning condoms or anything else. It's apples and oranges. I mean... really?

Personally I support the move as I would like to see the UFC become more mainstream. Additionally as I loathe weapon manufacturers and anything to do with them. They directly allow people to kill each other in record numbers. You could make the argument that people/idiots kill people and not guns- but at the end of the day a gun is designed for the purpose of shooting things. Yeah good front on humanity that one.

This is just my opinion. Instead of neg-repping me PM me, and lets have a debate. Or in fact, neg-rep me. I couldn't care less about my green or red bar just make sure you PM me - I would find a debate on gun-control insightful.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

FredFish1 said:


> A very simple analogy, compare guns to nuclear weapons.
> The sad thing is now many countries want nuclear weapons as a means of 'defending themselves' from other countries with nuclear weapons. It's a cycle. The perfect solution isn't for everyone to have nuclear weapons (or for certain countries to take a police role in this regard.) No. The perfect solution is for no one to have weapons. It's the same regard for guns.
> 
> I've honestly heard the arguments against gun-control and none of them ever convince me. They all seem like loose based claims around freedom or theoretical situations where owning a gun might be beneficial. Additionally I find a lot of evidence supporting civilian ownership of guns to be anecdotal, out of context or manipulated to create a sub verse point.
> ...


I did gave you a rep, a green one for that good post.
But please, if anyone wants to debate with this guy, let it be in public using this thread.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

FredFish1 said:


> A very simple analogy, compare guns to nuclear weapons.
> The sad thing is now many countries want nuclear weapons as a means of 'defending themselves' from other countries with nuclear weapons. It's a cycle. The perfect solution isn't for everyone to have nuclear weapons (or for certain countries to take a police role in this regard.) No. The perfect solution is for no one to have weapons. It's the same regard for guns.
> 
> I've honestly heard the arguments against gun-control and none of them ever convince me. They all seem like loose based claims around freedom or theoretical situations where owning a gun might be beneficial. Additionally I find a lot of evidence supporting civilian ownership of guns to be anecdotal, out of context or manipulated to create a sub verse point.


In utopia or heaven, yes. Sadly, we live in a bad world. There is never any way to guarantee that no one has weapons. You toss away your weapons in the vain hope that everyone else has, and guess what? The one person that cheated comes in and tells everyone else to bend over. Criminals, rogues and dictators don't play by the rules nice people like you do. There are countless instances in history where people thought exactly what you thought, and for every such instance a barbarian or invading horde walked right through their pristine fields to **** their women and conveniently fill their bellies with their grain. And that's if they were lucky and not enslaved for generations.

Even as terrible as nuclear weapons are, the fact remains that no two nuclear powers have ever gone to war. The US and USSR stared at each other for half a century, but they never attacked. Even India and Pakistan, who had 3 wars in as many decades haven't had a single full war since they've got nuclear weapons. 

I'm not endorsing them... their proliferation leads to higher and higher risks of a loon actually using them. But it's hard to argue the point they raise about deterrence.

If the day ever comes when earth becomes some sort of utopia and everyone abandons selfishness, greed, hatred and treats their neighbor as they would treat themselves, weapons have no use. Until then, you'd be a bit silly to be the first to throw them in the fire while the guy standing in front of you holds his hands smugly behind his back while telling you stories of loving non-violence and peace.

No offense of course, you've always struck me as a particularly deep and respectful poster, but on this front I must disagree.


----------



## 2zwudz (Apr 9, 2007)

The more I think about this the more pissed off I get. Why in hell would Dana take a stupid chance like this when he has brought the sport this far. How quickly he has forgotten the infant days of the UFC when there was no way he would have done something like this. Now he has power/money to walk over the top of these people and he is not going to hesitate to do so. I think this is a MAJOR mistake and it will hurt the sport. I like the sport but I like my RIGHTS more!!!!!!!


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

2zwudz said:


> The more I think about this the more pissed off I get. Why in hell would Dana take a stupid chance like this when he has brought the sport this far. How quickly he has forgotten the infant days of the UFC when there was no way he would have done something like this. Now he has power/money to walk over the top of these people and he is not going to hesitate to do so. I think this is a MAJOR mistake and it will hurt the sport. *I like the sport but I like my RIGHTS more!!!!!!!*


Do you want to imply that White is affecting your rights¿ Are you a UFC fighter or a sponsor from the weapons industry¿ White hasn't become a congressman and proposed a law to ban guns in the US. They just chose to have a different kind of sponsorship as the sport has become mainstream. The UFC wants to have a certain image, that includes fighters are not allowed to wear speedos only anymore and no weapons industry sponsorship. That's all. Is White a hypocrite in his behavior (F-bombs etc.)¿ Yes, probably he is. But he is a businessman, not a priest. So time to relax, there is no need to cry to the heavens that the UFC is restricting you (not personally but generally) of your constitutional rights.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

americanfighter said:


> Hammerlock2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure of that because the Swiss government prohibits the possession of ammo.[/QUOT
> ...


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

americanfighter said:


> WTF happened to my post?


You're restricted of your right of free speech. See what the UFC does¿

Just kidding :thumb02:


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

americanfighter said:


> WTF happened to my post?
> 
> Anyway i hate to get in a gun control argument over this but back to the main topic i think it is horrible that the UFC doing this political BS at the expense of the fighters because it is not like keeping the gun sponsors would hurt dana's wallet.


The issue is that it hurts the legitimacy of the UFC in the eyes of many. As I said earlier, there are millions of companies out there to sponsor fighters. 

I also don't see how the UFC not allowing Weapon and Ammunition companies to sponsor their fighters affects anyone on this board.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

MRBRESK said:


> The issue is that it hurts the legitimacy of the UFC in the eyes of many. As I said earlier, there are millions of companies out there to sponsor fighters.
> 
> *I also don't see how the UFC not allowing Weapon and Ammunition companies to sponsor their fighters affects anyone on this board*.



some of us feel affected because we patronize those companies and use those products.

We also feel a little betrayed because we are the target audience the UFC has catered to and chased after until now.

We brought the UFC to this dance and bought their purty dress with our Money and now they are embarrassed to be seen with us.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

oldfan said:


> some of us feel affected because we patronize those companies and use those products.
> 
> We also feel a little betrayed because we are the target audience the UFC has catered to and chased after until now.
> 
> We brought the UFC to this dance and bought their purty dress with our Money and now they are embarrassed to be seen with us.


That reminds me of the typical scenario of the teen boy who goes out with the ugly girl because he knows she "puts out",
but quickly drops her when a better fish gets caught in his web. 

Not saying you're an ugly girl.


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

This thread turned out like I thought it would. Foreigners are funny and I'm glad I live where I do:laugh:


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

RustyRenegade said:


> Foreigners are funny


They might be, but "foreigners" own a big chunk of your precious United States.



> I'm glad I live where I do:laugh:


So are the rest of us. :thumb02:


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

rygu said:


> They might be, but "foreigners" own a big chunk of your precious United States.
> 
> 
> 
> So are the rest of us. :thumb02:


I couldn't care less about a foreigners ignorant opinion tbh. It causes me about as much discomfort as a cloudy day.

I suspect you own next to nothing. I would guess you own neither your home or your mode of transportation. You take the bus to work and live in government housing amiright?

Roll around in the filth that is your home country and talk nonsense about the greatest country in the world:laugh: If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad

Americans never bother themselves with the goings on of another nation because they don't care. We're number one and nothing outside of a World War is going to change that. People are jealous and hateful toward America because their country is beneath it...just like Portugal.

Now lick my dogs butt, where the poop comes out, you stupid wanker.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

RustyRenegade said:


> I couldn't care less about a foreigners ignorant opinion tbh. It causes me about as much discomfort as a cloudy day.
> 
> I suspect you own next to nothing. I would guess you own neither your home or your mode of transportation. You take the bus to work and live in government housing amiright?
> 
> ...


Sorry man, people like you give good Americans a bad name. I do have a mortgage, and own my car outright. Nice try though. Also, Canada is a more respected and cleaner country worldwide...do a poll. Common knowledge right there Cletus. Keep thinking your country is untouchable... the Romans thought that way as well.

As for your last sentence...stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

rygu said:


> Sorry man, people like you give good Americans a bad name. I do have a mortgage, and own my car outright. Nice try though. Also, Canada is a more respected and cleaner country worldwide...do a poll. Common knowledge right there Cletus. Keep thinking your country is untouchable... the Romans thought that way as well.
> 
> As for your last sentence...stop embarrassing yourself.


Canada is a doormat you moron:laugh: You think they'd be anything if they weren't Americas hat? Do they even have an army?

Congratulations on the mortgage as well. You must be living the dream paying %30 or %40 of your wages to borrow a home from a bank. You've finally worked your way up to being a slave

As far as my country, they are untouchable to be honest. Unlike the poor folk in Lisbon, our citizens have the right to bear arms. In fact, our citizens could arm half the worlds armies with our weaponry if we wanted to.

Look at our Christmas presents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...buy-record-numbers-of-guns-for-Christmas.html

You'll be begging for America to intervene if your country is ever attacked by an army equipped with something other than pitch forks or serving spoons.


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

^ Hope you're joking. The only people that like America that much are drunk ********. I'm gonna guess you're at least one of those two things.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Relax guys, stay on topic and leave the insults/bickering out of the thread. If you can't discus things in a civil way, then leave the thread.


----------



## hitmachine44 (Oct 15, 2006)

The bottom line is: The UFC can run it's business anyway it sees fit. If you're that upset by how they run THEIR business, start your own fight league and then you can allow ANY sponsor you want.:thumbsup:


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

rygu said:


> They might be, but "foreigners" own a big chunk of your precious United States.
> 
> 
> 
> So are the rest of us. :thumb02:



Before I write my thoughts on the subject I'd like to take this moment to say that is actually a misconception. As a matter of debt, America owes far more money to individual American citizens than anyone else. In fact as a matter of debt America's greatest foreign debt belongs to china as a great margin above all foreign entities at 12% (compared to American citizens at 44%). But to take into consideration other nations debt.. Then American relatively owns itself more than almost any 1st world nation.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

rygu said:


> They might be, but "foreigners" own a big chunk of your precious United States.
> 
> 
> 
> So are the rest of us. :thumb02:





RustyRenegade said:


> Canada is a doormat you moron:laugh: You think they'd be anything if they weren't Americas hat? Do they even have an army?
> 
> Congratulations on the mortgage as well. You must be living the dream paying %30 or %40 of your wages to borrow a home from a bank. You've finally worked your way up to being a slave
> 
> ...





xeberus said:


> Before I write my thoughts on the subject I'd like to take this moment to say that is actually a misconception. As a matter of debt, America owes far more money to individual American citizens than anyone else. In fact as a matter of debt America's greatest foreign debt belongs to china as a great margin above all foreign entities at 12% (compared to American citizens at 44%). But to take into consideration other nations debt.. Then American relatively owns itself more than almost any 1st world nation.







GoodNight Johnboy


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

RustyRenegade said:


> Canada is a doormat you moron:laugh: You think they'd be anything if they weren't Americas hat? Do they even have an army?
> 
> Congratulations on the mortgage as well. You must be living the dream paying %30 or %40 of your wages to borrow a home from a bank. You've finally worked your way up to being a slave
> 
> ...





rygu said:


> *stop embarrassing yourself.*







xeberus said:


> Before I write my thoughts on the subject I'd like to take this moment to say that is actually a misconception. As a matter of debt, America owes far more money to individual American citizens than anyone else. In fact as a matter of debt America's greatest foreign debt belongs to china as a great margin above all foreign entities at 12% (compared to American citizens at 44%). But to take into consideration other nations debt.. Then American relatively owns itself more than almost any 1st world nation.


No, you are right, I did stretch the facts a little. However, isn't the Federal Reserve (who prints US currency, etc.) made up of mostly foreign investors/bankers/other extremely rich people?


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

rygu said:


> No, you are right, I did stretch the facts a little. However, isn't the Federal Reserve (who prints US currency, etc.) made up of mostly foreign investors/bankers/other extremely rich people?


Well, damn... The federal reserve.. It's complicated. It's a private entity.. Within the American government. Uhh it's owned by a number of banks including state banks, but it's answerable to congress but the real power rests with the board of governers in Washington.

To be honest it's kind of a clusterfuck and its beyond my expertise to adequately answer your question.

Is it in an awkward place? Yes. Does the FED answer to anyone not in itself.. Not really. 

Been drinking a bit, I could produce a better answer in time.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

Just have to say it. 

Why promote guns and hunting when you can kick children for fun!

Smooth move exlax, I mean Fox... I realize they are trying to grab a different markets attention but they are going to lose their current one a lot faster then they are going to gain the new one if they keep this stuff up.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

No more posts about US vs. other countries, that's not what this thread is about and it is getting out of hand.

I warned the thread once already, one more time about this nonsense and the thread gets closed and that person gets infracted. I deleted the last 4-5 posts.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

M.C said:


> No more posts about US vs. other countries, that's not what this thread is about and it is getting out of hand.
> 
> I warned the thread once already, one more time about this nonsense and the thread gets closed and that person gets infracted. I deleted the last 4-5 posts.


I get that, but why did you delete my responce to Xeb, there was nothing wrong with it was there? 

Edit: Oh n/m, off-topic.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

M.C said:


> No more posts about US vs. other countries, that's not what this thread is about and it is getting out of hand.
> 
> I warned the thread once already, one more time about this nonsense and the thread gets closed and that person gets infracted. I deleted the last 4-5 posts.


Nothing wrong with that, but it's awkward to do it and at the same time leave Rusty's posts on.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I left all the posts before my first warning, and deleted all the ones that were on this page after it, as they were the main ones after my warning that kept the off-topic and disruptive posts going.

Discussions like this are best to be completely ignored, or a thread made in the debate section on the front page.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Ted and I are just weird like that.






Wang dang sweet poontang




More American goodness


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

good.....maybe they can ban fighters from playing lame country music as entrance themes too


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Sekou said:


> good.....maybe they can ban fighters from playing lame country music as entrance themes too


:thumbsup:


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

> I still see car commercials on UFC broadcasts! They are at least if not more killing machines.





> Serious?





> *neg repped*: I hope your mom gets her ass shot! Maybe you'll think differently then!


Great pro-gun advert.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

gazh said:


> Great pro-gun advert.


Those hillbillies are just too good making idiots out of themselves. 
One doesn't even need to bother.


----------

