Dec 21 - NRA: "The Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy With A Gun"

most viewed right now
 149
Video inside US DEPARMENT OF DEFENSE RELEASES NAVY JET ENCOUNTER WITH UFO VIDEO :mjd..
29 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 83
Steph Kegels
100 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 48
Nicki Minaj speaks up against White rappers taking over the charts
269 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 45
NBA New NBA logo? 👑🔥🔥🔥
74 comments
@sports

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 5 years ago '11        #81
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225 OP
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 123456 said:
Here's what I'm not understanding...

1. People will get guns illegally if they have to just like they get drugs when they want.

2. If there are stricter gun laws, how much stricter can they be? If I have the best background record and I own a gun, then my brother can take my gun and go on a shooting spree just like Lanza got his mother's guns. How do gun laws stop that?

3. Why are murder rates so bad here in Chicago when gun laws are real strict? You literally can't walk outside your door with a loaded gun anywhere in the state but we still have one of the largest murder rates. I guarantee 90% of the murders that involved a gun were with illegal guns.

I think if there were cops in every school, it wouldn't be a bad thing. If a person is willing to die shooting up a school, he'll do it no matter what. But if he's not willing to die, having cops there will prevent him from trying.

If there was any possible way to get all guns off the street and make it impossible for them to get into the united states, then fine that would probably work. But that's just not possible...guns will make it in here no matter what.
1. Yes people can get guns illegally, that doesn't mean we should make it easy for people to get these guns legally. The shooter in Colorado bought all his guns on internet legally and had it mailed to his house. Because it was on the internet, the stockpile of ammo he bought didn't raise a flag. Yes, he could have found illegal arms but having to shop around for an illegal arms dealer is a deterrent. There's also an increased chance he can get caught. No chance when people are ordering off the internet.

2. There are not strict gun laws. There are strict gun laws on licensed gun sellers. Unlicensed gun sellers don't have to follow the background check and stuff and that's where 40% of guns sells take place. Anybody can go to a gun show or on the internet and purchase a gun with ease without having to submit a background check.

3. A lot of "Illegal guns" are obtained legally and then sold to criminals. The underground market has guys with clean records that buy guns from suburban stores and then resell them to gangs. They're called straw purchasers. Here's an article about how the gangs in Chicago get their guns.

 5 years ago '11        #82
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225 OP
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 KFrizzle said:
why ban something that isn't a problem? like rifles??

wasn't comparing pot/booze, cars, guns; but stating all must be handled with responsibility for safety...


So we should just say, no more defending your home and family since others can't handle it... again personal responsibility....


[pic - click to view]



Stop blaming guns... Its' our culture...


[pic - click to view]

Did you just use Switzerland as an example?

Switzerland uses a militia system. They require every male to undergo specialized training for their militia. That's why they have so many guns. They are trained officers. Not just ordinary citizens. Even though they are trained, even the govt had enough sense to ban live ammunition from homes. Culture yourself and learn something about the world before you go posting propaganda aimed to misled the uninformed like you.


 5 years ago '04        #83
psylence2k 58 heat pts58
space
space
space
$12,815 | Props total: 1847 1847
 aclockworkred71 said:
With ever response you use a fallacy, you are comparing separate countries as if they share the same culture, mass murder is part of the US, it isn't exclusive to arms.
I'm aware that culturally the U.S. is different from these countries, there's a few differences but there's also alot of similarities, my thing is why aren't we at least TRYING some REAL comprehensive and thorough gun control, we've tried this whole "more guns" and "easier access" approach for years, and everyone admits that we have a gun problem. 12,000 deaths a year, 3,000 of those chidren, 8 kids die a day, and everyone has become normalized to this, but the second we try to enact "real" gun control everyone freaks out and we end up enacting faulty laws that never show us whether it would really work. We've tried the "more guns" approach, my question is WHY dont we at least TRY something different ??? It seems that gun advocates dont even want to try something else because they honestly love their guns that much.

I do agree that there are other cultural factors that contribute to it, but gun advocates need to admit that easy accessibility of guns is a huge part of it as well. Gun advocates never want to talk about mental health, violent media, poverty or anything else until people and trying to take away their guns so they need a scapegoat , then they "pretend" to care about the other shyt.

The NRA exposes this perspective constantly, they talk about how accessibility of guns to the mentally ill is the problem but this is the SAME group that pushed legislation that would allow those diagnosed as mentally ill to be able to re-apply for a gun license right after Virginia Tech. This is the same group yesterday that wanted a registry to be kept on all the mentally ill in this country BUT they dont want a registry of gun owners. So basically we want to know who's crazy but we dont want to know if this crazy person has a gun or not. Yeah that makes alot of sense.

IMO weeding out "potential" murderers , taking away violent media from the people, and eradicating poverty would also help the crime/homicide rate as well as gun control BUT I think everyone would admit that the previous three are MUCH more difficult to tackle than gun control on many levels, and I still put gun control above the rest as the most tangible and effective way to DIRECTLY reduce some of this.

I think honestly that we are a nation too obsessed with guns and violence that most of us dont even want to be sensible to even entertain real gun control. This country was founded on guns and violence. We used guns to steal this land from the Native Americans, we used guns to steal labor from Africa, and we used guns (and other advanced weaponry) to maintain our status in the world, shyt we even sent guns to other countries that ended up being torn apart by them. "Oh you're having a political struggle ? here's some guns, figure it out". We LOVE watching shyt blow up and mothaphuckaz be shot up in movies, and in every movie you have the script showing a good guy taking a bad guy down with a gun and it's subconsciously conditioned into our minds " Yes, we need more guns ! , so I can Rambo any muthaphucka that tries me ! " or " Yo, I need that a.ssault rifle like Stallone in case these muthaphuckaz come into my yard ".

You dont think there's idiots like these with access to guns ?? What about Trayvon Martin ?? What about those kids k!lled at the gas station over their music ?? What about that guy in the pizza shop ?? We have a problem with a trigger happy culture but people need to be sensible and realize giving easier access and less regulation to this trigger happy culture is NOT the answer. Wanting teachers to be strapped and ready to shoot it out with a criminals and their AR-15 is NOT the answer. Thinking it's feasible to put armed security every 100ft in EVERY public place is NOT the answer.


 SmokeOne said:
I agree the language is confusing but i believe the founding fathers intended to give individual gun rights to citizens, but that power was originally given from the states and not by the federal government. Thats why the original Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 specifically stated "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." Its a state given right. Several states have similar things written in their constitutions. Obviously, the Bill of Rights came after the States had already given us the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment I believe still reflects that right from the states.
The founding fathers intended it back then because of the infrastructure of the nation. The smaller population and it's limited resources required for every man to be apart of a local "militia". The reason why you were allowed to keep guns individually at your residence as indicated in 1776 was because you had redcoats kicking in your front door. You were at war on your own soil. We didn't have a police force or the strongest military in the world back then. So every male was required to be both police and military because our well being individually and as a country directly and direly relied upon it. People need to stop acting like it's a similar situation today. Back then taking away guns from the people would be like taking our police off the streets and getting rid of our military. THAT's the sensible comparison, not wanting to make sure any gung ho idiot can buy a gun quicker than he can buy a dog.

That's why the first term in that amendment is " a well-regulated militia". There was a PURPOSE for that, the founding fathers wrote that amendment according to those times with no remote idea of how crazy it would be now. "Well-regulated militia" clearly indicates the PURPOSE of bearing arms back then, only reason it states individuals' rights along side it is because all regular male citizens back then were required to be apart of this local militia whether they liked it or not. The survival and well-being of our country depended on it since we had no local police forces or real military. Like I said before this is how the purpose of the 2nd amendment was actually interpreted and understood for the majority of American History (up until 2006) until the NRA and their major political influence brain washed the people into thinking the founding fathers with their crystal ball wanted every dangerous idiot in modern day America to be able to make easy unregulated firearm purchase at their local fruit stand and hold down their block with an AR-15 in a nation full of local police and a supreme military.


Last edited by psylence2k; 12-22-2012 at 10:31 AM..
 5 years ago '06        #84
datVAkid 37 heat pts37
space
avatar space
space
$13,466 | Props total: 2651 2651
I already thought every school already had arm guards... ur schools ain't have police officers in it?... had em since middle and never thought anything of it
 5 years ago '04        #85
biscuit 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$19,298 | Props total: 3910 3910
Just a question:

Does anyone here think that if guns were banned or illegal that it would have stopped this sick and mentally derranged person from carrying out this un-thinkable crime?

Just a question...

Furthermore, does anyone here think that just because many drugs are banned or illegal that people don't use them anymore?

When prohibition came into effect, did people just stop drinking?

Like I said, Mr. LaPierre has some valid points. I think if we can get past some of the knee jerk reactions here and start addressing other elements that we look past ie. Glorified violence on movies and TV and other media, we can address some of the deeper issues that have degenerated society as a whole.
 5 years ago '06        #86
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Kadillac87 said:
Did you just use Switzerland as an example?

Switzerland uses a militia system. They require every male to undergo specialized training for their militia. That's why they have so many guns. They are trained officers. Not just ordinary citizens. Even though they are trained, even the govt had enough sense to ban live ammunition from homes. Culture yourself and learn something about the world before you go posting propaganda aimed to misled the uninformed like you.


 5 years ago '04        #87
Cap Peeler 7 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$12,859 | Props total: 0 0
America is the most violent first world country and they're tryna make it even more violent

This sh*t is fu*ked

So in other words, let's give the NRA, the gun companies more power by oversupplying more and more guns to every citizen. It's come down to having to put Armed Security in middle schools and high schools How is that gonna stop or make it less likely for another crazy fu*k to go into a nursery or a kindergarten and open fire? Ridiculous.

It's simple as this:

1. ban machine guns and semi-automatic rifles. No citizen needs any type of these fu*kin weapons.

that's it.

problem is, that's gonna make a dent into the bottom line of Smith & Wesson, the lobbying power of the NRA in Washington.
 5 years ago '04        #88
JBeezy 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$13,933 | Props total: 414 414


45 people k!lled, 38 of which were children. Why? Because a lunatic found a way.

This country is a full of fu*king morons, horrible parents and an educational system that is a disaster. More gun laws only restricts one way that a moron can commit a crime.

I honestly do not see the harm in a school or its district deciding to hire an armed guard(s) or training some of its willing staff to carry. No one is talking about having every teacher walk around with AR-15s and passing around handguns at show and tell.
 5 years ago '04        #89
biscuit 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$19,298 | Props total: 3910 3910
 JBeezy said:


45 people k!lled, 38 of which were children. Why? Because a lunatic found a way.

This country is a full of fu*king morons, horrible parents and an educational system that is a disaster. More gun laws only restricts one way that a moron can commit a crime.

I honestly do not see the harm in a school or its district deciding to hire an armed guard(s) or training some of its willing staff to carry. No one is talking about having every teacher walk around with AR-15s and passing around handguns at show and tell.
 5 years ago '04        #90
psylence2k 58 heat pts58
space
space
space
$12,815 | Props total: 1847 1847
 biscuit said:
Just a question:

Does anyone here think that if guns were banned or illegal that it would have stopped this sick and mentally derranged person from carrying out this un-thinkable crime?

Just a question...

Furthermore, does anyone here think that just because many drugs are banned or illegal that people don't use them anymore?

When prohibition came into effect, did people just stop drinking?

Like I said, Mr. LaPierre has some valid points. I think if we can get past some of the knee jerk reactions here and start addressing other elements that we look past ie. Glorified violence on movies and TV and other media, we can address some of the deeper issues that have degenerated society as a whole.

Yeah, because last time I checked I think all the firearms involved in these massacres were legally purchased whether directly through the shooter or stolen from their parents' homes. So to be technical, Yes, the weapons used in these massacres would've been unavailable to them. Would they have used something else ?? We dont know but what we do know is that these firearms in all these massacres were legally purchased. If you haven't noticed , pretty much the rate of use of anything goes down when accessibility is restricted.

as far as drugs go, the drug problem in America is a much larger and vastly different monster than the gun problem. Let me just outline the basics for you.


-Supply : Drugs in general, are much easier and cheaper to manufacture than guns. They're also in general easier to redistribute in large quantities and on an overall level more profitable in the long run. This is why you have so many suppliers, mostly from the lower class, or third world countries producing this shyt by the tons and pumping it into the streets. Their job is easier and more profitable in the long run. There's no comparison when you look at the large production scale of illegal drugs versus the sale of illegal guns.

- Demand: Drugs are extremely addictive as well as mind altering substances, once you become an addict, your brain doesn't function like a regular or sober person's. Therefore demand for drugs is not only much larger but much stronger. Someone looking for a gun isn't going to do half the things a crack head is willing to do to get a fix.

-Use : Drugs can be easily used and consumed in privacy with no victims or witnesses besides the user. When you use a gun on someone else whether in public or at residence. It usually leaves more of a evidence trail.

- Punishment : a law is only as good as the punishment that enforces it. If you haven't noticed there's a trend with illegal drugs, the harsher the punishment the lower the rate of use. If you made weed as punishable as crack cocaine , you'd surely see the rate of use go down. No ?

- The Alternative : If all drugs were made legal, what do you think would happen to the rate of use ?? Should we say " Oh people get drugs anyway, let's just make them all legal " ?? Laws reduce the rate of use for drugs, so actually bringing up drugs helps the argument against guns.


Last edited by psylence2k; 12-22-2012 at 12:31 PM..
 5 years ago '12        #91
kiddalex 11 heat pts11
space
avatar space
space
$5,610 | Props total: 6837 6837
This the most shine Doo Doo a.ss Bulletstorm ever got



 5 years ago '04        #92
biscuit 66 heat pts66
space
avatar space
space
$19,298 | Props total: 3910 3910
 psylence2k said:
Yeah, because last time I checked I think all the firearms involved in these massacres were legally purchased whether directly through the shooter or stolen from their parents' homes. So to be technical, Yes, the weapons used in these massacres would've been unavailable to them. Would they have used something else ?? We dont know but what we do know is that these firearms in all these massacres were legally purchased. If you haven't noticed , pretty much the rate of use of anything goes down when accessibility is restricted.

as far as drugs go, the drug problem in America is a much larger and vastly different monster than the gun problem. Let me just outline the basics for you.


-Supply : Drugs in general, are much easier and cheaper to manufacture than guns. They're also in general easier to redistribute in large quantities and on an overall level more profitable in the long run. This is why you have so many suppliers, mostly from the lower class, or third world countries producing this shyt by the tons and pumping it into the streets. Their job is easier and more profitable in the long run. There's no comparison when you look at the large production scale of illegal drugs versus the sale of illegal guns.

- Demand: Drugs are extremely addictive as well as mind altering substances, once you become an addict, your brain doesn't function like a regular or sober person's. Therefore demand for drugs is not only much larger but much stronger. Someone looking for a gun isn't going to do half the things a crack head is willing to do to get a fix.

-Use : Drugs can be easily used and consumed in privacy with no victims or witnesses besides the user. When you use a gun on someone else whether in public or at residence. It usually leaves more of a evidence trail.

- Punishment : a law is only as good as the punishment that enforces it. If you haven't noticed there's a trend with illegal drugs, the harsher the punishment the lower the rate of use. If you made weed as punishable as crack cocaine , you'd surely see the rate of use go down. No ?

- The Alternative : If all drugs were made legal, what do you think would happen to the rate of use ?? Should we say " Oh people get drugs anyway, let's just make them all legal " ?? Laws reduce the rate of use for drugs, so actually bringing up drugs helps the argument against guns.
Point taken.

Further to my original arguement though, I do not believe that people who currently own firearms will turn them in just because the law has changed, do you?

I stress, my original point, this INDIVIDUAL had a sick and derranged mind clearly. As a result, a determined yet sick mind will find a way to enact an evil one way or the other. Changing the gun law would not have effected his mind or his minds tendancy to perpetrate an evil act on many.
 5 years ago '05        #93
Jazzy Soul 27 heat pts27
space
avatar space
space
$14,162 | Props total: 10 10
This bears repeating.

 NoTitleSince73 said:
except your "logic" is deeply flawed, when using a car correctly, you wont hurt anyone. Guns are by design for hurting/killing.
Guns have no purpose other than ending life. Y u no want people 2 live?
 5 years ago '05        #94
Jazzy Soul 27 heat pts27
space
avatar space
space
$14,162 | Props total: 10 10
 123456 said:
Here's what I'm not understanding...

1. People will get guns illegally if they have to just like they get drugs when they want.

2. If there are stricter gun laws, how much stricter can they be? If I have the best background record and I own a gun, then my brother can take my gun and go on a shooting spree just like Lanza got his mother's guns. How do gun laws stop that?

3. Why are murder rates so bad here in Chicago when gun laws are real strict? You literally can't walk outside your door with a loaded gun anywhere in the state but we still have one of the largest murder rates. I guarantee 90% of the murders that involved a gun were with illegal guns.

I think if there were cops in every school, it wouldn't be a bad thing. If a person is willing to die shooting up a school, he'll do it no matter what. But if he's not willing to die, having cops there will prevent him from trying.

If there was any possible way to get all guns off the street and make it impossible for them to get into the united states, then fine that would probably work. But that's just not possible...guns will make it in here no matter what.
1. This is true, but illegal guns have to come from somewhere. Could it be that a legal gun owner was not responsible with their gun and lost it, had it stolen?

2. Again, your brother shouldn't have access to your guns. If he can't get one legally, then you shouldn't be lending him one. That's called being responsible. If a gun that is registered to you is used in the commission of a crime, you should be held as responsible as the person who committed the crime. I bet if that was a law you would lock your guns up better.

3. Illegal guns come from somewhere. Usually those who own guns and lose them/have them stolen/lend them to a friend or sell them. They should have a number on all guns that is uniquely identifiable to that gun and not located in a place that it can be scratched off.

All these so called law abiding citizens do is holler about how much they need their guns for protection. How do you lose a gun, much less get it stolen from you?? You have a gun, nobody is supposed to be robbing you! Right? Isn't that why you have the gun in the first place?
 5 years ago '04        #95
psylence2k 58 heat pts58
space
space
space
$12,815 | Props total: 1847 1847
 biscuit said:
Point taken.

Further to my original arguement though, I do not believe that people who currently own firearms will turn them in just because the law has changed, do you?

I stress, my original point, this INDIVIDUAL had a sick and derranged mind clearly. As a result, a determined yet sick mind will find a way to enact an evil one way or the other. Changing the gun law would not have effected his mind or his minds tendancy to perpetrate an evil act on many.
to be honest, nobody knows until we try it so I'm not gonna pretend.

other developed countries have tried it, the most comparable country to us culturally is the U.K.

They have all the factors a.ssociated with crime and gun violence that we do. Poverty, Urban deprivation, drugs, etc. They also enjoy alot of things we do as well ( violent movies, violent video games, violent music ).

After the Dunblane massacre of 1996 happened which 16 elementary school children were shot to death very similar to what happened at Sandy Hook. They tried out their hand gun ban nationwide, and it drastically dropped the gun homicide rate, and they haven't had a massacre since.

They have a population 1/5th of ours and they had 39 gun deaths last year, so if we were proportionate to them our rate should be somewhere around 195, but it's not , it's over 10,000. So who's gun control laws seem to really work better ??

People say guns helped the armed defend themselves, but who's always armed ?? The police right ??? In the past 10 years, we've had almost 1200 armed police k!lled from guns, that's an average of 120 a year , an average of 10 a month, an average of 2-3 a week. Do you know how many police deaths the U.K. has had in that same 10 year period recorded ?? TEN, that's on average just 1 a year, and guess what ?? their police dont even regularly carry guns. Their patrol cops are unarmed. So how do more of our ARMED police get k!lled in one month than their UNARMED police do in 10 years ??

Columbine had armed security, Virginia Tech had an entire police force on campus.

So isn't it clear that other countries are going the "less gun" route and succeeding while we're going the "more guns" and not ??


Last edited by psylence2k; 12-22-2012 at 02:15 PM..
 12-22-2012, 02:10 PM         #96
SmokeOne 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
psylence2k ok we get your point, you dont like guns and you think we should ban them. I dont agree, but you have a right to that opinion. However, I don't think we're going to be banning all guns, just certain ones. That is more realistic. There has to be a compromise from both sides if we are going to get anywhere.
 5 years ago '05        #97
Rubix 
space
avatar space
space
$8,495 | Props total: 828 828
 bigbarcelona said:


Exactly and the whole notion that those guns are not just for military purpose is utter bullsh*t. What the fu*k do you need 100 rounds for? Also, there are so many hunters that'll tell you you don't need that much ammunition... No respectable civilian should. Again, fu*king idiots.
why are you guys so fixated on the issue of guns? switzerland requires each person BY LAW to keep a FULLY AUTOMATIC a.ssault rifle in their house and that there's no law against how much ammunition you can hold. so why doesn't switzerland have a high gun crime rate? i know it's cliche but guns don't k!ll people. a gun doesn't walk into a school and shoot itself. also, CT has very strict gun laws. did that stop the dude from shooting up the school?

introducing new gun laws aint gonna change sh*t until america re-evaluates their culture. they need to look at mental health. they need to take a VERY CLOSE LOOK at their social structure and how they're marginalizing a lot of people. a lot of people are living in fear.

only in america can the media, law, politics, schools, etc. can get away with blatantly destroying and ridiculing certain groups of people. every single day you people getting publicly fu*ked up the a.ss until one of them blows up. it's no coincidence that blacks in america make up a large proportion of gun violence. we're still living in oppression. but it isn't the guns that make us shoot each other, it's the american culture. society is just so fu*ken backwards in america.
 5 years ago '07        #98
stogz 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$41,097 | Props total: 30490 30490
 Los-O said:
You know.... there are 2 things that just happen to be present in every instance of car accidents.

1. People
2. Cars

Now, one of these things need to be banned.





I could go on and on. By your logic, we need to ban A LOT of things in society.





One of the stupidest responses i've ever read on this site. Luckily you have already been destroyed and put in your place already, those i don't have to waste my time embarrassing you.
 5 years ago '04        #99
TizOnly1 5 heat pts
space
space
space
$5,931 | Props total: 7569 7569
 SomeOnesoN said:
Can't really compare guns to alcohol (reply to another post in this thread):

Driving is a Privilege
Owning a gun is a Right

Huge difference...
That's a completely arbitrary distinction.

Owning a gun is only a right because we say it is. There's nothing about owning a gun that is a right of life. It's just something we give people in this country, and as it is, it's with restriction. A 4 year old can't just go buy a gun (I hope?).

It's really a simple concept. Less guns in the country will make for less gun crime. It's not the only thing we need to do, and it won't eliminate gun violence, but it will lessen it. This is so obvious, the only reason anyone ever objects is because they don't want to personally give up their own gun.

Criminals can still get guns.. yeah.. but it will be harder. There will be less guns. There will be less bullets. Prices will be higher. This will all have an effect on criminals' ability to get guns. You think 14-year olds in Chicago would still be k!lling each other every single day if they couldn't get a gun just by saving up a little birthday money?

Then you have to realize that there are plenty of gun-related deaths that occur by legal guns. Accidental deaths, "self defense" deaths that aren't necessary (like the one dude who shot his son a couple months ago, because he thought he was being robbed), fake-ass militia Trayvon Martin type sh*t...

Whatever though. Arguing this topic is just silly. People with guns want their guns. People without guns allow common sense into the equation. Statistics from every single country in the world bare this out. We k!ll far more than anyone, and we champion gun "rights" more than anyone. We don't play more video games than Japan.. we don't watch more violent movies than Europe.. our culture is different... but it's not the movies/games.

Gun control is not an end-all measure.. but it's obviously a necessary step.
 5 years ago '07        #100
Jayceon 492 heat pts492
space
avatar space
space
$27,600 | Props total: 914 914
I'm real conflicted on this whole sh*t. after losing loved ones to gun violence there's a part of me that says hell yea ima get my guns up. but for what?......a n*gga's conclusion is that no matter my reasoning, the end result is gonna be the perpetuation of something I don't agree with. more murder more death more pain.


Last edited by Jayceon; 12-22-2012 at 06:05 PM..
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 69
Kevin Hart X-mad card
75 comments
18 hours ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 44
Niggas just crucified Lil Kim
115 comments
21 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 42
Image(s) inside Jeezy wildin 😩😩😂😂😂
111 comments
21 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 38
NBA Isiah Thomas Says His Family was Worse than Lavar Ball "He Used to Rob Eve..
124 comments
18 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 36
joie chavis
45 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 25
NBA Jahlil making the move to small forward
111 comments
18 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 24
Image(s) inside Girl, you look so good, it's to die for (die for) | Ooh, that pus-y go..
21 comments
21 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 22
50 cent did something to Comedienne Aarona Lopez. She has her friends worried!!!
116 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy