·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow
When looking for the voice of reason you don't go to people who benefit financially if their side wins the debate.
#swaggerjacker
"All "lefties" are against all private gun ownership?" --TT
"Apparently." <chuckles> --Jo
"blah blah blah about how obvious it is that the Left is generally against gun ownership" --Jo
And I'm Professor Poliitics? See? I try for a relatively serious question about gun control and get snarkiness from someone who should otherwise have at least a half-baked opinion. And I'd have thought you'd have at least a half unbaked opinion on how to produce compromise on this issue. But apparently not.
Why bother with any words at all, Jo? Just cut to the chase and post the laughing emote. It'll help you spam the board with worthless responses that much quicker.
totem
"Apparently." <chuckles> --Jo
"blah blah blah about how obvious it is that the Left is generally against gun ownership" --Jo
And I'm Professor Poliitics? See? I try for a relatively serious question about gun control and get snarkiness from someone who should otherwise have at least a half-baked opinion. And I'd have thought you'd have at least a half unbaked opinion on how to produce compromise on this issue. But apparently not.
Why bother with any words at all, Jo? Just cut to the chase and post the laughing emote. It'll help you spam the board with worthless responses that much quicker.
totem
So, Sammy, you'd be willing to codify that single shot weapons are acceptable for private citizens to own? No restrictions on caliber or number?
I'd like to call to your attention that a shotgun is far, far more deadly in [/i]any[/i] circumstance inside 50 yards than any handgun or rifle. In fact, I'd be willing to take my chances with a well trained handgun shooter against a poorly trained shotgunner any day.
Totem
I'd like to call to your attention that a shotgun is far, far more deadly in [/i]any[/i] circumstance inside 50 yards than any handgun or rifle. In fact, I'd be willing to take my chances with a well trained handgun shooter against a poorly trained shotgunner any day.
Totem
Totem wrote:
Why bother with any words at all, Jo? Just cut to the chase and post the laughing emote. It'll help you spam the board with worthless responses that much quicker.
Sorry you're so butthurt on this Christmas Eve that I didn't give your precious post the love you felt it deserved. Who knew you depended so much on me for validation? The good news is that the roast is about ready so I'm not spending any more time on the topic tonight and maybe someone else will stroke your ego.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
But Criminy, that is the fallacy of the anti-gun rhetoric: Any particular gun isn't inherently a human killing device any more than any other. A .22 is the weapon of choice for close execution style killing. It is also a fine small varmint caliber. A shotgun is an absolute people killer regardless its' size or capacity and yet it is universally thought of as sporting weapon. The vaunted Tech9 is a horrible weapon period, but is vilified as the metalurgic version of the bubonic plague.
This is what I mean by there being a fundamental lack of understanding about firearms, especially since the vast majority of opinions on this subject are formed by Hollywood and movies like The Expendables.
Totem
This is what I mean by there being a fundamental lack of understanding about firearms, especially since the vast majority of opinions on this subject are formed by Hollywood and movies like The Expendables.
Totem
I'm about to go to my parents and have an awesome Christmas Eve meal consisting of Little Caesar's pizza and exchange a few gifts with them.
(tomorrow is the big dinner)
(tomorrow is the big dinner)
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Totem wrote:
So, Sammy, you'd be willing to codify that single shot weapons are acceptable for private citizens to own? No restrictions on caliber or number?
Totem
Totem
Not if it means that every wingnut in the anti-gubbmint compound has a row of legally acquired cannons on top of his roof, no. And I'm aware of the lethality of shotguns.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Yeah, whatever, Jo-emote. Go enjoy the roast and give Flea my regards. Do try to avoid inner city Chicago, ok? Those gun control laws there haven't been too effective and I'd hate to learn of your boy taking some stray gunfire by accident.
No, scratch all that. Merry Christmas to you and yours despite your snooty and cynical smugness. I truly do hope that misfortune never visits your household in the form of a random shooter entering your kid's classroom and gives you something to truly be sorrowful for, leaving you to wonder what could have been done to stop it. Because there are a number of families who are experiencing just those emotions this afternoon in CT. And I suspect right now they'd be willing to consider any option if it'd only give them their family member back, even to the extent of arming teachers if need be.
But give your boy an extra hug tonight when you tuck him in and be thankful the roast beef was perfectly done and your child's bed isn't empty and cold, because no smarmy emotes, no one line ripostes will ever fix that butthurt. Well, perhaps in your particular case it might since there is no chance he would or could ever find himself cowering while a psycho draws a bead on his little body, right? Right?
Totem
Edited, Dec 24th 2012 5:34pm by Totem
No, scratch all that. Merry Christmas to you and yours despite your snooty and cynical smugness. I truly do hope that misfortune never visits your household in the form of a random shooter entering your kid's classroom and gives you something to truly be sorrowful for, leaving you to wonder what could have been done to stop it. Because there are a number of families who are experiencing just those emotions this afternoon in CT. And I suspect right now they'd be willing to consider any option if it'd only give them their family member back, even to the extent of arming teachers if need be.
But give your boy an extra hug tonight when you tuck him in and be thankful the roast beef was perfectly done and your child's bed isn't empty and cold, because no smarmy emotes, no one line ripostes will ever fix that butthurt. Well, perhaps in your particular case it might since there is no chance he would or could ever find himself cowering while a psycho draws a bead on his little body, right? Right?
Totem
Edited, Dec 24th 2012 5:34pm by Totem
Sammy, that is the rational and justified view of the pro-gun advocates when they protest the pointlessness of gun control laws-- that gun control laws are misguided and restrict weapons or mods which truly aren't dangerous in comparison to other ones in the hands of a shooter. I'd make the argument it is in our favor that people are so conditioned by television and movies to actually use weapons like auto handguns and so-called assault weapons when there are far more deadly means of slaughtering large numbers of people in tight enclosed spaces.
And that is what we talking about, right? Groups of people getting caught in locations where they are restricted in their movements and avenues of escape? A can of gasoline and a match would have been considerably worse in that classroom, but luckily for those who weren't shot, that kid decided to use something which represented death to him instead. And against little children a rock would've been just as effective.
Totem
And that is what we talking about, right? Groups of people getting caught in locations where they are restricted in their movements and avenues of escape? A can of gasoline and a match would have been considerably worse in that classroom, but luckily for those who weren't shot, that kid decided to use something which represented death to him instead. And against little children a rock would've been just as effective.
Totem
TirithRR, my apologies for painting you with a broad brush, but I'd argue that it is indeed the Left who are more concerned with gun control than the Right, your relatives notwithstanding. And so, having people in your family who obviously enjoy firearms, what is their--and your --take on gun control?
My belief is that any form of gun control is an illusion at best, a form of tyranny at worst. I don't know where the notion that tyranny only comes from the government arises, but if you live in a neighborhood where only criminal have guns and where you are afraid to walk the streets at night, I'd make the argument that that is a pretty close-to-home form of tyranny. And the illusion that by taking away a law abiding citizen's abilty to protect themsleves from such a threat is given in the guise of a restrictive gun law is consummate sillliness.
The obvious needs to be stated here: Only criminals use guns in a crime. A law abiding citizen isn't going to engage in a crime. Should he decide at some point to use his weapon in an act of violence apart from self defense, he is no longer that law abiding citizen we are constitutionally required to assume he is and then his right to own a weapon should be utterly restricted.
Again, why is there such a desire among gun control advocates to infantilize law abiding citizens? Are you afraid of them? More so than the criminals who have already demonstrated untrustworthiness? The police aren't there to protect citizenry, they are there to enforce order and investigate the crime after it occurs. To think otherwise is as unproductive as thinking gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of lawbreakers.
Totem
My belief is that any form of gun control is an illusion at best, a form of tyranny at worst. I don't know where the notion that tyranny only comes from the government arises, but if you live in a neighborhood where only criminal have guns and where you are afraid to walk the streets at night, I'd make the argument that that is a pretty close-to-home form of tyranny. And the illusion that by taking away a law abiding citizen's abilty to protect themsleves from such a threat is given in the guise of a restrictive gun law is consummate sillliness.
The obvious needs to be stated here: Only criminals use guns in a crime. A law abiding citizen isn't going to engage in a crime. Should he decide at some point to use his weapon in an act of violence apart from self defense, he is no longer that law abiding citizen we are constitutionally required to assume he is and then his right to own a weapon should be utterly restricted.
Again, why is there such a desire among gun control advocates to infantilize law abiding citizens? Are you afraid of them? More so than the criminals who have already demonstrated untrustworthiness? The police aren't there to protect citizenry, they are there to enforce order and investigate the crime after it occurs. To think otherwise is as unproductive as thinking gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of lawbreakers.
Totem
"I think the entire notion of there being a situation where the acquisition of lethal force is beyond scrutiny to be absolutely laughable." --cid
So the US Constitution is a document worthy of derision? Because as of right now, the 2nd Amendment is has codified exactly that-- the acquisition and ownership of objects that can under certain conditions dispense lethal force. But to judge from your answer, I'll go out on a limb and say that you believe it is a "living document" and suseceptable to revisions and adjustments that change with the cultural winds of the moment. Is that an accurate assessment of your position?
Totem
So the US Constitution is a document worthy of derision? Because as of right now, the 2nd Amendment is has codified exactly that-- the acquisition and ownership of objects that can under certain conditions dispense lethal force. But to judge from your answer, I'll go out on a limb and say that you believe it is a "living document" and suseceptable to revisions and adjustments that change with the cultural winds of the moment. Is that an accurate assessment of your position?
Totem
Holy baby Jesus on the eve of his birthday, why are you rage-spamming?
In North Dakota,Bijou could get a gun
So I find gun laws a joke, because I've grown up with people unwrapping guns as xmas gifts...maybe I'll get one myself this year, again.
So I find gun laws a joke, because I've grown up with people unwrapping guns as xmas gifts...maybe I'll get one myself this year, again.
Things I sometimes play...
"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
Totem wrote:
But Criminy, that is the fallacy of the anti-gun rhetoric: Any particular gun isn't inherently a human killing device any more than any other. A .22 is the weapon of choice for close execution style killing. It is also a fine small varmint caliber. A shotgun is an absolute people killer regardless its' size or capacity and yet it is universally thought of as sporting weapon. The vaunted Tech9 is a horrible weapon period, but is vilified as the metalurgic version of the bubonic plague.
This is what I mean by there being a fundamental lack of understanding about firearms, especially since the vast majority of opinions on this subject are formed by Hollywood and movies like The Expendables.
Totem
This is what I mean by there being a fundamental lack of understanding about firearms, especially since the vast majority of opinions on this subject are formed by Hollywood and movies like The Expendables.
Totem
Ah so you are not going to respond to my question but instead nit pick on minor details. Yes a shotgun can kill just as easy as an assault rifle but one is used for hunting and the other is used an a metal ***** extension.
I am going to have to agree with Jophiel with this one, you are not interested in discussion. Have a wonderful Christmas.
#swaggerjacker
Rage-spamming, Guenny? It's just another day here in the land of endless firearms and IEDs. Christmas card mornings are something happens back in the never-neverland of the real world, not the reality of life for 220,000 troops here in Afghanistan.
Admittedly, my perception may be a bit off since news is scarce out here, but from what we hear gun control is the real rage these days, albeit, the nonsensical discussion of it on boards like this one. The funny thing is, with nearly every person here armed with at least one automatic weapon-- truly automatic, not merely semi-auto ---there hasn't been an instance of a mass shooting that I am aware of unless you are counting the Taliban sympathizers over here.
So this isn't some misguided rant, it is just another day for me where for once I actually have time to post some opinions on the subject which has been getting so much attention these days. Huh, so, yeah, I guess today is special that way, sure.
Totem
Admittedly, my perception may be a bit off since news is scarce out here, but from what we hear gun control is the real rage these days, albeit, the nonsensical discussion of it on boards like this one. The funny thing is, with nearly every person here armed with at least one automatic weapon-- truly automatic, not merely semi-auto ---there hasn't been an instance of a mass shooting that I am aware of unless you are counting the Taliban sympathizers over here.
So this isn't some misguided rant, it is just another day for me where for once I actually have time to post some opinions on the subject which has been getting so much attention these days. Huh, so, yeah, I guess today is special that way, sure.
Totem
I'd describe myself as center-left and am generally fine with gun ownership. I also realize that 100% safety (viz Columbine, CT) is impossible so I don't think these things should really impact the debate. That's a security issue.
On that note, I think a high school diploma at a minimum should be required for gun ownership. That is to say, if you're too irresponsible to even finish high school, you'd likely be pretty ******* irresponsible with a gun.
On that note, I think a high school diploma at a minimum should be required for gun ownership. That is to say, if you're too irresponsible to even finish high school, you'd likely be pretty ******* irresponsible with a gun.
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
No, Crim, I did respond soberly to your question. The fact that crazies are using a poor choice of weapon for their purposes just points up to the efficacy of Hollywood and their indoctrination of our youth that handguns and black plastic-y semi automatic rifles are the best things to dispatch others in their misguided attempts to rectify some indecipherable wrong or injustice in their heads.
Because as I have already stated, if a bloodbath were truly their goal and they were dedicated to making that happen, a jug of gasoline and a match are far more eefective and efficient than that **** black AR-15 or boxy Glock to send innocents off this mortal coil. Yet there is no call for gasoline exams or handling classes. Why? Because no one uses them at this time.
And therein is the lie of the gun control argument: If only you ban gun X, or 30 round magazine Y peace will break out in all our schools, theaters, and shopping malls. And that is utter BS.
The mentally ill are the problem, but we as a nation would rather medicate them to their eyeballs and concentrate on guns instead. It is treating the symptom, not the disease.
But my initial question speaks to that concern. Because guns are the fixation in this country, what kind or type would you be willing to allow in exchange for your "safety"? I hate to break it to you, but banning all guns isn't going to happen and even if that were to occur, tragedies like Portland, Sandy Hook, and Aurora would still take place because you haven't addressed the core problem.
Totem
Because as I have already stated, if a bloodbath were truly their goal and they were dedicated to making that happen, a jug of gasoline and a match are far more eefective and efficient than that **** black AR-15 or boxy Glock to send innocents off this mortal coil. Yet there is no call for gasoline exams or handling classes. Why? Because no one uses them at this time.
And therein is the lie of the gun control argument: If only you ban gun X, or 30 round magazine Y peace will break out in all our schools, theaters, and shopping malls. And that is utter BS.
The mentally ill are the problem, but we as a nation would rather medicate them to their eyeballs and concentrate on guns instead. It is treating the symptom, not the disease.
But my initial question speaks to that concern. Because guns are the fixation in this country, what kind or type would you be willing to allow in exchange for your "safety"? I hate to break it to you, but banning all guns isn't going to happen and even if that were to occur, tragedies like Portland, Sandy Hook, and Aurora would still take place because you haven't addressed the core problem.
Totem
"Yes a shotgun can kill just as easy as an assault rifle but one is used for hunting and the other is used an a metal ***** extension" cid (I think)
But that is simply not true, even if you just threw that out there for discussion. An assault rifle needs to be specifically aimed, whereas a shotgun needs no particular technique like squeezing the trigger. All you need to do is point the thing in the general direction and multiple pellets larger than the diameter of a round used in an AR-15 come out and spray in a pattern designed to affect a large area.
Just because whacked out teenagers don't use them doesn't mean they aren't better suited for their intended purposes. As I said, be glad that shotguns aren't **** in Hollywood producer's minds, because they are sold in nearly every 5 & Dime around the country-- including many of the most restrictive places in the US. And why is that? Because they are perceived as you perceived them-- that they are objects, tools if you will, for hunting purposes.
Do you see where gun control gets you? You put a Band-Aid on a cancer. No, that's not right, you put a Band-Aid on the symptom of cancer-- that's more accurate. There are far more dangerous weapons and objects out there by a country mile and the (Danger ahead! Broad paintbrush is about to be used!) Left is fixated on guns which don't do much damage, my apologies to the families affected by these shootings. It's only because the crazies haven't discovered them yet.
Do you see?
And you aren't about to begin legislating a 5 day waiting period for a can of gas or a car, are you? Lots of mean scary things out there in this big bad world...
Totem
But that is simply not true, even if you just threw that out there for discussion. An assault rifle needs to be specifically aimed, whereas a shotgun needs no particular technique like squeezing the trigger. All you need to do is point the thing in the general direction and multiple pellets larger than the diameter of a round used in an AR-15 come out and spray in a pattern designed to affect a large area.
Just because whacked out teenagers don't use them doesn't mean they aren't better suited for their intended purposes. As I said, be glad that shotguns aren't **** in Hollywood producer's minds, because they are sold in nearly every 5 & Dime around the country-- including many of the most restrictive places in the US. And why is that? Because they are perceived as you perceived them-- that they are objects, tools if you will, for hunting purposes.
Do you see where gun control gets you? You put a Band-Aid on a cancer. No, that's not right, you put a Band-Aid on the symptom of cancer-- that's more accurate. There are far more dangerous weapons and objects out there by a country mile and the (Danger ahead! Broad paintbrush is about to be used!) Left is fixated on guns which don't do much damage, my apologies to the families affected by these shootings. It's only because the crazies haven't discovered them yet.
Do you see?
And you aren't about to begin legislating a 5 day waiting period for a can of gas or a car, are you? Lots of mean scary things out there in this big bad world...
Totem
I, am atypical among 'lefties'. I appreciate guns in a hobbyist sense. I have taught marksmanship and gun safety courses, have built micro-ballistic missiles and EM-propulsion type systems (in a limited fashion). I don't currently own a gun at my home, as I have little reason to.
I don't want guns banned. I don't even want Assault weapons banned. I've personally shot the AR-15, with the extended mag (much better than the retarded jam mags) and las sight. I do think regulation on them is lax, there is plenty of room for safety restrictions, as well as a more coherent federal background check system. Mag size could also be on the table, it's not that taxing to have multiple lower cap clips for a range environment. I really don't see why this issue can't be solved quickly, sensibly, and in such a way that we aren't left with more swiss cheese style regulatory control.Sorry, I'm lying, what keeps this issue coming back up again and again (via national tragedies) is it's a juicy issue for wholly political reasons. Something which is simply indefensible.
I don't want guns banned. I don't even want Assault weapons banned. I've personally shot the AR-15, with the extended mag (much better than the retarded jam mags) and las sight. I do think regulation on them is lax, there is plenty of room for safety restrictions, as well as a more coherent federal background check system. Mag size could also be on the table, it's not that taxing to have multiple lower cap clips for a range environment. I really don't see why this issue can't be solved quickly, sensibly, and in such a way that we aren't left with more swiss cheese style regulatory control.Sorry, I'm lying, what keeps this issue coming back up again and again (via national tragedies) is it's a juicy issue for wholly political reasons. Something which is simply indefensible.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Because as I have already stated, if a bloodbath were truly their goal and they were dedicated to making that happen, a jug of gasoline and a match are far more eefective and efficient than that **** black AR-15 or boxy Glock to send innocents off this mortal coil. Yet there is no call for gasoline exams or handling classes. Why? Because no one uses them at this time
No, it's really not. If you're example was one of the many, easily manufacture chemical-explosive composite weapons that you could, with a basic understanding of , create in your garage, that would be one thing. Gasoline alone isn't great for mass murder, unless your going the arson route.
Just as Planned.
Instead, we have loud voices who want to go straight to the worst possible outcome: The restriction of the very freedoms outlined in our Constitution, our 2nd Amendment.
Over 32,000 people died in auto accidents, yet we don't put but the very minimal restrictions on their use. And before you say it, yes, to do so more strictly would impinge on the rights of people everywhere to travel and congregate, two other rights our Constitution guarantees. Yet guns seem to into fall into this special catagory of rights which can be and should be restricted by reason of their limited purpose: self defense. Never mind that it is merely a tool, an inert object which doesn't operate or move until someone wills it into their hand and pulls the trigger. Empty of the cartiridges it can contain, it becomes an inefficient hammer. Or a paperweight.
Again, what is the fetish behind the infantilization of America where certain tools are considered too dangerous to be wielded by law abiding citizens? Wherein you are counted as being too weak minded or immature to handle a firearm? Perhaps I am phrasing it incorrectly. Let's try this: What is your fetish with helplessness?
Totem
Over 32,000 people died in auto accidents, yet we don't put but the very minimal restrictions on their use. And before you say it, yes, to do so more strictly would impinge on the rights of people everywhere to travel and congregate, two other rights our Constitution guarantees. Yet guns seem to into fall into this special catagory of rights which can be and should be restricted by reason of their limited purpose: self defense. Never mind that it is merely a tool, an inert object which doesn't operate or move until someone wills it into their hand and pulls the trigger. Empty of the cartiridges it can contain, it becomes an inefficient hammer. Or a paperweight.
Again, what is the fetish behind the infantilization of America where certain tools are considered too dangerous to be wielded by law abiding citizens? Wherein you are counted as being too weak minded or immature to handle a firearm? Perhaps I am phrasing it incorrectly. Let's try this: What is your fetish with helplessness?
Totem
Totem wrote:
"Yes a shotgun can kill just as easy as an assault rifle but one is used for hunting and the other is used an a metal ***** extension" cid (I think)
But that is simply not true, even if you just threw that out there for discussion. An assault rifle needs to be specifically aimed, whereas a shotgun needs no particular technique like squeezing the trigger. All you need to do is point the thing in the general direction and multiple pellets larger than the diameter of a round used in an AR-15 come out and spray in a pattern designed to affect a large area.
But that is simply not true, even if you just threw that out there for discussion. An assault rifle needs to be specifically aimed, whereas a shotgun needs no particular technique like squeezing the trigger. All you need to do is point the thing in the general direction and multiple pellets larger than the diameter of a round used in an AR-15 come out and spray in a pattern designed to affect a large area.
A semi-automatic (tactical shotgun) would be the weapon your looking for. That would also be an assault weapon. It's a room-clearer.
Just as Planned.
Totem wrote:
The road has no rules. It's a lawless wasteland of tar and those pressed against it. Better bring my gun.
Just as Planned.
I hear what you ae saying, Time. But for the Portland shooter and the CT kid, death was the intended product, both others and theirs'. Gasoline, at least in the case of Sandy Hook, would have been quite effective.
However, to get distracted by the methodology of one particular accelerant, gasoline, is to get distracted from the larger picture of people, intent on killing others, can and will find a way to do so with the least resistance and the greatest impact from their standpoint. Because the mentally ill are allowed to roam freely, if guns are not available, then knives are readily at hand. Consider China and the 22 people injured there. Just because no one was killed at this specific occurance doesn't negate the lethality and deadlinesss of knives. Again, crazy people are not necessarily stupid people. If one form of action isn't available, is there anyone here who disputes that they will find another way to carry out the instructions of the person in their head to kill as many as they can?
Totem
However, to get distracted by the methodology of one particular accelerant, gasoline, is to get distracted from the larger picture of people, intent on killing others, can and will find a way to do so with the least resistance and the greatest impact from their standpoint. Because the mentally ill are allowed to roam freely, if guns are not available, then knives are readily at hand. Consider China and the 22 people injured there. Just because no one was killed at this specific occurance doesn't negate the lethality and deadlinesss of knives. Again, crazy people are not necessarily stupid people. If one form of action isn't available, is there anyone here who disputes that they will find another way to carry out the instructions of the person in their head to kill as many as they can?
Totem
No, not even a tactical shotgun is required. Merely a hacksaw and a pocket full of double aught on a single shot shotgun will do more damage more quickly than any handgun or semi-automatic rifle in the hands of the typical owner. A cut down shotgun needs only be pointed in the general-- and very general at that --direction of whoever is there and it'll be almost certain to hit and kill or grieviously injure that person(s) within the circular pattern approximately 10 feet wide at a distance of 15 feet.
And a single shot can be emptied and loaded in 2 seconds easily with little practice. And there are no confusing stovepipes or magazines to deal with.
See?
And here everybody is talking about those evil assault weapons. Basically, these psychos are pikers when it comes to wholesale killing. But hey, these are just for sport.
Totem
And a single shot can be emptied and loaded in 2 seconds easily with little practice. And there are no confusing stovepipes or magazines to deal with.
See?
And here everybody is talking about those evil assault weapons. Basically, these psychos are pikers when it comes to wholesale killing. But hey, these are just for sport.
Totem
Recent Visitors: 66
All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (66)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
© 2017 ZAM Network LLC