Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!! - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:56 PM on j-body.org
I can't believe it. You really expect to be viewed as a calm, law-abiding citizen while you prepare for full-auto firefights with imaginary military-armed foes you can't even pinpoint. You just have no idea how insane that sounds.

God damn, son. I sure am glad I don't live in your head. It's got to SUCK in there.






Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:06 PM on j-body.org
?

what?

First Full auto is useless... cant hit sh!t.

I want a M4 to go shooting.... PAPER.

as for the "what if" .. that usually happens at night, that.s what i have a 1911 and shot gun for.

what did you think i meant?

Chris






"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:12 PM on j-body.org
I have no idea what you "meant". I only know what you said.

You do not "need" military-level weapons, no matter how much you may "want" them. Rights, schmights...you're just being obstinate about the fact that you can't get them, and you want to pin it on someone you dislike. Sorry to say, but...lame, and kinda whiny.

When that criminal you fear DOES show up with the AK, your double-ought buck will do the job nicely. That is, unless said criminal is a sniper sent to assassinate you from a distance...and if you're involved in sh!t that's bringing that kind of attention your way, fcuk gun laws...you've got WAY bigger problems!





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 12:42 AM on j-body.org
The 5.56mm NATO rounds (used in the M16A1,A2,AR15A1,A2, M4A1) are, less powerful than a common hunting round, the 30-06. Like, 300 percent weaker than the round designed to kill deer.

You use the term semi-auto without properly understanding what that means. There are plenty of .22 caliber semi-automatic firearms...there's even semi-automatic BB guns and Paintball guns.

The idea, remember that word, IDEA, of the 2nd amendment was to limit the power of the Federal Government to impose weapon laws against the States. Ultimately; the final say on ANY amendment is what is written in your STATE constitution.

Seriously; you should actually read the constitution; line by line, word by word, and you would see that the Fed Gov yields to the states--who yield to the people.

As far as the cops go; they already have an advantage by wearing body armor. They just need to step up their marksmanship. But then what do you have? An unstoppable occupying force...That's why I am ENTITLED to own what i please.





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 1:06 AM on j-body.org
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

You use the term semi-auto without properly understanding what that means. There are plenty of .22 caliber semi-automatic firearms...there's even semi-automatic BB guns and Paintball guns.

Woops. You missed the full term I used. You also mistakenly presumed I don't know what semi-automatic means, even though I own two such guns, a .22 rifle and a Walther PPK. I'll repeat the term I used here, for you will no doubt "properly understand what it means": Semi-Auto High-Powered.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

The idea, remember that word, IDEA, of the 2nd amendment was to limit the power of the Federal Government to impose weapon laws against the States. Ultimately; the final say on ANY amendment is what is written in your STATE constitution.

If you'll excuse me...I was not able to ask the framers of the bill of rights what their IDEA was. Remember that concept, CONCEPT: I wasn't there, and...Neither were you.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

Seriously; you should actually read the constitution; line by line, word by word, and you would see that the Fed Gov yields to the states--who yield to the people.

Seriously, you should stop being such a condescending putz about this, and seriously stop assuming you know anything about my knowledge of the Constitution.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

As far as the cops go; they already have an advantage by wearing body armor. They just need to step up their marksmanship. But then what do you have? An unstoppable occupying force...That's why I am ENTITLED to own what i please.

No, you are not "ENTITLED to own what you please" where weapons are concerned. You are a civilian, albeit a paranoid one...you are not a paramilitary or mercenary. This is a civilized nation with laws, and it is not ruled by anarchy. You will own what the representatives of the people deem correct and appropriate for civilian use. Seriously.





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 4:12 AM on j-body.org
okay i really suck at the whole quote things so i'll hit on a few points.


the auto issue, if 90% of accidents are under the speed limit then i'd bet that 10% of auto acidents are over the speed limit, i'd still bet money that more over the speed limit fatalities is higher then the amount of people killed each year by the guns you want to ban. im at work so didnt have a ton of time to search but heres one thing i picked up. (According to NHTSA, speeding is one of the most prevalent reported factors associated with crashes. The agency estimates that speeding is involved in 12 percent of all crashes and one-third of all fatal crashes. (These estimates are likely to be conservative because of the difficulty of establishing precrash travel speeds after crashes.) NHTSA estimates that 13,909 fatalities and 77,277 moderate to critical injuries occurred in speed-related crashes in 1991 and that the cost of all speed-related crashes was more than $18 billion. )

you seem to feel a gun is only there to kill someone. when i'd bet that 95% of guns will never be shot at another person (not including millitary) hell allot of police officers will go there entire career without ever shooting anyone. so if we feel that in most cases criminals won't use them. and law abiding citizens wont be shooting cops. where is the problem of having them available to take out to your local shooting range and have fun?

again. why do you have to have a 1000 horsepower car if the speed limit is 65 or 70 miles and hour. you want it so you can maybe take your car to a track and have fun with it in the manner you intended. same goes for people wanting high powered semi automatic guns. so they can go to the range or a safe spot on their own land and have fun with them. i'll admit i don't own any guns myself. not because im against them but because i feel if i bought them i'd rarely have time to go to a range and they would just sit there. but if i want to do that, and ive proven im a safe individual then why shouldn't i be allowed to.

and im sorry but if you are the type of criminal that is shooting at cops. then you don't give a rats ass if that gun you have is illegal or not. i wasnt trying to say that all criminals use these weapons because the majority dont. they just use whatever they stole or were able to buy from there buddy.







and glad i was able to get this post going lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 22, 2010 4:30 AM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 8:17 AM on j-body.org
Simple and to the point:

Civilians don't need military style weapons. I, for one, feel safer knowing that they are illegal for ANY cilvilian to own, "criminal" or otherwise. This reduces such dangerous weapons form widespread distribution and ownership by ANYONE. Win.

Point to ponder: our prisons also contain civilians that were NOT "criminals" until they decided to use their legal weapons in illegal ways, be it road rage, domestic violence, drunken fights, etc. Allowing such numbnuts access to even more dangerous weapons is like....well, it's like handing a baby a gun!

Satisfy yourselves with what is legal. I do, and I feel quite safe with my small, reasonable collection of firearms. Anyone who cries for more is wasting their and other's time.








Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 8:23 AM on j-body.org
when the term "military style weapon" is used, are we referring to full auto weapons? Or something simple like a semi-auto AR-15?





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 8:24 AM on j-body.org
The discontent in the US is growing due to the mishandling of almost everything by the government and the people will only take so much before they decide to do something about it. What shape or form that action takes I don't know, but if it comes down to a civil uprising then we are already at a disadvantage because the police and national guard have far superior firepower than we can purchase legally.

This is where I think the 2nd amendment comes into play. I believe it is there to balance the power of the people and the government concerning firearms. If policemen can purchase tactical automatic weapons, I feel that we should also, just to deter any martial law from being imposed upon us. I don't have a huge arsenal of weapons or ammunition, but I have enough to protect myself in a crisis.

Those who think things will not get worse before they get better have their heads in the sand. The US will not exist in it's current for for very much longer. It may not change in my lifetime, but it will not continue indefinitely and when the change happens. I hope the general population is prepared for what you will have to endure before stabilization is reached.






Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 9:00 AM on j-body.org
Man. You people are so paranoid it's hard not to feel sorry for you. You really profess that an armed uprising is necessary, and that's why you need military weapons...this blows my mind. You are, in effect as well as in practice, advocating domestic terrorism. I don't know when this mindset turns the corner to Timothy McVeigh-style tactics, but I now understand more about where he came from. Wow. Just wow.

Beyond the obtuse, emotionally damaging fearmongering you are not only proponents but also victims of, the ridiculous part is that you actually believe that the difference would be a slightly more powerful rifle as you take on organized forces with infinitely more firepower, training, and equipment. A fool's mission if there ever was one. Death by cop is indeed the most thrilling suicide.

You'd freak to realize that, in advocating such suicidal and militaristic tactics against your own people, you essentially align yourself with the Arab suicide bombers you undoubtedly so abhor.

I'd tell you to just chill and enjoy your life, but I fear you've already moved past that threshold, and that the propaganda which has you in its death grip has dug its heels in so deep that you are beyond salvation.

I wish you well.





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 9:32 AM on j-body.org
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:

Because a threshold point must be determined in terms of what weapons civilians should be allowed to possess, and this makes sense. Thus, everything more lethal than it is military only, and everything less lethal is OK for civilian purpose of self-defense, hunting, or target practice.

Do you think there is a justifiable case for civilians to own military-type lethal firepower, such as a high-powered semi-auto rifle, machine gun, grenade launcher, or a rocket launcher (arranged in order of lethality)? If so, why?
I think we are separating on your "and this makes sense" statement. I don't think it makes sense.

I don't consider grenade launchers and rocket launchers guns, they fire explosives...
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:

You do not "need" military-level weapons, no matter how much you may "want" them.
We don't "need" 99% of what we have, we just "want" it. So I don't see your point.
Our rocketry club didn't used to be allowed to use land-based GPS tracking (helps to keep rocket flying straight up) because it was considered a national security threat. Go figure, something that would keep the community safer was illegal because it was "dangerous"?
Labotomi wrote:

The discontent in the US is growing due to the mishandling of almost everything by the government and the people will only take so much before they decide to do something about it. What shape or form that action takes I don't know, but if it comes down to a civil uprising then we are already at a disadvantage because the police and national guard have far superior firepower than we can purchase legally.
If the majority of the people (Rush and Glenn don't constitute the majority) don't approve of Government officials, they won't get re-elected. Period. If an armed uprising occurs, it's because they are mad they aren't part of the majority...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 9:51 AM on j-body.org
Damn, has the gun lobbies brainwashed the hell of some of you. Now we have the inevitable: "if we have X product, and it can kill, lets remove that too" slogan.

We have to start with, what are the gun's main purpose? Is it a paper weight, no? Is it to write on a chalkboard, naa? Is it to inflict injury & pain or bring down a life, that sounds the most factual?
Now lets look at the product inside a plastic bottle; like Clorox.
What is the main purpose of Clorox? Is it for communication, no? Is it to impress your significant other, naa? Is it to clean and disinfect, that sounds the most factual?
Now lets look at a vehicle: car, truck, motorcycle.
What is the main purpose of a vehicle? Is it for cooling your alcohol drink, no? Is it to make popcorn, naa? Is it to get from point A to point B, that sounds the most factual?

Do you see a trend here? One can use those argument to make yourself feel better, but the bottom line is the other products that some of you all bring to the table are not intended to inflict injury & pain or bring down a life. To say those kill too, can be a fact, but lets be realistic they were not designed to be as such.
What some are doing is just throwing useless arguments in hopes something will stick.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:



As far as the cops go; they already have an advantage by wearing body armor. They just need to step up their marksmanship. But then what do you have? An unstoppable occupying force...That's why I am ENTITLED to own what i please.

And they need their vest, BUT they are useless to high powered fire arms. Law enforcement is just that, to enforce the law, they are not there to be what these psychos on the radio and news cast portray them to be. And as much you think they made to disturb the population (from your response), they are there for to keep civility and restore order. Like it or not, we need them, if not, we would be in a situation of "everyone for themselves." Now if law enforcement is overmatched, who can we trust to maintain a society civil? Individuals? LoL, right.

Labotomi wrote:

The discontent in the US is growing due to the mishandling of almost everything by the government and the people will only take so much before they decide to do something about it. What shape or form that action takes I don't know, but if it comes down to a civil uprising then we are already at a disadvantage because the police and national guard have far superior firepower than we can purchase legally.

This is where I think the 2nd amendment comes into play. I believe it is there to balance the power of the people and the government concerning firearms. If policemen can purchase tactical automatic weapons, I feel that we should also, just to deter any martial law from being imposed upon us. I don't have a huge arsenal of weapons or ammunition, but I have enough to protect myself in a crisis.

Those who think things will not get worse before they get better have their heads in the sand. The US will not exist in it's current for for very much longer. It may not change in my lifetime, but it will not continue indefinitely and when the change happens. I hope the general population is prepared for what you will have to endure before stabilization is reached.


Why extremist views? Why not shout; "the sky is falling" while you're at it?
Let me tell one thing. (IF) the government decides to go against their own population, do you honestly think your fire arms will actually stop them? A country that has enough nukes to destroy the world 10x over and here you are with your deer hunting gun and you feeling like your balls are the size of bowling balls because you own such a weapon. Seriously, YOU WILL LOOSE. Yes, population can bring down the government, but thats when your very own strong military is not against you.





THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 10:07 AM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:

Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:

Because a threshold point must be determined in terms of what weapons civilians should be allowed to possess, and this makes sense. Thus, everything more lethal than it is military only, and everything less lethal is OK for civilian purpose of self-defense, hunting, or target practice.

Do you think there is a justifiable case for civilians to own military-type lethal firepower, such as a high-powered semi-auto rifle, machine gun, grenade launcher, or a rocket launcher (arranged in order of lethality)? If so, why?
I think we are separating on your "and this makes sense" statement. I don't think it makes sense.

I don't consider grenade launchers and rocket launchers guns, they fire explosives...

Ah, but that's the rub. You appear to not be including powerful firearm weaponry in your perception of military equipment. That's why I offered a basic increasing spectrum of weaponry for your consideration, to show the progression. Of course the higher powered weapons like rocket launchers are not "guns", per se, but they help illustrate that a certain threshold point of what is military and what is civilian-proper must be determined. At this time, the threshold point has been determined as high-powered semi-automatic weapons. It's a reasonable threshold in my opinion.

I don't see as how analogies to just about anything else can ever apply. Model rockets, cars, whatever...what these other items share with illegal weapons is only that they may be coveted by civilians. Where they differ is that the high-powered semi-automatic rifles, and everything above them, are designed and intended for one purpose: death. While you can possibly cause death with a model rocket or a car, they were not expressly designed for same, and are awkward ways to carry out murder or military incursion.

This threshold is indeed logical and necessary, and it's not about keeping us down, or enabling our police or military forces to be able to employ "superior firepower". Oh my GAWD...No amount of high-powered semi-auto rifles is going to make ANY difference should this feared "civilian uprising" or "police action" go down. The authorities will win that hands down, for they are immensely superior in every way...man, what a bloodbath it would be.

Damn...that's so unreasonable and illogical that I can't even understand how so many people have been duped into it. As if being able to use an AK is going to make any difference should the sh!t hit the fan. What a con job has been pulled. Forgive my utter surprise at this, but I've never been exposed to these concepts before, and the whole thing seems just ludicrous to me.





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 10:14 AM on j-body.org
As a side note: Goodwrench's and my most recent posts here were near-simultaneous, and I did not read his before mine was posted. The fact that we echo one another in many ways is a complete coincidence. I am not "backing him up". He and I appear to have very similar views on this subject, and it makes neither of us "leftie tools" either. Rather, we're just average Joes who are aghast that so many of our fellow citizens could be this deceived. It's 100% amazing to me.





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 10:23 AM on j-body.org
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:

Because a threshold point must be determined in terms of what weapons civilians should be allowed to possess, and this makes sense. Thus, everything more lethal than it is military only, and everything less lethal is OK for civilian purpose of self-defense, hunting, or target practice.

Do you think there is a justifiable case for civilians to own military-type lethal firepower, such as a high-powered semi-auto rifle, machine gun, grenade launcher, or a rocket launcher (arranged in order of lethality)? If so, why?
I think we are separating on your "and this makes sense" statement. I don't think it makes sense.

I don't consider grenade launchers and rocket launchers guns, they fire explosives...

Ah, but that's the rub. You appear to not be including powerful firearm weaponry in your perception of military equipment. That's why I offered a basic increasing spectrum of weaponry for your consideration, to show the progression. Of course the higher powered weapons like rocket launchers are not "guns", per se, but they help illustrate that a certain threshold point of what is military and what is civilian-proper must be determined. At this time, the threshold point has been determined as high-powered semi-automatic weapons. It's a reasonable threshold in my opinion.

I don't see as how analogies to just about anything else can ever apply. Model rockets, cars, whatever...what these other items share with illegal weapons is only that they may be coveted by civilians. Where they differ is that the high-powered semi-automatic rifles, and everything above them, are designed and intended for one purpose: death. While you can possibly cause death with a model rocket or a car, they were not expressly designed for same, and are awkward ways to carry out murder or military incursion.
I'd say the threshold should be when they stop being guns and start being explosives. You can't quite take a rocket launcher to the local shooting range for "sporting purposes".

Analogies are appropriate because they simply show that if you take away the guns, someone who wants to kill still has plenty of other options.
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:

Damn...that's so unreasonable and illogical that I can't even understand how so many people have been duped into it. As if being able to use an AK is going to make any difference should the sh!t hit the fan. What a con job has been pulled. Forgive my utter surprise at this, but I've never been exposed to these concepts before, and the whole thing seems just ludicrous to me.
Definitely with you on this one. This forum is really the only place I frequent that spews this crap, but it's always entertaining at least.



/gun-supporter who doesn't own a gun, has never even fired a gun, and hates the NRA




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 11:00 AM on j-body.org
anti-gun are the sheep.

the gun is more than a tool; it is a symbol. this country was founded on revolution, terrorism and guerilla warfare--and that amendment ensures that this country can continue to sustain itself-properly and that it's government must answer to the people; for to disarm the people removes their inarguable ability to control the government.

poetically, the constitution is laid out so that the pen comes first; but when the pen fails the sword can be held. after the pen fails and the sword is drawn, the 3rd, and 4th amendments say that there is a problem with our government; with the quartering of troops, and search and seizure of property (namely literature [computers] and muskets [ZOMG ASSAULT WEPONS CS:S!]) followed by the 5th amendment, giving the people the right to control what the government knows about them and defining how the government must treat people that it deems as "revolutionary." all the way to the 10th amendment that LIMITS the power of the federal government as to what is written in the constitution. these were the original amendments, as the constitution was written. the entirety of the original constitution was so that the citizen (and states) held more power than the federal government.

granted; a few mcveigh's or koresh's here and there you are absolutely right about--paranoid people who go against the grain. however, those original 10 amendments are not written for the whackos here and there, they are written for when ALL the people of these united states--when they have exhausted their first amendment rights, to make "CHANGE."

lrn2outsidethebox(TV)





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 11:32 AM on j-body.org
All your guns going to compete with this?

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch_popup?v=jEjUAnPc2VA

Alright, so I just felt like posting that. You just know they have @!#$ like this lol.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 11:56 AM on j-body.org
Hahaha, that was great! Thanks for sharing.

So, today I learned a bit more about what I can best describe as subversve fantasies of nonexistent power. My guess is, CIA and NSA just laugh their asses off at folks who buy into this "constitutionally assured right to invoke revolution at will so give me better guns to play with". As they should.

And I thought the Bible had some hilarious interpretations! I don't know which had more comedy in this thread...the Pigeon Impossible vid, or the wingnut posts. In any case, Bravo! *applause*





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 12:09 PM on j-body.org
so ive been fed to believe something im not even a part of? i dont own guns, im not a part of the nra i dont subscribe to any gun forums or read magazines on guns. but because i have a view. im automatically been decieved by someone? come on bill i know your better then that. someone doesnt have to be duped or decieved just because they have a diffrent viewpoint as you.





okay. so since guns are obviously designed to kill. how about i make my own gun and instead of calling it a killing machine, i'll just call it a target practice marker. its marks the targets with holes. now its no longer built for killing, right since i marketed it as a target marker. just like how a car is made and advertised to get you from point a to point b.

of course we dont need millitary style weapons. hell we dont need 1000 hp cars. we dont need 10 pairs of shoes, we dont need to eat 4 value meals a day the real question is who should really decide what i should or should not have? your point that some of those criminals were law abiding citizens before they commited crimes is true. but if thats is you philosophy shouldn't we ban every single killing device from everyone because they could likely at some point in their life go crazy and kill someone? that to me sounds a bit extremeist. now we are punishing people before a crime is even comitted.




does anyone have a statistic of how many people die each year from millitary styled weapons. how big of an issue is this really?
just doing a little looking around im seeing statistics from around 1%-7% of crimes where assault style weapons are used. if speeding accounts for 10% of car accident deaths it would appear to me that speeding is a much more serious issue then asault weapons.....

Fact: The death rate for police officers is about 1/90 of 1%.

Fact: A police officer has a 3,000% higher probability of being killed in a vehicle accident than from an "assault rifle"

Fact: For the last ten years, an officer had a 1,000% higher probability of being killed feloniously with his or her own gun than from an "assault rifle" AFI and the NAFLFD have sent the above data to Congress.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice; FBI Uniform Crime Reports



Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 22, 2010 12:20 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 12:42 PM on j-body.org
Sorry if I seemed too general.

Those who've been duped are the ones who've been led to believe that having access to more powerful guns will magically give them the power to resist fascist government action, or alternately, be empowered to overthrow the government.





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 12:59 PM on j-body.org
the argument boils down to this. I have a gun, and you do not. It is known that I have a gun; by everyone. Would you try to walk into my house and take my big mac, my TV, my life away?






Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 1:19 PM on j-body.org
I also have guns. Bring it ON! lol





Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 1:56 PM on j-body.org
I never said larger guns would enable the population to overthrow the government, but if it came down to that, larger guns would certainly help.

If you think better equipment and training are the only things that can win a war, I suggest you do a little reading on the American revolution, which by the way was started because the people had had enough of their liberties stripped from them just as we are slowly losing the rights we have now.

And for those comparing me to Timothy McVeigh, Please STFU. I'm not anti government nor do I think our government is evil. Just read some history books on revolutions of the past and then tell me that one could never happen in the US.






Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 2:48 PM on j-body.org
Yikes. Go buy whatever you want. If it has great big elephant-killing bullets in it, please just don't point it at me.

Perhaps read a romance novel instead of "How To Stage a Revolution". Give yourself a mental break. You've earned it

The revolution will not be televised.

Hahn out.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 22, 2010 2:49 PM



Re: Pro Gun Control? Get in here!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010 4:03 PM on j-body.org
Talk about perfect timing:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/tea-party-leader-arrested-rape

Ex-Marine turned revolutionary, check. Grenade launcher, check.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search