Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surprise her with breakfast


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surprise her with breakfast Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 2:43:18 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
Hey Bama... you know this guy?

Or maybe this little guy?

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 1/12/2015 2:49:20 PM >


_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 2:56:05 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Sorry if you wish to conduct such childish hypothetical games, please feel free but please don't try to involve me - I'm definitely the wrong girl for you.


I'm sorry if you don't wish to discuss things. But, I'll leave you out. I concede that you can out-childish me any day of the week.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 2:57:43 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?


Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 4:30:50 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Hey Bama... you know this guy?

Or maybe this little guy?

Butch


You are trying to create the impression that I took a stand that I didn't.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 4:41:47 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?


Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.


There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 4:43:53 PM   
Missokyst


Posts: 6041
Joined: 9/9/2006
Status: offline
Next time, don't forget the sausage.

_____________________________

pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding ~Gibran, Kahlil

“The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for.”
― Bob Marley


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/12/2015 4:44:58 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
No, she got his chest, not his sausage...but then, she was shooting through a closet door.

(in reply to Missokyst)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 2:16:20 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?


Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.


There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.


Best tactical approach? No, they reacted without their minds engaging. Its called reaction time. Soldiers whom hear an artillery strike inbound, duck into cover (while the newbie gets blasted). Thinking and acting in those seconds are two very different things. All those with firearms were not expecting anything more than a brief speech from a few people. Their subconscious would behave much differently if there was the sensation of a threat about to take place. Its like walking down a street. One that you have walked hundreds of times. Only this time, someone tries to attack you in surprise. Those first few moments, your not thinking, your reacting. Most people are simply petrified. Kinda of like the opening seconds of that 2011 shooting.

That the guy tackled the shooter, reacted and decided on a course of action. Good or not, its the one he made. Even though he was armed. For you and others, sadly, would have drawn the gun, and the body count would have been so much larger. So was the guy thinking tactically? Or just merely reacting quickly to danger?


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 6:46:34 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?


Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.


There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.


Best tactical approach? No, they reacted without their minds engaging. Its called reaction time. Soldiers whom hear an artillery strike inbound, duck into cover (while the newbie gets blasted). Thinking and acting in those seconds are two very different things. All those with firearms were not expecting anything more than a brief speech from a few people. Their subconscious would behave much differently if there was the sensation of a threat about to take place. Its like walking down a street. One that you have walked hundreds of times. Only this time, someone tries to attack you in surprise. Those first few moments, your not thinking, your reacting. Most people are simply petrified. Kinda of like the opening seconds of that 2011 shooting.

That the guy tackled the shooter, reacted and decided on a course of action. Good or not, its the one he made. Even though he was armed. For you and others, sadly, would have drawn the gun, and the body count would have been so much larger. So was the guy thinking tactically? Or just merely reacting quickly to danger?




Thank you for your expertise joether. Where can I get a crystal ball just like yours ?


_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 8:11:24 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

joether speaks out of ignorance, knows nothing about the military

Soldiers are trained in basic to react appropriately to a given situation, and with his example as long as you can hear the artillery shell overhead you are fine

If it stops howling you know you are fucked though, because that means you are in the direct trajectory

Generally you are always in cover as well, low to the ground (or below it) as much as is practical in a war zone

You may duck a little further if possible while under direct fire but you are essentially always "ducked" as much as possible

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 8:30:27 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Modern artillery is supersonic. You dont hear it until it is too late. Anyone who says that knows nothing about the military. Period. End of discussion.

But I doubt he heard the blast from the gun. Unless he lived a while.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 9:04:25 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Modern artillery is supersonic. You dont hear it until it is too late. Anyone who says that knows nothing about the military. Period. End of discussion.

But I doubt he heard the blast from the gun. Unless he lived a while.




Artillery hasnt changed a whole lot since I spent many of my days targeting it

I have never considered the why too much, but you would have to consider that the reason one can hear it when it is overhead and not when it is coming right at you is because it is hypersonic

Overhead the angles of the sound waves vs the angle of the shell allows it to be heard

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 9:14:58 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Nope, all that noise.......by the time you hear the blast from the breech, that shell is away away, it dont sound like that anywhere else. The explosions are deafening, but any sound you hear is after the fact. You wouldn't have time to save yourself. And as you should know, if on either end of that the rumbles and whatnot are deafening, those screams are far behind the shell. Far behind.


Oh, yeah................and short rounds.

And hypersonic is around Mach 5, artillery shells ain't that fast that I am aware of. Supersonic is about it. The fastest ones I know are around 6000k/hr. Hypersonic is over 7,000k/hr.

Now, I am willing to learn of a gun that shoots hypersonic, perhaps you have a credible citation of those specs somewhere?


What was your MOS?


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/13/2015 9:17:43 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 9:36:40 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

No, you can definitely hear them as the go overhead. You never spent any time downrange...

Were you a gun bunny?

13F







< Message edited by Sanity -- 1/13/2015 9:44:00 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 9:58:54 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

You are trying to create the impression that I took a stand that I didn't.


No...not trying for that impression... I know your views on gun safety... Just trying to show you that more regulation is needed to keep guns out of the hands of these kind of people.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 10:01:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
No, again, when you hear them they are way past you, simple physics, sound does not travel as fast as the shell. Speed of sound is 1244 (and change) khr. A shell is 6000k/hr. I know you are innumerate, do the math, when the sound is there, the shell is somewhere way else.

11B40 was one of my MOSes. 35 series another. Interestingly when what we were doing was disbanded in the 35s I ended up an 11B in a 65 outfit. We ran cleanup at Grafenwohr, Wildflecken, Wintex, shit like that, I was down in the Artillery range enough.


Now, on to your hypersonic guns, where is the credible citation of specs, please?






< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/13/2015 10:04:28 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 12:26:54 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?


Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.


There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.


Best tactical approach? No, they reacted without their minds engaging. Its called reaction time. Soldiers whom hear an artillery strike inbound, duck into cover (while the newbie gets blasted). Thinking and acting in those seconds are two very different things. All those with firearms were not expecting anything more than a brief speech from a few people. Their subconscious would behave much differently if there was the sensation of a threat about to take place. Its like walking down a street. One that you have walked hundreds of times. Only this time, someone tries to attack you in surprise. Those first few moments, your not thinking, your reacting. Most people are simply petrified. Kinda of like the opening seconds of that 2011 shooting.

That the guy tackled the shooter, reacted and decided on a course of action. Good or not, its the one he made. Even though he was armed. For you and others, sadly, would have drawn the gun, and the body count would have been so much larger. So was the guy thinking tactically? Or just merely reacting quickly to danger?



With some of us tactics are an ingrained natural reaction.
Again you make an assumption about not only without facts but which are wrong. I got mugged once because I was in a position when I couldn't fight back? why? Because with my glasses totally fogged over there was too much chance of a stray from me going into the house across the street. Half second of analysis was needed. This not only means you are jumping to conclusions without facts but, as is so often the case, you are a perfect 180 degrees off.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 12:28:42 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
"ingrained natural reaction"?

The term you're looking for is "knee-jerk reaction"

Btw, more purportedly happens to you than to any 50 other people. Makes it hard to believe. As in highly unlikely.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 1/13/2015 12:29:49 PM >

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 12:50:56 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

You are trying to create the impression that I took a stand that I didn't.


No...not trying for that impression... I know your views on gun safety... Just trying to show you that more regulation is needed to keep guns out of the hands of these kind of people.

Butch

Child endangerment laws already cover this.
People have already been arrested for posts like this without a special law.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surp... - 1/13/2015 4:26:11 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
People are getting arrested for posts ?
Shit I'm in trouble

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Woman accidentally shoots husband who tried to surprise her with breakfast Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109