RE: Good Points on Firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 9:59:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
If you care than you are willing to do something about it.....something more substantial than paying lip service to caring.
And that "something" in order to have any impact starts with admitting that there needs to be a new "reading" of the Second.

There are many that would agree with you.
Unfortunately, nobody in power in the US has done it and isn't likely to any day soon.
Basically, nobody with any power has the balls to shake the ancient tree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
An understanding that "individual" can not be separated from "well regulated militia" in the understanding of the Second.

Unfortunately mike, the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Failing that,the only other thing to do is scrap the whole thing and rewrite it with a clear understanding of modern society and the weapons that have been developed since the days of the musket.

Personally, I agree with you.
But that doesn't alter the fact that it ain't gonna happen soon and probably not in my lifetime.

From Wiki: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.

Until the Supreme court overturn its earlier ruling, the constitution is interpreted as per their 2008 decision.

As per the second paragraph, we (the Brits) also have a right to bear arms just like you do in the US.
The difference being, we don't like the regular killings so we allowed our government to curtail the general availability of arms in the UK.
And to be honest, many of us here (and those in a similar situation, ie; Canada, Australia etc) feel much better for it.
However, an awful lot of Americans are still in the mindset of 200+ years ago: "can have it, will have it, must have it; and you can't take it away from me.. so there!!".



BamaD -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:00:50 AM)

So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.



slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:02:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.

Your explanation doesn't ,and never will,hold water.



mnottertail -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:05:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So you claim to have insight on the views of the writers of the Constitution ?

Well Mike, since I have read what they said about it, yes, I do have insight, and so do the courts, that is why they rule the way I say they should.


The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8. It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

And congress has used that power, several times in our history.

Now, here is the guy who introduced the bill of rights:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php

So, it isn't quite the noble gas that you hotly spew.

Oh, and yeah, the USC has it 18-45, not 54.



joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:08:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
We are going to lose the 2nd anyway so we should just give it up.


I'm not saying to give up. I'm saying that in so many years the issue will be irrelevant. So why stay on that path? If firearm ownership at the individual level is so important to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No right comes without some limits, yelling fire in a crowded theater for example.


They are called 'exceptions'. Each of the amendments has one or more such exceptions to the rule. The 4th amendment has quite a few I never knew about until one of the previous gun threads brought it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
To pretend that this means there is no right to bear arms, a right, not a privilege for militia members.


The 2nd amendment states very clearly what and where are the limits of the militia. How its defined, its purpose, and what chief items are related to it. A militia that does not obey civilian authority (either locally, state, or federal) is not 'A well regulated militia', but a bunch of hoodlums with guns. An 'old expression' might be highwaymen or brigands!

I've stated in the past that the 'right to bear arms' at the individual level is strictly related to the militia itself. That its members must be in good standing with the militia they belong to, to have their arms. That they could have arms outside of those used with the militia. However, those arms could be subjected to local, state, and federal laws.

At the heart of this, is truth, BamaD. That gun nuts do not trust moderates or liberals, nor the federal government; but, demand unconditional trust from all three back to themselves. And are upset when they dont get it. Trust is a two way street. You want others to trust you? Its fair to demand you trust them back. Right now, the sort of people with firearms and an axe to grind with them, are not giving much in the way of trust. Or be trusted with firearms.

Now, if the state created rules for a militia, with ranks, policies, and penalties; I would feel more comfortable with the person I dont know, having a firearm. While I do not know the person, the organization, I do know. And they have to abide by rules and laws the same as the police. So if that person whom I dont know, gets out of line; he'll be dealt with and perhaps his arm taken away.

Trust....or the lack there of, is the underlying reason to the gun culture in the nation. Distrustful-ness is not doing anyone, on any of the different sides, any good. So I've in the past and even now, propose something that could restore trust between individuals. Its not perfect. Plenty of rough edges. But then, that's how the first ten amendments got their start, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Can't use stats but you can make claims like kids are dying in droves because you don't need stats to make the claim.


I dont need statistics, BamaD. I got graves. Plenty of them. Do you enjoy going to such funerals?

Your a fucking human being, right? Not a monster, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
This is particularly true since your claim runs contrary to the facts.
It is your positions that undermine your argument. Until you admit that the 2nd is an individual right, as the people who wrote it insisted, you cannot be taken seriously.


If the founding fathers insisted it was an individual right, then:

1 ) Why not state that clearly? Why bring up the militia?
2 ) Would it not make sense to put down specific guidelines to keep things uniformed, regardless of state?

Is it ok, for hoodlums to have guns? Since they are only criminal once they are caught and found guilty in a court of law. While their crime spree might be short lived; it will be tremendously bloody and horrible. Why allow them free access to firearms?

Did the founding fathers take in how technology could change the firearm? Imagine their facial expressions as we show them what modern day firearms can do to the human body. That thirty musket balls can be fired in a the blink of an eye, three hundred yards away, with very accurate results. Then sit them down and let ER doctor after ER doctor show them what its like to treat such violence. Afterward, let them chat with the victims of unregulated firearms being so freely and easy to obtain.

You want to have me believe, those founding fathers would have approached this subject matter so carelessly?

OR....

That the founding fathers believed that future generations would know how to handle future problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The claim that with the murder rate having gone so high that it will force the loss of the 2nd is only supported by a lack of statistics. Again if you pan attention to the facts you will see that we are in the midst of a dramatic DROP in all crime rates in particular gun crimes.


An that drop in the crime rate is....SOLELY....due to firearms? Do you have....ANY....idea how tough that is to prove? By all means, your the one pushing forth with the viewpoint. You are the one required to bring up the burden of proof.

Good Luck!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The rational and mature thing would be for calls like yours and Mikes to decrease not to become more frantic.


An yet, a comedian, to whom I linked to, puts down quite a few good points. None of which you or others have rebutted as of this writing.



slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:09:57 AM)

Mail call Joether



joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:15:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
am only dropping in to say this. I suspect there are many reasons why leftists (on the whole) don't like guns, and I strongly suspect one of them might be conservatives who are independent and self reliant.

if i am correct, then until that nugget is plumbed, a large part of the conversation occurs on a surface level with the two sides talking past each other.


A sweeping generalization of bullshit....

Dude, I'm a liberal kind of guy on many issues. I'm conservative on others. I like firearms the same as the next person. Have gone hunting, target shooting, and even fired a few muskets. That you assume all liberals dont know how to fire guns, or all conservatives are unable to reason or think; really is full of shit!

The point of this thread, that you apparently missed, is of a video I presented for discussion.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:24:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Without reading the thread and it's attendant bullshit apologists for the second....I'm going to comment strictly on the video,rather than respond to the idiots.
First off,he met the criteria for comedy...he was fucking funny.
Second he was correct (while remaining funny)in his attack on the justifications for arming oneself ......gun enthusiasts rational for possessing an arsenal is full of holes .
Third I agree with him,go back to muskets and I'll buy mine [:D]
And Thanks for proving that the video the penguin brought to this discussion had nothing to do with being rational and everything to do with backing his irrational viewpoint...as well as your own.


So you didn't think it was funny
That's okay with me,humor is subjective and us disagreeing on that is no problem.
I will assert though that I ,being funny myself,have a greater sense of what is,and what is not ,funny than you do.
Now I'll sit back and wait to see how you decide to refute my assertion that he was indeed funny....that is what you were refuting,right ?

I don't find him all that funny and as you said, humor is subjective. He comes from the same point of view as Joether...take all guns...and anyone who believes differently than that must believe that there should be no laws regarding guns. Once you take that stance, there is nothing to be argued.

Proof? Since Joether asked for a rational discussion, he has called ANY who disagree with that premise screwballs and he has once again brought his 2nd Amendment...as defined by him...argument. That's not leaving much room for a rational discussion is it?



BamaD -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:31:01 AM)

The 2nd amendment states very clearly what and where are the limits of the militia.

Come on Jother, you know that isn't true.



BamaD -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:34:32 AM)

I'm not saying to give up. I'm saying that in so many years the issue will be irrelevant. So why stay on that path? If firearm ownership at the individual level is so important to you?


Joether you aren't saying give up? But you turn around and say why fight it since (in your opinion ) it will go away in any case.
Yes the entire document is that important to me.
Perhaps if I lived in the Peoples Republic of MA I would be wise enough to see that it is just a scrap of paper that means whatever we want it to.



joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:36:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.


The modern day neighborhood watch would repel an invading foreign nation? Rampaging indians? Dealing with brigands? Some how, your 'understanding' of the militia is not even remotely true.

Militias were set up to handle two very distinctive issues:

1 ) Domestic Issues

The militia would be called up when local law enforcement could not handle a problem. Or that the problem required manpower rather than firepower. For example, a militia might be called up to help stop a forest fire or flood. Or to handle a local group of Indians that were terrorizing a local population. It could be called up to help other militias to handling one or more problems.

2 ) Foreign Invaders

competing nations, indians, pirates, the entire degree of hostiles, is the other portion of the militia's duties. The original thirteen had plenty of border space with unowned and unknown territory. One day it could be empty, the next an invading force. That the militia could be called up quickly help keep some events from turning truly ugly for the good citizens of the young nation.

"A well regulated militia..." is not some yahoo's with guns and an axe to grind with the government. They are a group that must uphold security and defense of the state. That military ranks were employed. So were rules and laws. That a person found in fault of one or more of these rules/laws would be penalized. Some of them did involve being shot to death.

"...for the security of a free state."

This was explained above.

"The right to bear arms...." had nothing to do with the individuals right to have a gun for any fucking reason. No, it was believed that if an enemy force could infiltrate into a town and blow up the arsenal, it would leave the town defenseless. But if individuals, part of that militia and in good standing had arms, they could not only defend the town, but quite possibly repel the invading force. An if you were charged with a crime, some of the penalizes did involve removing your arms from you.

"....shall not be infringe." This does not give you an unconditional right to a firearm free of law or regulation. Actually something....VERY...different. The belief was that if a civilian authority whom controlled the militia could direct it and control it, could they also order it to remove their arms? As a preemptive strike of tyranny? The answer was 'no'. That the militia would take a vote on the issue. And if it decided not to lay down its arms, it would not be penalized by it.




joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:40:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The 2nd amendment states very clearly what and where are the limits of the militia.

Come on Jother, you know that isn't true.


Are you in a well regulated militia? If so, give me the name of your CO and his or her phone number. Then I can contact him or her (because some women really are badass commanders), to verify that you are indeed in the militia and in good standings to bear one or more militia-approved firearms.

Of course this phone number should be from a state approved listing for your local area, and not some 'recently purchased' cellphone from twenty minutes ago.




BamaD -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:42:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.


The modern day neighborhood watch would repel an invading foreign nation? Rampaging indians? Dealing with brigands? Some how, your 'understanding' of the militia is not even remotely true.

Militias were set up to handle two very distinctive issues:

1 ) Domestic Issues

The militia would be called up when local law enforcement could not handle a problem. Or that the problem required manpower rather than firepower. For example, a militia might be called up to help stop a forest fire or flood. Or to handle a local group of Indians that were terrorizing a local population. It could be called up to help other militias to handling one or more problems.

2 ) Foreign Invaders

competing nations, indians, pirates, the entire degree of hostiles, is the other portion of the militia's duties. The original thirteen had plenty of border space with unowned and unknown territory. One day it could be empty, the next an invading force. That the militia could be called up quickly help keep some events from turning truly ugly for the good citizens of the young nation.

"A well regulated militia..." is not some yahoo's with guns and an axe to grind with the government. They are a group that must uphold security and defense of the state. That military ranks were employed. So were rules and laws. That a person found in fault of one or more of these rules/laws would be penalized. Some of them did involve being shot to death.

"...for the security of a free state."

This was explained above.

"The right to bear arms...." had nothing to do with the individuals right to have a gun for any fucking reason. No, it was believed that if an enemy force could infiltrate into a town and blow up the arsenal, it would leave the town defenseless. But if individuals, part of that militia and in good standing had arms, they could not only defend the town, but quite possibly repel the invading force. An if you were charged with a crime, some of the penalizes did involve removing your arms from you.

"....shall not be infringe." This does not give you an unconditional right to a firearm free of law or regulation. Actually something....VERY...different. The belief was that if a civilian authority whom controlled the militia could direct it and control it, could they also order it to remove their arms? As a preemptive strike of tyranny? The answer was 'no'. That the militia would take a vote on the issue. And if it decided not to lay down its arms, it would not be penalized by it.



The neighborhood watch is to fight crime, in case you are unaware of it criminals are brigands.
The rest is left wing rambling devoid of contact with reality and, contrary to your previous contention not part of the 2nd.
Also you just destroyed your argument.
If there is no penalty for a militia disbanding then the former members still have the right to keep their firearms, you just shot yourself in the foot, with and Uzi.



Timmyc -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:44:08 AM)

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.



ExiledTyrant -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:46:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.


Hence the need for abolishing the rule of thumb and making it the rule of wrist.

Jus sayin



PeonForHer -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 10:55:50 AM)

FR

How can anybody dislike guns? Guns are yummy!



mnottertail -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 11:03:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.


The modern day neighborhood watch would repel an invading foreign nation? Rampaging indians? Dealing with brigands? Some how, your 'understanding' of the militia is not even remotely true.

Militias were set up to handle two very distinctive issues:

1 ) Domestic Issues

The militia would be called up when local law enforcement could not handle a problem. Or that the problem required manpower rather than firepower. For example, a militia might be called up to help stop a forest fire or flood. Or to handle a local group of Indians that were terrorizing a local population. It could be called up to help other militias to handling one or more problems.

2 ) Foreign Invaders

competing nations, indians, pirates, the entire degree of hostiles, is the other portion of the militia's duties. The original thirteen had plenty of border space with unowned and unknown territory. One day it could be empty, the next an invading force. That the militia could be called up quickly help keep some events from turning truly ugly for the good citizens of the young nation.

"A well regulated militia..." is not some yahoo's with guns and an axe to grind with the government. They are a group that must uphold security and defense of the state. That military ranks were employed. So were rules and laws. That a person found in fault of one or more of these rules/laws would be penalized. Some of them did involve being shot to death.

"...for the security of a free state."

This was explained above.

"The right to bear arms...." had nothing to do with the individuals right to have a gun for any fucking reason. No, it was believed that if an enemy force could infiltrate into a town and blow up the arsenal, it would leave the town defenseless. But if individuals, part of that militia and in good standing had arms, they could not only defend the town, but quite possibly repel the invading force. An if you were charged with a crime, some of the penalizes did involve removing your arms from you.

"....shall not be infringe." This does not give you an unconditional right to a firearm free of law or regulation. Actually something....VERY...different. The belief was that if a civilian authority whom controlled the militia could direct it and control it, could they also order it to remove their arms? As a preemptive strike of tyranny? The answer was 'no'. That the militia would take a vote on the issue. And if it decided not to lay down its arms, it would not be penalized by it.



The neighborhood watch is to fight crime, in case you are unaware of it criminals are brigands.
The rest is left wing rambling devoid of contact with reality and, contrary to your previous contention not part of the 2nd.
Also you just destroyed your argument.
If there is no penalty for a militia disbanding then the former members still have the right to keep their firearms, you just shot yourself in the foot, with and Uzi.



Except you are full of shit, which is your usual state. I quoted the constitution and the introduction into the house.



thishereboi -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 11:13:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.



Wow, you broke your forum cherry for that? Way to make a first impression.



slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 11:14:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I'm not saying to give up. I'm saying that in so many years the issue will be irrelevant. So why stay on that path? If firearm ownership at the individual level is so important to you?


Joether you aren't saying give up? But you turn around and say why fight it since (in your opinion ) it will go away in any case.
Yes the entire document is that important to me.
Perhaps if I lived in the Peoples Republic of MA I would be wise enough to see that it is just a scrap of paper that means whatever we want it to.

Damm Bama,read what he says instead of your knee jerk reaction to it.What he is clearly saying is... abandon the NRA's unworkable opposition to any and all reasonable adjustments to the problem of gun violence in this country...and embrace the fact that there must be change.The situation is clearly unsustainable.
Unless you just don't care about the victims,which brings it back full circle[8|]



slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 11:16:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.

Welcome to the forums...unfortunately you just went and insulted a good many folks,since I am unusually well endowed I have no issue with what you say.
Others are probably going to be.....up in arms....lol



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625