Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by yourguitarhero Yeah, you can never eradicate these kinds of crimes but you can reduce them. I mean, what do the public really need guns for? There will always be evil, destructive people. The only real way to "reduce" these type of incidents is to be ready for them and have preventative measures. You'll never be able to stop people from trying. You can only attempt to limit their effectiveness. In case you missed it, most of these people plan on dying going into these situations Usually by their own hand no less. There is no reasoning with someone like that. They are completely gone. How you can acknowledge heinous acts and then ask why people need protection in the next sentence? The recent theater shooting, the mall shooting, and this school shooting were all done in "gun free" zones. Has it really not dawned on some of you why these places would be ideal for someone looking to kill as many people as possible? Just in case this is still falling on deaf ears, just think for a second. If you wanted to kill as many people as possible with the least resistance where would you go? I bet most of you are now thinking of a place where there would be the least opposition. "Gun free" zones basically designate to these people where they'll have the most time to go nuts without much fear of getting killed in the middle of their rampage. One of the biggest deterrents to any criminal is not knowing who is armed. These "gun free" zones take out that guesswork. It's sad that the world is the way it is and that these things are even a concern but recent events are proof that evil people do in fact still exist and that these things do happen. This is the part where people say chances of these things happening is rare so guns are not needed. Then in the same breath they'll say these things happen too much ban guns. So which is it? The mind is the real weapon. Guns, fire, bombs, knives, etc are just tools to do the mind's bidding. Evil people with the desire to hurt others have always and will always be around. Those people will always find an available way/weapon to do what they want to do. Fixating on a specific tool/weapon is completely ignoring the actual issue. As soon as someone can explain to me how disarming law abiding citizens will somehow reduce the amount of crazy law-disregarding lunatics out there, I'll entertain the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 once you arm your teachers your civilised culture has died. Just make guns tougher to get, don't necessarily ban them just have stricter guide lines. 1 lock up your weapons at home in a safe bolted to the ground, then keep the ammo in another safe meters away. 2. have random checks to make sure people are following the rules. 3. have a written test on why the person needs the gun and have it signed by a local official. 4. make sure every gun owned by a person has the serial numbers matched on a 2 or 3 year basis. 5. limit the amount of guns, and to be honest ban assault riffles or at least make the licence for them VERY strict indeed. This way you can keep your right to have a weapon, but in turn may help reduce chance shootings. Most criminals get illegal guns through break ins, if you make it very hard for them to get the weapons that helps keep at least a few guns off the street. What do I know I am a Euro commie who has never had to worry about this stuff Seriously I have family there and it does upset me to see mass killings like that, even more when I see kids my sons age are killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members satannica Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 My first time in Philidelphia, walking around to get my bearings. In the space of 90 minutes, I was offered by THREE different people, drugs, a gun and a girl!I mean, if I had a mind to, I could have gotten high, shot some mofos and had my way with a young lass. With all that {censored} not only freely available, but being readily offered up, yeah I'd say you guys have some problems.I would bet if I walked through Brixton and started asking people for guns, I'd get some really funny looks. Granted, I may fare better looking for drugs or girls, but guns... yeah, bit of a tall order that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shodan5000 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Gotta ban knives now.http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stabb...k-315073.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Shodan5000 Gotta ban knives now. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stabb...k-315073.shtml ok first off "A man with a knife has wounded 22 " wounded not killed, where if it was a gun they would more than likely to be dead. Also the kid who committed the gun attacks was a complete wuss and with a knife would less likely to have done so much damage. Your argument is old and floored. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blckbldng Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Owning guns in America is a tradition and part of the culture. Nobody can go against that.It's like us in Belgium with drinking and driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MkVIII Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 My first time in Philidelphia, walking around to get my bearings. In the space of 90 minutes, I was offered by THREE different people, drugs, a gun and a girl!I mean, if I had a mind to, I could have gotten high, shot some mofos and had my way with a young lass. With all that {censored} not only freely available, but being readily offered up, yeah I'd say you guys have some problems.I would bet if I walked through Brixton and started asking people for guns, I'd get some really funny looks. Granted, I may fare better looking for drugs or girls, but guns... yeah, bit of a tall order that one! Our 40 year long "war on drugs" at work...it'll be the same way if guns were banned. I'm not gonna get into whether or not gun control would have prevented this or whether guns would have helped to stop it because I think its all irrelevant to the issue. Our mental health system is total {censored} and american culture is {censored}ed. Calling for gun control completely ignores the real issue of why someone thought that killing 20 kids was ok. Personally, I think the media coverage of these kind of events is to blame. Every time there's some kind of mass shooting, the media makes an instant celebrity out of the shooter. Questioning their motives, talking to their friends and families and basically looking into every detail of their life. The dude who shot up the mall in Oregon even got a cool little computer-simulated video of what he would have looked like when it was going down. Someone who is nuts enough to do this sees this and gets ideas and a guarantee of fame. If you pay attention to the news coverage, almost all of these shootings happen in little clusters right after each other...pretty clear if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 once you arm your teachers your civilised culture has died. As I stated above it sucks that these kinds of things are even a concern, but how do you equate preventative measures as the death of a civilized culture? Is it somehow more civilized to be defenseless against threats that are out there? We take medicine to fight disease. We have shelters meant to help us withstand acts of god. We even have Air Marshals on planes to hopefully prevent any attempts at hijacking planes. Why is this different? The whole point is to possibly defend against the uncivilized. Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 Just make guns tougher to get, don't necessarily ban them just have stricter guide lines. 1 lock up your weapons at home in a safe bolted to the ground, then keep the ammo in another safe meters away. I don't recommend locking a bunch of ammo in a safe. Lots of gun powder in a small airtight space is pretty much by definition a bomb. Seriously though most people with decent stuff have a safe if only for the fact that they don't want to lose their stuff. A safe is a great idea but if someone knows you're going to be gone a while they will eventually get in there if they want. This also doesn't stop people from going through legal channels to get a gun and does nothing as far as the act itself. Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 2. have random checks to make sure people are following the rules. What rules? Also, we're talking about someone getting a gun and killing a bunch of people. Unless they are checking every 15 minutes this will do nothing regardless of the rules. What's to stop someone from grabbing a gun out of their safe right now and going and shooting a bunch of people? It'll be over in a minute or two. Does it really matter that whoever had a "rule checking" appointment in 2 weeks? Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 3. have a written test on why the person needs the gun and have it signed by a local official. This is bad. So bad. This puts everyone in danger of not being able to have a gun at all. Is shooting as a hobby a good enough reason? Is protection a good enough reason? Who gets to decide where the line is? Do I already have to have bullet holes in me to prove why I would need one? Our 2nd amendment right has actual purposes. This suggestion effectively gives away your RIGHT to what our founding fathers thought to be the strongest reason to establish the right. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Aibric Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 There will never be enough regulations, laws, policing, mental heath care, medication, etc to keep these kind of tragedies from happening altogether. Just taking the gun issue out of it for a moment, how many wildfires have we had in recent years that have destroyed thousands of homes, killed and injured scores of people, and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources that were either known or suspected to have been caused by arson? I suspect that there is a complex cocktail of elements in our population and culture that contribute to the rise in "anti-social" crimes. We have a fragmented, alienating culture based almost solely on economics that is largely absent of traditional communities. Many more traditional communities that once existed have degenerated into poverty as the younger population moves to urban areas or have been swallowed up into metro areas with urban sprawl. We have a well-established family culture of absentee parenting, whether due to both parents being forced to work for economic reasons, both parents choosing to work to get more money, major increases in single parents, etc. We also have what seems to be (allow me to don my flamesuit) a small but significant and growing portion of our population that is dysgenic. Due to a variety of currents in political and ethical thought, and particularly as a result of the aftermath of WWII, we abandoned earlier programs that sought to limit the contribution of these elements to the population. If I had more trust in our government (as it stands I have close to zero), I would be far more inclined to support a new look at such programs. Eugenics is a dirty word to most people, and it was once to me too but given the advances in our understanding of genetics and heredity, it seems sort of an elephant in the room to me. Obviously that is a dangerous area for any state apparatus to touch, but I wonder how much of the well has to be poisoned before we end up being unable to ignore it. We know there is a genetic factor in things like anti-social personality disorder - something exhibited by many serial killers, mass murderers, and deviants in general - as well as other things that contribute to a decline in general mental and even physical health of the population. I'm not saying x kind of person should be sterilized, I'm just saying there are questions we should be asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 As I stated above it sucks that these kinds of things are even a concern, but how do you equate preventative measures as the death of a civilized culture? Is it somehow more civilized to be defenseless against threats that are out there? We take medicine to fight disease. We have shelters meant to help us withstand acts of god. We even have Air Marshals on planes to hopefully prevent any attempts at hijacking planes. Why is this different? The whole point is to possibly defend against the uncivilized. I don't recommend locking a bunch of ammo in a safe. Lots of gun powder in a small airtight space is pretty much by definition a bomb. Seriously though most people with decent stuff have a safe if only for the fact that they don't want to lose their stuff. A safe is a great idea but if someone knows you're going to be gone a while they will eventually get in there if they want. that's why its bolted to the floor in a different place This also doesn't stop people from going through legal channels to get a gun and does nothing as far as the act itself. no but it helps What rules? Also, we're talking about someone getting a gun and killing a bunch of people. Unless they are checking every 15 minutes this will do nothing regardless of the rules. What's to stop someone from grabbing a gun out of their safe right now and going and shooting a bunch of people? It'll be over in a minute or two. Does it really matter that whoever had a "rule checking" appointment in 2 weeks? it would be a random test This is bad. So bad. This puts everyone in danger of not being able to have a gun at all. Is shooting as a hobby a good enough reason? Is protection a good enough reason? Who gets to decide where the line is? Do I already have to have bullet holes in me to prove why I would need one? Our 2nd amendment right has actual purposes. This suggestion effectively gives away your RIGHT to what our founding fathers thought to be the strongest reason to establish the right. second amendment that was written in a different era, a glock wont stop an AH64 gunship "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 ok first off "A man with a knife has wounded 22 " wounded not killed, where if it was a gun they would more than likely to be dead. Also the kid who committed the gun attacks was a complete wuss and with a knife would less likely to have done so much damage. Your argument is old and floored. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910 You do realize that a wusses other alternatives could have been fire or explosives which both would have surely increased the deathtoll several times over right? Even overseas our soldier's biggest threat is from little {censored}ty crude IEDs and pipe-bomb type devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 at the end of the day you are so pro gun the NRA is embarrassed, but you have to admit things look {censored}ed up there. I have discussed this with many Americans here (in Japan) so its not just my commie Brit ways. Your country needs to something or it will get worse and worse. This is why you should stay out of debates. I addressed each of your points. Rather than explain where my logic is off you just throw an attempt at an insult. I am pro-good idea. If giving up my guns would actually save lives and fix the problem I would do it. As it stands though I don't murder people and don't let my stuff get stolen so we're back to square one. So now law-abiding people like myself are unarmed. See the thing about us law-abiding guys is that we don't kill people. Whew thank god you took my guns away. Now I can go back to not hurting anyone. That was a close one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 You do realize that a wusses other alternatives could have been fire or explosives which both would have surely increased the deathtoll several times over right? Even overseas our soldier's biggest threat is from little {censored}ty crude IEDs and pipe-bomb type devices. yeah yeah but maybe he wouldn't have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hardtail Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 This is why you should stay out of debates. I addressed each of your points. Rather than explain where my logic is off you just throw an attempt at an insult. I am pro-good idea. If giving up my guns would actually save lives and fix the problem I would do it. As it stands though I don't murder people and don't let my stuff get stolen so we're back to square one. So now law-abiding people like myself are unarmed. See the thing about us law-abiding guys is that we don't kill people. Whew thank god you took my guns away. Now I can go back to not hurting anyone. That was a close one! WELL PUT ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 BTW you're right. The 2nd amendment was written in a different era. Then over time we allowed our government to start eroding our freedoms bit by bit, usually in the name of "security." When it was written we had the right to anything the government had the right to, even cannons. Our rights were not meant to keep the government safe from us. They were to keep us safe from the government. They are limitations of the government.In any case yeah not much you can do with regular old rifles against a fighter jet, but unless we got to the point that they're just killing everyone I doubt they'd be sending missiles down into civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 yeah yeah but maybe he wouldn't have Maybes go both ways. You'll have to excuse me that I don't put any faith in a person that indiscriminately kills children and then himself. That is about as low as you can go. There are probably a lot of murderers that would tell you they have no problem killing but still wouldn't kill a kid. Once you're at that point in your head where any of that could even be a serious thought, let alone something you are capable of doing, I'm pretty sure the sky is the limit for what other evils you are capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 once you arm your teachers your civilised culture has died. Just make guns tougher to get, don't necessarily ban them just have stricter guide lines. 1 lock up your weapons at home in a safe bolted to the ground, then keep the ammo in another safe meters away. 2. have random checks to make sure people are following the rules. 3. have a written test on why the person needs the gun and have it signed by a local official. 4. make sure every gun owned by a person has the serial numbers matched on a 2 or 3 year basis. 5. limit the amount of guns, and to be honest ban assault riffles or at least make the licence for them VERY strict indeed. This way you can keep your right to have a weapon, but in turn may help reduce chance shootings. Most criminals get illegal guns through break ins, if you make it very hard for them to get the weapons that helps keep at least a few guns off the street. What do I know I am a Euro commie who has never had to worry about this stuff Seriously I have family there and it does upset me to see mass killings like that, even more when I see kids my sons age are killed. 1. Is a good idea. I keep mine locked up. All of your other points don't seem to be based on logic. -No American (well haha most) would allow random searches of thier homes and shouldn't. -Tests and needing signatures just delays the process longer than nessesary. Besides, what justification is ok? People can just lie here. -Serial numbers are currently put on ATF federal form 4473 and a backround check is performed when you buy a firearm at a store. Since serial numbers don't change on firearms that are owned leagally what good does checking them every 2-3 years do except burden tax payers? -Why do you think ARs are more deadly than any other firearm? -Why should we limit the amount you can own (as in what benifit to public safety does this work in favor for)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members newholland Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 yeah.. neil-- i have some essential problems with your plan.. and i {censored}ing HATE handguns.gun safes are generally part of MOST responsible gun owner's plans that I've known.the random checks are by definition, the beginning of a slide into fascism. illegal search and seizure is what it's called.the tests make sense-- but are administered by the government, and you'd need an active bureau to take care of that. serial number matching. that's interesting-- but again-- who's going to administer that?and there are assault rifle limits on the books.it's all down to enforcement.. and when it comes down to it-- a war on guns is going to be as difficult to fight and win as a war on drugs, which has been an IMMENSE boondoggle and massive squandering of american tax money for no net gain.like i said-- i couldn't be less pro-gun. but the issue is SO significant at this point that i can't see these things HELPING-- just costing money and being ineffectual- and i just see the borders being porous for smuggling of ammunition and illegal guns.. just like with illegal drugs.. so people who shouldn't have them would find ways to get them, and people who, in theory, 'should'.. well.. they'd still be outclassed.its sad, but we seem to've lost the ability to be our brother's keeper, and with ubiquitous media promoting the image of violence and parenting sucking.. and people being sued by parents when they discipline their bad kids... people are afraid of each other, and this is the end product of fear and anger at isolation- not necessarily guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members newholland Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 yeah.. neil-- i have some essential problems with your plan.. and i {censored}ing HATE handguns.gun safes are generally part of MOST responsible gun owner's plans that I've known.the random checks are by definition, the beginning of a slide into fascism. illegal search and seizure is what it's called.the tests make sense-- but are administered by the government, and you'd need an active bureau to take care of that. serial number matching. that's interesting-- but again-- who's going to administer that?and there are assault rifle limits on the books.it's all down to enforcement.. and when it comes down to it-- a war on guns is going to be as difficult to fight and win as a war on drugs, which has been an IMMENSE boondoggle and massive squandering of american tax money for no net gain.like i said-- i couldn't be less pro-gun. but the issue is SO significant at this point that i can't see these things HELPING-- just costing money and being ineffectual- and i just see the borders being porous for smuggling of ammunition and illegal guns.. just like with illegal drugs.. so people who shouldn't have them would find ways to get them, and people who, in theory, 'should'.. well.. they'd still be outclassed.its sad, but we seem to've lost the ability to be our brother's keeper, and with ubiquitous media promoting the image of violence and parenting sucking.. and people being sued by parents when they discipline their bad kids... people are afraid of each other, and this is the end product of fear and anger at isolation- not necessarily guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by newholland yeah.. neil-- i have some essential problems with your plan.. and i {censored}ing HATE handguns. gun safes are generally part of MOST responsible gun owner's plans that I've known. the random checks are by definition, the beginning of a slide into fascism. illegal search and seizure is what it's called. the tests make sense-- but are administered by the government, and you'd need an active bureau to take care of that. serial number matching. that's interesting-- but again-- who's going to administer that? and there are assault rifle limits on the books. it's all down to enforcement.. and when it comes down to it-- a war on guns is going to be as difficult to fight and win as a war on drugs, which has been an IMMENSE boondoggle and massive squandering of american tax money for no net gain. like i said-- i couldn't be less pro-gun. but the issue is SO significant at this point that i can't see these things HELPING-- just costing money and being ineffectual- and i just see the borders being porous for smuggling of ammunition and illegal guns.. just like with illegal drugs.. so people who shouldn't have them would find ways to get them, and people who, in theory, 'should'.. well.. they'd still be outclassed. its sad, but we seem to've lost the ability to be our brother's keeper, and with ubiquitous media promoting the image of violence and parenting sucking.. and people being sued by parents when they discipline their bad kids... people are afraid of each other, and this is the end product of fear and anger at isolation- not necessarily guns. Actually most of those ideas come from rules in other countries But I am bored discussing it, I guess I am lucky enough to live in 2 countries where most gun crime is kept between gangsters in private and the rest is very very rare. I am not against guns, but only if they are regulated as they are designed built and used for killing. Its not a farm tool it's a killing tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 Actually most of those ideas come from rules in other countries But I am bored discussing it, I guess I am lucky enough to live in 2 countries where most gun crime is kept between gangsters in private and the rest is very very rare. I am not against guns, but only if they are regulated as they are designed built and used for killing. Its not a farm tool it's a killing tool. You're not bored discussing it. As always you just don't have much to say. You can't explain why your suggestions would ACTUALLY do anything. This is the main problem I see with the ban gun people. They'll say they want all these things or suggest certain things but then can't explain at all how any of those things would actually make a difference at all. Then somehow they always get "bored" or for one reason or another drop out without any actual explanation. They also never admit they they just realized that their suggestions or comments don't have a lot of merit. Easier to just go away I guess. Even easier than that is staying out of debates you don't wish to actually have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members newholland Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Neilrocks25 Actually most of those ideas come from rules in other countries But I am bored discussing it, I guess I am lucky enough to live in 2 countries where most gun crime is kept between gangsters in private and the rest is very very rare. I am not against guns, but only if they are regulated as they are designed built and used for killing. Its not a farm tool it's a killing tool. no-- i know it that most are from other countries. i don't disagree with you about any of it, honestly. but the other aspect, in some ways, it completely cultural, and weirdly american. there's a very huge divide right now too that people don't trust the government to do ANYTHING right... and there's those that want the government to take care of everything- sometimes in the very same person. do we throw money pay bureaucrats to be ineffectual to write paper and enforce these things? will it be another paper tiger? or do we invalidate our own constitution and step on 'civil liberties' to protect civil liberties by entrusting an untrustable government to enforcement? it's definitely a mess. that said-- single shot rifles are and always will be farm tools, and i'm not sure they should be legislated against -- but clipped assault weapons and handguns are a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 You're not bored discussing it. As always you just don't have much to say. You can't explain why your suggestions would ACTUALLY do anything. This is the main problem I see with the ban gun people. They'll say they want all these things or suggest certain things but then can't explain at all how any of those things would actually make a difference at all. Then somehow they always get "bored" or for one reason or another drop out without any actual explanation. They also never admit they they just realized that their suggestions or comments don't have a lot of merit. Easier to just go away I guess. Even easier than that is staying out of debates you don't wish to actually have. blah blah the reason I am bored is because you have made up your mind I can't change that. But you really should open your eyes. From the outside looking in your country has some really bad problems. How long before it is like south africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 Originally Posted by newholland no-- i know it that most are from other countries. i don't disagree with you about any of it, honestly. but the other aspect, in some ways, it completely cultural, and weirdly american. there's a very huge divide right now too that people don't trust the government to do ANYTHING right... and there's those that want the government to take care of everything- sometimes in the very same person. it's definitely a mess. that said-- single shot rifles are and always will be farm tools, and i'm not sure they should be legislated against -- but clipped assault weapons and handguns are a different story. I agree with you there. And the single shot rifles are regulated in the ways I said before in the UK. But again you are right it is a different way of thinking there. I respect that too. I feel for your country it must be very frustrating sometimes, it's a great country you live in and I love going there. It's a shame the gun thing overshadows that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeloAngelo Posted December 15, 2012 Members Share Posted December 15, 2012 {censored}ing buncha fascists up in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.