CDZ Should Americans be allowed to own military sniper rifles and military door buster guns?

Missourian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
22,267
Reaction score
9,155
Points
940
Location
Missouri
Uh...my Remington 700 30-06 deer rifle is a military sniper rifle.

That's going to pose a serious problem.

"M24 Sniper Weapon System

The M24 Sniper Weapon System is the military and police version of the Remington Model 700 rifle, M24 being the model name assigned by the United States Army after adoption as their standard sniper rifle in 1988. Wikipedia"
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
664
Points
140
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
NO, they shouldn't.
Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?
No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.
No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.
Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.
He excels at that,denigrating people when he cant counter facts
You're exactly right. In doing so, he destroys any argument he may have had. Maybe he's playing us and is pro-Second Amendment.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,352
Reaction score
4,290
Points
290
Location
Texas
Another thing you nutjobs should do is wear that camo makeup stuff, and always carry a combat knife in your teeth while you're at Wally World buying toilet paper or something; that will make you look like a bigger badass than the other poseurs, bound to terrify those millions of would be terrorists you fantasize over randomly running into, and you will look really cool when the news dorks interview you!
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
664
Points
140
Another thing you nutjobs should do is wear that camo makeup stuff, and always carry a combat knife in your teeth while you're at Wally World buying toilet paper or something; that will make you look like a bigger badass than the other poseurs, bound to terrify those millions of would be terrorists you fantasize over randomly running into, and you will look really cool when the news dorks interview you!
Do you think, at any level, that kind of stereotyping lends any credence to your arguments? So, since such people probably don't exist, you must look like one of those people from the pictures The People of Walmart, right?

 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
21,704
Reaction score
8,132
Points
910
Another thing you nutjobs should do is wear that camo makeup stuff, and always carry a combat knife in your teeth while you're at Wally World buying toilet paper or something; that will make you look like a bigger badass than the other poseurs, bound to terrify those millions of would be terrorists you fantasize over randomly running into, and you will look really cool when the news dorks interview you!
please tell us more about what we should do so we know how big of a irrational moron you really are
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
980
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
according to the FBI
There's not even a modicum of academic integrity here. Sources with vested interests (e.g. FBIAA) don't count in any sound debate on matters of fact. They carry concealed pistols, and they do not want us to have any weapons at all to shoot back at them.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
776
Points
883
Location
Arizona
In 2017 gun deaths reached their highest since 1968, gun deaths have gone both up & down over the years. but senseless deaths by unexperienced gun users has increased. way more than the 6 stated by M14.
Maybe some anti gun person can show some of the many incidences, as I am pro gun,& anti untrained gun nut.

The problem with what you want? Any attempt to require training before owning and/or carrying a gun allows the government, to jack up the fees and testing requirements to the point that normal people will never be able to meet them.....because they can't afford the time, the money or going through the red tape.....you allow them to ban guns through bureaucracy.....this is exactly how they do it in Europe for the few models of bird hunting shotguns they allow people to own.

The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

And considering how small the accidental death rate from gun ownership is, you wouldn't have the justification anyway.......

The way to increase gun safety? Cut the fees on using guns and for training with guns......sponsor ad campaigns encouraging people to go to the range and get training and practice......but, you will notice....that isn't what your way would achieve.....your way would make fewer people competent around guns......
The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

lol and those are exactly who most of the 'Founders' thought were the only 'qualified' citizens who should be allowed to vote and determine who and what 'everybody else' could own, within their own states. Yours and your fellow cranks here cognitive dissonance on original intent and trying to carry that to some logical extreme in the modern era is what makes your obsession with military hardware a mental illness. Your cult is just as loony and deranged as the left's is in the other direction. The day is just never going to come when you can just go to your local Walmart or convenience store and buy a mortar and shells or a land mine, no matter what rubbish you post on innernutz message boards to make each other feel 'Speshul N Stuff'..
Are you aware that when the Constitution was written common citizens could own cannon and private warships? The founders didn’t have a problem with that or they would have written exceptions into the Second Amendment. Based upon that I believe that citizens should be able to own any weapon in common usage by the military. And I don’t exclude tanks, artillery, combat aircraft and warships.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
776
Points
883
Location
Arizona
No, Americans should not be ALLOWED to carry sniper rifles.

We have a RIGHT to carry them, no allowance is needed from anyone. That would make them sovereign, not the People.
Good, then you won't mind if I see you coming first with your big bad rifle and shoot your balls off with mine, since I have no idea who you are and hey, better safe than sorry, especially if you're wearing camo in an urban area, like a moron nutjob would. It's my right to protect myself and my family after all, and that means getting the first shot off, right?
Sorry owning something is one thing, criminally using it is another.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
776
Points
883
Location
Arizona
Are you aware that when the Constitution was written common citizens could own cannon and private warships?
You had to be wealthy to own such vessels of course, but if you were that wealthy in those days, you really needed the firepower for self-defense.
Actually privateers were usually owned by consortiums to spread the risk of them being captured or destroyed while practicing their legally sanctioned limited piracy. But every merchant ship carried cannon for self-defense.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,352
Reaction score
4,290
Points
290
Location
Texas
Privateers were licensed by the state for one, not everybody could be one, and for two, wealth and political influence determined what an individual could own. Rolling around towing cannon wasn't a common sight at any time in the past, but of course some idiots still dream of toeing artillery around while they go shopping for tomatoes and bon bons, I guess.

And in any case it's moot, since we've seen two famous instances where running around with a rifle has only made the carrier a target for criminals and the end up wrestling with the thugs over their own weapons, i.e. idiotic fashion victims getting caught with their pants down. It's immediately obvious it isn't a good idea, especially with so many tards running loose with no nurses and the influence of TV being what it is. And for you dumbass faggots who keep babbling '2nd Amendment' over and over like retarded chimps playing with a tire, we've had gun control laws over our entire history , even out in the not so 'wild' West days, and we will continue to have them regardless of your tree house clubs hobbies.

And, for the hundredth or so time, I'm fine with concealed carry, my entire family carries, and I'm also fine with requiring safety training courses and background checks, so you fags will just have to strain your tiny frontal lobes and come up with some other strawmen to snivel about.

And we all know most of you obsessed tards who haven't done so already immediately ran out and bought camo paint and played in front of a mirror all afternoon after reading my suggestions for looking more scary in public than the other tards. Hlaf of you decided against it after putting the knife in your mouth the wrong way and cutting yourselves, and another 1 out of 4 broke your last front tooth trying it.
 
Last edited:

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,352
Reaction score
4,290
Points
290
Location
Texas
No, Americans should not be ALLOWED to carry sniper rifles.

We have a RIGHT to carry them, no allowance is needed from anyone. That would make them sovereign, not the People.
Good, then you won't mind if I see you coming first with your big bad rifle and shoot your balls off with mine, since I have no idea who you are and hey, better safe than sorry, especially if you're wearing camo in an urban area, like a moron nutjob would. It's my right to protect myself and my family after all, and that means getting the first shot off, right?
Sorry owning something is one thing, criminally using it is another.
Sorry I can't give a hoot about several thousand or so dumbass strawman anecdotes. Don't have to be a criminal to get your cute lil rifle taken away from you in a wrestling match with a lunatic, or someone just coming up behind you in the cereal aisle and shoviing a knitting needle in your skull and using your fashion statement to kill other customers with while you're reading the back of a Lucky Charms box or something. There is nothing 'anti-2nd Amendment' about keeping idiots from owning mortars or nuclear warheads n stuff, that's just babbling from weirdos with weapon fetishes.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,352
Reaction score
4,290
Points
290
Location
Texas
In 2017 gun deaths reached their highest since 1968, gun deaths have gone both up & down over the years. but senseless deaths by unexperienced gun users has increased. way more than the 6 stated by M14.
Maybe some anti gun person can show some of the many incidences, as I am pro gun,& anti untrained gun nut.

The problem with what you want? Any attempt to require training before owning and/or carrying a gun allows the government, to jack up the fees and testing requirements to the point that normal people will never be able to meet them.....because they can't afford the time, the money or going through the red tape.....you allow them to ban guns through bureaucracy.....this is exactly how they do it in Europe for the few models of bird hunting shotguns they allow people to own.

The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

And considering how small the accidental death rate from gun ownership is, you wouldn't have the justification anyway.......

The way to increase gun safety? Cut the fees on using guns and for training with guns......sponsor ad campaigns encouraging people to go to the range and get training and practice......but, you will notice....that isn't what your way would achieve.....your way would make fewer people competent around guns......
The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

lol and those are exactly who most of the 'Founders' thought were the only 'qualified' citizens who should be allowed to vote and determine who and what 'everybody else' could own, within their own states. Yours and your fellow cranks here cognitive dissonance on original intent and trying to carry that to some logical extreme in the modern era is what makes your obsession with military hardware a mental illness. Your cult is just as loony and deranged as the left's is in the other direction. The day is just never going to come when you can just go to your local Walmart or convenience store and buy a mortar and shells or a land mine, no matter what rubbish you post on innernutz message boards to make each other feel 'Speshul N Stuff'..
Are you aware that when the Constitution was written common citizens could own cannon and private warships? The founders didn’t have a problem with that or they would have written exceptions into the Second Amendment. Based upon that I believe that citizens should be able to own any weapon in common usage by the military. And I don’t exclude tanks, artillery, combat aircraft and warships.
Who could carry and who couldn't was determined by state law, not Federal. And the weaponry back then wasn't the same as we have now, as anybody with any common sense left knows. nobody wants Goober down the street rolling his tank up and down the street or building his own nuke in his garage on weekends. They certainly don't want to listen to some moron practice shooting his cannon in his back yard. You can believe anything you want, as long as it doesn't lower my property values by leaving craters and bullet holes all over the street and making the place sound like an artillery range at Ft . Hood every weekend. None of that silly shit will do a thing to protect anybody from crime, and none of you aren't going to be any great 'freedom fighter' at the end of the day, either.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,978
Reaction score
21,576
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
I

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Most people don't realize that the Miller case made the determination that military weapons are protected under the Second Amendment. Thank you for pointing that out.

However, the Supreme Court made a big mistake in that decision. They ruled that Miller was guilty of violating the NFA laws because his short barrel shotgun was not used by the military. In fact the military did use short barrel shotguns in WWI. The Supremes got that wrong. They didn't do their homework.




No, the Model 1897 to which you refer used a 20 inch barrel. Millers shotgun was about 10 inches long.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,978
Reaction score
21,576
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!





ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,352
Reaction score
4,290
Points
290
Location
Texas
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!





ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!
Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,978
Reaction score
21,576
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!





ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!
Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?




I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,352
Reaction score
4,290
Points
290
Location
Texas
If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!





ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!
Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?




I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.
I think you're asking the wrong poster that question. I'm still waiting on a good reason why 'open carry' is such a good idea when recent examples clearly show it isn't. As for owning all that other crap, it isn't practical nor would it do any good, except for drug gangs and the like. Who thinks they can afford to train with an M-60 given the cost per round of ammo? Just how much 'practice' are you going to get in a tank, assuming you could crew it with anybody competent? How many tanks will you be able to scrape together and maintain?

Like I said, some of these posters are out to lunch already.

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?
Gee, thank God for the tanks and mortars they used to stop those rapes and murders.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
84,370
Reaction score
23,095
Points
2,180
Privateers were licensed by the state for one, not everybody could be one, and for two, wealth and political influence determined what an individual could own. Rolling around towing cannon wasn't a common sight at any time in the past, but of course some idiots still dream of toeing artillery around while they go shopping for tomatoes and bon bons, I guess.

And in any case it's moot, since we've seen two famous instances where running around with a rifle has only made the carrier a target for criminals and the end up wrestling with the thugs over their own weapons, i.e. idiotic fashion victims getting caught with their pants down. It's immediately obvious it isn't a good idea, especially with so many tards running loose with no nurses and the influence of TV being what it is. And for you dumbass faggots who keep babbling '2nd Amendment' over and over like retarded chimps playing with a tire, we've had gun control laws over our entire history , even out in the not so 'wild' West days, and we will continue to have them regardless of your tree house clubs hobbies.

And, for the hundredth or so time, I'm fine with concealed carry, my entire family carries, and I'm also fine with requiring safety training courses and background checks, so you fags will just have to strain your tiny frontal lobes and come up with some other strawmen to snivel about.

And we all know most of you obsessed tards who haven't done so already immediately ran out and bought camo paint and played in front of a mirror all afternoon after reading my suggestions for looking more scary in public than the other tards. Hlaf of you decided against it after putting the knife in your mouth the wrong way and cutting yourselves, and another 1 out of 4 broke your last front tooth trying it.

This is in the CDZ for a reason....start paying attention....
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top