Your Weekly Mass Shooting

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Odd how the same cheerleaders for Homeland Security get their shorts in a knot about gun control.

and, remember, we can't let suspects on a terror watch list on an airplane, but, thanks to patriot gun enthusiasts, they can legally by an assault rifle.

GRR Spartan wrote:Odd how the same cheerleaders for Homeland Security get their shorts in a knot about gun control.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Did the 2nd Amendment even guarantee an individual right to "bear arms"?

That's a fun question - what do you think?

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I just hope I live long enough to see the game without being murdered by a patriotic gun enthusiast with 1400 rounds of ammo and 12 pipe bombs.

Will you be campaigning at Home Depot for pipe control?

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:and, remember, we can't let suspects on a terror watch list on an airplane, but, thanks to patriot gun enthusiasts, they can legally by an assault rifle.

As Bob once again advocates suspending due process for Americans he disagrees with. What a great American!

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Will you be campaigning at Home Depot for pipe control?

There is already too much pipe control. Wait, what kind of pipes are we talking about?

The_Dude wrote:The hyper liberal pc police scared a neighbor from reporting obvious weirdo activity.

Now people are dead and hundreds or more lives ruined.

xsanguine wrote:Why do we not have any pictures of the broad yet?

The_Dude wrote:The hyper liberal pc police scared a neighbor from reporting obvious weirdo activity.

Now people are dead and hundreds or more lives ruined.

Turtleneck wrote:

The_Dude wrote:The hyper liberal pc police scared a neighbor from reporting obvious weirdo activity.

Now people are dead and hundreds or more lives ruined.

Do you ever add anything of substance?

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

That's a fun question - what do you think?

I totally expected to get screamed at for asking that question.

There is no such thing as a definitive interpretation of the Constitution. However, I do not think the 2nd Amendment makes guarantees about individual rights to bear arms. First, it references "the people," which in Constitution speak tends to mean collective rather than individual citizens. Second, "bear arms" is about more than private citizens possessing firearms and points toward the right to operate a collective militia. The first draft of the 2nd Amendment actually refers to military service.

LooseGoose wrote:

Code_Warrior wrote:I want mini nukes, like those in the Fallout game. I'd use em' too. No weapon is too extreme for me. I don't own any firearms, but that's beside the point. It would be awesome to get in an argument with someone I don't like and say "That's it, I'm nuking your ass." And then totally fucking use my tank to shoot my mini nuke at them. That would be great. I'd be like standing somewhere in the blast radius looking down at the ground at some piece of charred flesh that I would assume to be the remnants of that motherfucker and I'd be like Kirk and say "YOU LIKE THAT? YOU LIKE THAT?" It'd be funny because I would know that they didn't really like it at all.

Always good to see rational discussion like this ^^ from the people that call 2nd amendment defenders "gun nuts".

The whole thing does reinforce for me the power the media and politicians have to distract the masses.   In the last month ISIS has blown up an airliner, attacked Paris and a suburb of Los Angeles slaughtering over 100 people and we're debating gun control.   It's as if the main topic of conversation after 9/11 should have been box cutter control.   Carry on lemmings.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I want to fight, too!

Gomer... come at me, bro. I'm feeling a little more frisky this morning. Just no nut shots, please... trying to procreate at the moment.

pretty sure I've never even been in a fight... not sure I wanna start now.

Code_Warrior wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Always good to see rational discussion like this ^^ from the people that call 2nd amendment defenders "gun nuts".

The whole thing does reinforce for me the power the media and politicians have to distract the masses.   In the last month ISIS has blown up an airliner, attacked Paris and a suburb of Los Angeles slaughtering over 100 people and we're debating gun control.   It's as if the main topic of conversation after 9/11 should have been box cutter control.   Carry on lemmings.

Goose, in this particular instance, I'm joking around. I have no interest in this debate because I hold extreme views on this issue. Let's put it this way, I'm so far to the right of you on this issue that you're practically a leftist in comparison to me. While my post jokes around, I would have no problem with a citizen having a nuke. None.

You see, for me, it's not about hunting or some other attempt at being faux reasonable, it's about war, plain and simple. I don't pretend to know whether or not the founders could've envisioned the weapons we have now because I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, the word "arms" means armaments and, as far as I'm concerned, there is no limit. We can argue about what "Well regulated" means, but as far as I'm concerned, i'm good with having no regulations at all. If you can build it or procure it, then it's ok by me.

Mass killings have no effect on me because I don't believe any law can stop a determined attacker from obtaining arms. I'm well aware that you can write laws that will deter uncommitted people, and if that makes people feel safer, I simply think they're just fooling themselves.

In my view, you only have the rights you can defend. You can have all the academic debates that you want, but ultimately, if someone is able to impose their will on you, and you're unable to defend yourself enough to stop them, then the aggressor will deny you your rights whether you like it or not. At the moment they are imposing their will, fairness, academic theories, and the law, won't protect you; the only thing that will protect you is your ability to physically resist the aggressor. Whether that aggressor is a thug out to beat or rob you, or an out of control government trying to impose itself upon you, or an invader that was able to battle its way past the military, any motherfucker who wants to impose their will can be met with lethal force as far as I'm concerned.

In my case, I don't own firearms because I don't want that responsibility and I don't want to spend the money on them. I understand that without firearms, I'm in a less desirable position to defend myself, but that's my choice and I accept the associated risk. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to support weapon free zones or gun control laws. I personally won't have a firearm with me, and I always comply with law enforcement directives, but I NEVER assume that they are responsible to protect me. I am responsible to defend myself and I'm against anyone who would try to limit my ability to do so in any way shape or form. I will limit my own ability to defend myself and I refuse to attack others (except if we're at war), but if someone else wants to carry a gun to defend themselves, I've got no problem with it and I don't care if other people do. Let the people with the guns distract the aggressors while I run away or hide. If I get caught in the cross fire, oh well, that just means I didn't make it. If the guy with the gun wasn't there to thwart the aggressor, the aggressor will shoot without opposition. Either way, I'm ducking bullets. It's the price that I might have to pay for my view on this matter. I'm OK with that.

Yes, I know that crazy people will get arms and use them to attack innocent people. I don't care. Anyone who thinks they are safe is a fool. You're never safe. Ever. And you never will be. You're either prepared to defend yourself, or you're not. Only fools think the world is safe. It's not safe no matter where you live and it doesn't bother me one single bit because I'm prepared to defend myself. In my case, defending myself means being well aware of my surroundings, avoiding serious confrontations, and knowing what the possible escape routes are so that I can flee rather than fight. I may not make it out alive, but my first instinct is to get myself and my family out of harm's way. I only fight if I'm forced into it.

Like I said, my views are extreme and I've already made a previous post regarding how asymmetric tactics can be used to fight wars against well armed militaries. While I know the world isn't safe, I don't live my life in fear and I don't stress out over these things. As far as I'm concerned, it's the way the world is and I just accept it, I don't fantasize about how I wish it was. Maybe one day we will be mature enough as a civilization that we can eliminate the need for citizens to carry arms, until then, people are going to die and the only thing anyone can do to prevent it is to educate people to be productive members of civil society and to learn how to control their own emotional states so that they avoid violence as a means to get their point across. However, I don't believe there will ever be a 100% success rate, there will always be those who are unable to control their emotions, consequently I will NEVER support arms restrictions of any kind.

So you see Goose, there's really no point in me pressing a debate on this issue because I have absolutely no common ground with anyone here and there is no argument that I can make that will persuade someone to adopt my view, as well as there's no argument that anyone here or anywhere else can make that will alter my view.

Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. It's one thing to kill in self defense or in war, it's another to do it as a punishment. Nobody has the right to kill as a punishment. That being said, should a murderer find themselves incarcerated in such a way that they feel like they'd like to take their own life rather than be incarcerated, I have no issue with them being given the means to kill themselves. However, I don't support death as a punishment.

So there you go, you all know that I'm an extremist on the 2nd amendment. People will think I be crazy. It's all good, I don't feel the need to convince anyone and I know that me debating this is pointless.

So I'll continue to make jokes on this board because there isn't a single motherfucker here that has a real political opinion that I find compelling. I think the vast majority of political opinions here are emotional nonsense not worth debating or getting upset about. Free speech is a beautiful thing.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:okay, guys.. I'm leaving the board for the weekend.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Can someone do me a favor and read through all of code warriors manifesto? I don't have that kind of time.

I mean. I do. I just don't want to.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Can someone do me a favor and read through all of code warriors manifesto? I don't have that kind of time.

I mean. I do. I just don't want to.

Pretty sure he's the only anarchist I've encountered outside of the Joe Rogan board.

We're like unicorns, Travis.

Code_Warrior wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Always good to see rational discussion like this ^^ from the people that call 2nd amendment defenders "gun nuts".

The whole thing does reinforce for me the power the media and politicians have to distract the masses.   In the last month ISIS has blown up an airliner, attacked Paris and a suburb of Los Angeles slaughtering over 100 people and we're debating gun control.   It's as if the main topic of conversation after 9/11 should have been box cutter control.   Carry on lemmings.

Goose, in this particular instance, I'm joking around. I have no interest in this debate because I hold extreme views on this issue. Let's put it this way, I'm so far to the right of you on this issue that you're practically a leftist in comparison to me. While my post jokes around, I would have no problem with a citizen having a nuke. None.

You see, for me, it's not about hunting or some other attempt at being faux reasonable, it's about war, plain and simple. I don't pretend to know whether or not the founders could've envisioned the weapons we have now because I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, the word "arms" means armaments and, as far as I'm concerned, there is no limit. We can argue about what "Well regulated" means, but as far as I'm concerned, i'm good with having no regulations at all. If you can build it or procure it, then it's ok by me.

Mass killings have no effect on me because I don't believe any law can stop a determined attacker from obtaining arms. I'm well aware that you can write laws that will deter uncommitted people, and if that makes people feel safer, I simply think they're just fooling themselves.

In my view, you only have the rights you can defend. You can have all the academic debates that you want, but ultimately, if someone is able to impose their will on you, and you're unable to defend yourself enough to stop them, then the aggressor will deny you your rights whether you like it or not. At the moment they are imposing their will, fairness, academic theories, and the law, won't protect you; the only thing that will protect you is your ability to physically resist the aggressor. Whether that aggressor is a thug out to beat or rob you, or an out of control government trying to impose itself upon you, or an invader that was able to battle its way past the military, any motherfucker who wants to impose their will can be met with lethal force as far as I'm concerned.

In my case, I don't own firearms because I don't want that responsibility and I don't want to spend the money on them. I understand that without firearms, I'm in a less desirable position to defend myself, but that's my choice and I accept the associated risk. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to support weapon free zones or gun control laws. I personally won't have a firearm with me, and I always comply with law enforcement directives, but I NEVER assume that they are responsible to protect me. I am responsible to defend myself and I'm against anyone who would try to limit my ability to do so in any way shape or form. I will limit my own ability to defend myself and I refuse to attack others (except if we're at war), but if someone else wants to carry a gun to defend themselves, I've got no problem with it and I don't care if other people do. Let the people with the guns distract the aggressors while I run away or hide. If I get caught in the cross fire, oh well, that just means I didn't make it. If the guy with the gun wasn't there to thwart the aggressor, the aggressor will shoot without opposition. Either way, I'm ducking bullets. It's the price that I might have to pay for my view on this matter. I'm OK with that.

Yes, I know that crazy people will get arms and use them to attack innocent people. I don't care. Anyone who thinks they are safe is a fool. You're never safe. Ever. And you never will be. You're either prepared to defend yourself, or you're not. Only fools think the world is safe. It's not safe no matter where you live and it doesn't bother me one single bit because I'm prepared to defend myself. In my case, defending myself means being well aware of my surroundings, avoiding serious confrontations, and knowing what the possible escape routes are so that I can flee rather than fight. I may not make it out alive, but my first instinct is to get myself and my family out of harm's way. I only fight if I'm forced into it.

Like I said, my views are extreme and I've already made a previous post regarding how asymmetric tactics can be used to fight wars against well armed militaries. While I know the world isn't safe, I don't live my life in fear and I don't stress out over these things. As far as I'm concerned, it's the way the world is and I just accept it, I don't fantasize about how I wish it was. Maybe one day we will be mature enough as a civilization that we can eliminate the need for citizens to carry arms, until then, people are going to die and the only thing anyone can do to prevent it is to educate people to be productive members of civil society and to learn how to control their own emotional states so that they avoid violence as a means to get their point across. However, I don't believe there will ever be a 100% success rate, there will always be those who are unable to control their emotions, consequently I will NEVER support arms restrictions of any kind.

So you see Goose, there's really no point in me pressing a debate on this issue because I have absolutely no common ground with anyone here and there is no argument that I can make that will persuade someone to adopt my view, as well as there's no argument that anyone here or anywhere else can make that will alter my view.

Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. It's one thing to kill in self defense or in war, it's another to do it as a punishment. Nobody has the right to kill as a punishment. That being said, should a murderer find themselves incarcerated in such a way that they feel like they'd like to take their own life rather than be incarcerated, I have no issue with them being given the means to kill themselves. However, I don't support death as a punishment.

So there you go, you all know that I'm an extremist on the 2nd amendment. People will think I be crazy. It's all good, I don't feel the need to convince anyone and I know that me debating this is pointless.

So I'll continue to make jokes on this board because there isn't a single motherfucker here that has a real political opinion that I find compelling. I think the vast majority of political opinions here are emotional nonsense not worth debating or getting upset about. Free speech is a beautiful thing.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Can someone do me a favor and read through all of code warriors manifesto? I don't have that kind of time.

I mean. I do. I just don't want to.

Pretty sure he's the only anarchist I've encountered outside of the Joe Rogan board.

We're like unicorns, Travis.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Pretty sure he's the only anarchist I've encountered outside of the Joe Rogan board.

We're like unicorns, Travis.

Jesus. Stop calling those people anarchists. Learn the literature.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Jesus. Stop calling those people anarchists. Learn the literature.

I'm sorry, proponents of a self-governed, volunteerist anti-statist society without rulers, political authority, or oppressive regimes.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'm sorry, proponents of a self-governed, volunteerist anti-statist society without rulers, political authority, or oppressive regimes.

Which is consistent with the philosophical roots of anarchy. However, their embrace of market economies and property runs counter to anarchy's philosophical roots. I suggest you read some Proudhon. You will like it. Or not. I do not know.

NigelUno wrote:You are opposed to Syrian refugees entering the country. Does that make you a racist?

xsanguine wrote:

Code_Warrior wrote:
Goose, in this particular instance, I'm joking around. I have no interest in this debate because I hold extreme views on this issue. Let's put it this way, I'm so far to the right of you on this issue that you're practically a leftist in comparison to me. While my post jokes around, I would have no problem with a citizen having a nuke. None.

You see, for me, it's not about hunting or some other attempt at being faux reasonable, it's about war, plain and simple. I don't pretend to know whether or not the founders could've envisioned the weapons we have now because I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, the word "arms" means armaments and, as far as I'm concerned, there is no limit. We can argue about what "Well regulated" means, but as far as I'm concerned, i'm good with having no regulations at all. If you can build it or procure it, then it's ok by me.

Mass killings have no effect on me because I don't believe any law can stop a determined attacker from obtaining arms. I'm well aware that you can write laws that will deter uncommitted people, and if that makes people feel safer, I simply think they're just fooling themselves.

In my view, you only have the rights you can defend. You can have all the academic debates that you want, but ultimately, if someone is able to impose their will on you, and you're unable to defend yourself enough to stop them, then the aggressor will deny you your rights whether you like it or not. At the moment they are imposing their will, fairness, academic theories, and the law, won't protect you; the only thing that will protect you is your ability to physically resist the aggressor. Whether that aggressor is a thug out to beat or rob you, or an out of control government trying to impose itself upon you, or an invader that was able to battle its way past the military, any motherfucker who wants to impose their will can be met with lethal force as far as I'm concerned.

In my case, I don't own firearms because I don't want that responsibility and I don't want to spend the money on them. I understand that without firearms, I'm in a less desirable position to defend myself, but that's my choice and I accept the associated risk. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to support weapon free zones or gun control laws. I personally won't have a firearm with me, and I always comply with law enforcement directives, but I NEVER assume that they are responsible to protect me. I am responsible to defend myself and I'm against anyone who would try to limit my ability to do so in any way shape or form. I will limit my own ability to defend myself and I refuse to attack others (except if we're at war), but if someone else wants to carry a gun to defend themselves, I've got no problem with it and I don't care if other people do. Let the people with the guns distract the aggressors while I run away or hide. If I get caught in the cross fire, oh well, that just means I didn't make it. If the guy with the gun wasn't there to thwart the aggressor, the aggressor will shoot without opposition. Either way, I'm ducking bullets. It's the price that I might have to pay for my view on this matter. I'm OK with that.

Yes, I know that crazy people will get arms and use them to attack innocent people. I don't care. Anyone who thinks they are safe is a fool. You're never safe. Ever. And you never will be. You're either prepared to defend yourself, or you're not. Only fools think the world is safe. It's not safe no matter where you live and it doesn't bother me one single bit because I'm prepared to defend myself. In my case, defending myself means being well aware of my surroundings, avoiding serious confrontations, and knowing what the possible escape routes are so that I can flee rather than fight. I may not make it out alive, but my first instinct is to get myself and my family out of harm's way. I only fight if I'm forced into it.

Like I said, my views are extreme and I've already made a previous post regarding how asymmetric tactics can be used to fight wars against well armed militaries. While I know the world isn't safe, I don't live my life in fear and I don't stress out over these things. As far as I'm concerned, it's the way the world is and I just accept it, I don't fantasize about how I wish it was. Maybe one day we will be mature enough as a civilization that we can eliminate the need for citizens to carry arms, until then, people are going to die and the only thing anyone can do to prevent it is to educate people to be productive members of civil society and to learn how to control their own emotional states so that they avoid violence as a means to get their point across. However, I don't believe there will ever be a 100% success rate, there will always be those who are unable to control their emotions, consequently I will NEVER support arms restrictions of any kind.

So you see Goose, there's really no point in me pressing a debate on this issue because I have absolutely no common ground with anyone here and there is no argument that I can make that will persuade someone to adopt my view, as well as there's no argument that anyone here or anywhere else can make that will alter my view.

Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. It's one thing to kill in self defense or in war, it's another to do it as a punishment. Nobody has the right to kill as a punishment. That being said, should a murderer find themselves incarcerated in such a way that they feel like they'd like to take their own life rather than be incarcerated, I have no issue with them being given the means to kill themselves. However, I don't support death as a punishment.

So there you go, you all know that I'm an extremist on the 2nd amendment. People will think I be crazy. It's all good, I don't feel the need to convince anyone and I know that me debating this is pointless.

So I'll continue to make jokes on this board because there isn't a single motherfucker here that has a real political opinion that I find compelling. I think the vast majority of political opinions here are emotional nonsense not worth debating or getting upset about. Free speech is a beautiful thing.

Are you an anarchist, Code?

Code_Warrior wrote:Goose, in this particular instance, I'm joking around. I have no interest in this debate because I hold extreme views on this issue. Let's put it this way, I'm so far to the right of you on this issue that you're practically a leftist in comparison to me.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Can someone do me a favor and read through all of code warriors manifesto? I don't have that kind of time.

I mean. I do. I just don't want to.

Rocinante wrote:

Code_Warrior wrote:
Goose, in this particular instance, I'm joking around. I have no interest in this debate because I hold extreme views on this issue. Let's put it this way, I'm so far to the right of you on this issue that you're practically a leftist in comparison to me. While my post jokes around, I would have no problem with a citizen having a nuke. None.

You see, for me, it's not about hunting or some other attempt at being faux reasonable, it's about war, plain and simple. I don't pretend to know whether or not the founders could've envisioned the weapons we have now because I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, the word "arms" means armaments and, as far as I'm concerned, there is no limit. We can argue about what "Well regulated" means, but as far as I'm concerned, i'm good with having no regulations at all. If you can build it or procure it, then it's ok by me.

Mass killings have no effect on me because I don't believe any law can stop a determined attacker from obtaining arms. I'm well aware that you can write laws that will deter uncommitted people, and if that makes people feel safer, I simply think they're just fooling themselves.

In my view, you only have the rights you can defend. You can have all the academic debates that you want, but ultimately, if someone is able to impose their will on you, and you're unable to defend yourself enough to stop them, then the aggressor will deny you your rights whether you like it or not. At the moment they are imposing their will, fairness, academic theories, and the law, won't protect you; the only thing that will protect you is your ability to physically resist the aggressor. Whether that aggressor is a thug out to beat or rob you, or an out of control government trying to impose itself upon you, or an invader that was able to battle its way past the military, any motherfucker who wants to impose their will can be met with lethal force as far as I'm concerned.

In my case, I don't own firearms because I don't want that responsibility and I don't want to spend the money on them. I understand that without firearms, I'm in a less desirable position to defend myself, but that's my choice and I accept the associated risk. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to support weapon free zones or gun control laws. I personally won't have a firearm with me, and I always comply with law enforcement directives, but I NEVER assume that they are responsible to protect me. I am responsible to defend myself and I'm against anyone who would try to limit my ability to do so in any way shape or form. I will limit my own ability to defend myself and I refuse to attack others (except if we're at war), but if someone else wants to carry a gun to defend themselves, I've got no problem with it and I don't care if other people do. Let the people with the guns distract the aggressors while I run away or hide. If I get caught in the cross fire, oh well, that just means I didn't make it. If the guy with the gun wasn't there to thwart the aggressor, the aggressor will shoot without opposition. Either way, I'm ducking bullets. It's the price that I might have to pay for my view on this matter. I'm OK with that.

Yes, I know that crazy people will get arms and use them to attack innocent people. I don't care. Anyone who thinks they are safe is a fool. You're never safe. Ever. And you never will be. You're either prepared to defend yourself, or you're not. Only fools think the world is safe. It's not safe no matter where you live and it doesn't bother me one single bit because I'm prepared to defend myself. In my case, defending myself means being well aware of my surroundings, avoiding serious confrontations, and knowing what the possible escape routes are so that I can flee rather than fight. I may not make it out alive, but my first instinct is to get myself and my family out of harm's way. I only fight if I'm forced into it.

Like I said, my views are extreme and I've already made a previous post regarding how asymmetric tactics can be used to fight wars against well armed militaries. While I know the world isn't safe, I don't live my life in fear and I don't stress out over these things. As far as I'm concerned, it's the way the world is and I just accept it, I don't fantasize about how I wish it was. Maybe one day we will be mature enough as a civilization that we can eliminate the need for citizens to carry arms, until then, people are going to die and the only thing anyone can do to prevent it is to educate people to be productive members of civil society and to learn how to control their own emotional states so that they avoid violence as a means to get their point across. However, I don't believe there will ever be a 100% success rate, there will always be those who are unable to control their emotions, consequently I will NEVER support arms restrictions of any kind.

So you see Goose, there's really no point in me pressing a debate on this issue because I have absolutely no common ground with anyone here and there is no argument that I can make that will persuade someone to adopt my view, as well as there's no argument that anyone here or anywhere else can make that will alter my view.

Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. It's one thing to kill in self defense or in war, it's another to do it as a punishment. Nobody has the right to kill as a punishment. That being said, should a murderer find themselves incarcerated in such a way that they feel like they'd like to take their own life rather than be incarcerated, I have no issue with them being given the means to kill themselves. However, I don't support death as a punishment.

So there you go, you all know that I'm an extremist on the 2nd amendment. People will think I be crazy. It's all good, I don't feel the need to convince anyone and I know that me debating this is pointless.

So I'll continue to make jokes on this board because there isn't a single motherfucker here that has a real political opinion that I find compelling. I think the vast majority of political opinions here are emotional nonsense not worth debating or getting upset about. Free speech is a beautiful thing.

Oh my god shut up.

LooseGoose wrote:

Code_Warrior wrote:Goose, in this particular instance, I'm joking around. I have no interest in this debate because I hold extreme views on this issue. Let's put it this way, I'm so far to the right of you on this issue that you're practically a leftist in comparison to me.

lol, my sons would be roughly in your position with the exception that they and their wives are heavily armed.

Turtleneck wrote:Pics of wives with guns?

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Pics of wives with guns?

Turtleneck wrote:Not funny. Not needed.

Turtleneck wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Not funny. Not needed.