| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did *understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and tyranny. The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk) comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an unarmed citizenry would be. Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet you. History is sometimes inconvenient for gun banners. I'm paraphrasing (and quoting) those who concocted our system of government. They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Never did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed our system to prevent precisely that. And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful, violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment. Holy sweet fancy moses. Indeed. The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines! Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day juggernaut that is the US armed forces? There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons. There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right. Um. Indeed it does. Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after hearing about his pending divorce. And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great! Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and Canada?!?!? Where'd you get that loony idea? You really are a full on nut! If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they would rethink the whole thing. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault weapons. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying. Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Then every office argument, domestic disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?) Total up all the Americans killed in every war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between 1979 and 1979. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys! but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? I think they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were best known as places to get shot. They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? Other than my university degree in History, not much. Apparently you learned all your history from the NRA sponsored texts. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines! We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to, precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the Militia provisions of the Constitution. Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day juggernaut that is the US armed forces? Only in degree, not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly outnumber the standing army. There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons. Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong. Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell. There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right. Um. Indeed it does. Um. No it doesn't. Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after hearing about his pending divorce. Wrong. And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great! You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in game animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every year. FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used unlawfully or unsafely. That's an admirable safety record by any metric. Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than guns are, by far. Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and Canada?!?!? More than you did before you banned guns. Violent crime in Great Britain, for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover, criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime. So, the inevitable result is that criminals are armed and nobody else but the police is, and the police are never around when you really need one (nor should they be) so more and more people in those countries are being victimized by violent criminals...because they don't have the means to defend themselves, and there is no deterrence to the criminal, who need not fear getting shot and killed by Grandma as he tries to steal her dole check. The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards lawful concealed carry started to spread across this country. Where'd you get that loony idea? Well, from the Home Office, actually. You really are a full on nut! Pot, kettle, black. If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they would rethink the whole thing. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault weapons. The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights. The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved to drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have things cleaned up in a hurry. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying. True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient) citizens. It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back at you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military, which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty effectively too. Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Indeed. Then every office argument, domestic disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?) This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is simply not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and "blood running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic stops" as a result of lawful concealed carry. Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen. People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty disagreement in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once they've begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for their own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use for self-defense. Total up all the Americans killed in every war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between 1979 and 1979. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut. Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't change the facts. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys! but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? Probably. Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the Irish. I think they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were best known as places to get shot. Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that you'd wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to the floor through the knees. They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? Other than my university degree in History, not much. Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to agree. Apparently you learned all your history from the NRA sponsored texts. No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who wrote extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of the nation. Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect, and if you do have one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about American history during your matriculation. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. Bull**** again. The crime rates in Canada specifically has been falling for decades. The murder rates are falling as well. Your fantasy world is not where the rest of us live. You should take that into acount before making one of your ludicrous rants. Mike |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines! We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to, precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the Militia provisions of the Constitution. Um. Do you feel that the current standing army is comparable to the minutemen?!?!? It's, uh, kind of big! Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day juggernaut that is the US armed forces? Only in degree Like, 1000 degrees? not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly outnumber the standing army. Really! Please post the exact quote that says "the armed citizens of the US should always outnumber the military forces of the government" There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons. Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong. Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell. The armed forces of the day were insignificant in comparison to the US army of 2005. It is as irrelevant as saying that a fleet of rowboats is the same as a fleet of nuclear submarines. There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right. Um. Indeed it does. Um. No it doesn't. Perhaps you don't understand that the usual result of change is...change. Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after hearing about his pending divorce. Wrong. Why wrong? And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great! You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in game animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every year. And yet more than 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND!!!!) US citizens die every year from them. FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used unlawfully or unsafely. Maybe the total number of guns should be reduced so that the .01 does not account for so many deaths! That's an admirable safety record by any metric. Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than guns are, by far. Did you have over 30000 swimming deaths last year? FYI, that's a silly argument, since pools are not built to be used to kill people. Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and Canada?!?!? More than you did before you banned guns. Well geezus christ you idiot, we live next to the US!!!!!! But our gun deaths in Canada are MINISCULE compared to the United States. Even in cities that are just minutes away from major US centers. Violent crime in Great Britain, for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover, criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime. Ridiculous. The world is a more violent place, and (thanks in large measure to the US) guns are more readily available. But you don't hear citizens in the UK or Canada looking to have more assault weapons on the street so they will feel safer, because, well, only a nut like you would argue that. The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards lawful concealed carry started to spread across this country. Where'd you get that loony idea? Well, from the Home Office, actually. It seems to me like you've had 30000 - 35000 gun deaths every year for about the past 20 years. No? You really are a full on nut! Pot, kettle, black. What's my nutty attitude? That more guns does not create safer communities? Then call me Mr. Planters! If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they would rethink the whole thing. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault weapons. The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights. The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved to drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have things cleaned up in a hurry. Yup, and don't worry about the baby that gets shot in the head by accident. Or the house that wasn't really a crack house. Or the anarchy and everyday violence that comes from shooting your gun at whoever is bothering you. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying. True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient) citizens. It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back at you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military, which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty effectively too. So if you want to feel safe, you would suggest moving to Israel? Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Indeed. Scary that your ideal would not be that no one had a gun. Or wanted to have one. Then every office argument, domestic disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?) This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is simply not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and "blood running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic stops" as a result of lawful concealed carry. Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen. It doesn't? What are those 30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR all about? Oh, right, they are all suicides? People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty disagreement in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once they've begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for their own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use for self-defense. Yup. If only all the kids at Columbine had been carrying guns. Total up all the Americans killed in every war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between 1979 and 1979. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut. Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't change the facts. Um, there's no facts that indicate more guns = safer society, since you have 30,000+ deaths per year every year. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys! but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? Probably. Maybe you should run for head of state there on that platform. Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the Irish. Which has little to do with what we are talking about. I think they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were best known as places to get shot. Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that you'd wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to the floor through the knees. I'd wish fervently to live in a society where the ideal is not to shoot someone else before they shoot you. They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? Other than my university degree in History, not much. Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to agree. It's pretty hard to get a left-wing history degree. Historians tend to be rather dry old conservatives. Apparently you learned all your history from the NRA sponsored texts. No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who wrote extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of the nation. Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect I'll be happy to prove it to you if that would be important to you. and if you do have one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about American history during your matriculation. What you mean is that I was not indoctrinated by whatever forces have messed up your own ability to think. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines! We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to, precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the Militia provisions of the Constitution. Um. Do you feel that the current standing army is comparable to the minutemen?!?!? It's, uh, kind of big! But then so is the population of the US and indeed the planet. Comparatively speaking, our standing army is quite small, even as compared to some other contemporary nations. There's at best only a couple of million in the regular army, while there are about 360 million citizens and 380 million privately-owned guns in about 110 million households. That makes the ratio, at a minimum, 50 to 1 in favor of armed citizens. At best, it makes a ratio of about 140 to one of citizens who *can* be armed to standing military. And this presumes that all two million regular army troops would obey orders to subjugate their own countrymen. Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day juggernaut that is the US armed forces? Only in degree Like, 1000 degrees? not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly outnumber the standing army. Really! Please post the exact quote that says "the armed citizens of the US should always outnumber the military forces of the government" False dilemma. I did not say that such a direct quote existed. However, there is ample evidence in the record that those who actually wrote the Constitution intended this precise result. I refer you, Mr. History Person, to the Federalist Papers for a start. "Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments "relate first to private rights." Sen. William Grayson observed that they "altogether respected personal liberty." Tench Coxe wrote, "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."" Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83 There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons. Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong. Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell. The armed forces of the day were insignificant in comparison to the US army of 2005. Yet more ignorance from a purported "history major." It is as irrelevant as saying that a fleet of rowboats is the same as a fleet of nuclear submarines. You attempt to evade the implications of your own words. You said, and I quote, "there was (sic) no armed forces." That is a lie. There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the rig Um. Indeed it does. Um. No it doesn't. Perhaps you don't understand that the usual result of change is...change. Clearly you don't understand that the right protected does not change based on some technological calculus. And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great! You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in game animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every year. And yet more than 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND!!!!) US citizens die every year from them. "Gun accidents account for only 0.7% of accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths involve motor vehicles or are due to drowning, falls, fires, poisoning, medical mistakes, choking on ingested objects and environmental factors." Source: Centers for Disease Control. FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used unlawfully or unsafely. Maybe the total number of guns should be reduced so that the .01 does not account for so many deaths! Motes and planks. The actual number in 1994 was 38,505, which amounts to 0.0001 percent of the population. Given the massive number of deaths that would inevitably result if guns were banned and confiscated in this country, that number, while unfortunate, is acceptable. Moreover, between 1962 and 1994, 94 percent of gun deaths were caused by suicide and homicide. Suicide is a fundamental human right, and I would not presume to interfere in someone's ability to end their own life if they so choose, and homicide is not reduced by gun bans, it is radically increased. That's an admirable safety record by any metric. Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than guns are, by far. Did you have over 30000 swimming deaths last year? Nope, just 3,281 in 2000 for all groupings. But that was not my claim. According to the CDC, In 2002, 775 children between 1 and 14 drowned and 2,208 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. By comparison, in 2002, only 59 children between 1 and 14 died from unintentional firearm injuries. Children in that age group are thirteen times more likely to drown than be accidentally shot. Firearm deaths don't even make it into the top ten causes of death by unintentional injury for children age 1-14 Source: CDC WISQARS database "2002 United States Unintentional Injuries, ages 1-14, All races, Both sexes." Total deaths=4359. FYI, that's a silly argument, since pools are not built to be used to kill people. Neither are guns, but your argument is fallacious because it attempts to link the purpose of the object to the factual incidence of death associated with that object. This fallacy merely attempts to "demonize" guns because they may be used deliberately for lethal purposes. It matters not what the "intended purpose" of the object is...it's merely an object with no independent will or ability to act. What is done with that object is up to a human being. The point of my statement, which you obviously missed...probably deliberately...is that you're looking for motes while ignoring planks. If your real concern were preventing deaths, of children or anyone else, you would be concentrating on motor vehicle safety, drowning, poisoning, fires and suffocation before worrying about firearms. But you don't, which indicates that you are merely an anti-gun hoplophobe trying, as usual, to demonize gun ownership. Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and Canada?!?!? More than you did before you banned guns. Well geezus christ you idiot, we live next to the US!!!!!! What's the cause/effect relationship you're trying to show with this obtuse statement? But our gun deaths in Canada are MINISCULE compared to the United States. Even in cities that are just minutes away from major US centers. But what is happening to the RATE of gun (and criminal) violence in Canada since you banned guns? That's what's important, because it is directly related to the effectiveness of gun bans in protecting society. In other words, because you are so slow, it means that you ought to consider whether banning guns is a good thing, because it inevitably results in MORE people being victimized, injured and killed by violent criminals than before the gun ban, and it also results in MORE injuries and deaths as a result of criminal violence than were caused by gun accidents before the ban. That has been the experience in the US. There is no doubt whatever that what I say is true, and will continue to be true for Canada, Britain and Australia. Gun bans KILL MORE PEOPLE than ubiquitous gun ownership EVER HAS. Violent crime in Great Britain, for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover, criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime. Ridiculous. No, fact. Go look it up. The world is a more violent place, and (thanks in large measure to the US) guns are more readily available. And yet you CANNOT prove a causal link between the ready availability of guns and an increase in violence. This is because, in point of actual fact, precisely the opposite is true. The more guns there are in a society, the less crime there is. But you don't hear citizens in the UK or Canada looking to have more assault weapons on the street so they will feel safer, because, well, only a nut like you would argue that. Actually, I've heard any number of Canadians arguing for exactly that. In fact, even your own provinces are refusing to enforce the gun registration/ban programs imposed by your government masters. British Columbia, for example, has told Ottowa to pound sand. Seems you have a few "nuts" up there. Good for them. The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards lawful concealed carry started to spread across this country. Where'd you get that loony idea? Well, from the Home Office, actually. It seems to me like you've had 30000 - 35000 gun deaths every year for about the past 20 years. No? Evasion. Can you disprove my claim? You really are a full on nut! Pot, kettle, black. What's my nutty attitude? That more guns does not create safer communities? Indeed. Our "experiment" in putting more guns in communities, via lawful concealed carry in more than 40 states over the last 20 years, proves you to be utterly wrong. Then call me Mr. Planters! You're Mr. Planters. If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they would rethink the whole thing. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault weapons. The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights. The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved to drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have things cleaned up in a hurry. Yup, and don't worry about the baby that gets shot in the head by accident. Urban warfare is dangerous, it's true. However, by and large, crackheads and drug dealers are cowards and they fold up like a house of cards when confronted by superior armed force. Or the house that wasn't really a crack house. Oh, I think the people who live on the block have a pretty good idea of which houses are crack houses...a far better idea than even the police. Or the anarchy and everyday violence that comes from shooting your gun at whoever is bothering you. The only one making any such suggestion is you. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying. True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient) citizens. It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back at you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military, which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty effectively too. So if you want to feel safe, you would suggest moving to Israel? No, I suggest obtaining and carrying defensive firearms where you live. Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Indeed. Scary that your ideal would not be that no one had a gun. Only to a hoplophobe like yourself. I'm a realist. It is utterly impossible to collect up all the guns on the planet, and so long as any guns are still in circulation, criminals will obtain them. When you limit the supply of guns only to criminals, who ipso facto don't care if they are illegal, all you do is create a pool of defenseless, unarmed victims for the criminals to prey upon with impunity. That's PRECISELY what's happening in GB, where the incidence of violent assault has skyrocketed, and the incidence of "hot burglaries" (which is to say burglaries committed while the occupants are home...not infrequently in broad daylight) are also very high. By comparison, the incidence of "hot burglaries" in the US is extremely small, and burglars go to great pains to be sure nobody's home BECAUSE they fear getting shot to death by an armed homeowner. In GB, however, not only do good citizens not have firearms for self defense, they get PROSECUTED if they use physical force against an intruder, even if he's got the family jewels in his hands and is threatening you with a knife. You're supposed to just let him escape rather than risking hurting him in any way. What a bunch of dumb fu*ks!! Around here, you intrude into my house illegally, and I so much as THINK you are going to use ANY degree of physical force, no matter how slight, and I'm legally empowered to use deadly physical force. And if I do, I'm immune from both civil and criminal liability. That's why burglary rates keep dropping around here. Then every office argument, domestic disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?) This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is simply not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and "blood running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic stops" as a result of lawful concealed carry. Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen. It doesn't? What are those 30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR all about? Oh, right, they are all suicides? Not all, but the majority of them are. Most of the rest are homicides. According to the CDC, in 2002, there were 11,829 firearm homicides and 17,108 suicides by firearm. That's 28,937 of your "30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR" accounted for. There were 762 accidental firearms deaths in the US in 2002. Next specious argument please... People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty disagreement in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once they've begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for their own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use for self-defense. Yup. If only all the kids at Columbine had been carrying guns. Or even one teacher or visitor. As it was, we had science teachers using fire extinguishers and a lot of dead kids. Total up all the Americans killed in every war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between 1979 and 1979. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut. Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't change the facts. Um, there's no facts that indicate more guns = safer society, since you have 30,000+ deaths per year every year. False logic. The existence of some specific number of deaths per year caused by firearms is unrelated to the question of whether society is safer with more or fewer guns. That question has already been answered, and it is in fact true that more guns make a safer society. Homicide and violent crime rates drop an average of 8% in the first years in all jurisdictions where concealed carry is made lawful, and the declines in violent crime rates continue to climb over the years to as much as 15%. The facts prove you wrong. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys! but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? Probably. Maybe you should run for head of state there on that platform. I'm not Irish. Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the Irish. Which has little to do with what we are talking about. It has everything to do with it. It's why we, when we formed this country, resolved to NEVER allow our government to disarm us. Any attempt to do so is treason and the perpetrators need to have their heads on spikes along the Reflecting Pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial, as a warning to other would-be tyrants. I think they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were best known as places to get shot. Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that you'd wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to the floor through the knees. I'd wish fervently to live in a society where the ideal is not to shoot someone else before they shoot you. That's a good thing to wish. However, as the Arabs say, "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel." They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? Other than my university degree in History, not much. Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to agree. It's pretty hard to get a left-wing history degree. Historians tend to be rather dry old conservatives. Well, that proves you're lying. Clearly you have no experience in academia. Apparently you learned all your history from the NRA sponsored texts. No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who wrote extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of the nation. Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect I'll be happy to prove it to you if that would be important to you. It's a waste of my time to bother. I judge you on what you write, not what you claim your credentials are. As Ward Churchill proves, any nutjob can get a college degree if he picks the right college...or diploma mill. That doesn't mean squat to me. You could have a PhD in history for all I care, but if your arguments here are on a tenth-grade level, then I will conclude that you're a tenth-grader pretending to be an adult. I so conclude. and if you do have one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about American history during your matriculation. What you mean is that I was not indoctrinated by whatever forces have messed up your own ability to think. Whatever. Go watch Spongebob, little boy, and leave the debates to the adults. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Absolute bull****. There are _far_ fewer gun deaths in those countries. In fact, there are far fewer murders of any type in those countries. The US has the highest murder rate and highest gun death rate of any western country. Mike |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. Absolute bull****. There are _far_ fewer gun deaths in those countries. In fact, there are far fewer murders of any type in those countries. The US has the highest murder rate and highest gun death rate of any western country. The issue is not the absolute number of violent crimes it's the TREND of violent crime associated with the banning of guns. Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians, comparatively speaking. What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime, which is indeed skyrocketing in Britain and Australia, increasing in Canada, and dropping in the US. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians, comparatively speaking. You really can't read, can you? The _rate_ in Canada is far, far lower than in the US. It will never be equal, since no other western country is as violent as the US. What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime, And that rate is much, much lower outside the US. Pay more attention, dickhead. Mike |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians, comparatively speaking. You really can't read, can you? The _rate_ in Canada is far, far lower than in the US. It will never be equal, since no other western country is as violent as the US. You're wrong. I strongly suspect that the violent crime rate will exceed the US's quite soon. GB's has in just a few years. What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime, And that rate is much, much lower outside the US. But where is it *going?* Besides, you're wrong. The violent crime rate in GB is now higher than the US. Pay more attention, dickhead. To you? I think not. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
