Jump to content
SJG

Projected Impact of Dem Win on G&A

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

As well as creating a smarter way to try and control assault rifles that is not based on silly things as we have in NJ.

Why do "assault" rifles need to be controlled? Are they really killing that many people?

You're an engineer, right? Do you like factual data? From the FBI:

Shouldn't we be controlling knives instead of "assault" rifles? How about handguns?

Even blunt objects are more of a problem. What should we do about them?

main-qimg-d8c4896d70caeccb96ed8258cb65c7

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, El Jefe said:

What doesn't need to be reformed?

 As well as creating a smarter way to try and control assault rifles 

And yes - I think there should be mandatory safety training for first time gun owners.

just left the 2 statements that i have issue with.

 

 the ONLY control of "assault" rifles should be....well.....none.

 who would set the standards for said mandatory training? who would administer it? how would we prevent it from being used to infringe on us? oh wait.....making it required to own IS infringement.,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, El Jefe said:

What doesn't need to be reformed?

Allowing Carry in all states equally would be the first thing that jumps to mind. As well as creating a smarter way to try and control assault rifles that is not based on silly things as we have in NJ. If I will have a retractable buttstock is my AR really more deadly then with the fixed one? Or why is a silencer forbidden? 

And yes - I think there should be mandatory safety training for first time gun owners.

This right here is exactly why I will never pull the lever for a Democrat.

 You don’t like those evil black rifles, so let’s impose stupid restrictions on law abiding citizens in the name of safety.  
 

The mandatory training should be the parents choice, not the government.  Should women take mandatory classes prior to their first abortion?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

just left the 2 statements that i have issue with.

 

 the ONLY control of "assault" rifles should be....well.....none.

 who would set the standards for said mandatory training? who would administer it? how would we prevent it from being used to infringe on us? oh wait.....making it required to own IS infringement.,

If you want to have an intelligent discussion don't copy only half of what someone said 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gabesdad said:

This right here is exactly why I will never pull the lever for a Democrat.

 You don’t like those evil black rifles, so let’s impose stupid restrictions on law abiding citizens in the name of safety.  
 

The mandatory training should be the parents choice, not the government.  Should women take mandatory classes prior to their first abortion?  

You are saying the exact same thing as I am, but let yourself get angry and then go blind. Other then the gun issue, which is really not that important for us in our daily life as we clearly have guns and no one is stopping us from owning as many as we want, there are so many issues and on 99% of them were theoretically a democrat candidate may be to your advantage.

As to infringement. If you show me where in the constitution it says that training is not allowed or is a direct infringement, I will join you in objecting it. But the fact of the matter is that the constitution was written in a time when the world was a lot simpler.

One could also say that having to pay for a gun is against the constitution, or that mental health check is also against the constitution. Or even needing a permit. Heck let's just have guns sold in the supermarket.

Now as loaded as the abortion subject is, no one accidently killed their next door neighbor when having an abortion, and we could argue whether it should be legal or not, but equating this to a weapon is a false equivalency.

I suggest that we have an informal poll here among people that were / are law enforcement and military and see who thinks it is a good idea to give people guns without any training whatsoever, as one of those I certainly think that you should train people, and my army training from almost 40 years ago is so engrained that when I go to the range, looking at the way some people handle their guns makes me want to cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

If you show me where in the constitution it says that training is not allowed or is a direct infringement, I will join you in objecting it. But the fact of the matter is that the constitution was written in a time when the world was a lot simpler.

 

I found the answer in Federalist #29 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the meaning of the phrase “a well-regulated militia.”

In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.

One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states. Others argued that a new centralized government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. And still others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.

During the push for ratification, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," " Centinel", and "Federal Farmer," but some famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution.

Although the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in the prevention of the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of Rights.

Anti-federalist Patrick Henry

 

Curious - seems the Anti-Federalists - had it right - no?

 

Ya'll may continue - 

 

:popcorn:

5 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

They used to be sold in some hardware stores with no serial numbers...

Prior to the Gun Control act of 1968 - as I recall.  Many a .22 rifle had no serial - as well as other arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

I found the answer in Federalist #29 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the meaning of the phrase “a well-regulated militia.”

In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.

One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states. Others argued that a new centralized government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from. And still others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.

During the push for ratification, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," " Centinel", and "Federal Farmer," but some famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution.

Although the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in the prevention of the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of Rights.

Anti-federalist Patrick Henry

 

Curious - seems the Anti-Federalists - had it right - no?

 

Ya'll may continue - 

 

:popcorn:

Prior to the Gun Control act of 1968 - as I recall.  Many a .22 rifle had no serial - as well as other arms.

I took the 5 minute to read the link. And of course there is no mention of safety training. And of course it all refers to a militia, which means an organized group with some structure. Are you suggesting that every person that buys a gun becomes a militia?

I'm pro guns, I'm against self entitled close mindedness. You want to own a gun. Get a permit, get trained and own a gun. I would accept the NRA "basics of pistol shooting" as safety training and an equivalent course for a rifle.

You can't pass a 4 hour training that costs $100 you have no business owning a firearm and ask for the rights of a militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Jefe said:

You are saying the exact same thing as I am, but let yourself get angry and then go blind. Other then the gun issue, which is really not that important for us in our daily life as we clearly have guns and no one is stopping us from owning as many as we want, there are so many issues and on 99% of them were theoretically a democrat candidate may be to your advantage.

As to infringement. If you show me where in the constitution it says that training is not allowed or is a direct infringement, I will join you in objecting it. But the fact of the matter is that the constitution was written in a time when the world was a lot simpler.

One could also say that having to pay for a gun is against the constitution, or that mental health check is also against the constitution. Or even needing a permit. Heck let's just have guns sold in the supermarket.

Now as loaded as the abortion subject is, no one accidently killed their next door neighbor when having an abortion, and we could argue whether it should be legal or not, but equating this to a weapon is a false equivalency.

I suggest that we have an informal poll here among people that were / are law enforcement and military and see who thinks it is a good idea to give people guns without any training whatsoever, as one of those I certainly think that you should train people, and my army training from almost 40 years ago is so engrained that when I go to the range, looking at the way some people handle their guns makes me want to cry.

where in the constitution? "shall not be infringed". requiring training is an infringement. it's pretty clear.

 

why not sell them at the supermarket? some states sell alcohol there, and overall i think alcohol causes many more problems than guns do.

 

 no one's saying we shouldn't get training. it's only being said that it shouldn't be mandatory. however, i personally do have issue that "civilians" can't acquire(to the best of my knowledge) the same training that law enforcement can.

 

 happy? i didn't cut it up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

I took the 5 minute to read the link. And of course there is no mention of safety training. And of course it all refers to a militia, which means an organized group with some structure. Are you suggesting that every person that buys a gun becomes a militia?

I'm pro guns, I'm against self entitled close mindedness. You want to own a gun. Get a permit, get trained and own a gun. I would accept the NRA "basics of pistol shooting" as safety training and an equivalent course for a rifle.

You can't pass a 4 hour training that costs $100 you have no business owning a firearm and asks for the rights of a militia.

No, just trying to supply perspective and stir the pot on training......  :)

But I would submit, that anyone that owns a gun should realize that they may be called to provide for some sort of "militia duty" - ' every able bodied man ' etc.

The problem is there are extremes on all sides - somewhere in the middle makes sense.

I have seen such pervasive incorrect handling, where the case can be made for mandatory training - if there is mandatory training, such as DL, where I can drive anywhere - I should be able to carry anywhere.  (yeah I get it a DL is nor a 'right') and very true.

Then again the case for training, if mandated should be *free*, to ' every able bodied person ' - there should be no hurdle to exercise a right, monetary or otherwise and if that hurdle or qualification is placed, it should be not used to infringe.

The Anti-Federalists had it right....  States rights - the centralized Government *has* become all that we fought to get away from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Jefe said:

As to infringement. If you show me where in the constitution it says that training is not allowed or is a direct infringement, I will join you in objecting it. But the fact of the matter is that the constitution was written in a time when the world was a lot simpler.

How about you show us in the Constitution where  foregrips, telescoping stocks and standard mags are not allowed?

1 hour ago, El Jefe said:

Heck let's just have guns sold in the supermarket.

They do today. There's this store called Walmart, ever hear of them. You can buy guns and milk. But that would be in a free state, you won't find that in your neighborhood Walmart in NJ.

BTW, @El Jefe   I'm still waiting on your answer why restrict "assault" weapons, when it's clear, based on FBI data, that steak knife on your kitchen counter, is way more dangerous.

81QtQyp1MvL._AC_SX522_.jpg

 

Shouldn't these be restricted? They kill 6 TIMES more people than your "assault" rifles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Jefe said:

You are saying the exact same thing as I am, but let yourself get angry and then go blind. Other then the gun issue, which is really not that important for us in our daily life as we clearly have guns and no one is stopping us from owning as many as we want, there are so many issues and on 99% of them were theoretically a democrat candidate may be to your advantage.

As to infringement. If you show me where in the constitution it says that training is not allowed or is a direct infringement, The specific amendments to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights) do not grant any rights, they acknowledge that we are born with these rights.   I will join you in objecting it. But the fact of the matter is that the constitution was written in a time when the world was a lot simpler.  Does freedom of speech only apply to open air rallies and printing presses?

One could also say that having to pay for a gun is against the constitution, or that mental health check is also against the constitution. Or even needing a permit. Heck let's just have guns sold in the supermarket. You are not capable of understanding true freedom

Now as loaded as the abortion subject is, no one accidently killed their next door neighbor when having an abortion, and we could argue whether it should be legal or not, but equating this to a weapon is a false equivalency.

I suggest that we have an informal poll here among people that were / are law enforcement and military and see who thinks it is a good idea to give people guns without any training whatsoever, People that are not LEO/Military are not "given" guns, they buy them by choice. as one of those I certainly think that you should train people, and my army training from almost 40 years ago is so engrained that when I go to the range, looking at the way some people handle their guns makes me want to cry.  Looking at the some some people vote to be controlled by others makes me want to vomit.

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sniper said:

How about you show us in the Constitution where  foregrips, telescoping stocks and standard mags are not allowed?

They do today. There's this store called Walmart, ever hear of them. You can buy guns and milk. But that would be in a free state, you won't find that in your neighborhood Walmart in NJ.

BTW, @El Jefe   I'm still waiting on your answer why restrict "assault" weapons, when it's clear, based on FBI data, that steak knife on your kitchen counter, is way more dangerous.

81QtQyp1MvL._AC_SX522_.jpg

 

Shouldn't these be restricted? They kill 6 TIMES more people than your "assault" rifles.

Don't give them ideas.  From what I understand, the Brits have now banned most knives, because people started using them more for violence after guns were banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JC_68Westy said:

The ACE Hardware near me sells guns. They also sell silencers/suppressors. Our WalMart also sells guns and ammo.

I bought my first shotgun from the gun counter at a drugstore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Don't give them ideas.  From what I understand, the Brits have now banned most knives, because people started using them more for violence after guns were banned. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  This

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 10X said:

I bought my first shotgun from the gun counter at a drugstore.

That's only because you grew up in AMERICA.

The Glorious Peoples Republik of New Jerseystan has not been AMERICA for a very long time. 

At least since 1962.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Jefe said:

I suggest that we have an informal poll here among people that were / are law enforcement and military and see who thinks it is a good idea to give people guns without any training whatsoever,

Why is it Democrats are so fearful of certain inanimate objects over others. I gave a perfect example above of another inanimate object used for nefarious reasons. Have Democrats ever called to ban them? But guns... run and hide, protect the children, because... reasons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Why is it Democrats are so fearful of certain inanimate objects over others. I gave a perfect example above of another inanimate object used for nefarious reasons. Have Democrats ever called to ban them? But guns... run and hide, protect the children, because... reasons...

So does your answer means that you are a law enforcement / military and you think there shouldn't be any training or you just obsessed with Democrats? 

And for those who do chime in with an actual input, I thank you for your point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

So does your answer means that you are a law enforcement / military and you think there shouldn't be any training or you just obsessed with Democrats? 

How many sport shooters here run around chasing bad guys and are employed to uphold the law?

3 minutes ago, El Jefe said:

And for those who do chime in with an actual input, I thank you for your point of view.

That was actual input. Just because you don't agree doesn't, make it wrong. But in reality, all you're doing is spewing Dem talking points, that aren't based in facts, evidence, and more importantly, logic.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I would have no problem with some level of training being required, and I'll tell you why. Other than some of the scary shit I've seen at public ranges,  the gun culture in this country has changed. It used to be that at a certain age you were given a gun by your dad, and he took the time to teach you basic firearm safety and marksmanship. I was lucky, I was a scout, my dad was a scout leader, and he taught me to shoot an an early age with a single shot Remington bolt action .22, which I still have. Hell, in 7th and 8th grade at Raritan elementary school we had a gun club run by the shop teacher, who was also an NRA instructor.  But that sort of thing has skipped a few generations. Many new gun owners never grew up with guns in the house, and have little idea of the rudiments of gun safety.  Just think back on some of the behavior you've witnessed at gun ranges. Part of it is up to us as experienced, responsible gun owners to help train the next generation of shooters,  but I, for one, would feel safer at a public range if I knew that everyone had gone through at least some basic safety instruction. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grapeshot said:

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I would have no problem with some level of training being required, and I'll tell you why. Other than some of the scary shit I've seen at public ranges,  the gun culture in this country has changed. It used to be that at a certain age you were given a gun by your dad, and he took the time to teach you basic firearm safety and marksmanship. I was lucky, I was a scout, my dad was a scout leader, and he taught me to shoot an an early age with a single shot Remington bolt action .22, which I still have. Hell, in 7th and 8th grade at Raritan elementary school we had a gun club run by the shop teacher, who was also an NRA instructor.  But that sort of thing has skipped a few generations. Many new gun owners never grew up with guns in the house, and have little idea of the rudiments of gun safety.  Just think back on some of the behavior you've witnessed at gun ranges. Part of it is up to us as experienced, responsible gun owners to help train the next generation of shooters,  but I, for one, would feel safer at a public range if I knew that everyone had gone through at least some basic safety instruction. 

What amount of training would make you "feel" better? No amount of training will prevent some people from being a danger to themselves and others. Freedom is not a safe space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JC_68Westy said:

The ACE Hardware near me sells guns. They also sell silencers/suppressors. Our WalMart also sells guns and ammo.

the dentist that used to be 75 yards up the road from my shop was an ffl. he sold the practice, and the new dentist there(whom i use now) didn't buy the ffl with the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Grapeshot said:

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I would have no problem with some level of training being required, and I'll tell you why. Other than some of the scary shit

We should then apply the same logic to other constitutional rights, like voting and free speech.  I've heard some people say some scary shit and vote for some scary politicians with scary ideas.  It would be for the safety of our republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grapeshot said:

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I would have no problem with some level of training being required, and I'll tell you why. Other than some of the scary shit I've seen at public ranges,  the gun culture in this country has changed. It used to be that at a certain age you were given a gun by your dad, and he took the time to teach you basic firearm safety and marksmanship. I was lucky, I was a scout, my dad was a scout leader, and he taught me to shoot an an early age with a single shot Remington bolt action .22, which I still have. Hell, in 7th and 8th grade at Raritan elementary school we had a gun club run by the shop teacher, who was also an NRA instructor.  But that sort of thing has skipped a few generations. Many new gun owners never grew up with guns in the house, and have little idea of the rudiments of gun safety.  Just think back on some of the behavior you've witnessed at gun ranges. Part of it is up to us as experienced, responsible gun owners to help train the next generation of shooters,  but I, for one, would feel safer at a public range if I knew that everyone had gone through at least some basic safety instruction. 

^^^^^^^^^^  This - I love get muzzle swept with a loaded firearm at the range...part of my wants to get a vest with side plates.  I kid you not.

9 minutes ago, JC_68Westy said:

What amount of training would make you "feel" better? No amount of training will prevent some people from being a danger to themselves and others. Freedom is not a safe space.

I see where you are coming from and this is not about "feelings" - this is about actual practical safety/knowledge and I think it is a *very* good discussion with all the "new" shooters entering our ranks.

The idea here and I think that is being presented, is that a certain level of familiarity with a firearm and how to use it safely, is not a bad thing.  Most of these new shooters do not know and have not been educated on the finer points of firearms usage.

This is also not about making a mandate for training as an accessible path and/or hurdle -  for a right to keep and bear arms.  But that very right TO keep and bear arms comes with a HIGH level of responsibility and associated knowledge.

Two stories.

First

Handgun range, guy sitting at bench with a 6" 44mag...his friend is to his right, I am on his left two benches over...every time he went to talk to his friend, his muzzle of his hand cannon just seemed to cant left towards me...it took the second time, with the WTF! look on my face and out of my mouth to get attention of the RO to speak with him.  I packed up and left....

Could that behavior be prevented?  I say yes - there is no space for incorrect muzzle discipline anywhere.

Second

I am up in the shop one Sat fixing something or another - Joe's busy with someone, guy comes in looking lost carrying a Beretta 92 case unlocked.  I walk out from in back and ask him if I can help him.  He tells me that his new 92 is broken and he wants his money back.  I ask him what the problem is - he says "it don't shoot" - and he places aforementioned unlocked case on counter, opens it to a 'loaded' 92 and says this thing is broken while trying to hand it to me muzzle first.  :o - I take possession of the weapon, drop the magazine and open the slide, expecting to find a live round.  No such thing in there...I slide lock it.  I empty the mag of the live rounds and proceed to tell him he should not be doing that and that he needs a locked case etc.  ' So what's the problem ' I ask.

He says he loads the gun and it doesn't shoot - I ask him how he loads the gun and why doesn't it shoot....verbatim answer:

" I load the clip with bullets and put the clip in the hole in the handle and pull the trigger and nothing happens " :facepalm:

Can this type of problem be prevented?  I say yes, yes it can.

A certain level of training and some of it mandated, free - is a good thing - No?

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

" I load the clip with bullets and put the clip in the hole in the handle and pull the trigger and nothing happens " :facepalm:

 

C'mon man.  

In the movies, I seen where you raise a gun to point it and it goes *cha-chunk*.  Mine don't do that, it broken.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

^^^^^^^^^^  This - I love get muzzle swept with a loaded firearm at the range...part of my wants to get a vest with side plates.  I kid you not.

I see where you are coming from and this is not about "feelings" - this is about actual practical safety/knowledge and I think it is a *very* good discussion with all the "new" shooters entering our ranks.

The idea here and I think that is being presented, is that a certain level of familiarity with a firearm and how to use it safely, is not a bad thing.  Most of these new shooters do not know and have not been educated on the finer points of firearms usage.

This is also not about making a mandate for training as an accessible path and/or hurdle -  for a right to keep and bear arms.  But that very right TO keep and bear arms comes with a HIGH level of responsibility and associated knowledge.

Two stories.

First

Handgun range, guy sitting at bench with a 6" 44mag...his friend is to his right, I am on his left two benches over...every time he went to talk to his friend, his muzzle of his hand cannon just seemed to cant left towards me...it took the second time, with the WTF! look on my face and out of my mouth to get attention of the RO to speak with him.  I packed up and left....

Could that behavior be prevented?  I say yes - there is no space for incorrect muzzle discipline anywhere.

Second

I am up in the shop one Sat fixing something or another - Joe's busy with someone, guy comes in looking lost carrying a Beretta 92 case unlocked.  I walk out from in back and ask him if I can help him.  He tells me that his new 92 is broken and he wants his money back.  I ask him what the problem is - he says "it don't shoot" - and he places aforementioned unlocked case on counter, opens it to a 'loaded' 92 and says this thing is broken while trying to hand it to me muzzle first.  :o - I take possession of the weapon, drop the magazine and open the slide, expecting to find a live round.  No such thing in there...I slide lock it.  I empty the mag of the live rounds and proceed to tell him he should not be doing that and that he needs a locked case etc.  ' So what's the problem ' I ask.

He says he loads the gun and it doesn't shoot - I ask him how he loads the gun and why doesn't it shoot....verbatim answer:

" I load the clip with bullets and put the clip in the hole in the handle and pull the trigger and nothing happens " :facepalm:

Can this type of problem be prevented?  I say yes, yes it can.

A certain level of training and some of it mandated, free - is a good thing - No?

 

 

 

Mandated, absolutely not. This is more of a personal responsibility issue here. Should people get training? Yes. Where you go off the rails, in my opinion is "mandated" and "free". I already addressed mandated, as for "Free" training. Who pays for it? Are you saying that people are going to volunteer there time to provide something the government mandated? I don't think so.

To quote Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

We should then apply the same logic to other constitutional rights, like voting and free speech.  I've heard some people say some scary shit and vote for some scary politicians with scary ideas.  It would be for the safety of our republic.

This is not on par with what is being discussed, I would respectfully submit, you say the above very tongue in cheek.

I do not think the suggestion is the limitation of a persons right to keep and bear arms, focused on a training hurdle.

I think the suggestion is that mandating some training, aligned in a manner that does not create a hurdle to the right to keep in bear arms, is better for all in the long run.

I do not think it is a fair comparison, to apply the same logic used in firearms ownership, as presented in this thread as being applicable to the right of free speech.

However, if you are truly sincere about the above statement, I would say that a certain level of knowledge prior to pulling the lever and or ticking the box for someone, as it may be.  That knowledge of the candidates, the issues, and at least a common understanding of what is being presented - be required prior to the cast of a vote.

7 minutes ago, Malsua said:

C'mon man.  

In the movies, I seen where you raise a gun to point it and it goes *cha-chunk*.  Mine don't do that, it broken.

 

 

something like that - LMAO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...