americans only: are you in favor of gun control
some changes need to be made
32% (171)
32% (171)
vast changes need to be made
26.2% (140)
26.2% (140)
remove all guns excluding law enforcement
15% (80)
15% (80)
it's fine as is
15.1% (81)
15.1% (81)
we should be allowed to have any gun we want
11.4% (61)
11.4% (61)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: american only gun poll

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Edible Avatar:

Fuzzed:
I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

Mao? Which Mao? The one that killed 20 million of his own people in the "Great Leap Forward"? Or the one that forced people out of their homes to live in communes that were riddled with disease and policed by the military, with no civil or personal rights whatsoever? Oh they were the same one you were talking about? Go figure...

At least he killed 20 million (who knows what the real figure is) with balls instead of secretly killing 20 million plus foreigners all over the world like the U.S. has done. And what does the U.S. call it nowadays...I think the "Great Leap Backwards" or something like that. And how's China doing today...oh ya. Fucking amazing.

The thing is, what the Obama administration has proposed isn't even that strict. It seems to cover most of the angles on the issue and is very middle of the road. Heck, they even used the NRA's idea of increasing security in schools. Most Americans can get behind keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unfit to use them. The few reasonable gun owners I know actually cancelled their NRA membership because how blatantly off base that press release of theirs was and believe that something has to be done. The only ones who are getting overly worked up are those that take the 2nd amendment to the extreme.

Yes, because the Escapist isn't know for being dominated by a vocal minority...

OH, WAIT...

Gun control and issues of government authority on armaments have been a part of the US since before its inception. It's not a issue that is one sided by dominated by one loud group, its a contested issue.

I'm starting to get pissed at people who don't understand the psychology of various areas of the US coming in to state how wrong everyone is and how stupid things are. I get crucified any time I so much as imply I know anything about a foreign country (because you know all United States citizens are fat and stupid) so I expect everyone else to show the same restraint when talking about a culture they aren't a part of.

Also, don't ever get your news or opinions from Jon Stewart. He himself has said how absolutely terrifying it is that people do that.

Fuzzed:

Edible Avatar:

Fuzzed:
I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

Mao? Which Mao? The one that killed 20 million of his own people in the "Great Leap Forward"? Or the one that forced people out of their homes to live in communes that were riddled with disease and policed by the military, with no civil or personal rights whatsoever? Oh they were the same one you were talking about? Go figure...

At least he killed 20 million (who knows what the real figure is) with balls instead of secretly killing 20 million plus foreigners all over the world like the U.S. has done. And what does the U.S. call it nowadays...I think the "Great Leap Backwards" or something like that. And how's China doing today...oh ya. Fucking amazing.

I gotta agree on both accounts, China is doing better today with it's whole police state/censorship/political prisoners/state-endorsed pollution gig and the US is where it shouldn't be: following in their footsteps. The ends justifies the means right?

6,000,000 Jews and millions of Russians would have protested, but what do they know? Hitler and Stalin were right!

edit: I just did a double take...

At least he killed 20 million (who knows what the real figure is) with balls instead of secretly killing 20 million plus foreigners all over the world like the U.S. has done.

Really?! "With balls"? He gathered up marginally successful farmers and had them killed by beating them to death. Entire villages were killed off. Hell, even Wikipedia has articals on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

To say that the government has the right to kill millions of their own people for the sake of progress is downright barbaric.

Happiness Assassin:
The thing is, what the Obama administration has proposed isn't even that strict. It seems to cover most of the angles on the issue and is very middle of the road. Heck, they even used the NRA's idea of increasing security in schools. Most Americans can get behind keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unfit to use them. The few reasonable gun owners I know actually cancelled their NRA membership because how blatantly off base that press release of theirs was and believe that something has to be done. The only ones who are getting overly worked up are those that take the 2nd amendment to the extreme.

There are a lot of things that both sides can agree to in the proposals. What gets the pro-guns ire up is when "assault weapons" are brought into play. And no, assault weapons are not assault rifles. Assault rifles have been banned for like 30 years. Basically banning guns or types of guns (anyone more than is already banned at least) is off the table. Not to mention a lot of the things they are banning is because they LOOK scary, like bayoneta lugs or a pistol grip. A lot of it is nothing more than fear mongering.

If assault weapons were off the table, you will probably see a lot less resistence from the pro-gun group (although not the NRA). Background checks, permits, registration, mental health, closing loopholes. These are areas that you can find a whole lot of common ground on. About the only other major sticking point is limiting to 10 round magizines, and even that resistence would be lessen if assault weapons were off the table.

The sad thing is, the Democrats know this. They do this on purpose so they can play the act of the reasonable side when they add things to a legistlative that they KNOW will be heavily resisted. But they keep trying to sneak in drastic changes that they know the other side will resist among the reasonable changes.

You essentially have two sides that dont even want to try to engage one another in a dialogue and instead grab any camera they can find and point to the other side for blocking any and all progress on this issue.

The days of tota

Edible Avatar:

I gotta agree on both accounts, China is doing better today with it's whole police state/censorship/political prisoners/state-endorsed pollution gig and the US is where it shouldn't be: following in their footsteps. The ends justifies the means right?

6,000,000 Jews and millions of Russians would have protested, but what do they know? Hitler and Stalin were right!

The U.S. does a good job at lumping things it doesn't understand into the same category. Heck, Reagan is probably responsible for killing more Central and South Americans than Mao is of his own people. Maybe Reagan's name should be thrown up their next to those leaders as well. But obviously I don't agree with that. Just like I don't think Mao and Hitler share any sort of resemblance (I hear they had the same size penis though).

Fuzzed:
The days of tota

Edible Avatar:

I gotta agree on both accounts, China is doing better today with it's whole police state/censorship/political prisoners/state-endorsed pollution gig and the US is where it shouldn't be: following in their footsteps. The ends justifies the means right?

6,000,000 Jews and millions of Russians would have protested, but what do they know? Hitler and Stalin were right!

The U.S. does a good job at lumping things it doesn't understand into the same category. Heck, Reagan is probably responsible for killing more Central and South Americans than Mao is of his own people. Maybe Reagan's name should be thrown up their next to those leaders as well. But obviously I don't agree with that. Just like I don't think Mao and Hitler share any sort of resemblance (I hear they had the same size penis though).

Please, i know you are grasping for a coherent argument, but could you please point to a academic article or something that backs up your claims? The Contras and Sandinistas simply do not tally up to millions of people killed, as you claim. You have honestly and truthfully lost me, my friend.

edit: Moved this down here

At least he killed 20 million (who knows what the real figure is) with balls instead of secretly killing 20 million plus foreigners all over the world like the U.S. has done.

Really?! "With balls"? He gathered up marginally successful farmers and had them killed by beating them to death. Entire villages were killed off. Hell, even Wikipedia has articals on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

To say that the government has the right to kill millions of their own people for the sake of progress is downright barbaric.

Edible Avatar:

Fuzzed:
The days of tota

Edible Avatar:

I gotta agree on both accounts, China is doing better today with it's whole police state/censorship/political prisoners/state-endorsed pollution gig and the US is where it shouldn't be: following in their footsteps. The ends justifies the means right?

6,000,000 Jews and millions of Russians would have protested, but what do they know? Hitler and Stalin were right!

The U.S. does a good job at lumping things it doesn't understand into the same category. Heck, Reagan is probably responsible for killing more Central and South Americans than Mao is of his own people. Maybe Reagan's name should be thrown up their next to those leaders as well. But obviously I don't agree with that. Just like I don't think Mao and Hitler share any sort of resemblance (I hear they had the same size penis though).

Please, i know you are grasping for a coherent argument, but could you please point to a academic article or something that backs up your claims? The Contras and Sandinistas simply do not tally up to millions of people killed, as you claim. You have honestly and truthfully lost me, my friend.

edit: Moved this down here

At least he killed 20 million (who knows what the real figure is) with balls instead of secretly killing 20 million plus foreigners all over the world like the U.S. has done.

Really?! "With balls"? He gathered up marginally successful farmers and had them killed by beating them to death. Entire villages were killed off. Hell, even Wikipedia has articals on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

To say that the government has the right to kill millions of their own people for the sake of progress is downright barbaric.

Alrighty, Mr. condescending, cavalier racquetball player (sorry, had to). "Ad-hominem" is a sport I don't waste my time with.

Fuzzed:

Alrighty, Mr. condescending, cavalier racquetball player (sorry, had to). "Ad-hominem" is a sport I don't waste my time with.

I apologize if my comments are sounding rather caustic. I don't intend to target you, i was trying to understand the argument put forth.

Till another time.
*tips hat*

I'm a North American, I guess us Canadians should get a vote since we're your hat, and it's liable to get shot off as a result of drastic changes (I voted some changes).

Keoul:
I am not American but I voted anyway BECAUSE I CAN
image

Gun control seems fine in america, the crime hate has been going down for years. People only care because of small, short violent outbreaks of crime like the massacres.

TopazFusion:
And now the results are permanently skewed. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!

I might as well ruin it as well, since I'm not American either, and I still voted.

image


Also, these gun threads are now even worse and more numerous than the drowning threads...

Rawne1980:
I voted too and i'm not American either....

image

I voted to get rid of all guns because the internet will be hilarious if they announced that and many giggles will be had.

Whoops, my hand slipped and I voted too. Now I must join in on this diabolical laughter.

image

I can't tell you how your country should be, but I can give my opinion on how I think shotguns and assault rifles are not PDWs.

How can you call a full automatic assault rifle "Personal Defence"? what the fuck are you defending against? If someone pointed a pistol at me, I'd be shitting equal amounts of bricks if it were an assault rifle instead. Assault rifles are precisely that. ASSAULT. You ASSAULT with them. How is ASSAULT retailed as DEFENCE in your country? Who the hell do you personally need to ASSAULT to DEFEND your life?

lechat:
so i was watching a jon stewart bit today and the audience seemed universally in acceptance of gun control. i understand jon stewart attracts a certain viewer base but it got me to thinking. do we only hear from "the gun nuts"? is the only reason this is an issue because gun advocates are more vocal?

please do not answer the poll if you are not american

Polls indicate that near 70% of NRA members are in favour of sensible gun control options. The NRA gets to throw its weight around because of the size of its membership, but the membership doesn't agree with the obstructionism.

Americans don't generally want to ban all guns or anything, but a lot of the things being opposed by politicians and the gun lobby are soft issues to the American public.

Which really is great to see. Just when I thought we were never going to get anything done.

The ATF needs to be given the ability to police and monitor gun sales. Other than that there are far cheaper and more dangerous ways for disturbed individuals to get high body counts.

Fuzzed:

Chunga the Great:

Fuzzed:
I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

It has no homicide and has the highest population of any country in the world....and is also governed by a totalitarian regime that imprisons thousands of people for speaking out against the government and actively censors information coming into and going out of the country.

I'll take my chances, thanks.

And the United States doesn't....Wake up and smell the coffee.

Can't tell if actually serious...

But no, you're right! Hey, Germany was terrible but then Hitler came to power and it was great! There was almost no homicide! Those millions of innocent people gassed and starved to death in concentration camps were just growing pains! Oh, and Russia? Ha! Terrible before Stalin came to power. He may have killed untold millions of non-communists, but there wasn't a lot of homicide!

Fuzzed:

Edible Avatar:

Fuzzed:
I'm gonna throw this out there: It's called China. China once had a population that owned as many guns as the USA does. Then Mao (look him up if you don't know who I'm talking about) and the government banned them, and physically removed them from everybody that owned them. Today, even the sound of a homicide in China is so extremely rare its almost unbelievable. And oh, China has by far the highest population of any country in the entire world. IT's not video games. Get a clue America.

Mao? Which Mao? The one that killed 20 million of his own people in the "Great Leap Forward"? Or the one that forced people out of their homes to live in communes that were riddled with disease and policed by the military, with no civil or personal rights whatsoever? Oh they were the same one you were talking about? Go figure...

At least he killed 20 million (who knows what the real figure is) with balls instead of secretly killing 20 million plus foreigners all over the world like the U.S. has done. And what does the U.S. call it nowadays...I think the "Great Leap Backwards" or something like that. And how's China doing today...oh ya. Fucking amazing.

"With Balls"

Are you actually serious or are you just taking a joke too far? You could at least provide SOME evidence that the U.S has secretly killed "20 million plus foreigners all over the world."

Nothing will change. Nothing ever changes, even when changes are made.

Banning high-capacity clips means people will bring more clips. Banning assault rifles means people switch to semi-automatics. And this is just the people who use legal guns.

We have laws against murder. It's hysterical to me that some people honestly believe that those who break those laws would be stopped by other laws.

For criminals, there realistically is nothing different between Gun Control and tacking on 2 more years for murder.

Visiting a friend the other day I saw a sign on his neighbor's house, with a picture of a gun on it and the words "I don't call 911". If I were dead-set on breaking into someone's house, I wouldn't choose his...

ZorroFonzarelli:
Banning assault rifles means people switch to semi-automatics. And this is just the people who use legal guns.

Having a rifle such as an AR-15 does not mean it has select fire for automatic. As I understand those are restricted to military, law enforcement and licensed individuals who work in the industry. The new laws go after semi-automatic rifles which in that context makes them no different from a common pistol.

I wont vote since I live in Australia, but it has lower crime rates and a no-gun law, so I'm all for anti-gun policies.

So many gun threads. I don't understand why there needs to be so many.

I don't believe that guns need to be taken away, or regulated. That is kinda against the second amendment. I think a different solution is to regulate ammunition. If you are truly going to use the gun for 'self defense', why would you need four-hundred rounds? Wouldn't ten work?

Though I think the issue is actually less guns, more of mental health issue in America. If memory serves, I think we abandoned funding for mental health institutions around 1950, I think.

Bvenged:
I can't tell you how your country should be, but I can give my opinion on how I think shotguns and assault rifles are not PDWs.

How can you call a full automatic assault rifle "Personal Defence"? what the fuck are you defending against? If someone pointed a pistol at me, I'd be shitting equal amounts of bricks if it were an assault rifle instead. Assault rifles are precisely that. ASSAULT. You ASSAULT with them. How is ASSAULT retailed as DEFENCE in your country? Who the hell do you personally need to ASSAULT to DEFEND your life?

Possibly for that reason, automatic weapons haven't been registered since 1986 (meaning there have been no new ones since that time), and were tightly controlled before that. IIRC, no civilian has ever murdered anyone with a legally obtained automatic weapon in the US.

Of course, every time a semi-automatic rifle based on a military assault rifle is used in a crime in the US, it gets called an assault rifle, but they aren't.

Shotguns are widely seen as being good choices for defense weapons, though.

Oh, and Personal Defence Weapons (PDWs)? That is a military weapon designed for rear-echelon forces, though often used by police and special forces nowdays. It's going to be capable of automatic fire, and isn't something you want civilians to have...though you can get civilian semi-automatic versions of teh P90 in the US.

thaluikhain:

Bvenged:
I can't tell you how your country should be, but I can give my opinion on how I think shotguns and assault rifles are not PDWs.

How can you call a full automatic assault rifle "Personal Defence"? what the fuck are you defending against? If someone pointed a pistol at me, I'd be shitting equal amounts of bricks if it were an assault rifle instead. Assault rifles are precisely that. ASSAULT. You ASSAULT with them. How is ASSAULT retailed as DEFENCE in your country? Who the hell do you personally need to ASSAULT to DEFEND your life?

Possibly for that reason, automatic weapons haven't been registered since 1986 (meaning there have been no new ones since that time), and were tightly controlled before that. IIRC, no civilian has ever murdered anyone with a legally obtained automatic weapon in the US.

Of course, every time a semi-automatic rifle based on a military assault rifle is used in a crime in the US, it gets called an assault rifle, but they aren't.

Shotguns are widely seen as being good choices for defense weapons, though.

Oh, and Personal Defence Weapons (PDWs)? That is a military weapon designed for rear-echelon forces, though often used by police and special forces nowdays. It's going to be capable of automatic fire, and isn't something you want civilians to have...though you can get civilian semi-automatic versions of teh P90 in the US.

Well I took it that PDWs were pistols, because they're designed for personal defence, because an article I read on the new UK order of Glock's to replace the Browning's described them as defence if the primary gun fails. Alright, my mistake on the terminologies, but it doesn't change my verdict. US citizens are allowed to legally carry weaponry that far surpasses teh needs. I might have gotten the fully-auto wrong, but that raises the question: "How is a semi-automatic rifle personal defence?"

Also, when I picture the use of a shotgun in my mind, I see it sat behind a jewellers counter or in the office of a bank, to be used in-case-of-emergency (IE armed robbers). I cannot imagine its use within a household, or out on the street. can you take semi-auto's and shotguns on the street in the US as you can pistols? Are they means for home defence? To me, that is excessive. IF your life is ever threatened, it will only ever be by an insane individual or an armed group of crooks. What are the likelihoods of that, and when it comes to defence, what can semi-auto's and shotguns do that a slow-firing pistol can't?

And here I was as an outsider actually interested to see what the views of American users here would average to. Well, I suppose it was my mistake to think I can find an accurate poll on the internet, even worse The Escapist of all places.

I'll go sit in a corner to learn my lesson...

Bvenged:
I might have gotten the fully-auto wrong, but that raises the question: "How is a semi-automatic rifle personal defence?"

Well, good for shooting people. In that they are suitable for self defence. You just have to weigh that against the problems with everyone being armed with semi-automatic rifles. Which isn't something that individual gun buyers are going to do, of course. What's best for them personally is what's best for them. If it's having a negative effect on society, that only means they need it more.

Bvenged:
Also, when I picture the use of a shotgun in my mind, I see it sat behind a jewellers counter or in the office of a bank, to be used in-case-of-emergency (IE armed robbers). I cannot imagine its use within a household, or out on the street. can you take semi-auto's and shotguns on the street in the US as you can pistols? Are they means for home defence? To me, that is excessive. IF your life is ever threatened, it will only ever be by an insane individual or an armed group of crooks. What are the likelihoods of that, and when it comes to defence, what can semi-auto's and shotguns do that a slow-firing pistol can't?

Depends on the state, in some you can wander around with AR-15s and MP5s (civilian variant) in public as much as you want. The police are going to ask you a few questions, but they can't actually stop you. A pair of people decided to wander round Portland (had a shooting about a month ago) for a bit with their AR-15s, in order that people would come talk to them about guns and gun control. The locals panicked and called the police. Of course.

Shotguns (usually) have the advantage of being mechanically simple and easy to use. You can also load them with a variety of ammunition, though anything that stops a human is going to run the risk of penetrating walls and stopping some other human you didn't know was there. Supposedly, pumping a shotgun makes a big scary noise that is good for deterring attackers, though how effective that is going to be is unclear.

Why say that pistols are slow-firing? Semi-automatic pistol, semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. One trigger pull is one firing.

Oh, as an aside, it's not insane individuals you need to worry about. They get blamed for crimes a lot, but you are much more likely to get killed by someone you know that some random mentally ill person, and they are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrator.

...

EDIT: In regards to the AR-15 in particular, it is popular, meaning there's a big market and lots of suppliers (doesn't hurt that it's out of copyright). Easy to get hold of one, and get spares and extra features.

One of those extar features is a new upper receiver, you can easily replace the upper with any number of others (again, helps that there is a big market). So an AR-15 can be made to shoot any calibre you want fairly easily. Some people even swap the upper for a crossbow for some reason.

That makes it desirable for people when choosing a firearm.

Talaris:
And here I was as an outsider actually interested to see what the views of American users here would average to. Well, I suppose it was my mistake to think I can find an accurate poll on the internet, even worse The Escapist of all places.

I'll go sit in a corner to learn my lesson...

yup it's what i wanted but it seems the worlds desire to disarm america got in the way

Well, I am from the US and I said its fine.

We really should work on better mental healthcare systems before we bother with gun control.

The insane fucks will find a different way to kill people if they cant get their hands on guns, so its the insane fucks that need to be fixed.

thaluikhain:
snip

Why say that pistols are slow-firing? Semi-automatic pistol, semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. One trigger pull is one firing.

I mention that because generally pistols are associated as - one pull of the trigger gives one fired round - and you will only end up firing a handful of rounds before the clip is expired. Shotguns and rifles are military-grade, in my eyes, because you intend to kill if you're pulling the trigger, and the power behind such weaponry excess that of a pistol. You could cause collateral damage even if you hit your target. That is opposed to pistols used to deter your threat from turning hostile to you.

thaluikhain:

Oh, as an aside, it's not insane individuals you need to worry about. They get blamed for crimes a lot, but you are much more likely to get killed by someone you know that some random mentally ill person, and they are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrator.

I wasn't referring to insane individuals as criminals, more like the random-murder-spree kind that happens far more often than it should in the US. Shouldn't there be regular health checks on owners of high-caliber weaponry?

In this country, or even any other European country, I haven't thought twice about going out around the big cities for the day with nothing but my wallet and keys. If anyone gives me trouble, at worst it's a knife and there's enough police around to handle the situation anyway. I have lived on and around military bases for most of my life, and I've never seen a gun that wasn't in a shooting range, or on a police officer at an airport.

For some reason I feel like I wouldn't be safe in the US without a gun, because every sod has one (it seems). What is everyone defending against? Every other person wielding a gun they own for defence. A gun is a tool for killing, and nothing more. It makes the job of killing far easier and less personal than a knife, bat or your bare hands, which is why they don't have a place in civilian lives unless you live in a hostile country where you could be shot at any given moment out in public, such as Mexico. That's what I'm getting at; the weaponry US citizens are allowed to carry far surpasses their needs, and are far too easy to obtain.

I'm not crying for them to be outlawed, but bloody hell - if any old nutter or ill-intention person can obtain one with the capability of slaughtering numerous people, then some rules and/or regulations need to be put in place the minimise the chance of it happening again. It's not even that. If anyone can get a gun, and then chose a path of ill-intentions or then has a mental breakdown, how do you ensure they are disarmed by that point? some well-established laws could work in favour of that, whilst every citizen who feels they need to be protected by a firearm, is granted that protection.

Bvenged:
I mention that because generally pistols are associated as - one pull of the trigger gives one fired round - and you will only end up firing a handful of rounds before the clip is expired. Shotguns and rifles are military-grade, in my eyes, because you intend to kill if you're pulling the trigger, and the power behind such weaponry excess that of a pistol. You could cause collateral damage even if you hit your target. That is opposed to pistols used to deter your threat from turning hostile to you.

Ah, if you are worried about over-penetration, fair enough.

It's not true that a pistol only fires a handful of times, though. If it can use a detachable magazine, then there's not much to limit how big the magazine is. A restriction on the capacity of pistols means banning any that use detachable magazines.

Also, if you fire any weapon at a person, you are trying to kill them. Unless you are firing a taser, or shotgun loaded with rocksalt or baton rounds, in which case you are generally hoping they won't die, but no guarantees.

Bvenged:
I wasn't referring to insane individuals as criminals, more like the random-murder-spree kind that happens far more often than it should in the US. Shouldn't there be regular health checks on owners of high-caliber weaponry?

Although shooting sprees are well publicised, they are comparatively rare in the scheme of things. Many more people get killed in ones or twos that don't make the news.

Do you mean "high-calibre" as in "large calibre", or "techincally sophisticated", mind?

Bvenged:
For some reason I feel like I wouldn't be safe in the US without a gun, because every sod has one (it seems). What is everyone defending against? Every other person wielding a gun they own for defence.

You seem to have answered your own question there. If everyone else is armed, then you'd better be yourself. Hell, any number of armed people start talking about starting a civil war in the US at any excuse, I don't blame people for being scared.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked