How do you feel about guns?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by lixluke, Jul 31, 2006.

?

Guns

  1. Have no place in this world. Should be abolished like slavery.

    33 vote(s)
    36.7%
  2. Are every human's right.

    57 vote(s)
    63.3%
  1. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    TheoryOfRelativity:

    "A gun is only a good means of self defense if you have it in your hand ready and loaded when an unarmed criminal presents themselves...........Thus unlikely........."

    If you live in a city, you might be victim of crime sufficiently often enough - specifically if you are a vulnerable woman or old person - to have many such opportunities. Similarly threatening circumstances can lead to one producing the gun from its place upon one's person into one's hand at basically a moment's notice, and even given little to no warning, one can grab a gun if one has trained to do so pretty easily, as well as fire off a few shoots if need be.

    From a shoulder or hip holster, it might take one second to have killed a man. Specifically when current guns make aiming moot at close ranges (due to the magazine size).

    "A man in the Uk was imprisoned for shooting dead two teenage thieves. These thieves had robbed his property no less than 50 times, this man was nolonger sane (and understandably so) thus the 51st time they came back, he shot them dead. The result, imprisonment for him. The law here does not protect those who seek to protect themselves or their property. I don't see guns helping anyone, it just means all our criminals would arm themselves and as they KNOW they are about to commit a crime they would always have the upper hand. "

    Laws are made to be changed. Do note tell me that Britons are not wont to change laws they find unfit? Was there no public outcry that such a man was sentenced to prison after being victimized so? Did no one say "those cunting wankers deserved it"? Similarly, is it better to be imprisoned or dead? All things being equal, it would seem to be btter off being alive and in prison than to be dead or have a love one die because one did not react.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    Prince james, the reason people found the case i mentioned difficult was the theives were kids maybe 16yr olds, they were not armed. Most of our theivces are not armed. thus there was no danger to the man. the objection was that he didn't allow them to run away, or he shot them while they tried to run away.

    I do not agree with fact he shot them dead, I am only understanding of his mental state after being robbed 50 times. I thus think that should have been the considertaion at the time and no custodial sentance was due. But should we be able to shoot dead house invaders, I would if i had a gun, thus better I don't as I said to you. Unless fo course they had guns, then it'd be ok as if you carry a gun and intimidate someone with it you goota accept you yourself may get shot. Thats the game you play.

    We ALL have to have guns for gun ownership to work with any kind of 'justice' or NONE at all.

    Meanwhile re our laws, takes decades here to get a law changed, decades. And no they pay no heed to voters in these matters. A woman was imprisoned when her dog took a twig in it's mouth after leaving a protected forest. The ranger saw her and called the police. The woman was arrested, twig presumably held as 'evidence'. Woman objected to insanity of laws and refused fine, thus imprisoned. All over a fallen 'twig'.

    Yep................
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Wow, seems like you guys also need guns to overthrow your stupid politicians.

    And by the way, we've had the same damn type of convictions as that. Watch the opening scene of Michael and Me, where a guy gets wrongfully convicted for defending his home and family from a burglar. The father who did so was a Navy vet and a Wall Street worker with no previous crimes. It also addresses the main parts of Bowling for Columbine and presents you with facts not shown in Michael Moore's progaganda film.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6248331652264642519&q=michael and me

    - N
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    I have no problemo with this suggestion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    TheoryOfRelativity:

    "Prince james, the reason people found the case i mentioned difficult was the theives were kids maybe 16yr olds, they were not armed. Most of our theivces are not armed. thus there was no danger to the man. the objection was that he didn't allow them to run away, or he shot them while they tried to run away."

    Even so, an act of violence was perpetuated against him, and one which, though they may have been unarmed, gave reason to suspect that they may, considering they were all ready willing to break into his home and rob him of his belongings. Similarly, they have no foundation that a man which they sought to victimize will not return violence for violence, and thus their lives ought to be construed of as little value, and no injustice committed by a man who took from them their life.

    "I do not agree with fact he shot them dead, I am only understanding of his mental state after being robbed 50 times. I thus think that should have been the considertaion at the time and no custodial sentance was due. But should we be able to shoot dead house invaders, I would if i had a gun, thus better I don't as I said to you. Unless fo course they had guns, then it'd be ok as if you carry a gun and intimidate someone with it you goota accept you yourself may get shot. Thats the game you play."

    I would say trying to attack anyone whatsoever implies you are willing to accept the consequences, including death. One cannot triffle with another an expect any mercy.

    "We ALL have to have guns for gun ownership to work with any kind of 'justice' or NONE at all."

    I would say that no, not everyone -must- have to have a gun, only the capacity to buy one and to use it when it would be appropriate. No one is forced in anyway to protect themselves, but it is rather idiotic not to. If some people chose to be defenseless, so be it.

    In a prior post, I spoke of two towns, one with guns, another without. I shall add a third: One where half the population has guns, and where whom has guns and whom does not, is not known. By virtue that half the population does have guns, crime would be less rational to commit there, by virtue of the fact that one is rolling a very dangerous dice, where if one's luck has ran out, one is dead, or if one has been lucky once, statistically he is unlikely to do so again. That is, an armed society where many of the people are armed, protects many whom are not, by virtue of not knowing if such is the case. Where none are armed, all are targets.

    "Meanwhile re our laws, takes decades here to get a law changed, decades. And no they pay no heed to voters in these matters. A woman was imprisoned when her dog took a twig in it's mouth after leaving a protected forest. The ranger saw her and called the police. The woman was arrested, twig presumably held as 'evidence'. Woman objected to insanity of laws and refused fine, thus imprisoned. All over a fallen 'twig'.

    Yep................ "

    Though an American, I can empathize with such frustrations over the government being divorced from the overall will of the voting populace. It is a shameful state of affairs.
     
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Who said function was the only limitation of an item?
    Do you not know what logic is?
    Obviously you have no clue what is being debated here.
    I would love to see you try your hardest to find where I said that.
    Or see the common sense lack of logic by which you implied something instead of taking it for what it said.

    Irrelevant.
    You do not know what function means.
    Next time, try reading what you are responding to because you are arguing garbage that has already mentioned.

    Like I said. When you do not know how to read, you do not know what the topic is about. How does this reant fit in with anything being discussed?
    No reason to expect anything better.
    GET LOST.

    Let’s do this slowly for those with no brain:
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2006
  10. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Actually after fifty times of them robbing him those kids were irredeemable. They already proved that no amount of chasing them off was going to work. In this country they would have had 16 consecutive life sentences for their felonies. And it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not as a home invader. You are in the wrong. You get one warning and that is it. Whatever I feel I need to do to get you off my property I am allowed. Sure they were two 16 years old boys, but even two 12 years can beat an man to death if they try.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2006
  11. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    673
    What if the government lost their minds and started coming into our houses like the Nazis with the Jews? Wouldn't it be better if we could defend ourselves at least a little bit?
     
  12. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Then what the heck was your point when you said:

    "I guess you do not know the definition of function."

    In response to my:

    "I can kill you with a pencil. I can kill you with my bare hands. I can kill you with a baseball bat. I can kill you with a frying pan. I can kill you with your necklace. I can kill you with your socks. I can kill you with a glass bottle. I can kill you with a flag pole. I can kill you with a barstool. I can kill you with a spoon. I can kill you with a television set.

    I say we ban all items known to man, that outta stop murder! Oh wait, I forgot about my hands tho"


    As I said, the function of an item doesn't matter as everything will be used in a manner it wasn't intended. For you to be worried about guns because they can be harmful is silly as you can be harmed by anyone with anything. At least with guns, it's the greatest equalizer available to you. If you have no problem bringing a knife to a gunfight, so be it. Laws do not affect criminals, there's a reason why they're called criminals in the first place. If you think getting rid of guns will get them out of the hands of criminals, you're insane. The only thing limitations on anything does is hurt the law-abiding citizens not willing to break that law. It won't do a damned thing to stop the people you're trying to stop or would use those means against.

    Yes, which you've said after the fact of the post of mine in which you were responding to. Don't try to cover your tracks.

    What the hell do you mean I don't know what the topic is about? Does it not say "How Do You Feel About Guns"? I'm telling you how I feel and I'm backing up my feelings with facts. As usual, a hippie liberal using nothing but pure emotion. You cannot talk any sense into someone that allows their emotions to get in the way of things. We all have seen how civil you are with your emotions clouding your judgement calling anyone who has a different viewpoint than your utopian one to get lost. Boohoo, my facts ruined your faulty dream.

    Anyways, it's nice to see you've been so helpful and insightful with this topic of yours. Keep pecking away at people's posts instead of discussing the topic at hand which you're accusing me of. Try bringing something to the table next time instead of some little Michael Moore cartoon which you so heavily rely on to support your cause.

    Fact: There will always be people willing to harm you.
    Fact: No matter what you do, guns will always be here to stay.
    Fact: Criminals break laws and do harm to others.
    Fact: Criminals to not follow laws.
    Fact: Laws only effect law-abiding citizens.
    Fact: Guns are the best equalizer in terms of defense.
    Fact: Getting rid of guns will not stop violence.
    Fact: You not having a gun will not stop a criminal from using one.
    Fact: More crimes are stopped in the civilian world thanks to guns than commited with them.

    Guns do not kill people, people kill people. This is why cities that have gun bans, they have the highest crime rates. This is why Britain has the highest assault crime rates in the Westernized world. This is why there are countries where guns are required to be in everyone's home and they have a low crime rate. An armed society is a polite society. Am I not giving reasons as to "How I Feel About Guns" or am I inferring too much and not flat out saying it?

    Hell yes I'm all for guns and I wish everyone would own one. Mutually Assurred Destruction works with nukes, and they work with guns too. Those who own nukes and guns, they don't get pushed around by other countries or criminals. Those that don't own em, get stopped on by the U.S. and criminals. It's stupid to not have the best means of protection available to you as all not doing so makes you an easier target for those that don't follow the laws that you do as they break them. Get that through your thick skull.

    Here, read up on the failure of your so-called hopeful anti-gun utopian society. Look how much peace came from it:

    - N
     
  13. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Haven't you heard? Diplomacy and talking your way out of things always works! Tazers are pepper spray are the best inventions ever and can stop bullets!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    - N
     
  14. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    It means that you have no idea what you are arguing about.
    You have no intention of any logical approach.
    You do not even know how to read an entire post before you respond.
    You nitpick line by line out of context, and have yet to respond to an actual post.
    Get lost. You have no clue what you are taking about.

    Illogical.
    Refusal to address the topic at hand.
    This does not change the function.
    I suggest you show me where I said that function was the only limitation of an object. As you presumptiously claim
    I guess to illogical people, when I say “anything can be used as a weapon”, it means that function is the only limitation to an object.

    Fallacy. Keep your presumptions to yourself. Presumptions have no room in logic. In fact your entire argment is full of nothing but presumptions of what I said instead of what I actually said. You are warped.
    Refusal to address the topic at hand.
    I suggest you go elsewhere as you do not understand what this thread is about.
    “Go cover your tracks”.
    Sad.

     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2006
  15. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    You have a source for this? I'd particularly like to see some figures on how many frightened householders have won shootouts with seasoned, gun-wielding criminals. That would be most interesting.
     
  16. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Considering these three alone.
    I would like to see some figures on the first 2 presuppositions.
    Of course, there never will be because they are proof his reasoning is flawed. Logical individuals do not use these “there will always be [cynical presupposition]’ fallacies. These are culturally regurgitated presumptions with nothing to do with anything anybody is talking about.
    The third presumption shows that he does not know what anybody on this thread is talking about. Unless he could show any anti-gun activist claim that getting rid of guns will automatically get rid of violence for good. Sad really.
     
  17. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Blah blah blah, blah blah. You sure do know how to run your mouth. You've still yet to bring anything to this topic other than bitching and complaining all because someone has a difference in opinion than you.

    Please, show me where I am avoiding this debate. I'm the one doing the most talking on the subject whereas you're doing the least by complaining, lol. The debate is, oh wait, lemme go check again as I see you've edited your opening post yet again. Okay, the debate is whether or not guns should be prohibited. I've already given you my answer that I think they shouldn't be prohibited. Not only that, but I've given numerous examples of why they shouldn't be. You guys say guns are bad and cause harm, well uh, that's a silly reason as I've already mentioned as anything can be used to cause harm.

    So now you go and change it to their only intention is to cause harm, well okay, sure, but that doesn't change anything about the situation. Their applied use is still the same, for both offensive and defensive reasons. Everything I've said is still rellevant. For all the reasons you want to get rid of guns, illogical reasons are given and I've shown why they're illogical. Oh wait, but by me showing how your stance is silly, I'm suddenly avoiding the debate, lol. Do you even know what a debate is? I see you just want a one-sided one where everyone agrees with you. In other words, you want a little anti-gun hippie rally going on and don't want anyone to stand against you.

    What are you talking about facts that have nothing to do with the argument? Am I supposed to just say "No, I don't think guns should be prohibited" and that's it? Don't you want some reasons given for my opinion? I'm showing you why I don't think they should be prohibited yet you say that has nothing to do with the argument? Absurd.

    Holy hell, how about for the 1st fact, look at all of history? Considering nature is all about survival of the fittest, there will always be predator and prey. Humans, and nature in general, have never had one moment of peaceful utopia. If you don't even have the common sense to realize that, then well, wow, no wonder your feelings on the issue won't budge.

    2nd fact? I've already answered that in my other posts which you obviously haven't read from what I see you replying too and due to asking that question.

    Guns are banned in quite a few Westernized countries and/or cities. Guns still remain. Some law-abiding citizens still own their guns that aren't legal and use them to defend themselves, and many criminals still own guns despite them being banned. Gun crime has actually gone up in Britain with their gun ban. I've provided numerous links showing so. And not only that, but violent crime has gone up that don't involve guns in cities and/or countries that have them banned. Since people can't defend themselves with the ultimate means of defending themselves which is a gun, it allows other physical means and/or tools to trump their lesser means of defense.

    The cities and countries that don't have gun bans have less crime. Not only that, but countries where it's required that a gun be in everyone's home for militia duty and whatnot, they have even less crime! Come now, where's my flawed thinking?

    That addresses those points and I can find numerous other links to back them up as well if they don't suffice.

    Well that shows how much you know about gun-owners. Most gun owners train all the time to use their gun. They're comfortable using it. If a situation arises where they need to use it, their training can make them pull up the sights of their gun and shoot the criminal without even thinking about it. It happens naturally. Not only that, but you'd be surprised as to the advantage one gets when defending their own home vs a criminal that doesn't know the layout of the home.

    Anyways, to address your inquiry of more crimes being stopped with guns than committed:

    And mind you, that's in '93 where our gun crime rates were higher due to more ridiculous anti-gun laws. As of now, our gun crime rates are going down whereas in Britain for example, not only are their violent assault crimes going up, but their gun-related crimes going up despite having a gun ban! Please, show me my flawed thinking there.

    When a survey was done in many prisons across the U.S., criminals stated they fear citizens with guns more than they do the police.

    And again, I can find numerous other examples if you like if those don't suffice. I can track down the .pdf files of those claims as I have with The Failed Experiment. Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England, and Wales.

    Anyways, I'll be expecting another blabbering post by Cool Skill losing his cool. He'll continue to say I'm avoiding the debate when I'm the one showing all the research and backing up my answer to whether guns should be prohibited while he babbles on about irrellevent things doing exactly what he's accusing me of -- not adding anything to this discussion and being off-topic, lol. Next he'll start saying he's whooping my ass in this debate when he hasn't even brought anything to the table yet but complaints, lol. Round and round we go..

    Every single example given to get rid of guns and every single act that has been done to try and get rid of guns have been shown to not work. Face it, your ideas simply do not work and the proof is out there. I've already shown you why. Continue to cry like a little baby over it. Sorry to have shattered your utopian dreams, but that's REALITY. Quit the dreaming and wake up to it!

    - N
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home.
    -------------
    Studies examining the effects of legislation on death and injury rates in Canada have also suggested that stricter controls reduce gun death. A more recent study suggests that changes to Canada’s gun control law have had an effect on accidental firearm death rates, particularly in males.(Boyd, Neil. "A Statistical Analysis of the Impacts of the 1977 Firearms Control Legislation: Critique and Discussion." Department of Justice Canada. 1996.)

    Criminologist Neil Boyd concluded that there is more evidence to support the efficacy of gun control legislation in reducing death and injury than there is for most other legislative interventions. In reviewing the evaluations of the Canadian legislation he wrote:

    "In three separate forms of statistical analysis - exploratory, time-series and structural - researchers have found evidence to suggest that gun control has had an impact on homicides and firearms homicides. The finding that an amendment to criminal law can change behaviour in the direction desired is unusual. We have had many amendments to Canadian criminal law during the past 40 years: for example changes to the penalty structure for homicide in 1961, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1985; changes for the penalty structure affecting illegal drug use and distribution in 1961, 1969 and 1974.... In none of these circumstances has it been possible to establish that a change in law can impact behaviour in the direction that the law hopes for or anticipates. With gun control legislation, we have some preliminary evidence - some strong suggestions - that the criminal law is working. And it is working, not by manipulating penalty levels for specific forms of crime, but by putting a regulatory system in place that can limit access to firearms, enhance the safety of firearm use, and, in a more general sense, educate the public with respect to the dangers inherent in widespread availability of these potentially lethal commodities."
    ------------------------
    The easiest response to suggestions that Canadian civilians need guns to protect themselves is to look south to the US to see where arming for self protection leads. While rates of violence in the US are comparable to countries such as Canada, Australia and Great Britain, rates of lethal violence are much higher. For example, murders without guns in the US are about 40% higher (1.4 times the rate) than in Canada while murders WITH handguns are 1500% higher (15 times the rate).
    ------------
    Mauser's earlier work on arming for self-protection was funded by the NRA and has been critiqued by many academics. In one often cited study, Mauser argued that firearms are used between 62,500 and 80,000 times per year for self-defence. This is based on a 1995 telephone survey of 1,505 Canadians, in which 2.1% (32) of respondents claimed that they or a member of their household had used a gun for self-protection (either against a person or an animal) over the last five years. Of those, 12.9 % (5) claimed they or a member of their household had used a gun to protect themselves against a person within the last 5 years. Mauser extrapolates this to the Canadian population.

    Dr. David Hemenway, Professor, Harvard University in an affidavit to the Alberta Court of Appeal, notes that Mausers study contains "incorrect assertions and misleading statements." The study fails to distinguish perception from reality - grabbing a gun in response to a bump in the night does not mean that anyone has actually been defended themselves against a threat. " It is not appropriate to extrapolate the results of a simple, self-reported study or a RARE event, particularly when there is the possibility of positive social desirability response, or personal presentation bias. The results will be wild over estimates." He compares Mauser's methodology to a 1995 survey by NBC which asked 1500 Americans "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?". Extrapolating the results (0.6%) to the entire US population would suggest that 1.2 million Americans have been in actual contact with aliens.


    The thing is it is really easy to find a zillion web pages with 'stats' that show that guns are safe and reduce crime. The skeptic may point out that this may not be a reflection of truth, but merely funding (NRA) and fanaticism.

    http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html
     
  19. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Your article has nothing to do with what you quoted of me.

    All that does is increase the risk of family homicide and suicide, and doesn't take away from the other crimes prevented due to a person being armed with a gun. More than double the crimes are prevented each year thanks to guns than commited. And that's not even counting incidents where a gun prevents a crime and the person doesn't bother to report it. Happens all the time.

    Besides, a person that wants to kill their spouse or commit suicide is most likely going to happen anyways. I don't even need to bother to cite any of those commonly occuring cases. And if you think guns are the most dangerous thing that increases the risk of suicide, start voicing your opinion over drug companies who's legal drugs increase depression and suicide which we have more citizens on those drugs than we do that own guns, heh.

    Uh, anyone can figure that out. The U.S. has a higher combined population than all those countries combined; obviously we're going to have a higher amount of those crimes, lol! Now if you show the percentage stats based on crimes per citizen, the others are higher as shown in The Failed Experiment. Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England, and Wales and the other BBC news articles I linked to.

    The U.S. has more violent people total, thanks to a higher population, but per person, you guys have the more violent citizens. And hey, not only that, but you also fail to note that where the majority of those violent U.S. crimes occur, they're in cities where gun are banned. Go figure?

    - N
     
  20. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Thanks for proving my point. You have no clue what the topic is.

    More presumptions equal more proof that you nothing whatsoever regarding the topic.
    Get lost.

    Everywhere.
    All you do is make presumptuous claims.
    All you are doing is complaining all because someone has a difference in opinion than you. Presumptuous.

    It is not only that. It is not my fault all you know how to do is presume presume instead of actually read.
    I suggest you discontinue throwing illogical tantrums full of nothing but presumptions. You do not know how to stick to the topic. You do not know how to read things objectively for what is actually being said without subjective illogical presumptions.

    You are a waste of time.
    Show me where I made this statement.
    Discontinue presumptions or get lost.
    Let me guess, your next post is going to be nothing more than a pile of garbage presumptions based on your lack of logic.
    Perhaps:
    “You are bitching and complaining because I disagree with you. Not because I refuse to acknowledge the actual topic.”
    Get lost. You know nothing because you are nothing.

    Everywhere. Consider the following:
    Everything you have said is irrelevant.
    You base your entire life on presumptions.
    You do not discuss the actual topic.
    All you do is the following:
    Presume that others are one sided and are complaining about you because you disagree.
    The reasons for the complaints have been stated. None of them are because you disagree.
    They are all because you are illogical and presumptuous.

    You are too ignorant to understand how to read things for what they are.

    If you were not presumptuous, you would know that “get lost because you are presumptuous and do not know the topic” actually means “get lost because you are presumptuous and do not know the topic”.
    Instead, you insert your own illogical presumptions with the warped claims that the statement, “get lost because you are presumptuous and do not know the topic” means “get lost because you do not agree with my opinion”.
    Can you be any more ignorant?

    Reasons you should get lost:
    Refusal to read objectively.
    Refusal to do anything other than insert presumptions into everything you read.
    Presuming others having opinion that you cannot cite them as claiming because they never actually claimed the opinion.
    Using cultural presuppositions instead of actual logic.
    You say “by me showing how your stance is silly” without even citing the exact stance the other claimed because you are simply arguing your presumed stance instead of their actual stance because you are presumptuous.

    I suggest you discontinue presuming people are complaining because you disagree. The complaints are because you make such ignorant presumptions. As long as you continue to make ignorant presumptions, you will continually be told to get lost. You can cry all you want and presume that you are being told to get lost because you disagree about something. Keep telling yourself that to make you feel better. We all know the real reason you are being told to get lost.
    Take a hint: Get lost.
     
  21. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Dude, you must be on crack or something. I want what you're on.

    Take a hint: feel the inside of my barrel.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    - N
     
  22. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    For my next trick I will count the amount of times the word presumption was used in the original reply.
     
  23. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595

    let me see now: 25

    This amount of repetition should be illegal

    I presume cool Skill that this is your favourite word?
     

Share This Page