Descent BB

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > A very interesting article on Firearms Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:25 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I haven't read it entirely yet, but it seems to be saying that more people have guns, yet firearms deaths are dropping - which is what the NRA (and my own personal beliefs) has been saying...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/

Quote:
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:38 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Well Bun, that's not really a good comparison. Does Utah even have one bad neighborhood?

On the flip side, why is there even a debate going on about this issue? It has been decided, the SC said people get their guns. There are hundreds of millions of guns already in ownership, let people add more. I don't like it, I don't trust douchebags like woodchip and that Will Robinson cocksucker to be smart with them but hey, it's not my place to tell them what to do.

I'd like a hotchkiss cannon
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:52 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Didja read the whole article or just my highlight? Granted that while Utah isn't exactly known for urban blight, SLC is a big city, and has the slums to prove it. Of course those slums might be considered "suburbs" in Detroit...I think that the point was that strict gun laws and banned concealed carry seems to correlate with the highest gun homicide rate.

Interestingly enough, my Lunatic fringe buddies seem to think that the current climate is all a ruse in the movement to ban guns. They say that Evil President O is working in tandem with Mexico, which is complaining that US guns are the cause of all their gang violence. Apparently a tradition of government, police and official corruption and complicity in exchange for a cut of the vast profits in the drug trade has nothing to do with it, so they're going to use pressure from the UN as an excuse to take everyone's firearms away here in the US of A.

Fun Fact: according to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent crimes is the baseball bat.

<shrug>

Personally, I think we're better off with guns than without. It's an opinion, but it seems to me that it's a classic sign of a decadent civilization which is ripe for a fall if we allow ourselves to be disarmed. We let retards drive, and look at the carnage they cause. Statistically gun violence pales in comparison. Personally I think we should focus on making people safe drivers. Annual continuing education requirements and testing for ALL drivers, "trigger locks" on all cellphones and breathalyzer/ignition interlocks would be a good start... Whoops almost went off on a driving rant. Been gathering material for that Wink

Here's a gun for you Zuruck ...when you absolutely gotta shoot right through several concrete walls, steel plates and anything else that gets in the way. =) It should tide you over until you get that cannon!

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Foil
2*pi*r




PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:03 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
I think that the point was that strict gun laws and banned concealed carry seems to correlate with the highest gun homicide rate.


Not to be cliché, but correlations alone are inconclusive.

E.g. Are the homicide rates higher because the gun-control laws are stricter? Or are the gun-control laws stricter because the homicide rates are higher?

Personally, I think both of the above conclusions are worthless; do you guys really think that it's a simple "X causes Y"?.

Come on. Other forces are driving the correlation (for example: higher gang activity, which drives homicide rates up and drives stricter gun-control laws).

_________________
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."
Bee
Miss Priss




PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:37 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I don't see how any conclusion can be made here. More guns have been bought in the last few years than at any other time in history so there hasn't been enough time to see what the real damage is going to be.

My bet, with the nutjobs I've been listening to... and the GOPSCOTUS opening the floodgates, is that there will be a marked increase in gun violence. More guns in bars will mean more arguments settled by guns. More innocent people are going to die over things once resolved by yelling, screaming, and name calling. I see more policeman getting killed in shootouts.

I see dead people.

Bee
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:58 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

History is a better guide than good intentions:



After passage of the 1968 gun-control act, the number of robberies jumped from 138,000 in 1965 to 376,000 in 1972, while murders committed with guns increased from 5,015 to 10,379 in the same period. According to the Census Bureau, the proportion of cases in which the murder weapon was a firearm rose from 57.2 percent to 65.6 percent.

Gun control and crime

In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia’s less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia’s largest city with almost 400,000 residents, has had one of the lowest rates of murder in the country — 4.1 per 100,000.

In New York City, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.

In 1986, Maryland banned small, affordable handguns called Saturday night specials. Within two years, Maryland’s murder rate increased by 20 percent, surpassing the national murder rate by 33 percent. Then Maryland passed a one-gun-a-month law. Yet between 1997 and 1998, 600 firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced to Maryland gun stores. Virginia, one of only two other states with a similar law, ranked third as a source of guns used by criminals in other states.

On the other hand, New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as much crime as New Hampshire.

Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.

States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.

Texas is a good example. In the early 1990s, Texas’s serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. All this happened after passage of a concealed-carry law in 1994.

What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent.

In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported,

“In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain’s major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual.”

The Manchester Guardian of January 14, 1999, lamented that their city was being called “Gunchester.” Police sources were quoted as saying that guns had become “almost a fashion accessory” among young criminals. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons. The police risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine guns. A 1971 Cambridge University study showed that in heavily gun-controlled Great Britain, “the use of firearms in crime was very much less before 1920 when Britain had no controls of any sort.”

In fact, crime has increased so much in Australia, Canada, and Britain, all of which have strict gun-control laws, that the Wall Street Journal has since reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially lower than in those three countries.

Gun control abroad

In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate.

But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.

In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.

Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless.

The Columbine shootings

On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, addressed a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He pointed out that the first recorded act of violence occurred when Cain slew his brother Abel:

“The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the ... the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.”

He went on to say,

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA [National Rifle Association]. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended.”

He added,

“When something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs, politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan [perpetrators of the Columbine massacre] would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre.... Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers.”

Crime and gun control

Besides their inherent disregard for laws, criminals are protected from many of the requirements imposed upon law-abiding citizens. The U.S. Supreme ruled in the case of Hayes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) that because it would be incriminating, a criminal cannot be required to register a gun or be charged with possession of an unregistered gun. The Court said,

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecution either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), 93 percent of the guns used in crimes are not obtained through lawful purchase, so waiting periods, registration, and licensing schemes don’t work anyway.

Forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith has evaluated 5,000 mentally disturbed adults and children from Harlem to Tennessee. Her book, The Scarred Heart (Callisto Publishing Co., Knoxville, Tenn.), is based on her experience interviewing violent children and teenagers and reflects the findings of her national survey of violent and nonviolent youths aged 10-19. She labels many gun-control proposals as simply “feel-good solutions.”

In conclusion, gun control is an ineffective tool in fighting crime and is counterproductive to that end because it leaves people vulnerable to criminals. Decades of gun control have done nothing to stop crime, save lives, or make our streets safer. People who use violence are not likely to feel constrained by gun-control laws. (As one theoretical criminal is purported to have said, “Laws is for the law-abiding, and we ain’t, so they don’t apply to us.”)



Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior. We don’t hold a match responsible for arson or a camera responsible for pornography. We rightly hold the people who misuse these tools liable. The same should be true for guns.

_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
Krom
DBB Admin




PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:59 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Gun control only works when NOBODY has a gun, thus even the criminals can't get their hands on one. But in the US there are hundreds of millions of guns, the gene is already out of the bottle. Taking the guns away from the people that obey the law only leaves them defenseless before the people that don't.

Another thing that I find ridiculous are these "gun free zones" which only spell one thing to me, "no return fire zones". When I walk into a "gun free zone", I do not feel more safe and secure as a result, quite the opposite I feel less safe and more insecure. Just put yourself in the shoes of a criminal desiring to go on a seemingly random shooting spree, the most appealing target area possible would be one of these "gun free zones". Getting in isn't particularly difficult, and the chances of facing retaliation are remote and would take a long time to reach you. It could take upwards of 20-30 minutes for the authorities to mobilize, bring in the equipment and start returning fire. This leaves everyone who isn't a criminal within the zone nearly completely defenseless in the face of a single well armed gunman, the potential for the loss of life and damage is terrifying. Nobody should be put in a position where they are completely defenseless and could easily be killed just because they followed the rules. The rules should protect people, not put them at even greater risk!

I do not own a handgun, I do not carry a knife or any other weapon when I leave the house. Although I have frequently thought of getting a license to carry and purchasing a compact and reliable revolver simply because I fear the day will come when it won't be possible anymore. The main thing holding me back is financial reasons, and the hassle factor doesn't contribute any motivation. The only gun we own is a Marlin model 60 semi automatic .22 caliber rimfire rifle that we use for small rodent control out in the country.

Clearly everyone can agree that many of these public shooting tragedies would not have happened if the shooters were unable to acquire guns in the first place. But with the sheer number of guns in the US it is impractical to expect to get them all out of the hands of criminals any time within the next 250 years without unimaginable expenses and a complete rape of the constitution and the bill of rights. Enforcing strict gun control laws only remove firearms from the hands of honest and lawful citizens, it only emboldens the criminals and increases the risk across the board. When thinking about implementing a "gun free zone" or strict control on firearms consider this: when was the last time you heard of a criminal attempting to rob a police station?

_________________
(19:11) [D3k]Gooberman: pffft, I didnt get owned baal, you just got 60 lucky fusion shots
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:11 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Yeah, yeah but what about what they said Razz
Thorne
Ace




PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:55 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Krom wrote:
Gun control only works when NOBODY has a gun

I don't think that's true. Why should absolute gun control "work" when it comes to crimes where women are the weaker victims? Theoretical, absolute gun control would only "work" to prevent shootings, not to prevent violent crimes, because guns themselves do prevent or thwart violent crimes.

_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:30 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Guys…STOP MAKING SENSE!

Damn it.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Krom
DBB Admin




PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:15 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Thorne wrote:
Krom wrote:
Gun control only works when NOBODY has a gun

I don't think that's true. Why should absolute gun control "work" when it comes to crimes where women are the weaker victims? Theoretical, absolute gun control would only "work" to prevent shootings, not to prevent violent crimes, because guns themselves do prevent or thwart violent crimes.

Didn't you get the memo? Only guns are ever used in violent crime, if there were no guns there would be absolutely no crime in America, just ask the anti-gun liberals. Razz

It won't work because it won't stop violent crime is a silly argument. Anti-gun people aren't out to stop or even address violent crime, they just want to stop shootings specifically. There are probably plenty of studies out there that show show a correlation between strict gun control and increased incidences of stabbings but unless it involves pulling a trigger nobody gives a shit.

_________________
(19:11) [D3k]Gooberman: pffft, I didnt get owned baal, you just got 60 lucky fusion shots
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:33 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Are the gun threads going to continue like the religious circle jerk ones? The stats just do not matter, there is no actual possibility of gun control in this country, the SC made their ruling, the point is moot. I wonder why there are even studies for this kind of thing...one thing to be all for logical gun control but you have to be realistic. It just wouldn't work.
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:17 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

That’s right, statistics are not important at all, just because more children are killed by drowning in buckets every year than by accidental gun shots…forget it guys…we are stuck with buckets…get over it already.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:42 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
Are the gun threads going to continue like the religious circle jerk ones? The stats just do not matter, there is no actual possibility of gun control in this country, the SC made their ruling, the point is moot. I wonder why there are even studies for this kind of thing...one thing to be all for logical gun control but you have to be realistic. It just wouldn't work.


How long ago was that ruling made Zuruck? These firearm debates have and will continue to go on until we are actually disarmed. I have a feeling that a great portion of these bonafide killers are full of shit, and when told to they will bring their guns when told and hand them over. History shows us that too. It's a strange phenomenon to me. If a foreign nation was to attack or even present a threat, this whole nation would rally against them and defeat them, if that was really the goal Wink. When your own government presents the very same threats (to change your current way of living), those people are labeled as malcontents and ones to be distrusted and avoided. People have become to look at the government as their parent, and so that's the real fight.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:13 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bee wrote:
I don't see how any conclusion can be made here. More guns have been bought in the last few years than at any other time in history so there hasn't been enough time to see what the real damage is going to be.


Source for this? Does your statement reflect absolute sales, or per-capita figures? What percentage of purchases are being made by previous gun owners adding to their battery? What percentage reflects new gun ownership? It makes sense that the absolute number would rise with the election of a Democrat president and the power of the liberal party in our house and senate. My information is that approximately 14 million gun sales took place in 2009 vs the 12.7 million reported in 2008, which is a large percentage change. It just is difficult to determine the significance of what you are saying without further information.

Bee wrote:
My bet, with the nutjobs I've been listening to... and the GOPSCOTUS opening the floodgates, is that there will be a marked increase in gun violence. More guns in bars will mean more arguments settled by guns. More innocent people are going to die over things once resolved by yelling, screaming, and name calling. I see more policeman getting killed in shootouts.

I see dead people.

Bee


So your hypothesis is that guns somehow make people do bad things? A quote comes to mind... "An armed society is a POLITE society." (the immortal R.A.H.) Maybe it's time for people to learn some manners?

A little story for you: I lived in Vermont for several years - a state where gun laws are lax to the point of non-existence in many ways. You can openly carry or carry a concealed weapon legally without a permit of any sort, provided you meet the criteria for gun ownership. I spent lots of time in bars in Vermont. I got in several bar fights in Vermont. I won some, and I lost some. There was lots of yelling and name calling at times too! Strangely enough, I never saw a single handgun except at the gun store. Not once. Saw the wrong side of some work boots... but never a gun.

I moved to Massachusetts (Western MA, not the urbanized east), where I lived for a little over a year and a half, and where guns are HIGHLY restricted - I believe unauthorized possession of a BULLET was (and may still be) a mandatory 1 year jail sentence... Gun violence was a weekly occurrence and I knew several people who carried. I thought it was pretty ironic at the time, and I still do.

I guess as Foil says, there was probably something else going on.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
MD-2389
Insane!




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:05 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
How long ago was that ruling made Zuruck?


I believe Zuruck was referring to Congress lifting the ban on assault rifles back in 2004.

http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2004/09/13/News/Ban-Lifted.Assault.Weapons.To.Return-717172.shtml
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:59 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

There have been other, more recent cases that are also more significant. Assault Rifle bans are a joke. Evil black rifles? Give me a break.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:13 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

No I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment debate was the one he was referring to. Just within the last few years the argument before the SCOTUS was whether the 2nd amendment was guaranteeing personal ownership of firearms or just with the confines of an state organized militia. This time they ruled that it was their "opinion" that it did in fact guarantee personal ownership. Who the hell knows the next time this goes around and "1 or 2 of only 9 justices" have a different opinion. I noticed nowhere they used the words inalienable or unarguable.
B-
Cocked & Locked




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:32 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

The 'debate' remains in the heads of those who are incapable of comprehending the word "inalienable", for the literate and sound of mind there never was a debate. I think it's adorable that SCOTUS , for a moment, put on a show in an effort to convince the illiterate and historically uneducated that the badge they wear isn't made of tin. In the end the tin badge crumbles. All face is not lost,however, they are wise enough to realize that if the rule in favor of The Constitution it will suggest they had a choice in the matter.

What were those words? Oh yeah..Molon Labe.

_________________
i found peace mother fucker-Jbomb
..its fucking retarded to be a bigot. so chew on that....faggots.- jbomb
Zuruck
Ace




PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:09 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

It's just not even a debate anymore. It's a debate when both sides have something, the gun control side doesn't really have much anymore.

I was / am / will be for gun control but at some point you have to face reality, it's been decided and you don't always win. If the SC decided that the Constitution allows for people to own guns, then that's the way it is. Will it be looked at again in the future? I doubt it, at least for the foreseeable future.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:51 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Barryshawn, are you saying you enjoy Greek? Wink

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Thorne
Ace




PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:52 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ayMZyKL6NA

_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:31 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

You know, I'm sure that video reinforces some people's preconceptions, instead of causing laughter...and that makes me the smallest bit sad. The meek may inherit the Earth, but walking softly does NOT preclude carrying a big stick...

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
MD-2389
Insane!




PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:56 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Thorne wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ayMZyKL6NA


lol, that made my day!
Hemp
Descent3 God




PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:56 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Loved the Starbucks video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc&feature=related

_________________
Injection is nice, but I'd rather be blown
Killer Beez 4U: OMG I saw god ahahahah
View previous topic :: View next topic  
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > A very interesting article on Firearms

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Image hosting by postimage.org Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group