Opinion of Obama's gun speech today
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:36:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Opinion of Obama's gun speech today
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Poll
Question: -skip-
#1
agree with it
 
#2
don't agree with it
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 91

Author Topic: Opinion of Obama's gun speech today  (Read 12559 times)
Hillary pays minimum wage
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2016, 10:33:36 PM »

I just want to say I hope gun sales go through the roof so Democrats get edgy.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2016, 11:16:17 PM »

You asked if you still had a right to self-defense if you no longer had a right to a gun, when obviously the answer would be yes.  What a silly argument.

As for your doomsday scenario, I'll refer you to a recent post of mine from shortly after one of the mass shootings; I forget which one:

This exchange demonstrates that the reason why the anti-gun minority is living in a fairyland where our objectives will never be fulfilled, is because the pro-gun majority is living in a fairyland where the federal government is apparently only a door knock away from rounding citizens up into camps or something.  Rational dialogue is impossible.

But if criminals still have guns how would a person defend themselves?  You realize almost no home invasions happen in the US in lightly policed rural areas precisely for that reason?  The idea that homeowners with guns is common. 

Why are you "anti-gun" in the first place?   Guns are tools with a multitude of uses.  Recreation, Hunting, Self Defense.  People murder people with hands but we still recognize their utility as tools. 
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: January 11, 2016, 12:13:10 AM »


FTFY

I buy my meat from the store like a normal person, and I'm not scared of black people "home invasions" either, so I don't need a gun thanks.  I am marginally scared of crazy white loners with manifestos, however.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: January 11, 2016, 12:30:02 AM »


FTFY

I buy my meat from the store like a normal person, and I'm not scared of black people "home invasions" either, so I don't need a gun thanks.  I am marginally scared of crazy white loners with manifestos, however.

It truly is a screwed up world when harvesting your own food is considered abhorrent. 
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2016, 05:11:01 AM »

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: January 11, 2016, 05:38:44 AM »

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: January 11, 2016, 06:03:19 AM »

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 

Owning an illegally modified fully automatic firearm makes you a criminal. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect defamation or shouting fire in a crowded building or uttering death threats or fighting words. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't create a right to own any and all firearms you might desire.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: January 11, 2016, 06:42:31 AM »

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 

Owning an illegally modified fully automatic firearm makes you a criminal. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect defamation or shouting fire in a crowded building or uttering death threats or fighting words. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't create a right to own any and all firearms you might desire.

The only reason someone would desire to modify AK pattern rifles for full auto would be illegal activity or the novelty.   They aren't great accurate rifles in semiauto anyway.  But when you bring out the term AK47 it is an easy mark that you know little about guns.   Most AK pattern guns sold are semiauto Chinese or Polish knockoffs.  They are also mostly AK74's not 47's.   It is an awful all around rifle.  That is why the AR family has exploded in popularity since the AWB expired. 

 Other than suppressive fire full auto has little use even in military applications much less civilian use.  But a regular run of the mill AR15 is legally the same type of gun as a modern hunting rifle.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2016, 07:55:50 AM »

and none of them are used to murder Americans in any great numbers.  More people are killed with hands and feet than with all rifles combined.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2016, 12:54:53 PM »

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 

Owning an illegally modified fully automatic firearm makes you a criminal. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect defamation or shouting fire in a crowded building or uttering death threats or fighting words. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't create a right to own any and all firearms you might desire.

The only reason someone would desire to modify AK pattern rifles for full auto would be illegal activity or the novelty.   They aren't great accurate rifles in semiauto anyway.  But when you bring out the term AK47 it is an easy mark that you know little about guns.   Most AK pattern guns sold are semiauto Chinese or Polish knockoffs.  They are also mostly AK74's not 47's.   It is an awful all around rifle.  That is why the AR family has exploded in popularity since the AWB expired. 

 Other than suppressive fire full auto has little use even in military applications much less civilian use.  But a regular run of the mill AR15 is legally the same type of gun as a modern hunting rifle.

I didn't mention Ak-47s in that post and only did so in the earlier post to throw out an example, and you responded to literally none of my points.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2016, 01:14:58 PM »

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2016, 03:31:51 PM »

True but they really making strides with 3D printing.  But prohibition would make the number of guns skyrocket as well.  You would just be disarming people who would follow the law/make regular citizens criminals.

How would the number of guns skyrocket??? Where would the guns come from. You cannot 3D print a semiautomatic assault rifle.

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Most "Gun Control Advocates" in real life (granted, not necessarily on this forum) would tell you that they aren't actually interested in keeping you from buying a handgun for your personal self-defense. And you won that battle already; the Supreme Court has protected your 2nd Amendment right to possess a handgun. But nobody needs an AK-47 for self-defense.

Where would guns come from? Outside the US, illegal sources in the US, and explosion of the Firearm black market. 

3D printers can print everything for the AR but the Lower Receiver.  There have been experiments with 3D printing a lower but its just not there yet. 

AK-47's are seriously overrated rifles.  But the AR-15 is simply a semiautomatic rifle.  Semiautomatics are great for hunting, competitive shooting, predator control, and yes self defense.   And the last time I checked it was still the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.  Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. 

Owning an illegally modified fully automatic firearm makes you a criminal. The First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect defamation or shouting fire in a crowded building or uttering death threats or fighting words. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't create a right to own any and all firearms you might desire.

The only reason someone would desire to modify AK pattern rifles for full auto would be illegal activity or the novelty.   They aren't great accurate rifles in semiauto anyway.  But when you bring out the term AK47 it is an easy mark that you know little about guns.   Most AK pattern guns sold are semiauto Chinese or Polish knockoffs.  They are also mostly AK74's not 47's.   It is an awful all around rifle.  That is why the AR family has exploded in popularity since the AWB expired. 

 Other than suppressive fire full auto has little use even in military applications much less civilian use.  But a regular run of the mill AR15 is legally the same type of gun as a modern hunting rifle.

I didn't mention Ak-47s in that post and only did so in the earlier post to throw out an example, and you responded to literally none of my points.

AK pattern rifles are the only ones that are regularly modified to go full auto by shade tree gunsmiths.  Most civilian AR's are gas piston guns compared to he military grade direct impingement M16/M4.   Gas Piston guns are almost impossible to rig up without an old military spec action.  Even the new M4 design was considered to remove Full Auto because of how little utility it provided in Iraq. 

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect then? The American Revolution was won because we were a nation of riflemen.  The "muskets" they carried were as contemporary military tech.  So law abiding citizens having access to small arms is definitely Constitutional.   People can own full auto machine guns if they so choose through the extensive Licensing process through the ATF.  It is for collectors and novelty though.  Full Auto's have little practical use. 
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2016, 03:33:12 PM »

No one ever asks Gun Control Advocates the tough questions.  If you don't think I have a right to a firearm, do I have a right to self defense?  And if I don't have the right to either does the government have the right to use force to disarm me? 

Of course it does.

So you are not only advocating trampling on gun rights, but property rights, and due process as well? 
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,690
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2016, 03:56:52 PM »

Gun rights are not more important then human rights. The founders who wrote the constitution would he rolling in there grave if they saw the gun nuts today. More guns equals more gun deaths that's a fact.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2016, 05:11:59 PM »

Gun rights are not more important then human rights. The founders who wrote the constitution would he rolling in there grave if they saw the gun nuts today. More guns equals more gun deaths that's a fact.

How are they mutually exclusive?  The right to self defense is an integral part of human rights.  Murder is murder no matter what it is committed with. 
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2016, 05:21:51 PM »

AK pattern rifles are the only ones that are regularly modified to go full auto by shade tree gunsmiths.  Most civilian AR's are gas piston guns compared to he military grade direct impingement M16/M4.   Gas Piston guns are almost impossible to rig up without an old military spec action.  Even the new M4 design was considered to remove Full Auto because of how little utility it provided in Iraq. 

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect then? The American Revolution was won because we were a nation of riflemen.  The "muskets" they carried were as contemporary military tech.  So law abiding citizens having access to small arms is definitely Constitutional.   People can own full auto machine guns if they so choose through the extensive Licensing process through the ATF.  It is for collectors and novelty though.  Full Auto's have little practical use. 

You're missing the whole point. All arms are not created equal. Nobody actually thinks the 2nd Amendment protects a right to any and all weapons. There's a point at which a weapon becomes so dangerous that its usefulness as a tool of self defense is vastly outweighed the harm it inflicts on society. You and I may disagree about where that line is, but I'm pretty sure you don't think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a grenade launcher.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2016, 05:24:22 PM »

AK pattern rifles are the only ones that are regularly modified to go full auto by shade tree gunsmiths.  Most civilian AR's are gas piston guns compared to he military grade direct impingement M16/M4.   Gas Piston guns are almost impossible to rig up without an old military spec action.  Even the new M4 design was considered to remove Full Auto because of how little utility it provided in Iraq. 

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect then? The American Revolution was won because we were a nation of riflemen.  The "muskets" they carried were as contemporary military tech.  So law abiding citizens having access to small arms is definitely Constitutional.   People can own full auto machine guns if they so choose through the extensive Licensing process through the ATF.  It is for collectors and novelty though.  Full Auto's have little practical use. 

You're missing the whole point. All arms are not created equal. Nobody actually thinks the 2nd Amendment protects a right to any and all weapons. There's a point at which a weapon becomes so dangerous that its usefulness as a tool of self defense is vastly outweighed the harm it inflicts on society. You and I may disagree about where that line is, but I'm pretty sure you don't think the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a grenade launcher.

So where do you draw the line? 
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,690
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2016, 05:30:21 PM »

Gun rights are not more important then human rights. The founders who wrote the constitution would he rolling in there grave if they saw the gun nuts today. More guns equals more gun deaths that's a fact.

How are they mutually exclusive?  The right to self defense is an integral part of human rights.  Murder is murder no matter what it is committed with. 

 Americans are dying in mass shooting at an increasingly horrific rate and gun sales are also going up. That's how they are mutual.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2016, 05:55:20 PM »

Prohibition doesn't work. If gun control was strengthened then criminals would clearly start brewing firearms in their bathtubs.

you realize firearms aren't that hard to make right?  Why do gun control advocates always come from a point of complete ignorance. 

I'm not a gun control advocate, just someone who thinks the desire to own a gun in a first world country just because your life isn't "fun" or something is deranged (normal)
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2016, 08:01:25 PM »

Gun rights are not more important then human rights. The founders who wrote the constitution would he rolling in there grave if they saw the gun nuts today. More guns equals more gun deaths that's a fact.

How are they mutually exclusive?  The right to self defense is an integral part of human rights.  Murder is murder no matter what it is committed with. 

 Americans are dying in mass shooting at an increasingly horrific rate and gun sales are also going up. That's how they are mutual.

According to the mass shooter database at leftist Mother Jones, there were 32 mass shootings in the US between 1981 and 2001. There were 41 mass shootings in the US between 2001 and 2015. In that time, the number of private guns has increased by around 1/3rd. So when for controlling for the increase in sales, mass shootings really haven't increased that horrifically; they're just more widely reported now that we have cable news and Huffington Post. Gun rights ARE human rights.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,690
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2016, 08:23:23 PM »

Gun rights are not more important then human rights. The founders who wrote the constitution would he rolling in there grave if they saw the gun nuts today. More guns equals more gun deaths that's a fact.

How are they mutually exclusive?  The right to self defense is an integral part of human rights.  Murder is murder no matter what it is committed with. 

 Americans are dying in mass shooting at an increasingly horrific rate and gun sales are also going up. That's how they are mutual.

According to the mass shooter database at leftist Mother Jones, there were 32 mass shootings in the US between 1981 and 2001. There were 41 mass shootings in the US between 2001 and 2015. In that time, the number of private guns has increased by around 1/3rd. So when for controlling for the increase in sales, mass shootings really haven't increased that horrifically; they're just more widely reported now that we have cable news and Huffington Post. Gun rights ARE human rights.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

This is how crazed the United States has become with guns hey? Everyone needs a background check when you buy a gun. If you are on the terrorist watch list we shouldn't sell you guns either.
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: January 11, 2016, 08:55:14 PM »

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.
Logged
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,274
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: January 11, 2016, 10:30:38 PM »

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,690
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: January 11, 2016, 10:37:08 PM »

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: January 11, 2016, 11:00:20 PM »

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 14 queries.