|
Post by Warmonger on Jun 14, 2016 8:11:21 GMT -5
This If you outright ban guns, then what's to stop these nuts from taking 10 mins to google a simple pipe bomb recipe that they can make from shit underneath the kitchen sink? Are we then going to ban household cleaning supplies because they can be extremely dangerous if used inappropriately? Banning firearms solves nothing. If anything, it puts responsible gun owners at risk. A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is because every citizen over the age of 18 without a felonious past is allowed to own and operate a firearm. Gun control is not BAN ALL GUNS. This is a lie that the NRA repeats and has been doing it for so long that people believe it. Gun control is having comprehensive background checks and reasonable waiting periods. Gun control is having a national database so that sellers in one state can see if a person has been declined purchase of a gun in another state for reasons of criminality or mental illness. Gun control is putting limits on what kinds of guns people can buy as well as limiting magazine sizes and types of ammunition such as armor-piercing rounds. Gun control is saying to John Q. Public that maybe he can't own 50+ guns even though he claims it's because he's "just a collector". Mind you, I don't hunt but I support the right of people who do hunt to own guns appropriate for that hobby, and I don't target shoot but I support the right of people to own the appropriate guns to do that as well. I will even begrudgingly support an individual's right to own a small-caliber handgun for personal protection, although I am very much against concealed carry laws that let them have said weapons in public; protect your house and your family within said house, but don't start firing at bad guys on the street, because I'm pretty sure you're going to be just as big a danger as the criminal. However, there comes a time and a place where we, as a nation, need to start asking ourselves if maybe the gun lobbyists need to be told to sit down and shut up while sensible individuals determine whether or not the average citizen needs to have access to weapons that are not fit for purpose for either hunting or target shooting. Maybe I'm overly sensitive as a parent, but as more and more events like this occur with death tolls that seem to rise with each one, my views on this are shifting to the side of caution. I understand that, and I think more thorough background checks should be conducted. Especially with this guy being investigated by the FBI on two previous occasions. How the hell he was allowed to legally purchase a firearm is beyond me. But the fact remains that there are tons of extreme left wingers who want guns completely abolished in this country which is asinine IMO. Islamic radicals want a holy war. Now, are all Muslims radical jihadists who live to see the western world burn? No, of course not. But there are a TON of them out there who are. And more and more American born citizens are crossing the line and joining their cause through the spread of ISIS/radical Islamic propaganda. And we're supposed to completely lay down arms? Screw that noise
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 8:20:39 GMT -5
This If you outright ban guns, then what's to stop these nuts from taking 10 mins to google a simple pipe bomb recipe that they can make from shit underneath the kitchen sink? Are we then going to ban household cleaning supplies because they can be extremely dangerous if used inappropriately? Banning firearms solves nothing. If anything, it puts responsible gun owners at risk. A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is because every citizen over the age of 18 without a felonious past is allowed to own and operate a firearm. WTF? "A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is" that we are surrounded by two immense oceans, we have had nothing but good relations with Canada (since 1814, anyway) and we invaded the sovereign nation of Mexico and imposed our territorial demands on it. You should have been paying closer attention in history class. Or maybe you've seen Red Dawn enough for one lifetime. And you may be right about "these nuts" creating pipe bombs, but faced with the decision between that and taking an inconsequential amount of time to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic weapon and a few magazines and then shooting to as soon as you load it, "these nuts" will opt for the gun. That user name of yours is making more and more sense, my friend. Apologies in advance if I've offended you.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 14, 2016 8:25:41 GMT -5
Gun control is not BAN ALL GUNS. This is a lie that the NRA repeats and has been doing it for so long that people believe it. Gun control is having comprehensive background checks and reasonable waiting periods. Gun control is having a national database so that sellers in one state can see if a person has been declined purchase of a gun in another state for reasons of criminality or mental illness. Gun control is putting limits on what kinds of guns people can buy as well as limiting magazine sizes and types of ammunition such as armor-piercing rounds. Gun control is saying to John Q. Public that maybe he can't own 50+ guns even though he claims it's because he's "just a collector". Mind you, I don't hunt but I support the right of people who do hunt to own guns appropriate for that hobby, and I don't target shoot but I support the right of people to own the appropriate guns to do that as well. I will even begrudgingly support an individual's right to own a small-caliber handgun for personal protection, although I am very much against concealed carry laws that let them have said weapons in public; protect your house and your family within said house, but don't start firing at bad guys on the street, because I'm pretty sure you're going to be just as big a danger as the criminal. However, there comes a time and a place where we, as a nation, need to start asking ourselves if maybe the gun lobbyists need to be told to sit down and shut up while sensible individuals determine whether or not the average citizen needs to have access to weapons that are not fit for purpose for either hunting or target shooting. Maybe I'm overly sensitive as a parent, but as more and more events like this occur with death tolls that seem to rise with each one, my views on this are shifting to the side of caution. I understand that, and I think more thorough background checks should be conducted. Especially with this guy being investigated by the FBI on two previous occasions. How the hell he was allowed to legally purchase a firearm is beyond me. But the fact remains that there are tons of extreme left wingers who want guns completely abolished in this country which is asinine IMO. Islamic radicals want a holy war. Now, are all Muslims radical jihadists who live to see the western world burn? No, of course not. But there are a TON of them out there who are. And more and more American born citizens are crossing the line and joining their cause through the spread of ISIS/radical Islamic propaganda. And we're supposed to completely lay down arms? Screw that noise No, most reasonable people are not advocating getting rid of all guns, regardless of what Trump and the NRA say. But there is no justifiable reason that any private citizen needs a semi-automatic weapon. The simple fact is that if the shooter had been armed with a hunting rifle or just a handgun, he would not have been able to fire as many shots as quickly. That's one of the reasons that the weapon used in this attack (AR-15) is the weapon of choice for most of the recent mass shootings (Orlando, Newtown, San Bernardino, Aurora, Roseburg Oregon, etc). In just these listed attacks, the AR-15 has accounted for more than 110 deaths and many more injuries. In the Orlando mass killing, a video taken at the time records more than 20 shots fired in the span of approximately 9 seconds. Can anyone provide a justification why a private citizen needs a rifle with this type of capability?
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jun 14, 2016 8:29:01 GMT -5
This If you outright ban guns, then what's to stop these nuts from taking 10 mins to google a simple pipe bomb recipe that they can make from shit underneath the kitchen sink? Are we then going to ban household cleaning supplies because they can be extremely dangerous if used inappropriately? Banning firearms solves nothing. If anything, it puts responsible gun owners at risk. A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is because every citizen over the age of 18 without a felonious past is allowed to own and operate a firearm. WTF? "A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is" that we are surrounded by two immense oceans, we have had nothing but good relations with Canada (since 1814, anyway) and we invaded the sovereign nation of Mexico and imposed our territorial demands on it. You should have been paying closer attention in history class. Or maybe you've seen Red Dawn enough for one lifetime. And you may be right about "these nuts" creating pipe bombs, but faced with the decision between that and taking an inconsequential amount of time to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic weapon and a few magazines and then shooting to as soon as you load it, "these nuts" will opt for the gun. That user name of yours is making more and more sense, my friend. Apologies in advance if I've offended you. Meh, we had to cross a vast ocean to take the war to Germany and Japan. Didn't seem to stop us. Had to cross the same vast ocean to take the war to the Vietcong. Didn't seem to stop us. And yes, the legality of firearms in this country has played a monumental part in keeping us safe from foreign threats. Having to cross the Atlantic or Pacific hasn't been what's kept enemies away from our shores. It's having to deal with the greatest militaristic threat in the world coupled with millions of citizens who own firearms and won't be afraid to use them if forced to do so.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 14, 2016 8:29:59 GMT -5
This If you outright ban guns, then what's to stop these nuts from taking 10 mins to google a simple pipe bomb recipe that they can make from shit underneath the kitchen sink? Are we then going to ban household cleaning supplies because they can be extremely dangerous if used inappropriately? Banning firearms solves nothing. If anything, it puts responsible gun owners at risk. A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is because every citizen over the age of 18 without a felonious past is allowed to own and operate a firearm. WTF? "A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is" that we are surrounded by two immense oceans, we have had nothing but good relations with Canada (since 1814, anyway) and we invaded the sovereign nation of Mexico and imposed our territorial demands on it. You should have been paying closer attention in history class. Or maybe you've seen Red Dawn enough for one lifetime. And you may be right about "these nuts" creating pipe bombs, but faced with the decision between that and taking an inconsequential amount of time to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic weapon and a few magazines and then shooting to as soon as you load it, "these nuts" will opt for the gun. That user name of yours is making more and more sense, my friend. Apologies in advance if I've offended you. In addition to geography, there are at least five other reasons the US hasn't been invaded. They are the Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. To quote the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's the point that a lot of people are missing in the 2nd amendment, the "well regulated Militia". That's what the armed forces are for.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 14, 2016 8:30:51 GMT -5
If you outright ban guns, then what's to stop these nuts from taking 10 mins to google a simple pipe bomb recipe that they can make from shit underneath the kitchen sink? Are we then going to ban household cleaning supplies because they can be extremely dangerous if used inappropriately? No. Household cleaning supplies have normal and useful functions that do not involve hurting people. Guns have only one purpose : kill human beings. What will keep nuts from killing people if they don't have access to guns? Nothing. It will however be far less convenient, and because it will require more effort it may give the bozo enough time to realize that he's about to do something incredibly stupid and throw his own life away. There will always be crazy nuts committing acts of violence, yes; but making the job easier for them is not the answer to the problem. We can't ban household products because we need to clean; we can't ban internet instructions on how to use a spoon to kill strangers because we need the internet; we can't ban petrol and fertilizer because we must fill our cars and grow our food; we can, however, lead perfectly normal lives without access to weapons designed for the specific purpose of killing human beings. It will inconvenience them, sure. But put them at risk? I fail to see how. Besides, I don't think even ardent anti-gun advocates really want all guns to be banned. I doubt a hunting rifle, which does have a legitimate function outside of killing human beings, is seen as being equivalent to an AR-15 or to a Glock 9mm. It's pretty hard to go into a school and kill dozens of people if you have to reload after each shot. Nah... Pre-WWII, being geographically isolated from the warmongering nations of Europe was responsible for the lack of successful foreign invasions, same as for the U.S.'s gun-deprived neighbour, Canada. Too many logistics problems, and too much land to occupy efficiently. Post-WWII, having the world's most powerful military and the H-Bomb made all individual weapons pretty superfluous as far as defending the country was concerned. The age of the citizen militiaman defending home and hearth from the red jackets is long gone.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 14, 2016 8:34:07 GMT -5
Gun control is not BAN ALL GUNS. This is a lie that the NRA repeats and has been doing it for so long that people believe it. Gun control is having comprehensive background checks and reasonable waiting periods. Gun control is having a national database so that sellers in one state can see if a person has been declined purchase of a gun in another state for reasons of criminality or mental illness. Gun control is putting limits on what kinds of guns people can buy as well as limiting magazine sizes and types of ammunition such as armor-piercing rounds. Gun control is saying to John Q. Public that maybe he can't own 50+ guns even though he claims it's because he's "just a collector". Mind you, I don't hunt but I support the right of people who do hunt to own guns appropriate for that hobby, and I don't target shoot but I support the right of people to own the appropriate guns to do that as well. I will even begrudgingly support an individual's right to own a small-caliber handgun for personal protection, although I am very much against concealed carry laws that let them have said weapons in public; protect your house and your family within said house, but don't start firing at bad guys on the street, because I'm pretty sure you're going to be just as big a danger as the criminal. However, there comes a time and a place where we, as a nation, need to start asking ourselves if maybe the gun lobbyists need to be told to sit down and shut up while sensible individuals determine whether or not the average citizen needs to have access to weapons that are not fit for purpose for either hunting or target shooting. Maybe I'm overly sensitive as a parent, but as more and more events like this occur with death tolls that seem to rise with each one, my views on this are shifting to the side of caution. I understand that, and I think more thorough background checks should be conducted. Especially with this guy being investigated by the FBI on two previous occasions. How the hell he was allowed to legally purchase a firearm is beyond me. But the fact remains that there are tons of extreme left wingers who want guns completely abolished in this country which is asinine IMO. Islamic radicals want a holy war. Now, are all Muslims radical jihadists who live to see the western world burn? No, of course not. But there are a TON of them out there who are. And more and more American born citizens are crossing the line and joining their cause through the spread of ISIS/radical Islamic propaganda. And we're supposed to completely lay down arms? Screw that noise And there are lots of extreme right wingers who want abortion completely abolished. Guess what? They're not going to get what they want, just like the extreme left wingers aren't going to get guns completely abolished, because most societies find a way to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle that manages to reasonably satisfy the majority while letting the extreme ends of the political spectrum, on both sides, be upset because those folks are almost never going to be satisfied no matter what they're given. As for Islamic radicals wanting a holy war, that's what the US military is for, not random guys off the street with their private arsenals. I would feel a heck of a lot less safe if my next-door neighbor and his buddies banded together and started patrolling the streets looking for "Islamic terrorists" because I'm willing to bet a lot of innocent folks would wind up getting injured or killed if that happened. Americans have this idealized view of the Wild West, where average men picked up guns and fought it out on the streets with the bad guys, keeping the peace and protecting the womenfolk. They idolize John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, tough guys who "did what had to be done", but in reality, most Americans wouldn't know what to do in a fistfight, let along a gun battle. They love the idea of war and killing but not the reality of it, because movies like Rambo and any number of others never show the good guys dying, only the bad ones. As for me, I'll let the government handle security if the "Islamic radicals" attack, because I know I certainly don't have the skill or ability to fight them off and I'm reasonably sure that neither do most other Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 8:34:43 GMT -5
WTF? "A huge part of why this country hasn't been invaded in over 200 years is" that we are surrounded by two immense oceans, we have had nothing but good relations with Canada (since 1814, anyway) and we invaded the sovereign nation of Mexico and imposed our territorial demands on it. You should have been paying closer attention in history class. Or maybe you've seen Red Dawn enough for one lifetime. And you may be right about "these nuts" creating pipe bombs, but faced with the decision between that and taking an inconsequential amount of time to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic weapon and a few magazines and then shooting to as soon as you load it, "these nuts" will opt for the gun. That user name of yours is making more and more sense, my friend. Apologies in advance if I've offended you. In addition to geography, there are at least five other reasons the US hasn't been invaded. They are the Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. To quote the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's the point that a lot of people are missing in the 2nd amendment, the "well regulated Militia". That's what the armed forces are for. Absolutely, that's what the "armed forces" are for. If you are subtly equating the term "armed forces" with the "well regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment, the NRA and the gun culture will have a fit. I, on the other hand, applaud you.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 8:41:51 GMT -5
Meh, we had to cross a vast ocean to take the war to Germany and Japan. Didn't seem to stop us. Had to cross the same vast ocean to take the war to the Vietcong. Didn't seem to stop us. And yes, the legality of firearms in this country has played a monumental part in keeping us safe from foreign threats. Having to cross the Atlantic or Pacific hasn't been what's kept enemies away from our shores. It's having to deal with the greatest militaristic threat in the world coupled with millions of citizens who own firearms and won't be afraid to use them if forced to do so. "Nuance" and "detail" seem to have made no entry into your world view. Of course, I still recall trembling in fear when the North Vietnamese armada landed up and down the West Coast. And the terror when their Air Force dropped more tonnage on Washington DC than the United States had dropped on its enemies in all of World War Two. And then there was the mining of New York harbor. Thank God for the guerilla bands of John Birchers who defeated them. Oh, and "militaristic" threat? Sure you want to go there?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 8:42:58 GMT -5
Gun control is not BAN ALL GUNS. This is a lie that the NRA repeats and has been doing it for so long that people believe it. Gun control is having comprehensive background checks and reasonable waiting periods. Gun control is having a national database so that sellers in one state can see if a person has been declined purchase of a gun in another state for reasons of criminality or mental illness. Gun control is putting limits on what kinds of guns people can buy as well as limiting magazine sizes and types of ammunition such as armor-piercing rounds. Gun control is saying to John Q. Public that maybe he can't own 50+ guns even though he claims it's because he's "just a collector". Mind you, I don't hunt but I support the right of people who do hunt to own guns appropriate for that hobby, and I don't target shoot but I support the right of people to own the appropriate guns to do that as well. I will even begrudgingly support an individual's right to own a small-caliber handgun for personal protection, although I am very much against concealed carry laws that let them have said weapons in public; protect your house and your family within said house, but don't start firing at bad guys on the street, because I'm pretty sure you're going to be just as big a danger as the criminal. However, there comes a time and a place where we, as a nation, need to start asking ourselves if maybe the gun lobbyists need to be told to sit down and shut up while sensible individuals determine whether or not the average citizen needs to have access to weapons that are not fit for purpose for either hunting or target shooting. Maybe I'm overly sensitive as a parent, but as more and more events like this occur with death tolls that seem to rise with each one, my views on this are shifting to the side of caution. I understand that, and I think more thorough background checks should be conducted. Especially with this guy being investigated by the FBI on two previous occasions. How the hell he was allowed to legally purchase a firearm is beyond me. But the fact remains that there are tons of extreme left wingers who want guns completely abolished in this country which is asinine IMO.Islamic radicals want a holy war. Now, are all Muslims radical jihadists who live to see the western world burn? No, of course not. But there are a TON of them out there who are. And more and more American born citizens are crossing the line and joining their cause through the spread of ISIS/radical Islamic propaganda. And we're supposed to completely lay down arms? Screw that noise And there are tons who don't. I used to send money every month to the Anarchist Black Cross Federation, whose chapter reports (especially, IIRC, those from Florida -- go figure) were full of accounts & photos of members training with guns. Just out of curiosity, a few weeks ago on Facebook I looked up the guy who used to handle the donations, & he's apparently a gun-shop employee in -- again -- Florida, which I have to say has started making Alabama look like a haven of sanity (which it very much isn't). The California legislature, Republicans very much included (Reagan was governor then), didn't get interested in gun control until the Black Panthers started carrying in order to more effectively "police the police" in black neighborhoods. When certain Panthers walked the Capitol halls, rifles in tow, in anticipation of the vote on May 2, 1967, the lawmakers suddenly got really interested in clamping down. Those darn Negroes!
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jun 14, 2016 8:58:08 GMT -5
Meh, we had to cross a vast ocean to take the war to Germany and Japan. Didn't seem to stop us. Had to cross the same vast ocean to take the war to the Vietcong. Didn't seem to stop us. And yes, the legality of firearms in this country has played a monumental part in keeping us safe from foreign threats. Having to cross the Atlantic or Pacific hasn't been what's kept enemies away from our shores. It's having to deal with the greatest militaristic threat in the world coupled with millions of citizens who own firearms and won't be afraid to use them if forced to do so. "Nuance" and "detail" seem to have made no entry into your world view. Of course, I still recall trembling in fear when the North Vietnamese armada landed up and down the West Coast. And the terror when their Air Force dropped more tonnage on Washington DC than the United States had dropped on its enemies in all of World War Two. And then there was the mining of New York harbor. Thank God for the guerilla bands of John Birchers who defeated them. Oh, and "militaristic" threat? Sure you want to go there? Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 9:01:01 GMT -5
Guns, schmuns. Gentlemen prefer bombs.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 14, 2016 9:12:35 GMT -5
In addition to geography, there are at least five other reasons the US hasn't been invaded. They are the Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. To quote the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's the point that a lot of people are missing in the 2nd amendment, the "well regulated Militia". That's what the armed forces are for. Absolutely, that's what the "armed forces" are for. If you are subtly equating the term "armed forces" with the "well regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment, the NRA and the gun culture will have a fit. I, on the other hand, applaud you. Thanks. However, just to be clear, I wasn't going for subtle. As most of you know, I'm ex-military (5 years active duty in the US Navy). As a veteran & citizen, my position is that "armed forces" equals "well regulated militia". At the time it was written, the loosely organized citizen soldiers was the norm. So men going to war with their own weapons was what the founding fathers likely had in mind. That's not the case anymore. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women trained to protect us from any invading forces. I say let them do their job without having to worry about random people running around with high powered, high capacity weapons. As for the NRA & gun culture, we were never going to get along anyways, so they're welcome to their fit.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 14, 2016 9:17:01 GMT -5
"Nuance" and "detail" seem to have made no entry into your world view. Of course, I still recall trembling in fear when the North Vietnamese armada landed up and down the West Coast. And the terror when their Air Force dropped more tonnage on Washington DC than the United States had dropped on its enemies in all of World War Two. And then there was the mining of New York harbor. Thank God for the guerilla bands of John Birchers who defeated them. Oh, and "militaristic" threat? Sure you want to go there? Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family. Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 9:21:53 GMT -5
Guns, schmuns. Gentlemen prefer bombs. Just ask the Galleanisti.
|
|