Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8153485 - 03/16/08 02:01 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Sorry that was my bad, I meant industrialized world, typo.

I'm still not 100% on that though, let me find where I pulled that statistic from.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153492 - 03/16/08 02:03 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

It's pretty funny that that's your defense though, that your murder rate isn't as high as Columbia's... haha, guess what drives up the Columbian murder rate more than anything else? US drug policy.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153510 - 03/16/08 02:08 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Crime Rates Link

This is where I was reading the industrialized world crime rates info.

Go through it, hopefully you can pick out some more technicalities. You're certainly going to need them if you want to find any holes in my argument...


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153571 - 03/16/08 02:26 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

ExplosiveMango said:
That's the closest you could ever come to proving you should have the right to have a gun. The dead body who doesn't argue with you any longer.





canadas hand gun crime rate for legally owned firearms is
significantly higher than it is in the US, just because you guys
are irresponsible doesnt make the rest of us bad people

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8153627 - 03/16/08 02:46 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Doesn't that point you made just support the argument that having legal firearms increases murder rates?

I don't see why you would bother wasting your footing on the subject just to make stupid prejudice comments about other nationalities...

In my opinion, American ethics are among the world's worst, but like your opinion of Canadians being bad people- that's all it is, opinion, irrelevant here.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153644 - 03/16/08 02:50 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

American ethics are among the world's worst




And what ethics would those be?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: Redstorm]
    #8153669 - 03/16/08 02:58 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Forcing other nations to adopt the same political system as you have?

Attempting to force cultures to abandon cultural cultural practices (like chewing coca leaves) which have been carried on for centuries simply because they do not coincide with your own?

Negating human rights in the name of national safety (Guantanamo Bay)?

Shall I go on?



But why do you even want to bring the conversation here? You seem very immature for a moderator. I'm somewhat surprised.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153682 - 03/16/08 03:02 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

ExplosiveMango said:
Doesn't that point you made just support the argument that having legal firearms increases murder rates?





it simply gos to prove the point that banning guns increase crime rates, canada is a shining example along with england and austrailia

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153689 - 03/16/08 03:04 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

:lol: dude, you have so lost the argument.  Gun rights FTW.  Guns liberate the oppressed and down trodden.

Absolutely nothing Redstorm has said is immature.  You are grasping at straws.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153698 - 03/16/08 03:06 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

1. I agree with you there.
2. The Us doesn't force anyone to do this. If the government of these cultures doesn't have the guts to stand up for their citizens' rights, the citizens should take up the issue with them.
3. I'm not a big fan of Gitmo, but I'm not sure what human rights are being violated. The arrested are prisoners of war.

Quote:

You seem very immature for a moderator. I'm somewhat surprised.




You call me immature in the same sentence you bring an ad hominem to the table? Nice. Could you clarify as to why I am immature? Is it because I don't agree with you?

Also, I'm not a moderator.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: Redstorm]
    #8153777 - 03/16/08 03:24 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

My god, it has become more than clear that logic comes nowhere NEAR this part of the forum...

You don't know what human rights are violated by torture without trial?

You don't know that I was responding to the moderator when I said "You seem very immature for a moderator."?

You argue that I have lost the argument because I do not support gun rights when I have repeated multiple times that gun rights should be upheld in America?

You say that banning guns increases crime rates because the converse cannot be proven- even though strong statistics have been presented supporting a lower overall murder rate and especially a lower gun murder rate in a situation where firearms are heavily regulated?




Holy fuck guys... I simply cannot believe I am seeing this kind of stupidity here, you guys go on and have your gun party without me, try and aim away from the eyes...

You guys really make me doubt whether I should support this site, I normally see this place as a forum of free exchange of ideas and adult discussion. This thread makes shroomery seem like a grade-school classroom.

This will be my last post in this thread, if you happen to speak to me again PLEASE try and learn a little respect.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: Redstorm]
    #8153793 - 03/16/08 03:28 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Discusions like this piss me off

What gets confused is the two questions I see as relevant

1. What does the constitution establish as law?
2. What should the law be?


Now this thread started out discussing what the law is, with the supreme court now considering the extent of the second amendment. Despite this, those opposed to a private right for all citizens, or all citizens not barred from owning firearms by court order, switched the argument to what should the law be, and what is prudent.

Lets consider the law here:

Quote:

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.





Now does this require an individual right to bear arms? I think it does. Their are two lists of rights, a well-regulated militia (with the appositive relating to the necessity of such for the security of the state); and the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". The predicate establishes the rights re: these two things "shall not be infringed." To me this is clear.


If people want to hagle over what is best, fine. I find it frustrating when I witness people, that otherwise hold the constitution in high esteem, side-stepping the original post and issue here, without clearly identifying their argument as to prudence to be a side-issue, or a an argument for change in law.

So, what do you folks think about what the law is? Lot of discussion about what is best, what it should be, fine. What do people, especially the anti-gun rights crowd, say about this text? And how can they recognize a right of the state to restrict classes of weapons clearly within those indicated by the word "arms" as the word meant at the time of ratificationm and now, with a belief in the sanctity of the prohibition on regulating what speech an activist may make, or what beliefs someone may publish?

Perhaps a sepperate thread should be started for the discussion of whether the second amendment bestows a private right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: johnm214]
    #8153849 - 03/16/08 03:40 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

If the Republicans ever decide to split their party and drop all their nasty "Social Conservative" or "Christian Right" bullshit, I'd probably give their party a serious look.

I can get down w/ reforming welfare, or reforming taxes, and capitalism, and guns, and a strong military.

But the Gay-Hating and Anti-Abortion and "Return to the Dark Ages Science Policy" things are deal-breakers. Not to mention that whole "invading innocent countries on sketchy evidence" thing...





madtowntripper, I haven't agreed w/ you much in your recent posts, but this hits the nail on the head

Exactly how I feel, and most of the reason why I don't vote republican for national and  gubernatorial elections.  The issue of their spending is another issue, but I agree.  I don't know if you include the drug war among those things the "social conservatives" endorse, but it does seem like the crazy laws re: drugs are more often originating from the republicans, but maybe this is my own bias.

]]]]

Explosivemango,

good grief.

you've taken this thread off onto a totally different path, with arguments re: what the law should be, rather than what the law is.

In so doing you've amassed a stream of personal attacks and irrelevant, weak data to buttress your opinion.  Give it up.  There's only so many logical fallacies one thread can withstand.


EDIT;

Well, it seems like you've now addressed the issue, so I retract what I said..  But I don't think that earlier talk was productive.  We can be friends :smile:

Edited by johnm214 (03/16/08 03:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: johnm214]
    #8153862 - 03/16/08 03:44 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Oh my god, someone who wants to talk like an adult...

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Discusions like this piss me off

What gets confused is the two questions I see as relevant

1. What does the constitution establish as law?
2. What should the law be?


Now this thread started out discussing what the law is, with the supreme court now considering the extent of the second amendment. Despite this, those opposed to a private right for all citizens, or all citizens not barred from owning firearms by court order, switched the argument to what should the law be, and what is prudent.

Lets consider the law here:

Quote:

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.





Now does this require an individual right to bear arms? I think it does. Their are two lists of rights, a well-regulated militia (with the appositive relating to the necessity of such for the security of the state); and the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". The predicate establishes the rights re: these two things "shall not be infringed." To me this is clear.


If people want to hagle over what is best, fine. I find it frustrating when I witness people, that otherwise hold the constitution in high esteem, side-stepping the original post and issue here, without clearly identifying their argument as to prudence to be a side-issue, or a an argument for change in law.

So, what do you folks think about what the law is? Lot of discussion about what is best, what it should be, fine. What do people, especially the anti-gun rights crowd, say about this text? And how can they recognize a right of the state to restrict classes of weapons clearly within those indicated by the word "arms" as the word meant at the time of ratificationm and now, with a belief in the sanctity of the prohibition on regulating what speech an activist may make, or what beliefs someone may publish?

Perhaps a sepperate thread should be started for the discussion of whether the second amendment bestows a private right?




I think the second amendment does bestow an individual right, and I think because this right was introduced, it should be upheld and not revoked. However, there are already restrictions in place restricting what types of arms the individual may bear- no full automatics, no nuclear weapons, grenade launchers, etc.

I think that removing the most concealable of weapons from the list is an excellent step. Are switchblades legal in the USA? I know we do not have switchblades legal here in Canada, because they are designed to be concealed. Other knives (with limited length) are legal even for self-defense purposes.

I think this is perfectly reasonable, if a person has nothing to hide with their intentions with a weapon, why should they need to hide the weapon?



PS: I still can't believe that this position evoked the type of personal attacks it did, it's just pathetic... thank you for trying to actually put some focus back on the issue at hand...


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153874 - 03/16/08 03:48 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

The old lose and run strategy.

That's always a winner.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153880 - 03/16/08 03:50 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

You came back!

I thought you weren't posting in this thread anymore?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: johnm214]
    #8153895 - 03/16/08 03:54 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:


In so doing you've amassed a stream of personal attacks and irrelevant, weak data to buttress your opinion. Give it up. There's only so many logical fallacies one thread can withstand.




A) I gave my opinion and gave an aside on my first post, any further argument has been entirely responsive.

B) The only logical fallacy was a typing error.



If people don't like my opinions that's fine, they don't have to pursue an argument with them, that's entirely up to them. I will indulge argument about my opinions, but I did not derail this thread. I offered an aside, and responded to attacks.

Quote:


guns arent the problem, canadians are





Quote:


just because you guys
are irresponsible doesnt make the rest of us bad people




--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8153905 - 03/16/08 03:58 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
You came back!

I thought you weren't posting in this thread anymore?




I thought it was a room exclusively reserved for 'moral exhibitionism' and prejudice comments. Gets boring after a while. Have a stance on the issue or just more flaming?


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153968 - 03/16/08 04:19 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

You don't know that I was responding to the moderator when I said "You seem very immature for a moderator."?




If that is the case, then why does it say "Re: Redstorm" in the details above your post. You replied to my post. Open mouth, insert foot. You complain about stupidity and then can't even work the quick reply. :wtf:

For someone crying to the moon about personal attacks, immaturity, and flaming, I am seeing quite a bit of all three from you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!! [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8153999 - 03/16/08 04:27 PM (16 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:



I think the second amendment does bestow an individual right, and I think because this right was introduced, it should be upheld and not revoked. However, there are already restrictions in place restricting what types of arms the individual may bear- no full automatics, no nuclear weapons, grenade launchers, etc.

I think that removing the most concealable of weapons from the list is an excellent step. Are switchblades legal in the USA? I know we do not have switchblades legal here in Canada, because they are designed to be concealed. Other knives (with limited length) are legal even for self-defense purposes.

I think this is perfectly reasonable, if a person has nothing to hide with their intentions with a weapon, why should they need to hide the weapon?





People hide weapons cuz they don't want to be associated with them by the casual observor, and they don't wish to go through the machinations required for a gun to be not concealed.  Either way, I don't think laws mandating no concealed weapons should be allowed, and I don't think you should need a permit to carry.  Like other rights, narrow legislation to remove someone's right to carry should be allowed if the individual is granted a hearing in court, and its not an automatic ban.  Things like automatic bans on weapon possesion for domestic violence defendants are stupid.


If your wearing a jacket, or its winter, its difficult to carry a gun while its not concealed.  If your jacket covers the holster= concealed.  If its in the glovebox of your car= concealed.  If its on a holster on your ankle while your wearing pants in your car= concealed to the officer approaching.

The above is based on the law in my state, but I imagine its similar in most states


Switchblades are prohibited by most codes in the states, I doubt its illegal per federal law. 

The bullshit about the concealed carry statutes is that they usually only apply to guns.  For example, someone could carry a pistol in my state, concealed, if they had a permit, but they'd be subject to arrest if they carried a hunting knife.  This is bullshit

Another interesting argument is that felons should not per se be prohibited from owning guns.  The law says "person" not "non-felon person" and so they should have the ability to own guns.  I don't think a hearing an order from the court requiring someone not to own guns if they have shown themselves to be violent and unstable is neccesarily inconsistant w/ the constitution, though I havne't given it much though.




As for nuclear weapons, I'd cautiously say that these aren't arms in the manner in which the word was understood at the time, therefore aren't protected.  I say caustiosly cuz I don't like applying legislative intent to the analysis of statutes, but I think the word is sufficiently ambiguous to look at what was meant by the word at the time, and even now.

As for automatics, I think these are protected by the 2nd amendment. These are clearly arms in the sense meant at the time.  And contrary to what seems to be understood by you, these are allowed in the US, though the states can prohibit their possesion.  I know someone who owns a fully automatic Uzi w/ plenty of ammo.

The law established a date certain whereby weapons registered by the manufacturer after that date couldn't be transfered to private citizens or buisnesses for possesion without the special permists for law enforcement or other b.s.

The person in my family who owns the uzi had to apply for the permit/license, get the local sherriff to sign that he wasn't under indictment at the moment, and pay approx a 200$ fee.  Now he can carry the Uzi lawfully down the street and its not illegal untill he menaces someone w/ it (i.e. points it at someone).  This is something some of the anti-gun folks aren't aware of.  I imagine they'd shit a brick if they knew a private citizen had a fully automatic uzi w/ tons of amo in his house, and that he can carry it around w/ him as he pleases, as long as he doesn't leave the state- in which case he needs to file his movements w/ the feds and obey the local state prohibitions, if any, on the possesion of automatic weapons.

Quote:



A) I gave my opinion and gave an aside on my first post, any further argument has been entirely responsive.

B) The only logical fallacy was a typing error.



If people don't like my opinions that's fine, they don't have to pursue an argument with them, that's entirely up to them. I will indulge argument about my opinions, but I did not derail this thread. I offered an aside, and responded to attacks.




I was refering in my criticism to your invoking statistics and laying attacks against people, I didn't think this was relevant.  But I took it back in my edited post. :smile:

I do think the arguments regarding what the law should be started w/ you, and you should have disclaimed those arguments as not being relevant to the issue.

Anyways, I'm glad you seem to agree w/ my position :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 5,071 31 06/08/02 02:59 AM
by Anonymous
* Supreme court and Cross Burning
( 1 2 all )
JohnnyRespect 2,182 31 04/21/03 02:41 PM
by JohnnyRespect
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 943 11 06/27/03 04:12 PM
by Anonymous
* Canadian supreme court to hear pot laws challenge
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 1,908 23 04/08/03 02:29 PM
by friartuck
* Regarding The Supreme Court's Anti Medical Marijuana Ruling mjshroomer 2,937 7 05/15/01 09:12 AM
by bivalve
* Thank god for gun ownership...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Xlea321 5,780 86 10/22/02 12:47 AM
by Boglyn
* For You Gun Haters
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
Sinistar 14,390 211 02/09/03 05:18 AM
by Evolving
* The False Promise of Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,772 23 04/16/03 05:53 PM
by pattern

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,324 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.