Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Giffords-Palin-Kennedy-Arizona/2011/01/11/id/382546

Even Patrick Kennedy says Sarah Palin is responsible for the massacre. Just admit her guilt neocons.

Kennedy also brought up a good point; the shooter Jared Loughner should not be blamed. He might be suffering from schizophrenia. But in all likelihood he was simply an innocent victim of Palin's brainwashing to carry out her hit list, in which case Palin again is the one responsible and needs to be held solely accountable.
 
[quote name='Clak']Look, I realize you like yer guns, I've seen the pictures, I'm sure you jerk off while holding them every day. But instead of being just throwing shit out there and saying "der har come dem retards tryin' to take mah guns" why don't you actually refute the woman's statements and make your case for why you need a clip that holds that many rounds.

Also, your whole argument about it only hurting law abiding citizens is ridiculous. A person can be a law abiding citizen on Monday and a criminal on Tuesday, all using the guns he legally bought. That's the whole point, nobody starts out as a criminal, and if they can freely buy whatever they want before committing a crime, whats to stop them from using it all illegally later on?[/QUOTE]

Ha, very good. I like the southern accent bit (I'm from NY, but whatever). I guess it's easier to think of me as some neo-con gun nut (far from the truth) and just dismiss it as that.

You can't make laws based on what people might do. Think of the precedent that creates. You'll find that the vast majority that commit crimes with guns aren't those collectors or enthusiasts (or jack-off artists as you might say), but people whose first purchase is illegal and intended to commit a crime.

Want to see how gun laws don't work? Look at those states with the tightest restrictions. Are they crime free paradises? Look at CA which has the most restrictions. What a utopia of peace that place has become, am I right?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

Banning clips of more than 10 bullets is really little different from banning automatic weapons, assault rifles, grenades etc. Just a case of realizing we have a right to bear arms, but that in the interest of public safety not every type of firearm should be legal for civilians.
[/QUOTE]

Lol...you are a baby genius. Yeah, 10 round magazines will make us all safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One should always be wary of slippery slopes, of course, but one should also not fall back on them because they have no other logical objections.

Banning clips of more than 10 bullets is really little different from banning automatic weapons, assault rifles, grenades etc. Just a case of realizing we have a right to bear arms, but that in the interest of public safety not every type of firearm should be legal for civilians.

We have the supreme court, power to vote etc. to help keep slippery slope issues from going to far in terms of restricting on our rights.[/QUOTE]
See here is the thing, regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, it never states that everyone should have unfettered access to firearms. No where does it say you have the right to completely open access to guns. It says the right shall not be infringed, but as long as you can get a gun, that right hasn't been infringed upon. Besides that, being "armed" can mean many things, not necessarily even meaning a firearm.
 
In the states with the tightest restrictions, they just get their guns from states with lax restrictions. In half the gun crime anywhere in the country, the guns only came from a handful (maybe a quarter or less) of the states. Thats not an argument against restrictions.
 
First off they are called magazines, not clips, clips are used for your hair. If someone wants an extended magazine they should be entitled to have one regardless of their reason, having fifty rounds is no more deadly than 25 if you can't aim. Extended magazines are used quite often in law enforcement and people have no objections to that.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Lol...you are a baby genius. Yeah, 10 round magazines will make us all safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI[/QUOTE]

Considering the guy was tackled while trying to reload after his first massive clip magazine was empty...I doubt he (and most of the people who go on shooting rampages) are trained, freak of nature gun guys who are capable of that.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Ha, very good. I like the southern accent bit (I'm from NY, but whatever). I guess it's easier to think of me as some neo-con gun nut (far from the truth) and just dismiss it as that.

You can't make laws based on what people might do. Think of the precedent that creates. You'll find that the vast majority that commit crimes with guns aren't those collectors or enthusiasts (or jack-off artists as you might say), but people whose first purchase is illegal and intended to commit a crime.

Want to see how gun laws don't work? Look at those states with the tightest restrictions. Are they crime free paradises? Look at CA which has the most restrictions. What a utopia of peace that place has become, am I right?[/QUOTE]California also has the highest population in the country, of course crime rates are going to be higher than many other places.

And I know where you're from, Temp. If you're going to act like a jackass in here then that is the way you'll be treated. You and H3ll can feel free to slink back to the OTT if you'd like, but in here we expect you to justify what you say in a rational way. If you're going to start of with "anti-gun retards" we aren't just going to leave that alone.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Considering the guy was tackled while trying to reload his massive clip...I doubt he (and most of the people who go on shooting rampages) are trained, freak of nature gun guys who are capable of that.[/QUOTE]

That is a fact, most of these shootings are by people with little to know knowledge or training in firearms and tactical reloading or doing a battery reload. If someone with training goes on a shooting rampage, that is when you see horrible casualty numbers.
 
Temp, how much safer are you with a 30 round clip vs a 10 round? I mean actual numbers here, 40% safer? 30%? Just how many rounds do you need to be safe?
 
[quote name='Clak']Temp, how much safer are you with a 30 round clip vs a 10 round? I mean actual numbers here, 40% safer? 30%? Just how many rounds do you need to be safe?[/QUOTE]

If you were exchanging fire with someone, having more rounds to send their way could give you extra time, especially if you had other people trying to get to safety, if you want to look at it from a safety standpoint instead of a violence standpoint.
 
[quote name='Jabrim']That is a fact, most of these shootings are by people with little to know knowledge or training in firearms and tactical reloading or doing a battery reload. If someone with training goes on a shooting rampage, that is when you see horrible casualty numbers.[/QUOTE]

Or in this case, if they have a extended magazine.

Would Jared Loughner have been able to kill six people and injure 14 with a ten round magazine instead of a 31 round magazine?
 
[quote name='Jabrim']Extended magazines are used quite often in law enforcement and people have no objections to that.[/QUOTE]

What kind of logic is that? I have no objections with the military having machine guns, grenades, tanks or bomber air planes or missles etc.

Doesn't mean I think civilians should have any of them. We give the military and law enforcement the right to have weapons we can't as we want them to be better armed than other countries militaries and criminals respectively so they can keep us safe.
 
[quote name='Clak']California also has the highest population in the country, of course crime rates are going to be higher than many other places.
[/QUOTE]

Think of what you just said there. :D

Crime "rates" Rates are crimes per 100,000 population. :D
 
[quote name='Jabrim']Extended magazines are used quite often in law enforcement and people have no objections to that.[/QUOTE]
It depends on what you mean by quite often. I thought it was the case that standard issue is not extended. You'd need some sort of special reason to have one. Even for them, its not necessary.
 
If someone was breaking into your home you could also fire more rounds at the person(s) without having to reload, so your argument against extended magazines for civilian use is futile.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']It depends on what you mean by quite often. I thought it was the case that standard issue is not extended. You'd need some sort of special reason to have one. Even for them, its not necessary.[/QUOTE]

Something being tactically useful can also make it necessary, just because you don't see it, I work in the law enforcement field and know for a fact they are used quite often.
 
[quote name='Jabrim']If someone was breaking into your home you could also fire more rounds at the person(s) without having to reload, so your argument against extended magazines for civilian use is futile.[/QUOTE]

Meh. To me handguns are fucking pointless for self defense.

I nice shotgun would be much better for fighting off home invaders. More power, more leeway in aim. More intimidating etc.

Or again, just don't live in a suburban McMasion or the ghetto and live in something like a high rise condo with controlled access and 24 hour security like I do where the chances of such things happening are infinitesimally small.

There are much better and more logical ways to avoid becoming a crime victim than owning firearms.
 
[quote name='Jabrim']If someone was breaking into your home you could also fire more rounds at the person(s) without having to reload, so your argument against extended magazines for civilian use is futile.[/QUOTE]

When is ten bullets not enough to defend yourself from "home invaders"?

Don't most people have a rifle or shotgun for home defense anyways?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In the states with the tightest restrictions, they just get their guns from states with lax restrictions. In half the gun crime anywhere in the country, the guns only came from a handful (maybe a quarter or less) of the states. Thats not an argument against restrictions.[/QUOTE]

If that were true, then those states mentioned would have the the highest crime rates of all...but they don't...so you can't really blame the ability to get guns in other states. It also doesn't explain why those states have MORE crime.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']It all makes sense. We can all reload as quickly as he can.[/QUOTE]

We all have the ability to do that, it just takes practice. Point being, restricting magazines is pointless when humans are capable of reloading that quickly.

[quote name='Jabrim']First off they are called magazines, not clips, clips are used for your hair. If someone wants an extended magazine they should be entitled to have one regardless of their reason, having fifty rounds is no more deadly than 25 if you can't aim. Extended magazines are used quite often in law enforcement and people have no objections to that.[/QUOTE]

I tried to tell them. They wouldn't listen!

[quote name='Sporadic']Considering the guy was tackled while trying to reload after his first massive clip magazine was empty...I doubt he (and most of the people who go on shooting rampages) are trained, freak of nature gun guys who are capable of that.[/QUOTE]

Again, it only takes practice. Banning hi cap mags is pointless.

[quote name='Clak']California also has the highest population in the country, of course crime rates are going to be higher than many other places.

That's why crime is measured per capita. RETARD!

[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Clak']

And I know where you're from, Temp. If you're going to act like a jackass in here then that is the way you'll be treated. You and H3ll can feel free to slink back to the OTT if you'd like, but in here we expect you to justify what you say in a rational way. If you're going to start of with "anti-gun retards" we aren't just going to leave that alone.[/QUOTE]

Lol, ok, so maybe I shouldn't have called people retards. Why would we slither back when we can moonwalk. :cool:


Well, that's it for me. Off to jerk off on my new MP5.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One should always be wary of slippery slopes, of course, but one should also not fall back on them because they have no other logical objections.

Banning clips of more than 10 bullets is really little different from banning automatic weapons, assault rifles, grenades etc. Just a case of realizing we have a right to bear arms, but that in the interest of public safety not every type of firearm should be legal for civilians.

We have the supreme court, power to vote etc. to help keep slippery slope issues from going to far in terms of restricting on our rights.[/QUOTE]
As temp. said magazines not clips, please.

You're argument about slippery slopes is perfectly valid- but I think the 10 round magazine limit is arbitrary and as someone with a working knowledge of firearms and their implementation for self-defense (specifically home defense) find it to be more "knee-jerk" and feel good in nature.

As temp's video has shown mag's can be swapped and actions reset in seconds (even fractions of)- not everyone fumbles a swap as our AZ shooter did affording the opportunity those brave by-standers had to wrestle him to the groun. It doesn't take speedwells, and drop-free mags to do it quickly either.

To the majority of enthusiasts with experience the banning weapons for cosmetic features and arbitrarily capping magazine capacity typifies a slippery slope; In part because, on the federal level, these laws when passed don't get repealed (the past "assault weapons ban" being an exception because of the sunset compromise) regardless of efficacy.

It's easily to demonize the inanimate hi-caps and "black rifles"- personally I am more interested in what seems to be a break-down in existing preventative measures and perhaps a dereliction by local LEO.
 
But again, we're not talking about trained enthusiasts here.

Most mass shootings are done by nut jobs with little to no training in fire arms, which is why they're often tackled after running out of bullets in their first clip or magazine or whatever you gun whackos want to call them.

But I've broken my I own "don't argue with idiots online about _______" rule here as gun debates are a raging waste of time as there one of the multitude of topics where everyone's mind is already made up one way or the other just like abortion etc. So I'm out.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But again, we're not talking about trained enthusiasts here.

Most mass shootings are done by nut jobs with little to no training in fire arms, which is why they're often tackled after running out of points in their first clip or magazine or whatever you gun whackos want to call them.

But I've broken my I own "don't argue with idiots online about _______" rule here as gun debates are a raging waste of time as there one of the multitude of topics where everyone's mind is already made up one way or the other just like abortion etc. So I'm out.[/QUOTE]

Maybe if you weren't so smug about it...

:grouphug:
 
[quote name='Clak']Temp, how much safer are you with a 30 round clip vs a 10 round? I mean actual numbers here, 40% safer? 30%? Just how many rounds do you need to be safe?[/QUOTE]
just imagine how much safer we would be with no rounds.....:roll:


Anyways this is a terrible thing that happened. I cannot believe anyone can walk into an area and open fire on innocent women, children, and men. It was a child for godsake. Such cowards.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']If that were true, then those states mentioned would have the the highest crime rates of all...but they don't...so you can't really blame the ability to get guns in other states. It also doesn't explain why those states have MORE crime.
[/QUOTE]
The part about the guns from guns crime coming from few states IS true, so theres really nothing you can do about that. There is no quantifier here. The crime rate doesnt change that its true. Nothing does.

But since you mentioned crime rate, lets see if we cant find any kind of trend, a geographical one perhaps.

Violent crime per capita 2004 (wikipedia) [dark is higher]

US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']As temp's video has shown mag's can be swapped and actions reset in seconds (even fractions of)- not everyone fumbles a swap as our AZ shooter did affording the opportunity those brave by-standers had to wrestle him to the groun. It doesn't take speedwells, and drop-free mags to do it quickly either.[/QUOTE]

Let's not say move the goalpost.

If these type of shootings are the result of crazy, impulsive guys...you can't follow that up with "why would we ban extended magazines? a person can practice or buy different things to reload quicker to make up for the lack of bullets". These guys aren't practicing how to reload or really training how to use these guns they buy to rampage with. They aren't using that type of logic (because if they did, wouldn't it be better for them [or at least our current shooter who could open carry with no worry] to buy and modify a semi-automatic rifle into a fully auto or just buy a black market full auto?)
 
Violent crime rates are highest in the south, and have been as long as they've been tracking national crime data.

That's the only real geographic trend, and has led to theories about a "Southern Subculture of violence" etc.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The part about the guns from guns crime coming from few states IS true, so theres really nothing you can do about that. There is no quantifier here. The crime rate doesnt change that its true. Nothing does.

But since you mentioned crime rate, lets see if we cant find any kind of trend, a geographical one perhaps.

Violent crime per capita 2004 (wikipedia) [dark is higher]

US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg
[/QUOTE]


There's nothing there.

Wikipedia as a source? You know better.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am pro gun, but I am not a nut.

There is zero reason to have a bigger magazine than a LEO.
[/QUOTE]
LEO's in most states carry Hi-Caps as defined by those states that do restrict them (10 rounds or more).

[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html[/QUOTE]

I'm not 100% sure about every state but even states that are "shall issue" CC permit states outlaw the possession of a firearm at a public political gathering.


[quote name='Sporadic']
If these type of shootings are the result of crazy, impulsive guys...you can't follow that up with "why would we ban extended magazines? a person can practice or buy different things to reload quicker to make up for the lack of bullets". These guys aren't practicing how to reload or really training how to use these guns they buy to rampage with. They aren't using that type of logic (because if they did, wouldn't it be better for them [or at least our current shooter who could open carry with no worry] to buy and modify a semi-automatic rifle into a fully auto or just buy a black market full auto?)[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure you can say that. In this case there seems to be an indication of plenty of premeditation, and from the time frame that's been alleged (making this not an impulsive action) he had both the time and resources to pursue that if the situation had required it.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I'm not sure you can say that. In this case there seems to be an indication of plenty of premeditation, and from the time frame that's been alleged (making this not an impulsive action) he had both the time and resources to pursue that if the situation had required it.[/QUOTE]

Not that much premeditation. Although he met Gabrielle Giffords in 2007, he didn't purchase his gun until the end of November 2010. The shooting also took place about five miles from his house.

His decision to go on a shooting spree and kill the congresswomen may not have been a split decision but it isn't like he spent that time practicing his shooting and how to reload quickly or even coming up with a good plan.

-----

Off topic, I found this new bit of information interesting.

Bryce Tierney, a friend of Loughner, received a voice message from Loughner eight hours before the shooting. Tierney stated that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords for failing to answer a question sufficiently, in his view. Loughner previously met Giffords at a "Congress on your Corner" event in a Tucson mall in 2007, where he asked the congresswoman, "What is government if words have no meaning?"
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Not that much premeditation. Although he met Gabrielle Giffords in 2007, he didn't purchase his gun until the end of November 2010. The shooting also took place about five miles from his house.

His decision to go on a shooting spree and kill the congresswomen may not have been a split decision but it isn't like he spent that time practicing his shooting and how to reload quickly or even coming up with a good plan.
[/QUOTE]
Not buying that argument for a minute.

Knowing what we know about his potentially obsessive relationship with Giffords (allegedly spanning almost 4 years)- and even if you accept the unlikely premise that the gun purchase date is counted as "day one" in formulting his plan- you really don't think over a month is more than adequate to constitute significant premeditation (if it was indeed that short, and it unlikely was)? It's absolutely more than an adequate amount of time to become proficient in using a pistol and, had he needed to, practice making quick mag changes which could be done anywhere.

The timing of the event is likely just circumstance- if Giffords was the type of rep. that regularly holds public "press the flesh" events (which many have credited her with doing) he was likely just biding his time until it was convenient.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']It's absolutely more than an adequate amount of time to become proficient in using a pistol and, had he needed to, practice making quick mag changes which could be done anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring everything else, for the moment, what you just posted is the main thing I was trying to get across.

If these people who are going on shooting rampages with extended magazines are crazy, you can't follow it up with "you can't ban extended magazines because the crazy people can make up for them by practicing reloading". These type of people aren't doing that. It isn't crossing their mind. They aren't capable of that type of thought when they get to that point.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Ignoring everything else, for the moment, what you just posted is the main thing I was trying to get across.

If these people who are going on shooting rampages with extended magazines are crazy, you can't follow it up with "you can't ban extended magazines because the crazy people can make up for them by practicing reloading". These type of people aren't doing that. It isn't crossing their mind. They aren't capable of that type of thought when they hit that point.[/QUOTE]
So he has the mental capacity to realize the stock 17 round glock magazine isn't enough so he buys the additional 30+ model- and not the wherewithal to practice? BS. He has mental issues not retardation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html[/QUOTE]

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/01/from-terrorist-bagman-to-homeland.html

We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry," King declared during a 1982 rally on behalf of the IRA in Nassau County. The "Provos" heartily reciprocated King's affection.
Click to expand...
halal.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/05/peter_king_listed_by_secret_secret_as_pro-terroris/

halol.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Joe Manachin is a Democrat by virtue of his party. If you listen to the substance of the ad clip O'Reilly showed, he's a moderate conservative on his best day. What I'm trying to say is that O'Reilly would have never shown that ad in this bit if Machin claimed (R) - and that's the only thing really separating him from being a Republican, truth be told. So it's a matter of convenience for O'Reilly to avoid lumping him in with right politics.

As for the Chris Matthews bit, is that the best he can do? I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the Live and Let Die metaphor (I'm a bad James Bond fan, I suppose).

O'Reilly also diminished the significant meaning of the Palin targets by not mentioning its full context, which involved tweets about "reloading" as well as encouragements to "fire your M16s" to get Democrats out of office.

Lastly, he went out of his way to avoid Glenn Beck fantasizing about murdering Michael Moore himself, and of course he stayed away from Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment solutions."

Keith Olbermann had the dignity to apologize for any violent rhetoric he may have espoused (and if he did, lord knows we'd have heard it from FOX by now), and he also promised to curtail it in the future. You get no such promise from the people who are encouraging violence and using hyperbole to enrage and motivate their base.

That's the point - Republicans are trying to mitigate their ugly side, and sweep under the rug virulent talk that can't be mitigated. They refuse to accept any responsibility for their words.[/QUOTE]

Palin needs to apologize. But if she decides to shut that fat yap and stay in whatever compound she's currently hunkered down in, that's fine too.
 
[quote name='Knoell']just imagine how much safer we would be with no rounds.....:roll:


Anyways this is a terrible thing that happened. I cannot believe anyone can walk into an area and open fire on innocent women, children, and men. It was a child for godsake. Such cowards.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know Knoell, just imagine it, cause THAT S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

Leave it to you to take something and blow it completely out of proportion. I support universal health care too, so I guess by your jump-to-conclusions logic I'm a socialist too.


edit- And can we please get over this clip/magazine BS? It's not like it somehow changes the argument. Excuse the rest of us for not knowing proper firearm terminology.:roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Think of what you just said there. :D

Crime "rates" Rates are crimes per 100,000 population. :D[/QUOTE]
Yeah I didn't shouldn't have said rate, just simply that with a higher population it makes sense that more crimes would be committed.
 
I'm curious - this Palin map with all the targets that's so offensive... can someone link me to the post about it here on CAG from when the map was first released? I assume there's one filled with all the anger and outrage that we're seeing now, since the map is so offensive and horrible.
 
I'm sure it's somewhere, seeing as how here on CAG we always comment on every story that is offensive and horrible and/or newsworthy.

If there is no post when it was Palin first released it, then clearly it wasn't THAT bad. If there is no post on CAG when she released it then I suppose none of these libs on CAG were outraged by it.
 
[quote name='Clak']

edit- And can we please get over this clip/magazine BS? It's not like it somehow changes the argument. Excuse the rest of us for not knowing proper firearm terminology.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Isn't it funny how those who know the least about things sure like to have an opinion on their regulation?

Maybe you'll agree with her legislation on banning those things on shoulders that go up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - this Palin map with all the targets that's so offensive... can someone link me to the post about it here on CAG from when the map was first released? I assume there's one filled with all the anger and outrage that we're seeing now, since the map is so offensive and horrible.[/QUOTE]

Do you want to see the video from last spring where Rep. Giffords herself expresses her disgust about the crosshairs map?
 
Seen it already. And if Giffords wants to come out and say how offensive the map was/is, then that would make sense. Instead, we have a bunch of CAGs who all act offended by it long after it happened, as if they knew all along it was going to cause some nut case to shoot someone (even though it didn't have anything to do with it).
 
Noone cares if a few CAGs are offended - it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that Palin made a poster with gunsights where Democratic politicians were located and today we are in the midst of a horrible tragedy.

Stop fucking around. Just stop. It's over. There is no reason any decent person should ever even bother paying attention to the hateful rants from that vile, vitriolic, despicable woman ever again.
 
Sure, sure, camoor... It's relevant that she made the evil, evil image... so relevant that no one here cared about it at the time.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']So he has the mental capacity to realize the stock 17 round glock magazine isn't enough so he buys the additional 30+ model- and not the wherewithal to practice? BS. He has mental issues not retardation.[/QUOTE]

The guy dropped the clip while trying to reload, had it kicked away by an old lady before getting tackled by an old man he already shot.

That doesn't sound like a guy who practiced reloading or anything related to the gun or even had a plan besides "shoot as much as possible before I'm killed"

Also it doesn't take a genius to go "more bullets = more chances I have to kill, plz give me the biggest clip you have"

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - this Palin map with all the targets that's so offensive... can someone link me to the post about it here on CAG from when the map was first released? I assume there's one filled with all the anger and outrage that we're seeing now, since the map is so offensive and horrible.[/QUOTE]

Look at this guy trying to change the topic back to where he thinks he has higher ground. DONT LET HIM BOYS, PUSH FORWARD AND TAKE AIM. LET HIM HAVE IT WITH BOTH BARRELS ;)

[quote name='chiwii']Do you want to see the video from last spring where Rep. Giffords herself expresses her disgust about the crosshairs map?[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top