Jump to content

Fuzzy Suburban Liberals - at a Firearm Zoo - Common Sense Fear.


Recommended Posts

Gunnutz are soooo insane.

 

"We need our guns to take over the government if we need to", the morons bleat....

 

In the real world....the rightwingnut retards are going to jump in their pickup trucks with their rifles and shotguns and go up against this...

 

Helicopter Minigun in Action Firing Dillon M134 Gatling Gun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunnutz are soooo insane.

 

"We need our guns to take over the government if we need to", the morons bleat....

 

In the real world....the rightwingnut retards are going to jump in their pickup trucks with their rifles and shotguns and go up against this...

 

Helicopter Minigun in Action Firing Dillon M134 Gatling Gun

What if a government is dead wrong, & the population dead right? Still OK to kill those citizens?

Ground control to Pogo - - - come in Pogo; history has shown the world many many times, there have been governments whose only purpose was to oppress citizens. What about those govements? I guess ya ain't a student of history.

Anyway, back to the OP. I also fear them thar scary black rifles with the synthetic stocks. The very reason I choose the non lethal Ruger Mini 14 with the wooden stock.21859d1333057261-wood-stock-mini-14-tact

The Mini 14 fires the same ammunition & cycles that ammunition at the same rate as the AR.

But it ain't scary looking. So, I suggest the Mini 14.

This compliments the non lethal Mini 14. The dual drum 100 round magazine. dsc_1159.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday, I was privileged to visit one of the greatest machinists/gunsmiths on the planet. About 8 miles from my home. It is an honor to watch this man's genius at work. His work is literally breathtaking.


He has taken the skill of the gunsmith & has turned it into an art form.


The products of his work are like jewelry. Poetry in motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunnutz are soooo insane.

 

"We need our guns to take over the government if we need to", the morons bleat....

 

In the real world....the rightwingnut retards are going to jump in their pickup trucks with their rifles and shotguns and go up against this...

 

Helicopter Minigun in Action Firing Dillon M134 Gatling Gun

What if a government is dead wrong, & the population dead right?

You mean...in your opinion, JustStupid? LOLOLOL.

 

What do your idiotically mistaken rightwingnut fantasies about your own righteousness versus the supposed "evilness" of our democratic government have to do with fact that the American government is incomparably better armed that you feeble minded gunnutz playing with your little surrogate penis/rifles? Your inability to grasp the real world situation rivals the idiocy of that pathetic Bundy character (who is now in prison).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground control to Pogo - - - come in Pogo; history has shown the world many many times, there have been governments whose only purpose was to oppress citizens. What about those govements?

And in your diseased little mind, that describes the American Government?

 

If not, then what the hell do you imagine your rant has to do with the issue of gun control in THIS country, numbnuts?

 

The issue here is the crackpot excuses you Gunnutz use to justify the current situation where the country is flooded with guns and mass shooting massacres are an increasingly common, almost daily occurrence.

 

As the little video I posted clearly demonstrates, you are not going to be able to grab your rifles and shotguns and jump into your pickup trucks, like the Bundy Bunch attacking an unmanned wildlife refuge, and meaningfully "fight the government".....not without ending up as charred hamburger when the United States Army legitimately puts down an armed rebellion (in about an hour).....whether you are right or wrong wouldn't matter...of course, you are wrong and very retarded and ignorant and manipulated by megalomaniacs like the Koch brothers.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess ya ain't a student of history.

I guess you are just a delusional old fool, pumped full of braindead propaganda and lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunnutz are soooo insane.

 

"We need our guns to take over the government if we need to", the morons bleat....

 

In the real world....the rightwingnut retards are going to jump in their pickup trucks with their rifles and shotguns and go up against this...

 

 

Helicopter Minigun in Action Firing Dillon M134 Gatling Gun

 

Poogotard is so excited about his mini-gun... that he's suckin' his own dick.

 

Ha!

 

p_TRU1_2909797dt.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean...in your opinion, JustStupid? LOLOLOL.

 

 

JPFO - Death By Gun Control

Not just my opinion.

The Mother of All Stats

 

The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas

The Genocide Chart © JPFO.org 2002 Government Dates Targets Civilians Killed "Gun Control" Laws Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians

(mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866

& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 • Permits required •Government list of owners

•Ban on possession Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents;

farming communities 20 million Resolutions, 1918

Decree, July 12, 1920

Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of owners

•Ban on possession

•Severe penalties Nazi Germany

& Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political opponents;

Jews; Gypsies;

critics; "examples" 20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928

Weapon Law, March 18, 1938

Regulations against Jews, 1938 •Registration & Licensing

•Stricter handgun laws

•Ban on possession China, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political opponents;

army conscripts; others 10 million Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914

Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 •Government permit system

•Ban on private ownership China, Red 1949-1952

1957-1960

1966-1976 Political opponents;

Rural populations

Enemies of the state 20-35 million Act of Feb. 20, 1951

Act of Oct. 22, 1957 •Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program

•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals" Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians;

political enemies 100,000-

200,000 Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932

Decree 386, 1947

Decree 283, 1964 •Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees

•Prohibit carrying guns

•Bans on guns, sharp tools

•Confiscation powers Uganda 1971-1979 Christians

Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955

Firearms Act, 1970 •Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions

•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers Cambodia

(Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons;

Political enemies 2 million Art. 322-328, Penal Code

Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 •Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions

•Photo ID with fingerprints

•License inspected quarterly Rwanda 1994 Tutsi people 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

Addition - For easier chart printing, download the Genocide Chart PDF file, it includes a text synopsis of this page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.

In the 20th Century:

  • Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
  • Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.


It is known as history.


It is not my opinion.


Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.


Pogo - you are only allowed one Mook - Toadie award per month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just my opinion.

No, it is also the crackpot opinion of many other deluded and misinformed Gunnutz. So what? You are all full of shit and your myths are insane nonsense.

 

In the real world....

 

The Genocide And Gun Control Myth

March 5, 2014

There are many arguments that can be used against gun control and while I disagree with them all, some are plausible. However, there is one that is so completely absurd that it hardly deserves the dignity of a rebuttal. This is the notion that genocides were preceded by gun control and that taking away peoples guns is the first step towards taking away their freedom and finally their lives. This argument is filled with so much paranoia and historical inaccuracies that it is a wonder that anyone takes it seriously. Yet American politics is so extreme that a fanatical argument like this can find widespread support among conservatives.

guncont.jpg?w=1455&h=1059

An example of the paranoia

For example here are a few sites that claim gun control leads togenocide. What should become clear is how quickly it becomes repetitive, as though they are all drawing on the one source. It should also be obvious that none of them provide any evidence to support their claims (nor did I pick the worst examples, I found all of these by googling guns genocide). There are no references or citations or anything to prove the authors arent just making things up. Also note how vague the language is. In 1929 there was supposedly gun control, but it is never said what form it took or how prevalent it was or how many people lost their guns. Finally most of the quotes are either fake or taken out of context.

experts-gun-control.jpg?w=500

An example of the bogus notion that gun control leads to genocide

Lets start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldnt have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

Next there is everyones favourite internet debate tool, Hitler and the Nazis. An examination of the historical record shows that most of the gun control in Germany came not from the Nazis but from the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation and supported the 1928 law which weakened gun control. In fact, there is a pattern from 1919 onwards of weakening gun control not strengthening. The best gun control opponents can do is use a quote allegedly from Hitler in 1935 (which is almost certainly fake) or mention the 1938 law. However, the 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except the Jews to own guns. So while the Jews were excluded from gun ownership, by 1938 the Nazis were deeply entrenched in power and it was far too late for the Jews to try to overthrow them.

It is also hard to take seriously the notion that the Jews, who comprised 1% of the German population, could militarily defeat the other 99%. How could a handful of Jews armed with a few pistols defeat the Wehrmacht which conquered Europe? Not even France, which had tanks, could do that. Any armed uprising by the Jews would have played right into the Nazis hands and only hastened their destruction. It should be noted that Jews in the rest of Europe were not disarmed but that did little to save them. Opponents of gun control fail to realise that making guns easily available to Jews would also make them easily available to Nazis and in all likelihood lead to a pogrom. Seeing as the Jews were so outnumbered by their enemies, a guns-for-everyone policy would not have worked in their favour. Remember that the largest armed insurrection in Germany at the time came not from Jews but in the form of Hitlers 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.

Communist China is also cited as an example of the dangers of gun control, despite the fact that it was the wide availability of guns that allowed the Communists to launch a rebellion in the first place. Nor would have armed resistance have prevented it. How do I know this? Because thats exactly what happened and it failed to stop them. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Civil War was fought with between 1.8 and 3.5 million casualties. If armies with experienced troops, tanks, planes etc could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have? Gun control becomes irrelevant when the main opposition to the government has been crushed in war.

You are probably noticing a common theme here. Pol Pot is the next figure cited, not because he introduced gun control but because he committed genocide. After much research I havent been able to find any evidence that the Khmer Rouge introduced any form of gun control or that it aided their rise to power. All I have come across is a host of sites mentioning 1956 without any evidence or citations. Seeing as the Khmer Rouge seized power in 1976, the relation with twenty year old legislation (if it even exists) is tenuous. Also the Khmer Rouge were resisted by not just civilians but also by the army of Cambodia which was far better armed than any civilian ever could be. After decades of constant warfare, it can hardly be claimed that the main problem in Indochina at the time was a lack of guns.

So neither Stalin, Hitler, Mao nor Pol Pot prove the dangers of gun control. Their mass murders would not have been prevented by armed civilians seeing as most of them were resisted by actual armies. To the contrary, the availability of guns made their seizure of power easier. It is nothing short of delusion to think that a small group of untrained civilians could have defeated some of the most powerful armies in the world. How could hunting rifles possibly overpower tanks, planes, artillery and millions of soldiers? History shows that civilians are powerless to militarily resist an oppressive dictator. The only way to prevent genocide is not by stockpiling guns, but strengthening democracy, supporting a free press and non government organisations. To think that gun control in America will lead to genocide is to abandon reality and live in a fantasy world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is also the crackpot opinion of many other deluded and misinformed Gunnutz. So what? You are all full of shit and your myths are insane nonsense.

 

In the real world....

 

The Genocide And Gun Control Myth

March 5, 2014

There are many arguments that can be used against gun control and while I disagree with them all, some are plausible. However, there is one that is so completely absurd that it hardly deserves the dignity of a rebuttal. This is the notion that genocides were preceded by gun control and that taking away peoples guns is the first step towards taking away their freedom and finally their lives. This argument is filled with so much paranoia and historical inaccuracies that it is a wonder that anyone takes it seriously. Yet American politics is so extreme that a fanatical argument like this can find widespread support among conservatives.

 

guncont.jpg?w=1455&h=1059

An example of the paranoia

 

For example here are a few sites that claim gun control leads togenocide. What should become clear is how quickly it becomes repetitive, as though they are all drawing on the one source. It should also be obvious that none of them provide any evidence to support their claims (nor did I pick the worst examples, I found all of these by googling guns genocide). There are no references or citations or anything to prove the authors arent just making things up. Also note how vague the language is. In 1929 there was supposedly gun control, but it is never said what form it took or how prevalent it was or how many people lost their guns. Finally most of the quotes are either fake or taken out of context.

 

experts-gun-control.jpg?w=500

An example of the bogus notion that gun control leads to genocide

 

Lets start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldnt have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

 

Next there is everyones favourite internet debate tool, Hitler and the Nazis. An examination of the historical record shows that most of the gun control in Germany came not from the Nazis but from the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation and supported the 1928 law which weakened gun control. In fact, there is a pattern from 1919 onwards of weakening gun control not strengthening. The best gun control opponents can do is use a quote allegedly from Hitler in 1935 (which is almost certainly fake) or mention the 1938 law. However, the 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except the Jews to own guns. So while the Jews were excluded from gun ownership, by 1938 the Nazis were deeply entrenched in power and it was far too late for the Jews to try to overthrow them.

 

It is also hard to take seriously the notion that the Jews, who comprised 1% of the German population, could militarily defeat the other 99%. How could a handful of Jews armed with a few pistols defeat the Wehrmacht which conquered Europe? Not even France, which had tanks, could do that. Any armed uprising by the Jews would have played right into the Nazis hands and only hastened their destruction. It should be noted that Jews in the rest of Europe were not disarmed but that did little to save them. Opponents of gun control fail to realise that making guns easily available to Jews would also make them easily available to Nazis and in all likelihood lead to a pogrom. Seeing as the Jews were so outnumbered by their enemies, a guns-for-everyone policy would not have worked in their favour. Remember that the largest armed insurrection in Germany at the time came not from Jews but in the form of Hitlers 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.

 

Communist China is also cited as an example of the dangers of gun control, despite the fact that it was the wide availability of guns that allowed the Communists to launch a rebellion in the first place. Nor would have armed resistance have prevented it. How do I know this? Because thats exactly what happened and it failed to stop them. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Civil War was fought with between 1.8 and 3.5 million casualties. If armies with experienced troops, tanks, planes etc could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have? Gun control becomes irrelevant when the main opposition to the government has been crushed in war.

 

You are probably noticing a common theme here. Pol Pot is the next figure cited, not because he introduced gun control but because he committed genocide. After much research I havent been able to find any evidence that the Khmer Rouge introduced any form of gun control or that it aided their rise to power. All I have come across is a host of sites mentioning 1956 without any evidence or citations. Seeing as the Khmer Rouge seized power in 1976, the relation with twenty year old legislation (if it even exists) is tenuous. Also the Khmer Rouge were resisted by not just civilians but also by the army of Cambodia which was far better armed than any civilian ever could be. After decades of constant warfare, it can hardly be claimed that the main problem in Indochina at the time was a lack of guns.

 

So neither Stalin, Hitler, Mao nor Pol Pot prove the dangers of gun control. Their mass murders would not have been prevented by armed civilians seeing as most of them were resisted by actual armies. To the contrary, the availability of guns made their seizure of power easier. It is nothing short of delusion to think that a small group of untrained civilians could have defeated some of the most powerful armies in the world. How could hunting rifles possibly overpower tanks, planes, artillery and millions of soldiers? History shows that civilians are powerless to militarily resist an oppressive dictator. The only way to prevent genocide is not by stockpiling guns, but strengthening democracy, supporting a free press and non government organisations. To think that gun control in America will lead to genocide is to abandon reality and live in a fantasy world.

So you believe an unarmed American population would be immune to a lunatic ( lunatics ) in power, correct?

It is immoral to prevent honest citizens from defending themselves. It goes against all natural law; that being the law of survival. I will never turn in my guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a government is dead wrong, & the population dead right? Still OK to kill those citizens? Ground control to Pogo - - - come in Pogo; history has shown the world many many times, there have been governments whose only purpose was to oppress citizens. What about those govements? I guess ya ain't a student of history.

Anyway, back to the OP. I also fear them thar scary black rifles with the synthetic stocks. The very reason I choose the non lethal Ruger Mini 14 with the wooden stock.21859d1333057261-wood-stock-mini-14-tact

The Mini 14 fires the same ammunition & cycles that ammunition at the same rate as the AR.

But it ain't scary looking. So, I suggest the Mini 14.

This compliments the non lethal Mini 14. The dual drum 100 round magazine. dsc_1159.png

mini 14 is junk, AKs are even more accurate and that's not saying much. I've handled and shot mini 14s and have never seen a more poorly crafted inaccurate toy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is also the crackpot opinion of many other deluded and misinformed Gunnutz. So what? You are all full of shit and your myths are insane nonsense.

 

In the real world....

 

The Genocide And Gun Control Myth

March 5, 2014

There are many arguments that can be used against gun control and while I disagree with them all, some are plausible. However, there is one that is so completely absurd that it hardly deserves the dignity of a rebuttal. This is the notion that genocides were preceded by gun control and that taking away peoples guns is the first step towards taking away their freedom and finally their lives. This argument is filled with so much paranoia and historical inaccuracies that it is a wonder that anyone takes it seriously. Yet American politics is so extreme that a fanatical argument like this can find widespread support among conservatives.

guncont.jpg?w=1455&h=1059

An example of the paranoia

For example here are a few sites that claim gun control leads togenocide. What should become clear is how quickly it becomes repetitive, as though they are all drawing on the one source. It should also be obvious that none of them provide any evidence to support their claims (nor did I pick the worst examples, I found all of these by googling guns genocide). There are no references or citations or anything to prove the authors arent just making things up. Also note how vague the language is. In 1929 there was supposedly gun control, but it is never said what form it took or how prevalent it was or how many people lost their guns. Finally most of the quotes are either fake or taken out of context.

experts-gun-control.jpg?w=500

An example of the bogus notion that gun control leads to genocide

Lets start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldnt have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

Next there is everyones favourite internet debate tool, Hitler and the Nazis. An examination of the historical record shows that most of the gun control in Germany came not from the Nazis but from the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation and supported the 1928 law which weakened gun control. In fact, there is a pattern from 1919 onwards of weakening gun control not strengthening. The best gun control opponents can do is use a quote allegedly from Hitler in 1935 (which is almost certainly fake) or mention the 1938 law. However, the 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except the Jews to own guns. So while the Jews were excluded from gun ownership, by 1938 the Nazis were deeply entrenched in power and it was far too late for the Jews to try to overthrow them.

It is also hard to take seriously the notion that the Jews, who comprised 1% of the German population, could militarily defeat the other 99%. How could a handful of Jews armed with a few pistols defeat the Wehrmacht which conquered Europe? Not even France, which had tanks, could do that. Any armed uprising by the Jews would have played right into the Nazis hands and only hastened their destruction. It should be noted that Jews in the rest of Europe were not disarmed but that did little to save them. Opponents of gun control fail to realise that making guns easily available to Jews would also make them easily available to Nazis and in all likelihood lead to a pogrom. Seeing as the Jews were so outnumbered by their enemies, a guns-for-everyone policy would not have worked in their favour. Remember that the largest armed insurrection in Germany at the time came not from Jews but in the form of Hitlers 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.

Communist China is also cited as an example of the dangers of gun control, despite the fact that it was the wide availability of guns that allowed the Communists to launch a rebellion in the first place. Nor would have armed resistance have prevented it. How do I know this? Because thats exactly what happened and it failed to stop them. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Civil War was fought with between 1.8 and 3.5 million casualties. If armies with experienced troops, tanks, planes etc could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have? Gun control becomes irrelevant when the main opposition to the government has been crushed in war.

You are probably noticing a common theme here. Pol Pot is the next figure cited, not because he introduced gun control but because he committed genocide. After much research I havent been able to find any evidence that the Khmer Rouge introduced any form of gun control or that it aided their rise to power. All I have come across is a host of sites mentioning 1956 without any evidence or citations. Seeing as the Khmer Rouge seized power in 1976, the relation with twenty year old legislation (if it even exists) is tenuous. Also the Khmer Rouge were resisted by not just civilians but also by the army of Cambodia which was far better armed than any civilian ever could be. After decades of constant warfare, it can hardly be claimed that the main problem in Indochina at the time was a lack of guns.

So neither Stalin, Hitler, Mao nor Pol Pot prove the dangers of gun control. Their mass murders would not have been prevented by armed civilians seeing as most of them were resisted by actual armies. To the contrary, the availability of guns made their seizure of power easier. It is nothing short of delusion to think that a small group of untrained civilians could have defeated some of the most powerful armies in the world. How could hunting rifles possibly overpower tanks, planes, artillery and millions of soldiers? History shows that civilians are powerless to militarily resist an oppressive dictator. The only way to prevent genocide is not by stockpiling guns, but strengthening democracy, supporting a free press and non government organisations. To think that gun control in America will lead to genocide is to abandon reality and live in a fantasy world.

Ah, you're still posting this garbage? Haven't we been through this already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a government is dead wrong, & the population dead right? Still OK to kill those citizens?

Ground control to Pogo - - - come in Pogo; history has shown the world many many times, there have been governments whose only purpose was to oppress citizens. What about those govements? I guess ya ain't a student of history.

Anyway, back to the OP. I also fear them thar scary black rifles with the synthetic stocks. The very reason I choose the non lethal Ruger Mini 14 with the wooden stock.21859d1333057261-wood-stock-mini-14-tact

The Mini 14 fires the same ammunition & cycles that ammunition at the same rate as the AR.

But it ain't scary looking. So, I suggest the Mini 14.

This compliments the non lethal Mini 14. The dual drum 100 round magazine. dsc_1159.png

 

Black Stocks Matter.

 

 

kj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, you're still posting the facts? Haven't I tried to drag you into my delusions many times already?

You try....I laugh!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blocked Brains Matter.

 

At least, my blocked brain should.

 

kockjerker

Oh you silly fuckwit....

 

Your blocked brain matters least of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunnutz are soooo insane.

 

"We need our guns to take over the government if we need to", the morons bleat....

 

In the real world....the rightwingnut retards are going to jump in their pickup trucks with their rifles and shotguns and go up against this...

 

Helicopter Minigun in Action Firing Dillon M134 Gatling Gun

libs only want guns banned because the will feel safer having buttsex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday, I was privileged to visit one of the greatest machinists/gunsmiths on the planet. About 8 miles from my home. It is an honor to watch this man's genius at work. His work is literally breathtaking.

He has taken the skill of the gunsmith & has turned it into an art form.

The products of his work are like jewelry. Poetry in motion.

Machine technology and gunsmithing are two fascinating subjects. Liberals think coffee at starbucks and assfucking and ass to mouth is fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...