New site? Maybe some day. Username: SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F) Message: UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop Select Color orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen teal silver sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate FONTXXSmallXSmallSmallMediumLargeXLXXL :DG: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Char† ‡ ‰ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ‾ ← ↑ → ↓ ™ – —   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ b i u  add: url  image  video(?) : post by Arrow NLI at 2012-12-21 17:37:01 ShadowSD said [orig][quote] I just want people to be consistent, that's all. If the case you guys are making is that the legislation being suggested would make us for the first time less armed than the government, that simply isn't true, we have been so for a long time. Give an example of a government nuking it's citizens in a civil war. As far as battlefield weapons, they're great for battlefields. Not so good for suburban combat. A well armed militia of semi-auto rifles and handguns has a fighting chance against such weaponry. With what you propose, we'd be giving that up completely. You're the guy that says "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" every time there's a police shooting in the news, aren't you? It seems your knowledge and impression of firearms comes from movies and T.V., where nothing is realistic at all.

[default homepage]

[print][

2:49:11pm May 18,2024 load time 0.02323 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]