|
How about if we have inspections, but we also repeal most of the NFA so that, provided you pass the inspections, you're allowed to own automatic weapons and suppressors and poo poo? Seems like a fair trade to me.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:How about if we have inspections, but we also repeal most of the NFA so that, provided you pass the inspections, you're allowed to own automatic weapons and suppressors and poo poo? Seems like a fair trade to me. Works for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, now switch sides and argue for that guy's position. Without being angry? Here, I got it. *ahem* "I am selective about the Fourth Amendment and legal precedent." ~Fin~
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:54
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:In many aspects of american life, public and private, if you want to do a dangerous thing you have to prove you have the equipment and training to make it safe. If you could conceive of gun safes and trigger locks living in the same category as helmets and turn signals instead of life-threatening limits on your penis extensions this would all be a lot easier for you to understand. The dividing line for who is inspected and who is not is whether your choices affect others - living in squalor is a-ok unless you want to adopt, keeping your fridge warm enough for bacteria growth is your freedom until you risk poisoning a lot of people over it - you're free to birth a child but in many places you're not free to drive that baby home from the hospital until you produce a car seat for inspection. "Here are the tools I use to keep my dangerous thing I'm doing from hurting others" is already a common thing in society, and it's just fine. Kilroy posted:How about if we have inspections, but we also repeal most of the NFA so that, provided you pass the inspections, you're allowed to own automatic weapons and suppressors and poo poo? Seems like a fair trade to me. Also, since we're here, what exactly is the problem safe storage laws are meant to solve? Like, why, specifically, do you want this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's pretty clear we were talking about private property. The whole conversation has been about residential inspections, not commercial property. The TSA is allowed to cup my balls and x-ray my bags when I want to get on a plane, but that doesn't mean it's OK for them to do it while I'm walking down the street, nor would it be a good argument for why the police should have the power to make me turn out my pockets and backpack during a Terry stop. So you agree it wouldn't be a violation of the fourth amendment if, after the background check, training and licensing, to have a one-time inspection for each new firearm to ensure you have adequate storage capability. We'll go ahead and stipulate that it won't be the cops doing it, it'll be a county (or whatever) inspector that can't poke around for drugs or weird porn, no different than having to get the wiring inspected when DIY a new extension on your house. Dead Reckoning posted:Also, since we're here, what exactly is the problem safe storage laws are meant to solve? Like, why, specifically, do you want this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Can you name literally any non-commercial activity you do in your home that A) requires regular spot checks from the government, and B) is not recognized as an ultrahazardous activity under common law? I'm not arguing for regular spot checks. I'm talking about something more like this: VitalSigns posted:So you agree it wouldn't be a violation of the fourth amendment if, after the background check, training and licensing, to have a one-time inspection for each new firearm to ensure you have adequate storage capability. We'll go ahead and stipulate that it won't be the cops doing it, it'll be a county (or whatever) inspector that can't poke around for drugs or weird porn, no different than having to get the wiring inspected when DIY a new extension on your house. The middle section of your post is completely asinine and responds to a lot of poo poo I didn't say, so moving on... Dead Reckoning posted:Also, since we're here, what exactly is the problem safe storage laws are meant to solve? Like, why, specifically, do you want this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you agree it wouldn't be a violation of the fourth amendment if, after the background check, training and licensing, to have a one-time inspection for each new firearm to ensure you have adequate storage capability. We'll go ahead and stipulate that it won't be the cops doing it, it'll be a county (or whatever) inspector that can't poke around for drugs or weird porn, no different than having to get the wiring inspected when DIY a new extension on your house. How, exactly, would safe storage have prevented that? Lanza wasn't a minor, had never been arrested, and had never been adjudicated mentally defective or otherwise disqualified himself from firearms ownership. There was no legal reason for his mother to restrict his access to firearms. If I recall correctly, the rifle he used to kill his mother was his. I think that, if she believed her son was capable of killing her in her bed and slaughtering 26 other people, she wouldn't have needed the spur of the law to keep him away from guns. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Man I dunno. Sure, we could all but eliminate shootings done by children and toddlers, reduce gun theft, put obstacles in front of panicked "I grabbed the gun under my pillow and shot at a shadow that turned out to be my spouse" shootings, and introduce the type of minor inconvenience that derails more than a few suicides, but it wouldn't eliminate human mortality in its entirety so we probably shouldn't even try. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Leaving a gun where a child can access it is already a crime in most states. Trigger locks don't stop gun theft. If you're going to mandate the sort of safes that can stop a burglar with a crowbar, you're into the thousands of dollars. I don't see how you can mandate any sort of storage that would prevent a lawful owner from harming themselves or others without running afoul of the Second Amendment. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:but it wouldn't eliminate human mortality in its entirety so we probably shouldn't even try. Oh hey look, I'm psychic. Every single word of this is "if it can't be perfect don't try." Many homes where children accessed guns had no safe place to put those guns - requiring that space makes it at least possible it would be used. I said we can REDUCE gun theft, and I'd think even you could understand how something lying out in the open is easier to steal than something in a locked case. Similarly a gun that's locked away requires more forethought to use than one in easy grabbing distance. We can't eliminate shootings, but we can decrease them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How, exactly, would safe storage have prevented that? Lanza wasn't a minor, had never been arrested, and had never been adjudicated mentally defective or otherwise disqualified himself from firearms ownership. There was no legal reason for his mother to restrict his access to firearms. If I recall correctly, the rifle he used to kill his mother was his. I think that, if she believed her son was capable of killing her in her bed and slaughtering 26 other people, she wouldn't have needed the spur of the law to keep him away from guns. Well that's just another problem in our gun laws. He had had psychological problems and had been prescribed anti-depressants. My dad couldn't do his favorite hobby, flying airplanes, for years because he was on anti-depressants for a while and you can't pass the medical exam with that until you (a) are off anti-depressants and (b) can provide documented evidence of your treatment for depression to satisfy the FAA that you don't need it anymore. But all that time my dad could still buy all the guns he wanted! Nancy Lanza should absolutely not have been allowed to give him access to her firearms, and he should not have been allowed to own one. If he had tried to get a medical certification to take pilot lessons, he would have been denied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
guns will not save you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well that's just another problem in our gun laws. He had had psychological problems and had been prescribed anti-depressants. My dad couldn't do his favorite hobby, flying airplanes, for years because he was on anti-depressants for a while and you can't pass the medical exam with that until you (a) are off anti-depressants and (b) can provide documented evidence of your treatment for depression to satisfy the FAA that you don't need it anymore. But all that time my dad could still buy all the guns he wanted! I'm not disagreeing with you (although this would definitely piss off people fighting stigma against people with mental issues, and like all approaches to gun control, would be imperfect), but how do you think a law like this would interact with our country's abysmal access to mental health care? There are a lot of people out there who can't afford a diagnosis, before you even get into the cultural barriers in many communities to even thinking about mental health. Arguably someone on a stable, effective medication regimen is less of a danger to himself or others than someone who's never been treated at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well that's just another problem in our gun laws. He had had psychological problems and had been prescribed anti-depressants. My dad couldn't do his favorite hobby, flying airplanes, for years because he was on anti-depressants for a while and you can't pass the medical exam with that until you (a) are off anti-depressants and (b) can provide documented evidence of your treatment for depression to satisfy the FAA that you don't need it anymore. But all that time my dad could still buy all the guns he wanted! Jesus Christ dude, mentally ill people are less likely to commit violence on average and this would run off people who might otherwise seek treatment. Some of those people might even go on to commit violence of some kind without treatment, ironically! Although IIRC Australia has this policy you're referring to as well which makes them double poo poo. I imagine the FAA's logic is based on the fig leaf that the air is public property but even by that standard that doesn't cover what's in your house or what you do on a private range. What's the material difference between supporting this and taking away rights based on some watchlist? Like, I really can't emphasize how much most of this poo poo proposed wouldn't fly Constitutionally even if the Second Amendment had never existed ever. Initially checking for safe storage isn't enough for the Brits and Aussies because it doesn't ensuring continuing safe storage and/or the fact that the guns haven't been walked in trafficking since then. It's the way they make their registration system stick. So no, the goals their policies are trying to accomplish wouldn't be satisfied by just passing safe storage laws and having a building code inspection of your gun safe or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I'm not disagreeing with you (although this would definitely piss off people fighting stigma against people with mental issues, and like all approaches to gun control, would be imperfect), but how do you think a law like this would interact with our country's abysmal access to mental health care? There are a lot of people out there who can't afford a diagnosis, before you even get into the cultural barriers in many communities to even thinking about mental health. Arguably someone on a stable, effective medication regimen is less of a danger to himself or others than someone who's never been treated at all. I don't believe FAA medical requirements to fly perpetuate any kind of stigma against people with mental issues. And I'm sure with our terrible mental health system it would restrict more people than necessary, just as it does piloting, because there's not good access to the mental health care they need, but the answer to that is to fix the mental health care system, not to relax the standards for pilots. While obviously I'm in favor of more people getting healthy so they can have happy lives playing with their toys like planes and guns, public safety is more important and we shouldn't allow people to operate dangerous equipment when they're not mentally competent to do so. DeusExMachinima posted:What's the material difference between supporting this and taking away rights based on some watchlist? Licensing requirements are not taking away rights and they're not some kind of ZOG watchlist. This kind of paranoia over toys is why America will never have sane regulations, I'm just spitballing VitalSigns' imaginary America. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't believe FAA medical requirements to fly perpetuate any kind of stigma against people with mental issues. And I'm sure with our terrible mental health system it would restrict more people than necessary, just as it does piloting, because there's not good access to the mental health care they need, but the answer to that is to fix the mental health care system, not to relax the standards for pilots. What about off-label use of anti-depressants? I'm not an expert by any means, but I know people can be prescribed antidepressants for anxiety issues and I think certain types of pain disorders. I like VitalSigns' Imaginary America, I just want to flesh it out more. Tiny Brontosaurus America would probably involve rifles/shotguns at home in secure storage and anything smaller/pew-pewier living at your friendly local well-organized gun club. Edit: Oh also, I mean that our lack of access to mental health care might not restrict as many people as your system intends to. If you don't have a diagnosis on the books you can't be denied guns for having a diagnosis, right? Would there be a mental health screening as part of gun licensing in USVSIA? Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
There is already some precedent where local laws can't restrict gun rights in certain ways. I assume this would apply to automatic weapons and suppressors as well. quote:Also, since we're here, what exactly is the problem safe storage laws are meant to solve? Like, why, specifically, do you want this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm talking about being able to do so without paying the ridiculous fees. You'd have the inspection, and otherwise you're just paying for the thing. What other legislation? If you get more stuff I want more stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Licensing requirements are not taking away rights and they're not some kind of ZOG watchlist. That's a real blanket statement. If it's a disqualifying factor from having something in your own home that doesn't touch on storage, criminal history, or marksmanship/competency in a test, it absolutely is taking away something. If you're taking anti-depressants should you be able to operate a car in VitalSignsverse? You can probably kill just as many people with it as with a Cessna. And again, you're going to discourage people from seeking treatment which is why the APA is against this kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Well for piloting, if you're prescribed the drugs for pain or something you just need to show the FAA documentation of that and it's fine. I'm pretty sure you can't fly while you're taking them, because they don't want you in a plane on any kind of mood-affecting drugs, but it would mean that you just have to stop taking them and show it wasn't a psychiatric disorder before you started doing it. I'm not a doctor so I don't really know whether someone should be allowed to have firearms while they're taking mood-altering drugs if it's for some off-label use, but regardless of the decision you should just be able to submit that paperwork to the licensing body and they can decide. Instead of what we do now, "here you go Mr Loughner, thanks for your purchase". I think mental health screenings should be free and encouraged for everyone, like all other preventive health care, and yes should be required for activities that present dangers to public safety like we already do for pilots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That's a real blanket statement. If it's a disqualifying factor from having something in your own home that doesn't touch on storage, criminal history, or marksmanship/competency in a test, it absolutely is taking away something. If you're taking anti-depressants should you be able to operate a car in VitalSignsverse? You can probably kill just as many people with it as with a Cessna. Hey now, he's only staking out one country. The sovereign republic of DeusExMachinima is free to be whatever kind of smoking tire fire your libertarianism can dream of. And yeah I worry about the discouraging treatment thing too. VitalSigns posted:I think mental health screenings should be free and encouraged for everyone, like all other preventive health care, and yes should be required for activities that present dangers to public safety like we already do for pilots. This is a hard message to get across but honestly I don't think mass shooters or terrorism should be our focus with gun control. The shills are right - sufficiently crazy people will kill with any means at their disposal. I think we can do greater good by reducing the number of accidental and un-premeditated shootings. Make a gun something you have to go to some trouble to hold in your hands and we could save hundreds or thousands of people a year. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
It's actually really disturbing to me that if you're someone who enjoys flying and is depressed, there's a perverse incentive to hide it and try to tough it out rather than seek treatment and get on a stable regimen of medication with a psychiatrist monitoring it. I know who I'd rather have flying my jetliner, much less flying a Cessna near my house, and it's not the person who's surrounded by an atmosphere of fear at losing their livelihood and passion if they try to keep themselves fit to fly. It's also disturbing to me that people don't see categorizing someone as a threat to others (a categorization that may itself be misleading or facile, as DeusEx pointed out) as being a stigma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What other legislation? If you get more stuff I want more stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That's a real blanket statement. If it's a disqualifying factor from having something in your own home that doesn't touch on storage, criminal history, or marksmanship/competency in a test, it absolutely is taking away something. If you're taking anti-depressants should you be able to operate a car in VitalSignsverse? You can probably kill just as many people with it as with a Cessna. You can kill people with a car yes, but not in the numbers that shootings and plane crashes/attacks can rack up, and cars are a critical necessity in modern life so I don't think the balance is worth it. I guess you could drive into a crowd of people but really what's the highest bodycount a car-murderer has ever racked up? On the other hand, if we made the commitment to comprehensive mass transit such that cars became unnecessary for most occupations I could see having higher standards to acquire a license. I think we should encourage people to seek treatment directly, by improving our terrible mental health system. Trying to encourage people to get treatment in the weird roundabout way of eliminating mental health requirements for pilots doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The NFA? Automatic weapons and suppressors? The stuff I mentioned in the very post you quoted? I was hoping you might elaborate, dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can kill people with a car yes, but not in the numbers that shootings and plane crashes/attacks can rack up, and cars are a critical necessity in modern life so I don't think the balance is worth it. Driving is not a constitutionally protected right, yet guns is. I agree that is stupid, but that is reality and it's weird to see people trying to pretend that is not the case. Hem and haw all you want, the right to own a gun is no different than being able to practice whichever religion you'd live or say whatever you want. This will not change in your lifetime, I hope this helps. Gun control is for the left what gay rights is for the right. The law and courts are completely explicit on what that means yet you'll still see uninformed people thinking it's possible to change the law. Americans have a constitutionally protected right to own guns and that will never change during anyone here's lifetime. You really do not seem to understand what constitutionally protected right means, friend. I understand it is complicated so I won't give you poo poo over it though. tsa fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
tsa posted:Driving is not a constitutionally protected right, yet guns is. I agree that is stupid, but that is reality and it's weird to see people trying to pretend that is not the case. Hem and haw all you want, the right to own a gun is no different than being able to practice whichever religion you'd live or say whatever you want. This will not change in your lifetime, I hope this helps. The NFA has been upheld for eighty years and it's more restrictive than anything I've proposed. You have to get your local chief of police to vouch for you for example just to own certain types of arms (and suppressors for some reason?), if that's not a violation of the second amendment then nothing I've suggested is either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I was hoping you might elaborate, dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Guns are guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
tsa posted:Gun control is for the left what gay rights is for the right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
the future of gun control is that in 2040 sentient guns will be granted the vote and immediately become America's political majority
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:Driving is not a constitutionally protected right, yet guns is. I agree that is stupid, but that is reality and it's weird to see people trying to pretend that is not the case. Hem and haw all you want, the right to own a gun is no different than being able to practice whichever religion you'd live or say whatever you want. This will not change in your lifetime, I hope this helps. Any serious gun control would probably have to include repealing it. And repealing it doesn't mean a totalitarian gun ban anymore than repealing prohibition means 5-year-olds can buy booze. But requiring licensing and training akin to driving or flying to buy or own a gun (or ammunition) would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Honestly we could use a new Constitution, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
The guns used in the recent shooting in San Bernardino were already illegal in California. Clearly what we need is more laws that will absolutely prevent mass shootings this time, no, really!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The second amendment isn't a constitutionally "protected" right, it's a constitutionally created right. No modern philosophy of human rights and dignities includes the category of "freedom to own dangerous poo poo" as an inherent part of human existence. The standard weeping about mandatory schemes of licensing and registration, aside from The Government Is Gonna Kick Down the Door And Steal Everybody's Guns Like Happened Nowhere, is that these things (like all other regulations) are more time-consuming and expensive for the individual than their non-existence, and therefore are an unconscionable imposition on the rights of poor people of a race or races we care about according to our politics. Question: If guns are really an important human right which cannot be restricted by access to money isn't it immoral that we trust its implementation to the vagaries of employment and the market? Shouldn't we pass Gun Welfare: every adult in the US is given a free medium-caliber pistol and, say, 20 rounds of ammunition, regardless of their ability to pay for it, be trained on it, or pass a background check (since of course people with more money are more able to afford training, lawyers and mental healthcare.) And if gun owners are correct and access to firearms has a zero effect (or a net negative effect) on crime, won't this, at worst, give everyone access to their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and not affect crime at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The guns used in the recent shooting in San Bernardino were already illegal in California. Clearly what we need is more laws that will absolutely prevent mass shootings this time, no, really! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3746390&pagenumber=52&perpage=40#post451493493 Pitch posted:Anyone reading Troika's posts should keep in mind that his interest in guns is entirely based on an anime he saw like three years ago. He literally just showed up in TFR on the day it started airing asking a lot of questions about he could buy the same gun that the main character has and has been insufferable about the topic ever since. If you ask him to describe his foiled muggings in any greater detail they're probably the climactic fight scene but with the magical swordfights taken out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The guns used in the recent shooting in San Bernardino were already illegal in California. Clearly what we need is more laws that will absolutely prevent mass shootings this time, no, really! All four of the firearms were legally purchased, though it's not yet clear how the couple got them., so I guess you're complaining that gun control is too lax. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The guns used in the recent shooting in San Bernardino were already illegal in California. Clearly what we need is more laws that will absolutely prevent mass shootings this time, no, really! Well, yeah, but that calls into question the actual effectiveness of those laws. If those guns made it into the state, anyway, that's a failure of authorities to enforce that policy, not an endorsement of a hamfisted "if guns are illegal, only outlaws will have guns" thing. The real question to ask is, can such a law be enforced in America? That comes back to my wall of text from earlier. In all likelihood, such a law is not enforceable. There's no interstate border checkpoint, and if there were, they wouldn't be allowed to search cargo of illegal weapons without probable cause. It wouldn't hold up. Moreover, such a law is impossible to truly implement without the cooperation of the people. American gun culture prevents a voluntary gun collection program from being truly effective, and American law prevents a large-scale involuntary seizure program from being allowed. You need at least a couple of generations of solid anti-gun sentiment to make that poo poo work, and I guarantee that the pro-gun lobby is only getting stronger by appealing to our unique cultural fantasies of protecting ourselves and our families from Bad Men.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Really, in many states the only restrictions to legally owning a firearm are "don't be a convicted felon" "have a photo ID" "have $300 dollars" and "be able to get to the store," all of which are monetary impositions to some extent or another. Why are we making racially indeterminate Poors spend all this money just to use their constitutional rights?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:The standard weeping about mandatory schemes of licensing and registration, aside from The Government Is Gonna Kick Down the Door And Steal Everybody's Guns Like Happened Nowhere, is that these things (like all other regulations) are more time-consuming and expensive for the individual than their non-existence, and therefore are an unconscionable imposition on the rights of poor people of a race or races we care about according to our politics. Question: If guns are really an important human right which cannot be restricted by access to money isn't it immoral that we trust its implementation to the vagaries of employment and the market? Shouldn't we pass Gun Welfare: every adult in the US is given a free medium-caliber pistol and, say, 20 rounds of ammunition, regardless of their ability to pay for it, be trained on it, or pass a background check (since of course people with more money are more able to afford training, lawyers and mental healthcare.) And if gun owners are correct and access to firearms has a zero effect (or a net negative effect) on crime, won't this, at worst, give everyone access to their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and not affect crime at all? sign me up for gun welfare
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:sign me up for gun welfare I make too much money for gun welfare  I would have to buy into a mandatory firearm or face a tax penalty, like Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Does anyone know what James Madison (who drafted the 2nd) thought of early gun control laws? He was president when states first began regulating concealed-carry (1813), and to my knowledge he said nothing on the matter.
Fansy fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:26
|
|
