Will352ns Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Both Stalin and Hitler disarmed the people before committing mass genocide. Seriously? Sets the bar for a new level of paranoia. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Yeah, I don't think there is much to say besides Mr Kuhner is an idiot.....This was a great article in Business Insider.... http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12 GO USA!! What a joke. I know that many on here feel strongly about this, but many of us also feel strongly about gun control. So, we aren't going to change each others minds....for me? I just donated a nice chunk of money to the Brady Campaign PAC.....there's nothing really left to say. Name calling gets the discussion going and solves the problem as opposed to the realization that this is a multifaceted problem requiring a broad based approach of those with differing positions. Sent from the state with one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation an "assault weapon ban" where a weapon that DID NOT meet the criteria to be labeled an "assault weapon" was used by an extremely disturbed man to kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Seriously? Sets the bar for a new level of paranoia. That is all. Denying history doesn't change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Name calling gets the discussion going and solves the problem as opposed to the realization that this is a multifaceted problem requiring a broad based approach of those with differing positions. Sent from the state with one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation an "assault weapon ban" where a weapon that DID NOT meet the criteria to be labeled an "assault weapon" was used by an extremely disturbed man to kill people. My point was Clark, that you and I have very different opinions on this. We aren't likely to change each others minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 My point was Clark, that you and I have very different opinions on this. We aren't likely to change each others minds. No we don't just a different approach..........firearms of any type should not be accessible to children, criminals or mentally ill people. I don't own any "assault weapons" but my vintage M-1 is a military weapon that is ideal for hunting deer, target shooting and is a more powerful weapon than any so called assault weapon. If we chose to refuse to acknowledge that solutions to this problem include addressing political, social and mental health issues "we" will fail to address the problem in an effective manner. My own state failed to pass a law that would have helped the mother of this sick man and may have stopped this slaughter over issues of "intrusiveness", yet law abiding gun owners are being accused of supporting mass murder and irresponsible gun behavior. Sadly I've not heard about why the mother of this man didn't have restricted access to her weapons when she reportedly feared violence by him? Law abiding responsible behavior by millions is disregarded and the aberrant behavior of a very small group is portrayed as the norm.You and I both know of dangerous irresponsible PAs , but we do not accept that their actions are reflective of PAs as a whole.Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will352ns Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Denying history doesn't change it. Not denying history...it just bears no relevance to the current situation/theme/climate. Sensationalism at it's finest. You really think an "armed" populace is holding the big bad government at bay? Silly talk. BTW, I'm not in the "ban guns" club, but I do believe the current laws should be tightened up a bit. I have no problem waiting for a background check before I purchase a gun. At the same time, I'm law abiding...the not so law abiding will get guns one way or the other. Hard problem to fix. Now...that is all. These types of debates tend to just go round and round as most people have polar opinions on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brookspa Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 No we don't just a different approach..........firearms of any type should not be accessible to children, criminals or mentally ill people. I don't own any "assault weapons" but my vintage M-1 is a military weapon that is ideal for hunting deer, target shooting and is a more powerful weapon than any so called assault weapon. If we chose to refuse to acknowledge that solutions to this problem include addressing political, social and mental health issues "we" will fail to address the problem in an effective manner. My own state failed to pass a law that would have helped the mother of this sick man and may have stopped this slaughter over issues of "intrusiveness", yet law abiding gun owners are being accused of supporting mass murder and irresponsible gun behavior. Sadly I've not heard about why the mother of this man didn't have restricted access to her weapons when she reportedly feared violence by him? Law abiding responsible behavior is by millions is disregarded and the aberrant behavior of a very small group is portrayed as the norm.You and I both know of dangerous irresponsible PAs , but we do not accept that their actions are reflective of PAs as a whole.Merry Christmas. Clark as long as you are in on this I know that some of these good people will at least hear a reasoned, logical, non idealogical point of view. they can reply, rebuff and retrench. But they cannot defeat reason. You are right however. So many are ill informed, entrenched and vested in their mistaken views that they will not, nay cannot accept facts. Facts are funny things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Not denying history...it just bears no relevance to the current situation/theme/climate. Sensationalism at it's finest. You really think an "armed" populace is holding the big bad government at bay? Silly talk. BTW, I'm not in the "ban guns" club, but I do believe the current laws should be tightened up a bit. I have no problem waiting for a background check before I purchase a gun. At the same time, I'm law abiding...the not so law abiding will get guns one way or the other. Hard problem to fix. Now...that is all. These types of debates tend to just go round and round as most people have polar opinions on the matter. You are not out of sync with my position on background checks and responsible gun control laws and security of weapons in the home. I'm sure the Brits thought those "Colonials" were a joke with their hunting rifles and sang Yankee Doodle Dandy until Yorktown..........the Libyan Syrian people can tell you about an armed populance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Gun ownership is NOT a medical risk. Nor should is be a "vital sign". Increased risk of firearm related death for presence of guns in the home http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMPA Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Increased risk of firearm related death for presence of guns in the homehttp://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502 Your point? Increased incidence of death when idiots are in a home, medications in a home, matches in a home, knives in a home, mentally disturbed peoples in a homes, chemicals in a home, ect.... Also increased incidence of death when weaponless homeowner is robbed. Your point?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted December 22, 2012 Administrator Share Posted December 22, 2012 Your point? Increased incidence of death when idiots are in a home, medications in a home, matches in a home, knives in a home, mentally disturbed peoples in a homes, chemicals in a home, ect....Also increased incidence of death when weaponless homeowner is robbed. Your point?..... If you look at the abstract, you'll see the fundamental problem: absence of evidence (well, absence of evidence the authors accept, at any rate) is treated as evidence of absence. No one really doubts the cost of firearms, but the cost-benefit analysis requires both halves of the equation to be accurate, and the second article linked makes the bias against doing that clear in the abstract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Your point? Increased incidence of death when idiots are in a home, medications in a home, matches in a home, knives in a home, mentally disturbed peoples in a homes, chemicals in a home, ect....Also increased incidence of death when weaponless homeowner is robbed. Your point?..... The point, directed at davis, was that firearms are a medical risk. You can make your own interpretations to why (poor judgment of firearm users, safety measures, etc) but their presence increases the likelihood of injury/death. No more, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted December 22, 2012 Administrator Share Posted December 22, 2012 their presence increases the likelihood of injury/death. Yep, same with power tools, automobiles, kitchen appliances, and many other common items that have both proper and improper uses. Guns are made to hurl small pieces of metal in a defined direction at lethal rates of speed. That makes them useful for suicide and homicide (justifiable or not), just like it makes them useful for hunting, and target shooting. The only problem with the gun vs. other power tool research is the problem of guns reducing undesired morbidity and mortality, by keeping citizens safe from crime which would otherwise have victimized them in the absence of firearms held by e.g. armed citizens. No one argues that the presence of power tools reduces M&M, so it can be treated as a pure risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted December 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2012 No one argues that the presence of power tools reduces M&M, so it can be treated as a pure risk. after 26 years working in emergency medicine my tool kit is mostly hand tools...people give me things with big spinny blades for xmas and I give them away...I like my fingers....the only power tools in my house are a drill and a random orbital sander...maybe folks look in the window of my garage, see an axe or sledge and that's a deterrent to crime.....:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Interestingly enough... EVERY YEAR... Any individual American is MORE likely to die from a "Iatrogenic" insult than they are from a "mis-handled" firearm... The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths is 783,936. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate is 553,251. (5) It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. See Here This is even more than Automobile Deaths... Soooo... where is the cry for "Hospital control" or to BAN hospitals or automobiles...????? :heheh: Contrarian P.s.... I'm really NOT taking this discussion seriously because its evident that rationality has LOOOOOOOOOOOng since left the building. We've got folks calling for a "assault weapon" ban when the killer didn't even use a weapon classified by the government as a "assault weapon." We've got folks talking about "waiting periods" for thorough background checks as if they are new and don't already exist in EVERY STATE. We've got folks talking about "clips" who obviously knows NOT WTF they are speaking of. So no... I'm really NOT taking this discussion seriously because its evident that rationality has LOOOOOOOOOOOng since left the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Interestingly enough...EVERY YEAR... Any individual American is MORE likely to die from a "Iatrogenic" insult than they are from a "mis-handled" firearm... This is even more than Automobile Deaths... Soooo... where is the cry for "Hospital control" or to BAN hospitals or automobiles...????? :heheh: Contrarian P.s.... I'm really NOT taking this discussion seriously because its evident that rationality has LOOOOOOOOOOOng since left the building. We've got folks calling for a "assault weapon" ban when the killer didn't even use a weapon classified by the government as a "assault weapon." We've got folks talking about "waiting periods" for thorough background checks as if they are new and don't already exist in EVERY STATE. We've got folks talking about "clips" who obviously knows NOT WTF they are speaking of. So no... I'm really NOT taking this discussion seriously because its evident that rationality has LOOOOOOOOOOOng since left the building. Stop with the reality and facts, "C" that information and attitude doesn't fit the narative or agenda and "we" just can't have that when dealing with this "crisis"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Tragic... and happens all too often. Maybe we should "ban" fists and feet cause they are the oldest "assault weapons" known to man. Wayne S. Fenton, MD, 53, a Psychiatrist and a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) administrator who as an expert on schizophrenia devoted himself to making life better for those with severe mental illnesses, was found dead Sept. 3 in his office in north Bethesda. Montgomery County police have charged a 19-year-old patient he had seen that day. Vitali Davydov saw Fenton on Saturday and had an appointment scheduled for the following week, according to a charging document prepared by Montgomery County Detective Patrick J. McNerney. The document says that after the reading of his rights, Davydov "elected to make a statement of admission to the crime." "Davydov told his father . . . that he needed to speak with Dr. Fenton [sunday] about his continuing to take medications for his schizophrenia/bi-polar disorder," McNerney wrote. "According to the suspect's father, discussions with the suspect about his need to take his medications caused an angry reaction from the suspect." Fenton agreed to see Davydov at 4 p.m. at his office on Old Georgetown Road in Bethesda. Davydov's father, Joseph, spoke with Fenton when the father and son arrived at the psychiatrist's office. Fenton told the father "that he was going to encourage Davydov that it was important to take his medication," McNerney wrote. "Additionally, he said that if given the chance he would suggest that Davydov accept an injection of the medication rather than take it orally." It was not clear what medication Davydov was being prescribed or whether he stopped taking it. "During this meeting, Davydov became agitated and beat Dr. Fenton with his fists," McNerney wrote. "When he left the office Dr. Fenton was on the ground bleeding from the face." When Joseph Davydov returned to the doctor's office to pick up his son, he found him outside the building. The father called 911 after noticing blood on his son's hands, pants and shirt, police said. Paramedics found Fenton lying unresponsive inside a rear office in the private practice medical building. He was declared dead at the scene. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400430.html The assailant in this case did have "Access to Mental Health Care"... what he needed to prevent this tragedy was access to a couple ozs of jacketed lead moving in his direction at 850+ fps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Seriously? Sets the bar for a new level of paranoia. That is all. I agree that the likelyhood of US Patiots needing to use their firearms to protect the democratic republic against foriegn or domestic enemies is nil.... A much more likley and credible threat will be natural disasters that initiate a chain of events that pierce the VERY thin veil of humanity and the facade of neighborly behavior we currently see. I'm referring to Huge Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Massive Flooding due to Super Storms, Astroid strikes, etc... leading to famine, drought, then civil unrest, chaos, mass confusion and potential anarchy. Look what happened when Katrina occured. Now should this happen... it is GUARANTEED that the WOLVES (predators) WILL take FULL advantage of the chaos and LACK of governmental support (read as Law enforcement) and prey on those unwilling and unable (because they disarmed themselves) to protect themselves. The food, water, supplies, wives and daughters of you male passivists out there will belong to those predators who don't share your sense of right/wrong/fairness... humanism or justice. Good Luck with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted December 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2012 http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765356864 NOT TOO FAR FETCHED.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 ^^^ Yes... I reommended that text several yrs ago on this very site... the last time this topic was discussed... ^^^ Those who practice Disaster Medicine or who have praciced in Austere environments KNOW how tenous, volitile and lawless human interaction can be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted December 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2012 I remember. that's when I bought it. good read. much more reasonable scenario than that in "life after doomsday" by bruce clayton...something I read growing up in the late 70's. http://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-hardback-survivalist-nuclear-disasters/dp/B000EI4M5W/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1356209640&sr=8-5&keywords=life+after+doomsday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 There's more to the story everyday! Newtown's firearms tradition clashes with gun-control push NEWTOWN, Conn. — When the wind blows a certain way across the tree-topped hills, Gary Bennett can stand in his yard and hear echoes of gunfire from his hunting club five miles away. The sound comforts him. "It's a huge tradition here," said Bennett, a retired electrician and former president of the club, which helped defeat a proposal to tighten Newtown's gun ordinances in September. "I'd rather see more gun clubs come to town, training people with the use of firearms so that everyone's doing it safely." Anguished families are still burying the 20 children and six women who were shot to death by a lone gunman last Friday just after the morning Pledge of Allegiance at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But a surprising local undercurrent has emerged: Many gun owners here say the slaughter has sharpened their view that guns alone aren't the problem. PHOTOS: Mourning after the massacre "I wish that at that school somebody was armed," said Kuthair Habboush, a software engineer who keeps a weapon at home for protection. "If a security guard or a teacher or a principal had been armed, somebody could have taken the [killer] out" before his lethal rampage. Firearms are deep in the culture of this corner of New England. Two of America's most storied weapons manufacturers, Colt and Winchester, were based in Connecticut. Some historians say the West was won in Hartford — the state capital and birthplace of the Colt revolvers favored by lawmen and outlaws alike beginning in the 1830s. Today, dozens of gun dealers, gun instructors, gun repair shops and shooting ranges do a brisk business in Newtown and nearby cities and towns. Private hunting clubs are widespread, many with waiting lists for membership. FULL COVERAGE: Connecticut school shooting The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a powerful lobbying group for gun retailers, has its headquarters across the highway from Sandy Hook Elementary School. "You'd be surprised," said Sean Eldridge, owner of Parker Gunsmithing, a gun repair shop in nearby Danbury, referring to his customers. "They're regular people and they have an arsenal in their basement." That was the case with Nancy Lanza, a wealthy divorced mother who enjoyed jazz, craft beer and frequent visits to shooting ranges. She kept at least five weapons, all legally registered to her, in the large Colonial-style house she shared with her 20-year-old son, Adam. Early last Friday, authorities say, Adam Lanza shot his mother repeatedly in the head with her .22-caliber rifle as she lay in bed. He then drove to the elementary school, shot his way in and fired dozens of rounds into two first-grade classes using her Bushmaster assault-style rifle. Some of the children were shot 11 times. He then shot and killed himself with one of her pistols. Far from the wealthy coastal communities that serve as bedroom suburbs and weekend resorts for New York City, 70 miles south, Newtown was a farming and hunting area for generations. Dave Chapdelaine, a resident for more than 40 years, recalled walking down the middle of his rural road with a shotgun in the 1970s, taking aim through the trees at rabbits, squirrels and pheasants. Every year he and three friends held a game cookout, and sold rabbit fur to a company in New York. Now houses are nestled in those woods, and Chapdelaine, a school bus driver, heads north to Vermont to hunt. He's among many in Newtown who question the wisdom of stiffer gun control laws, which President Obama called for Wednesday at the White House. "To me, a firearm — 99% of the time, when it's unloaded — it's a beautiful work of art," Chapdelaine said. "It's not meant to kill people. It's meant to protect people and help you provide for your family. But you have to keep them out of the hands of the loonies." Over the last decade or so, the town's rustic character changed with the arrival of upscale families who commute to New York or other cities, and who see guns as a nuisance, if not a threat. "There are people that have had their families here for several generations, love this town for what it is and what it was, and they want to preserve that bucolic rural setting," said Andy Sachs, a real estate agent and member of a town commission that supervises police. "And there's a new guard who's moved in the past 15 years that want to see more growth opportunities, more commercial opportunities, more vibrant suburban living. That's a struggle." One sign of the divide was a sharp debate this fall over the commission's proposals to curtail hours for target shooting, and to require police approval for shooting on private property, after a growing number of noise complaints. Dozens of members of the Fairfield County Fish & Game Protective Assn., a 300-acre private hunting club on Newtown's southern outskirts, showed up at a town meeting in September to defend gun rights. Bowing to the outcry, the police commission shelved the proposal. "It's an issue anywhere you have people moving in from big cities into a rural area and they have hard time dealing with what goes on here and want to make all these changes," said Bennett, the former hunting club president. "We have to educate these people about what we do and why we do it," he added. "They should have no fears that our activities are going to impact them any way. You can change this gun law and that gun law, and it's not going to change things like [the school shooting] from happening." Still, in a nod to the town's tragedy, the club has halted all hunting and shooting on its property for two weeks "so there wouldn't be the sound of gunfire while a funeral was going on," Bennett said. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the lobbying group near the school, hasn't commented publicly but posted a brief statement on its website saying that it was "deeply shaken and saddened" by the killings. shashank.bengali@latimes.com Times staff writer Tina Susman contributed to this report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I was waiting for the race angle/argument to creep into this! White male privilege responsible for shooting, professor argues Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/22/white-male-privilege-responsible-for-shooting-professor-argues/#ixzz2FokKeN52 A history professor at Pasadena City College blamed mass shootings, such as the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook, on “frustrated white male privilege.” Hugo Schwyzer, a professor of history and gender studies, told National Review Online that mass murders in the U.S. are increasingly committed by white males suffering from “cognitive dissonance,” in a country that is trending toward multiculturalism. White males feel “powerless compared to everyone else around them,” he said. Schwyzer expanded on this theory in an article he wrote in response to the Aurora, Colorado shooting last July. “White men are raised to expect to be welcomed wherever they go,” he wrote. “When they find that that automatic welcome isn’t forthcoming, they tend to be indignant. When angry middle-class whites gather together in political groups to “take back our country,” what they want to grab back are the privileges they sense they’ve lost.” The dangers of white male privilege are compounded by permissive gun laws, according to Schwyzer. “Lax gun laws provided the means for the Colorado theater massacre,” he wrote. “A yet-unexplained psychotic break provided the likely motive. And at least in part, white male privilege determined both the location and the scale.” He did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/22/white-male-privilege-responsible-for-shooting-professor-argues/#ixzz2FojxjrCd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I remember. that's when I bought it. good read.much more reasonable scenario than that in "life after doomsday" by bruce clayton...something I read growing up in the late 70's. http://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-hardback-survivalist-nuclear-disasters/dp/B000EI4M5W/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1356209640&sr=8-5&keywords=life+after+doomsday And yet, gun control laws work.....Let's look at Australia......Seems, like with most things, they are doing things better than the US...... http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history. Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well. At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent. What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Ummm.... 1.) WE are NOT Australia or Australians (castoff convicts subject to Kings Rule)... 2.) YOU know as well as I do that comparing the Diverse and LARGE population of the USA to a basically Homogenious and small population like Australia is disenguinous. MOST of the land mass in Australia is unpopulated. The aboriginals are 4th class citizens and come into rare contact with the White Folks and/or firearms. The population of westernized White folks and expats is relatively small so OF COURSE A GUN BAN WOULD YIELD the results the researchers/report writers were looking/hoping for. 3.) We are NOT the subjects of Monarchies... like Australia or Canada.... so the foundational background, history, society/socialization doesn't work. Your post is MOOT....!!!!!! FAIL...!!!! Try again but leave out your vast knowledge of "Gun Clips"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.