Guns, People & The Law

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   




The gun industry ... has vastly increased the marketing of military-style sniper or “tactical” rifles to civilians markets in recent years, as the rest of the gun market became saturated.



Source:
Gun Control

Gun control

May 25th 2006
From Economist.com

America’s love affair with guns claims roots in the Second Amendment, which gives citizens “the right to keep and bear arms”. Support for gun ownership is spearheaded by the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of America's most powerful lobbying groups and a backer of George Bush during his presidential campaign. The Bush administration returned the favor in May 2002 by endorsing the right of individuals to bear arms (though this need not imply lack of controls). The NRA, meanwhile, is taking aim at global bureaucrats.

An epidemic of shootings at schools has prompted renewed outcries from gun-control advocates. Of the 50 states, only two refuse to let law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms, though there is some debate about handguns in the workplace. But politicians have trouble agreeing on even modest restrictions. The NRA has used studies to argue that increasing gun ownership diminishes violent crime. On balance, however, the evidence suggests the opposite: more guns mean more deaths, including among children.





Lexington
The new gun law

May 16th 2002
From The Economist print edition

EARLIER this month, the solicitor-general, Ted Olson, filed briefs to the Supreme Court in two obscure gun cases. Footnotes in the briefs say the Justice Department now thinks the constitution broadly protects the rights of individuals...to possess and bear their own firearms. This mild-sounding opinion in fact represented an explosive change in policy.…



The true meaning of Gun and Control has never been more applicable or arguable than this day in age. The continued problems with drugs only worsen, and gun use is becoming more and more pertinent in everyday of teenagers and adults who live and operate around drugs or other illegal activities. Not only this, the gun problem causes killings and destruction of communities due to gangs only rises with there power over them with high powered weapons. Law enforcement faces a growing and more dangerous life everyday, with people holding the same physical power and more with guns, it gives way that the government soon will not be able to control the people.



Source:
Criminals and Guns

Killers, gang bangers and drug dealers go for their guns

By T.J. MILLING
Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle

Amphetamine dealer Dione Christine Allen leans out the passenger window of a stolen Chevrolet El Camino and blasts away at pursuing police officers with a .45-caliber pistol.

Gang leader Anthony Shawn Medina drives through a south Houston neighborhood and guns down a 9-year-old boy and his 15-year-old sister with a Chinese-made assault rifle.

Anthony Shawn Medina, above, shot and killed David Rodriguez, 9, and his sister Diane, 15.
Crack dealer Charles Harold "Dinkie" Hughes bursts into a suburban home and blows off half a woman's face with a 12-gauge shotgun.

If gun control laws aim to keep firearms from anyone, it is people like these.


The truth that needs to be addressed is the use of guns and public law banning this. Gun usage is an enterprise and it affects many different areas of life. Self defense is an unalienable right for humans in any country, and destruction of this amendment would just lead to more violence. If a person were to lose the ability to not own a gun, criminals would still have one, and still use it, just for something being a law never keeps it off the streets.



Source:
Gun politics in the United States

…asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws and are effectively deterred only by armed intended victims just as higher penalties deter crime…


“Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.”
This you have heard a lot, and it is almost perfectly addressed, the problem is that, if people kill people with guns, than why should be a gun law banning the possession of a gun?

The truth is that a law banning gun possession would knock out every chance of a person to have a gun to kill someone. But again nothing will ever keep the criminal of being undermined or bound in a free environment.










More Information:
NRA
New Gun Laws
Gun politics in the United States




[edit on 29-11-2006 by ragster]




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ragster
The true meaning of Gun and Control has never been more applicable or arguable than this day in age. The continued problems with drugs only worsen, and gun use is becoming more and more pertinent in everyday of teenagers and adults who live and operate around drugs or other illegal activities. Not only this, the gun problem causes killings and destruction of communities due to gangs only rises with there power over them with high powered weapons. Law enforcement faces a growing and more dangerous life everyday, with people holding the same physical power and more with guns, it gives way that the government soon will not be able to control the people.


The 2nd Amendment was included into the Constitution to allow us, the State's populous, to be given a way to prevent the government from getting too large and powerful. Our founding fathers never intended the Federal Government to have the amount of power that they have today.

Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves to see how the Federal Government has become exactly what they did not want it to become.


Nice Thread


[edit on 11/29/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Here we go again...


Violent crimes that involve firearms (for the most part) do not involve guns that were legally obtained/purchased. Nearly all gun crimes (murder, robbery, etc..) are committed with illegal weapons that pretty much stay in the "illegal sector", black market, whatever. That tells me three things:

1) We need to destroy all firearms used in vioent crimes. Keep the $30 specials and nickel plated gang bangers out of circulation.

2) Don't punish the law abiding citizens that make up the VAST majority of gun owners. Punish those who commit crimes, start setting the example now.

3) Crack down on crime....stiffer punishments and successful rehab programs will go a long ways to reduce crime.


Also, there should be mandated classes for all first time buyers and maybe refesher courses every 1-3 years. This will reduce the number of negligent (no such thing as an accidental discharge) discharges.

The problem is not with guns, the problem is with people and a lack of firearm education. I know this phrase is overly used, but.....guns don't kill people, people kill people




If a person were to lose the ability to not own a gun, criminals would still have one, and still use it, just for something being a law never keeps it off the streets.

Well said and great topic, unlike most gun threads, you put little effort and research in yours. You get a WATS from me



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
doesn't the right to bear arms mean that i have the right to participate in military service?

that's the problem with the ol' second ammendment, it's so vague

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

it's all dependant on the perspective of the reader

and also, NOBODY should use the argument "the founding fathers... (insert point supporting an argument here)" unless they have documentation from 1 or more of the founding fathers to support their claim



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
doesn't the right to bear arms mean that i have the right to participate in military service?


A militia is different than the military. In short, a militia is a citizen army while a military is the government's. To answer your question, no, you don't have to be in the military to bear arms.



that's the problem with the ol' second ammendment, it's so vague

It's not vague...pretty straight forward to me.



U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and also, NOBODY should use the argument "the founding fathers... (insert point supporting an argument here)" unless they have documentation from 1 or more of the founding fathers to support their claim


United States Constitution





Is that enough documentation for you?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Well, here's the thing about guns.

They're common technology now. You might as well try to outlaw knives. I realize this is a rather overused cliche, but it is unfortunately quite true: if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.

There are presently more guns in America than people. Even if there weren't, Mexico is just a hop, skip, and a jump away. Bullets can EASILY be made with a couple-hundred dollar munitions kit, some lead, brass, and primer. While I would never declare anything to be absolutley impossible, the attempt to completely outlaw guns in the United States, collect ALL firearms and the ability to make munitions, AND prevent further firearms from being created or imported, would not only require more resources than any government on Earth has, but would spark another nationwide civil war the likes of which would make the previous one seem like a brushfire.

Soooo...

It's not that I think guns are wonderful, or that it's man's god-given right to own a gun, I just think that, pragmatically, it's one of those things we're just going to have to learn to live with...or die with...regardless, they aren't going anywhere.

Now, as far as gun -control- is concerned... I'm for a certain level of restriction on guns, it just makes practical sense. Obviously a psychopath or ex-con shouldn't be able to just walk into a Quick-E-Mart and buy a fully automatic assault rifle...but they probably could find one with a little ingenuity, as could just about anyone else.

I think the biggest problem about gun control is that people don't realize it's nothing more than a deterrant.

If you buy the fanciest key-controlled lock and security system for your house, I can easily break into it with nothing more than a brick, take what I want, and probably be off before the cops even showed up. If I was smart enough to wear a mask, I probably wouldn't get caught. But I would have to be determined and the act would have to be premeditated. It would be a lot more difficult than, say, just walking up to an unlocked door, quietly letting myself in, and helping myself to your cash, jewelry, and maybe a helping of potato salad while I watch some pay-per-view movies and a few long distance phone calls before I leave.

As a rule, deterrants make it just inconvenient enough for an would-be criminal to change their mind, choose someplace else, or have less options to work with, while still providing legitimate users easy access to their goal.

Ideally, that's the purpose of any good control legislation, but the human factor being what it is, pork being what it is, and political agendas being what they are, I doubt we'll ever see any truly "good" gun control legislation that pleases everyone.

The long and short of it is, guns are here to stay, we can't get rid of them, we can't control them, and until politicians work for the people rather than themselves, all we can do is hope to not get shot with them.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   
What the hell is with all these anti-gun threads?

Ragster, one question....

What country are you from?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
The problem is not gun control laws it is that the laws we have get plead down to a lesser crime and never do time. Most of the bad people with guns should have been in jail long ago.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
doesn't the right to bear arms mean that i have the right to participate in military service?

...


and also, NOBODY should use the argument "the founding fathers... (insert point supporting an argument here)" unless they have documentation from 1 or more of the founding fathers to support their claim



The supreme court, in the Miller case, has interpreted the 2nd to apply to the INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE CITIZEN'S right to own weapons of military usefulness.

The founding fathers view on the 2nd is quite clear, and is recorded in thousands of words they spoke on the matter. In fact, each of their reasons for refusing to agree to a constitution that did not protect the individual ownership of military weapons can be found in the constitutional ratification debates. And, it is a matter of historical record that some states refused to join the union without the second. The right to own military grade weapons is one of the reasons it took so long for the constitution to be fully ratified.

Stop spreading ignorance. Educate yourself.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What the hell is with all these anti-gun threads?

Ragster, one question....

What country are you from?


Maybe my take on the thread is completely wrong, but I took this as a "anti-gun control" thread.

Read it again, in it's entirety.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ragster
[The truth is that a law banning gun possession would knock out every chance of a person to have a gun to kill someone. But again nothing will ever keep the criminal of being undermined or bound in a free environment.




This is about the most laughable statement I have ever heard! Did you know that automatic weapons are already illegal? Hmmmm, yet criminal have them. Did you know that certain types of munitions are illegal, like armor piercing bullets known as "Cop killers" yet criminals have them? Did you know that there was an Assault Weapons ban for nearly a decade yet the number of assault style weapons on the street INCREASED during this ban? Judging by your post, you had no idea!

Get this through your head... Disarming the public and enacting "Gun control" accomplishes only 1 thing, it leaves the law-abiding citizen vulnerable to attack by criminals. Here are some statistics regarding concealed carry and it's effect on violent crimes. More information on concealed carry and it's effects on violent crime.

Looks like you need a primer on the facts before you go posting this type of nonsense. Criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed to prevent it. To wit, drugs are illegal. Heroin, crack, coc aine, meth, pot, x, etc... all illegal yet all very easy to find and obtain. Guns will be no different when removed from law-abiding citizens - those who desire them will always be able to find them.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by ragster
[The truth is that a law banning gun possession would knock out every chance of a person to have a gun to kill someone. But again nothing will ever keep the criminal of being undermined or bound in a free environment.




This is about the most laughable statement I have ever heard! Did you know that automatic weapons are already illegal? Hmmmm, yet criminal have them. Did you know that certain types of munitions are illegal, like armor piercing bullets known as "Cop killers" yet criminals have them? Did you know that there was an Assault Weapons ban for nearly a decade yet the number of assault style weapons on the street INCREASED during this ban? Judging by your post, you had no idea!

Get this through your head... Disarming the public and enacting "Gun control" accomplishes only 1 thing, it leaves the law-abiding citizen vulnerable to attack by criminals. Here are some statistics regarding concealed carry and it's effect on violent crimes. More information on concealed carry and it's effects on violent crime.

Looks like you need a primer on the facts before you go posting this type of nonsense. Criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed to prevent it. To wit, drugs are illegal. Heroin, crack, coc aine, meth, pot, x, etc... all illegal yet all very easy to find and obtain. Guns will be no different when removed from law-abiding citizens - those who desire them will always be able to find them.


Is this what you are talking about?

Originally posted by ragster
[The truth is that a law banning gun possession would knock out every chance of a person to have a gun to kill someone. But again nothing will ever keep the criminal of being undermined or bound in a free environment.


I am sorry man, I have been wanting to change ever since that was pointed out earlier, it can be really mis understood in many ways, but... you might have seen this thread a little wrong...

Ill try and explain it better, I sometimes talk outside the box, when I said this "...a law banning gun possession would knock out every chance of a person to have a gun to kill someone..." this is basically saying what it says, that if there was ever a gun law, no one would be allowed to have a gun at all, but I continued to say and "...But again nothing will ever keep the criminal of being undermined or bound..." and this practically states what it says, that a criminal will not be bound, there will never be a law that will abide to his life, thats why he is a criminal is the first place. I stated my beliefs earlier in the thread, and this was a sarcastic remark that I was hoping would be easily understandable.

So with this...


Originally posted by kozmo
Get this through your head... Disarming the public and enacting "Gun control" accomplishes only 1 thing, it leaves the law-abiding citizen vulnerable to attack by criminals. Here are some statistics regarding concealed carry and it's effect on violent crimes. More information on concealed carry and it's effects on violent crime.


Basically buddy for the record, I do not support at all Gun Laws or Control of gun Laws I truly believe also that Criminals "do not obey the law" they are criminals. Any gun law is stupid cause it will allow the criminals a right to kill with any weapon, just like they are now, no law will stop that, and then somehow this will leave the innocent people defenseless against that type of fire power. As I stated that in the thread earlier.


Originally posted by ragster
Self defense is an unalienable right for humans in any country, and destruction of this amendment would just lead to more violence. If a person were to lose the ability to not own a gun, criminals would still have one, and still use it, just for something being a law never keeps it off the streets.


Thanks for pointing that out though, I think it has already been in my head
.


[edit on 1-12-2006 by ragster]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
My bad. I completely misunderstood the context of your post. I guess you and I are in agreement on the matter. I take my leave...



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I've seen both Ragz and Koz decry gun control laws as completely useless because to the determined criminal, a law is no barrier. Would either of you care to comment on the deterrent factor though? I'm not looking for any particular kind of answer, but rather what other opinions regarding it there are, because this is one of those subjects I've really sort of sat the fence on for some time.

Would you say that gun control laws are a deterrent to a -potential- criminal?

This was a very hotly debated subject when I was in high school, and I've always tended to side with the one redeeming trait of some level of gun control laws meant to deter the would-be criminal. Now I know all of us here want to fancy ourselves world-weary enough to assume we could get anything we wanted at a moment's notice, we just gotta talk to "This Guy" we know.

And say, one night, you find out something about Person X that makes you so angry that you one night just decide "Well, hell, I think I'll just kill the SOB!" and...then what?

Well, the first deterrent is getting killed back, so you want the most advantage you can get to make sure you can kill them before they kill you. Unless you're a real big fan of Chuck Norris, that would be a gun.

The second deterrent is jail. Because of firearms registration, legally purchased guns are currently registered. So obviously you're not going to use YOUR "legal" gun! And unless you're already an accomplished criminal, you don't own a gun that can't be traced to either you, or someone you know. Remember, we're talking about potential so we can rule this kind of person out. You need an illegal gun. How do you get one?

Well, let's see, you know a few seedy pawn shops. But do you know the right seedy pawn shops? Really? I mean, have you ever bought anything illegal there yourself? Of course not. You're not a criminal. Maybe it's just rumor that the guy there won't do a background check, and maybe he actually calls the cops afterward, because they learned two cashiers ago what happens when you say no to a psychopath, which is exactly what the first-time buyer trying to request an untraceable firearm is going to sound like.

And so instead you begin to think maybe your friend, or that cousin you had that did jail time knows, and it turns out didn't learn crap in jail, cause it was the drunk tank, or they're out of town, or, surprise, in jail.

And about then the whole anger-spout has worn off, and you realize that this is no longer a heat of the moment thing, but a rather nasty premeditated murder. That is not something most people can go through with. Sure, any one of us here, technically, could justify a killing to ourselves in the heat of the moment. Sure, we'd still go to jail forever, but we might fool ourselves into thinking it was worth it. It would have just been a huge stupid mistake or decision.

Premeditated murder though? Not so much. Especially not with someone who wasn't already a criminal. That's a really hard thing to justify in your mind, and even if you hate the person so much that you are convinced utterly that your world would be better off without their presence...there's still the fear of a life sentence (or death, depending on the state and your plea bargain). Sure hate them, you want them dead, but are you prepared to ruin your life for it?

So the final deterrent is time. You've provided just enough of an obstacle to keep an otherwise murderous (but non-criminal) person enough time to decide if this is really what they want to do for the rest of their life as a free man. Free of prison, or free of guilt, either works.

I still have enough faith in the non-criminal citizen to either be good enough, cowardly enough, or lazy enough to be at least slightly deterred into crimes of passion by gun control laws. If nothing else, a registration process.

I mean hell, let's face it, the criminals aren't going to bother with it, but legit customers might just need a papertrail on it for any number of reasons, and it does help solve some crimes (those committed by the stupid, inept, or very unlucky). Eh?

Again though, I'm open to discussion on this. I didn't bother with sources because it's all allegory that can hopefully be considered as plausible. If not, I'll try and find some facts and figures, but I would hope anyone could see the possibility of such a scenario, and the major stopping points of a potential criminal path, before it reaches the point of no return.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Gun Laws, Deterrents and Truth


thelibra
Would you say that gun control laws are a deterrent to a -potential- criminal?


Well Libra you have truly gave a substantial amount of information that by no doubt is correct. I know that will not be able to address every point you had, but I will try and do the best I can.

In the world today we all know criminals have a desire to break the law, after you have broken one why not another, its and addictive drug.

I will extend on your beliefs and information better make sense of what actually is a deterrent and how do laws affect the civilian innocents and criminals.



Source: Dictianary
de•ter•rent


noun (plural de•ter•rents)
Definition:

1. something that deters: something that deters somebody or something





Source:Gun Laws Truth & Facts
Research Background

There are almost 20,000 laws and regulations in this country which attempt to contain the use of firearms. Nevertheless, the number of deaths associated with gun related activity reached almost 40,000 in 1992, almost surpassing the number of fatalities associated with automobile accidents (Ruffenach, 1994). The ever increasing numbers of firearm deaths have led to emotional pleas for stiffer gun control laws and regulations. Gun related fatalities have also led to reevaluations of the relationship of firearm deaths and medical implications by the members of the medical community. The concern of the medical community has helped to move the debate from a strict focus on the Second Amendment issue to health implications (Kellermann et.al., 1993).

In spite of charged emotional debates and passage of numerous laws and regulations, no empirical studies have been done to evaluate the effectiveness of gun control laws in this country. The debate on the Brady Bill could have been better informed by scientific research. Nevertheless, an investigation of the relationship between the number of deaths associated with firearms and gun control laws can be valuable as our society further attempts to fine-tune laws and social programs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of laws and regulations prior to the passage of the Brady Bill in 1992. A multivariate statistical technique is proposed to establish the relationship between the number of gun related deaths by states and sets of determinants including state laws and regulations on firearm use.


In spite of numerous laws and regulations on gun control, the results are relatively unimpressive (Wright, 1988). Kellermann et. al (1993) argues that the presence of a firearm in the home increases the likelihood of a gun fatality. They maintain that people who become gun fatalities also experienced alcohol, drug abuse and domestic violence at much greater rates than the national average. Their conclusion, that gun ownership increases the odds of being killed, may be debatable given these complicating factors.

Kleck and McElrath, for example, report that when firearms are present (they) "appear to inhibit attack and, in the case of an attack, to reduce the probability of injury (to victims), whereas, once an injury occurs, they appear to increase the probability of death." (1991:669). Their study, which uses a hierarchy of violence, concludes that the presence of a firearm has a deterrent effect and the availability of firearms does not increase one's likelihood of being killed.


This information here sustains the view upon which gun laws are another topping to the cake, no matter what gun laws there are, they have no affect on fewer crimes or more. The presence of a gun in a persons possession always is dangerous thing, but also it is a good thing that can offer the possibility of defense in the site of criminal with a firearm.The deterrent factors do pose as a possibility for those people who wish to become a criminal by use of a gun. Because of gun laws that force you a person to have a registration and so on. No matter what there will always be a loop hole in any subject or problem.

So as a gun law might make a criminal think twice about what type of weapon he might buy, it will never change the possibility that he will be discouraged because he will face a couple years in prison for a non-registered gun.

A criminal will pose a threat to anyone with any type of weapon of strength that the criminal knows he has over the opponent of person. Guns have just allowed people, governments, groups & criminals to have an edge on the type of power and influence they can cause on a certain group of less powered individuals. The truth is that a gun deterrent for criminals would be that innocent people had better guns than the criminals and so on. When just a regular criminal, young in his deeds, and has no experience except murder and theft, he can easily be over powered and can succumb to a higher power. Not often do many criminals fight an entire "SWAT Team" and expect to win.

The real truth lies within the gangs, and the terror groups who have the money, the weapons and resources to hold an entire city hostage. A deterrent for this type of firepower, power, and influence can be indeed a troublesome problem.
The problem with gun laws is that they can offer a short term advantage to keep people from buying and committing crimes. The final truth being, that a Gun Law could truly be a deterrent to criminals if there was a punishment high enough to scare anyone into not doing something illegal. Like death, if there was a gun law in America, that stated if you have a gun illegally you will be killed, or if you kill someone you die right then.

This would then give a reason for a criminal to second guess his motives, saying he is alone, or with hid friends, they would have to ask themselves is robbing this bank really worth dying over, or is killing this gang member really worth being killed over. Crime is not a religion and crimes do not offer any paradise for dying or killing in its name, crime is selfish, it is an inward desire, of hate, love or pain, it is a selfish ambition that only will permit you or anyone into the presence of trouble.




[edit on 6-12-2006 by ragster]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by ragster]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
just a few questions to everyone here:

1) do you believe that citizens should be allowed to purchase assault rifles?
2) do you believe that citizens should be allowed to purachse armor piercing rounds?
3) do you believe that citizens should be allowed to purchase other military hardware (mortars, RPGs, etc)?



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
OMG!!!
A post regarding the political discussion on the right to keep and bear arms and where are all of the gun haters at. They are over on the " Iam getting an AK" thread. They are over there bashing all gun owners as wannabe murders and homocidal maniacs. But over here where there is rational debate they cant be found. Go figure.

The second amendment is an important part of the constitution. It gives me the means to defend my pursuit of happiness.

Thanks just needed to rant about the "kids" in the other thread. Sorry for the hijack.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by ultralo1]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
just a few questions to everyone here:

1) do you believe that citizens should be allowed to purchase assault rifles?
2) do you believe that citizens should be allowed to purachse armor piercing rounds?
3) do you believe that citizens should be allowed to purchase other military hardware (mortars, RPGs, etc)?


1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes with mandatory training at time of purchase.

Now your turn.
1) Why shouldnt I be allowed to purchase any of the above that you asked about?



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
why shouldn't we be allowed to purchase them?

i don't see any reason why you would need to use them
what use would you have for any of those weapons?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join