DelayedReaction

I don't think the 2nd Amendment is archaic, and I certainly don't think our government has gone away from what the Founders intended. As a whole the Constitution is intact, and like any successful civilization America has changed with the times.

The reason I believe citizens should be allowed to be armed is because I have yet to hear a valid argument for revoking this freedom. Any restriction that is placed upon a people without a valid reason is an unnecessary, and should be abolished. The NFA of 1934 is an example of a restriction with valid support; civilians are not subject to the threat that would require a defense in the form of armor piercing rockets. But I have yet to see a valid reason to ban all guns in general.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

kutulu

Although I believe in the 2nd Amendment there has to be limits placed on it. We have established limits on just about all of the other rights granted by the BOR:

1. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater
3. Child pornography is not allowed
3. Pornography can be deemed "obscene"
4. The FCC can enforce arbitrary "descency standards"

That's just 4 general examples of limits to the 1st Amendment, there are many others. They were not part of the original constitution because they were not considered to be an issue at the time or techology was not developed that would be relevant to the issue. Just about every other Amendment has it's own limitations. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

When establishing a limit to the 2nd Amendment, two key issues need to be addressed. To what extent would this weapon be used for self defense or sporting and how much collateral damage can result from the use of this weapon or its ammunition?

When you consider high power weapons capable of firing ammunition at a high rate you put people who are not involved in your dispute at a higher risk. It only takes one well placed shot to kill an attacker. Obviously more than one shot may be necessary but if you fire 30 rounds at someone there's 20 something rounds extra that have the ability to harm people that are not involved in your dispute. Your life is no more valuable that the other innocent person on the street or in their house.

Explosive devices are also way beyond the realm of self defense and sporting.

What about the people that just flip out one day and start shooting people at random? Right now people who do that are usually limited to handguns and rifles. What if next time it's some psycho with MP5's and a bag full of grenades?

If M-60's are available to the general public, what's to keep a team of bank robbers from setting up machine gun nests in case the cops get there before they leave?

I understand that the term "assault rifle" is poorly defined. That needs to be addressed. However the 2nd Amendment is like all the other Amendments with respect to how limits may need to be placed as time and technology advances.

cosmoknight

Freedom cannot be bought like a gun but it can be taken away without one. A disarmed public is no threat to a government and is easier to control. If several 9/11 style attacks occurred and martial law was declared indefinitely even after terrorism was stopped/defeated what would make the super empowered politicians give back the power they usurped? Hopefully peaceful protesting could get it done but if not there is always the threat of force. In more ancient times garden implements would have been used but guns at least even the playing field some.

The argument about 10 round mags limiting damage doesn't make much sense. If some nut case takes an assault weapon in a shopping mall and starts firing can you run away far enough in the 5 seconds it takes to change the mag? The sniper in Washington was a good example. He was armed with a M16 knockoff with a post ban 10 shot mag. His kills were all with 1-2 shots. He might as well have used a single shot muzzleloader.

roachboy

sighes.

wonder, i really wish you read things more carefully at times.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

DelayedReaction

When it comes to freedom of speech issues, many of those things are just as hotly contested as the 2nd Amendment. Child pornography and yelling "fire!" in a theater are outlawed because they actively endanger innocent people (meaning the act itself causes harm), but obscenity laws are being contested.

People can say "fire" in certain circumstances, and not in others. The trend in terms of the 2nd Amendment is much more severe; it would be like banning use of the word fire altogether.

I agree with your key points regarding whether or not a weapon should be banned.

You can use the same argument to ban cars, chainsaws, axes, and a host of other items that have been used by psychopaths. Extreme situations such as that, while a valid concern, are outside the realm of the government's control. Removing a tool does not solve the problem.

Quote:

I understand that the term "assault rifle" is poorly defined. That needs to be addressed. However the 2nd Amendment is like all the other Amendments with respect to how limits may need to be placed as time and technology advances.

I agree that legislation must be used to address changing times. The problem is that much of the legislation (including the AWB) does not address changing times, it utterly violates an established right. Assault weapons are not poorly defined; the AWB provides specific descriptions. An assault weapon is defined as a semi-automatic weapon (meaning one shot per pull of the trigger) that contains specific cosmetic items such as a pistol grip on a rifle or a flash suppressor. The ban has had no effect on crime, as many of the weapons are available in other formats without the cosmetic changes. In essence our government banned weapons that look nasty.

Should children be allowed to own machine guns? Of course not. Should criminals be able to walk into Wal*Mart and buy a missile launcher? No. But law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own and purchase any small arm that they desire, and be allowed to carry that weapon (concealed or openly displayed) on public property.

If someone wants to own a gun, they should be allowed to request and obtain a license. They should need to go through proper safety training and complete demonstration (just like getting a drivers license), and register their firearms in the same manner that they register a car.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

DelayedReaction

Actually, I read it carefully and I STILL don't understand what you are trying to say.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

cosmoknight

Your reasoning is without proper thought/morals behind owning a weapon it doesn't make you free which is true. However unless you live in some social uptopia without any weapons a disarmed populance is at the mercy of its leaders who are so equiped. A monk in China could have dreams of freedom but without something to threaten the government back he will end up as a tread smeer on a tank.

Zeld2.0

This isn't necessarily addressed to your post but this is in general:

A gun still won't knock out a tank. Nor will a single person with a gun threaten a 'government.'

The best thing going for this 'government' though is that the 'government' is made up of people.

At any rate I only find it silly because, in the end, guns or not, you're not going to stop the modern military unless the people running it are on your side.

If the entire military were robots, then yes, do fear indeed for they may be controlled at the whim of one mad man.

Which is another reason why I find the guns versus government argument to be a bit off in the modern day. Do they protect you from government? If you mean immediate government, sure, though you really shouldn't be needing if lest you commit a crime. Then, in which case, who is more wrong? Surely, it would depend on the nature of the crime.

But against the modern military? This is one of those catch-22s and double edged blades. The stronger you want the military, the less likely you have a chance at stopping it. It's just a simple fact and a good reason why revolts don't happen at the rates they do today in nations without military support.

But in the end, that's probably the least of my concerns right now. It's far easier to slowly take away our rights one by one through means deemed legitimate than to take away our rights illegally in force.

kutulu

In your attempt to shoot down my arguement that assault weapons are poorly defined you only supported it.

Anyways, the arguement that we NEED M60's and rocket launchers in order to defend ourself against an oppressive government is ricockulous. I don't care how many machine guns or conventional explosives the population has, the Amry could smash any real threat to the "oppressive government" if they needed to. The Armed Forces have tanks, missile batteries, artillery, helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, aircraft carriers, battleships, submarines, and a whole mess of other means of disposing of insurgents.

What is too far? Should a militia with the funding be able to maintain it's own air force? We'd surely have to shoot down Air Force jets if we fought back against the oppressive government. They'd also need their own tanks and artillery. Should my neighbor keep a M1-A tank in the garage? How about something more simple like 3 tons of C4?

Look at Iraq. The insurgents have whatever automatic weapons and RPG's they need to arm themselves. They have not brought down the military yet. They are a bug in our ass that causes mayhem and kills people at random but they aren't driving us out of the country. It would be the same situation here if people were trying to fight an "oppressive government"

A stable government needs the ability to destroy insurgents. Right now half of the country doesn't like Bush and thinks he's the biggest theat to national security. They think he's enacting laws that are oppressive. Does that mean the citizens should storm the White House as an attempted coup? I sure as hell don't think so.

We have the proper channels to deal with a President or other govt agency when they cross the lines. In the event that the govt was imposing dictatorship like practices there would be a huge struggle in the military. You wouldn't be able to get the entire military to turn on its neighbors.

I understand your logic. People need the ability to defend themselves if needed. The 2nd Amendment was written with the intent that citizens should be able to overthrow an oppressive govt if needed. However, in the age of modern weaponry where the military gets half of our tax dollars, there is no way to overthrow the govt without heavy involvement from the military and/or other nations that support insurgent ideals.

It's time for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in a way that the needed defense is against criminals that threaten the lives of individuals. M60's and RPG's are not needed for that. The chance for collateral damage is way too high.

What kind of scenario are you thinking of?

If you're walking down the street and someone tries to mug you are you going whip out your 9mm or will you need the Uzi?

If there is a home invasion are you going to run to the machine gun trenches in the living room?

Remeber, even Rambo was caught and he was a super-soldier.

wonderwench

Thank you. I agree.

And RB - It would be nice if you did not mistake disagreement with your positions as lack of reading them carefully.

roachboy

actually, i was reacting to your rhetoric from earlier in the thread.
your position seems to be that the gun in itself, the possession of it, guarantees your "freedom"===i think that argument is idiotic.

it is also a routine argument made by far-right fringe elements who imagine that gun control will lead to slavery for "real americans" at the hands of some international conspiracy, which usually ends up being the un. these guys like to wear camo and play paintball in the woods.
since you do and say nothing to differentiate your position from that one, but instead rehearse elements of that line, what exactly do you imagine someone reading your posts is to think?

in addition--and this is directed at you in particular, wonder--you routinely ignore arguments you do not like and act as though repeating your position functions as a rebuttal.
you should make some consession to the fact that this is a written board and at least present the appearance of taking other positions seriously. and given that this tendency of yours is systematic, someone who wants to engage in a debate is left trying to explain why this situation obtains. and thinking that you do not read carefully is one such conclusion. if that is wrong, then my apologies--but it would really help if you would at least try to indicate that arguments that oppose yours register at some level at some time. otherwise, once again, there is no conversation, no debate, and no point in wasting time on this politics board.

and cosmo--what moral argument do you see me making?
what i was trying to say is that what matters is the politics that frames not only gun possession but also thinking about gun possession. so it seems that you are repeating my point, in a kind of invert, paranoid way.

i also said that picking the signs (words, images) that structure the dominant discourse, especially conservative discourse, without showing at any point that you can think about these signs except in conventional ways, means that you are not free, but rather that you are trapped in a closed little world--one that i would and could argue is wholly self-defeating, but that is a seperate matter, another thread maybe..

the same argument would apply to my own position too, btw---i try to think about these matters--i dont know if i am always equally successful,--but i try to do it.
i

if i find myself incomprehending of conservatives, it is in the main because they refuse to consider that they are not absolutely correct, that their terms are eternal truths, etc....

if you are stuck in repetition of empty terms, no number of guns will free you.

if you imagine yourself somehow part of a dangerous movement, which is an old trotskyite tic as well, btw---which more often than not is a way of adding drama to a life of total political insignificance---- then the problem is probably psychological and again no number of guns will get you out of it.

if you are planning a revolt, i would be interested to hear about what political viewpoint motivates you. then i could see why you would worry.

having a gun because you are waiting for some undefined eventuality just means that you have a gun while you wait for some undefined eventuality.

if you see a level of chaos around you such that you feel unsafe, you probaly should think about the problems posed by capitalism in its relatively unregulated form for an explanation---a single person asembling an arsenal in his basement isnt going to change anything.

if having a gun is therapeutic for you, then have a great time with it. that sort of relationship is not political, and is not of the slightest interest to me.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

DelayedReaction

How did I support it? The Assault Weapons Ban lists what weapons are considered "assault weapons" quite clearly. It's a junk term that has no meaning outside of politics.

Incidentally, did you actually read my post? I agreed with most of your points, including the one that states that average citizens should not own machine guns. At the moment that is the law; the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically prohibits fully automatic and explosive weapons from being sold to unlicensed individuals. Which is good, and the way it should be.

It's when we get into crap such as the AWB (which does not ban machine guns, tanks, or rocket launchers), which only addresses cosmetic features, that I disagree.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

kel

Lebell that had the most profound effect on me.
I didn't realize it was old news until the second time I read the article...

I think this deserves to be posted in general discussion so more people can see it.

__________________
"It better be funny"

kutulu

I meant that the definition being a junk term without a good measure is what makes it a poor definition. That's what I meant.

The rest of my post was directed more at people who have the thought that they need those weapons to overthow oppressive governments (such as cosmoknight and wonderwench). I didn't want to name name's because I didn't want to come off as attacking anyone. I should have either made a separate post or made the thought transition more clear. My apologies.

I'd never want to ban all firearms. I don't even think they all need to be registered. I just want reasonable limits in place that limit the amount of firepower from the weapons that citizens can purchase.

smooth

If owning a firearm is an inalienable right, why would you support barring people who have been convicted of a crime in the past from owning a gun in the future?

That position seems inconsistent to me and I'd like you to explain how you come to that conclusion.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

DelayedReaction

I generalized the use of the word criminal, and never declared what you suggest.

There are people who lose the ability to drive after failing to operate their vehicle in a safe manner. I see no reason why guns should be any different, but the mere presence of a criminal past (particularly a nonviolent one) should not bar someone from getting a gun.

What I would like to see is a world where guns are treated in the same manner as cars are. If you want to use a gun, you need to have taken a training course and demonstrated proficiency and knowledge of safety. A license would be issued allowing the individual to bear and use firearms (including concealed carry). It could even be an addition to the driver's license, a sort of notation in the same manner as heart donors are noted.

Once you have your license, you would be free to own and carry any weapon that is not fully automatic or purely military (rockets, grenades, etc) in nature. Acquiring fully automatic weapons would require an effort similar to how things are now.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

smooth

I don't see any logical reason why guns should be regulated much differently from vehicles, either.

Of course, we should both recognize the extra dynamic of weapon portability. That is, I can't really hide a car in my coat.

Current laws restrict felons from owning firearms for life. I think support of those current restrictions are inconsistent with the notion of inalienable rights to gun ownership. I wish other people shared your views regarding this topic.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

cosmoknight

History has many examples of poorly armed groups defeating a much better equiped force. Just to name a few. The Viet Cong never fielded tanks yet they defeated them by ambushing the crews. Present day Iraqi insurgents use IED's made from pipe bombs and other assorted explosives mostly handmade to kill tanks. Revolutionary war we had no navy to speak of yet with personal weapons we captured a few ships which allowed us to build a Navy from scratch.

If looking at the context of a civil war within the US. The first thing I would try for would be the National Guard Armories to gain access to heavier weapons. A personal rifle would greatly help in that. I also believe that the National Guard would not inheritly back the US government in a popular rebellion as they would be made up of locals having to fight their neighbors never a sure fire thing. Also factor the US military is mostly based over seas and is not equiped to put down a rebellion in a country of this size. What targets would a B2 bomber really have or our vaunted Navy? Plus this would be all urban warfare. With the size of force in Iraq they can barely control the cities with 130,000 troops. We simply don't have enough troops to even fully secure LA and New York without factoring in rural America.

kutulu

Can't you get your civil rights reinstated? I thought you could.


You cannot compare warfare in revolutionary times to current warfare. There is absolutely no need for citizens to have automatic weapons.

hrdwareguy

There is no need for the government to prevent law abiding citizens from owning (fully) automatic weapons.

With that said, it is impossible to argue need. Fact: you must have water to survive. Fact: you must have water to survive. Fact: you do not need your car. Fact: you do not need your internet access.


Edited to correct type in quote tag

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

cosmoknight

A gun is merely a tool invented to equalize differences in our makeup. In nature the strongest lion gets to mate the weaker ones are subject to banishment or death. Man has just adapted a way to equalize the playing field so that the bully factor is marginalized fighting nature with technology something that makes us different. Removing technology you revert back to a time when muscle and primitive weapons ruled the day. Take away guns they will use knives or clubs. If someone has the urge to kill an semi-automatic or full auto won't really make a difference they will still kill being mentally defective. Thankfully those few make up less than 1% of gun owners unfortunately it can't be said the same of that even greater killer the automobile which isn't even mentioned as a Constitutional Right.

Zeld2.0

A gun is only as good as the person who uses it and for what reason...

And anyways, I don't want to get into too much detail cosmoknight, but the people have to really be motivated and united enough to do something like what the VC did in Vietnam.

Problem is, at this point in time, most people aren't motivated enough and/or split. There will be loyalists and rebels and neutrals if the attempt at taking over were even seen as credible in a bit.

And either way, I just don't see this coming.

cosmoknight

True I believe it would take a watershed moment for the people to even consider that option something I think is far off. However our forfathers realized it could happen and placed that clause for just such a event. The motivating factor would be the key to how much support a revolt would get. If you look at our Revolution the same percentage as todays politics still rings true. One third supported rebellion, one third King George and the remaining neutral willing to go with the victor.

Zeld2.0

Yeah it could possibly follow the Revolution's lines

I don't want to get too technical though I will say this:

It would have to be at least 50% supporting the revolt. Why?

Given the fact that this is an insurrection within the nation, the modern fast transportation of soldiers, modern intelligence, and modern equipment, having *just* 1/3 support would mean it could be crushed pretty easily.

One could argue man for man but then again, strategic bombers don't make things man for man.

Anywho, i cannot see this coming anytime soon if ever so the point is moot.

DelayedReaction

I disagree. Fully automatic weapons are orders of magnitude more dangerous than semi-automatic or manual firearms, and as such deserve extra controls. Not banned from civilian ownership, but restricted. As it stands now it takes considerable effort to own a fully automatic weapon, and as a result you rarely see one used in crimes.

It's the same reason why people can't own explosives or rocket launchers without a license and a significant amount of paperwork.

Before people suggest that banning semi-automatic weapons would do the same, remember that the 1934 NFA was initiated before fully automatics were truly widespread. Banning semi-autos now would not help because there are already so many in circulation.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

MSD

Wearing camo and playing paintball have nothing to do with warfare. Paintball is nothing more than a glorified version of tag or capture the flag. I really hope you aren't trying to say that paintball is a harmful activity.

Acetylene

Aww, you guys don't know your history :P

Guns don't create freedom, any more than cheap steel made the Roman conscripted free, or the longbow made the English peasants free.

They DO allow you to defend yourself against a certain type of infringement on your freedom, and that is a forceful, external control which can be personified in a single person or group. In other words, they can protect you ONLY IF you have a target to shoot at.

Think about it: If the government sends a search and siezure party into your home and you have a gun, you can force them to leave because you can match their force. Thus, you have protected your freedom.

Meanwhile, your daughter wants you to spend 200 dollars to buy her the right pair of athletic shoes so she can fit in with the Cool Kids. She's being controlled, she's being prevented from making her own decision about what she wants to wear, but no gun will help you here.

In other words, freedom is a lot more complicated than just protecting yourself from armed intrusion. But, it's nice to be able to protect yourself in case a situation that requires a gun every arrives.

__________________
There's no justice. There's just us.

wonderwench

The Founders were also wise enough to realize the optimal structure of government to check abuses of power - and the necessity of the Bill of Rights to ensure that The People hold the real power of liberty. The 2nd Amendment does have a "deterrent" effect we should not ignore.

kel

Order of magnitude?
Bare handed to a firearm is an order of magnitude difference.

Full auto vs. semi-auto AK makes pretty much no difference. The full auto will result in a lot of wasted ammo and not much else.

/Has shot and was not impressed by full auto firearms

__________________
"It better be funny"

DelayedReaction

You're kidding, right? The advent of automatic weapons revolutionized warfare, and dramatically decreased the skill required to kill a man. The machine gun changed the face of battle in World War I; it brought about trench warfare.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

The_Dunedan

The only reason the MG had the effect that it did was that when it emerged, armies were still fighting in basically Napoleonic fashion; line up, slug it out, he who gets to go home wins. In the modern context, machine guns are nowhere near as impressive, because nobody's polite enough to cross open terrain in skermish-lines anymore. The MG hasn't been a battle-winner since WW2, when "fire-and-maneuver" tactics became paramount, and the personal MG ( aka Assault Rifle ) is mostly only good for clearing out enclosed spaces. At anything over about 50 yards, most people have so much trouble keeping a hand-held MG on target as to make "Group Therapy" an expensive exercise in making noise.
Machineguns are hardly the "magic wand" of the movies. They require considerable skill to use well and efficiantly, and the "spray and pray" method tends to only serve to burn up ammunition.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

Lebell

Actually, he's not.

The dunedan is right regarding marching lines into machine gun fire, which why there were horrible casualities during some of the WW1 trench battles, but Americans learned in Vietnam that full-auto was not the panacea people seem to think it is, which is why they invented the "burst" version of the M16 (the A4?).

This allowed multiple shots per trigger pull without wasting a lot of ammunition.

I have also shot full-auto and while it is fun, I found it useless for trying to hit a single target, as I couldn't sufficiently control the weapon.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

kutulu

Nothing except for collateral damage.

hrdwareguy

You disagree with what I said, then endorse what I said.

What I said was:
I did not disagree with the controls that are currently in place. Also I qualified the statement with law abiding, this does not include every Tom, Dick, and Leroy that goes out selling dope on the corner or doing drive by shootings.

If the bad guys can easily get their hands on full autos and shoot my house up, I should be able to fairly easily get them to defend myself. (Although I'd probably use a semi-auto for better shot placement)

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

Zeld2.0

The three round burst M16 came around the A2 version.

The ones in Vietnam (A1s) for instance, had full automatic and semi-automatic modes.

As we found out, however, it was realy spray and pray. I don't remember the statistics but it was rare for a person to hit anything unloading a 20 round magazine into the jungle.

After that, when they came out with the A2, they removed full auto and put in the three-round burst to give a good spray that is manageable (3 rounds is pretty effective). They also increased the magazine to 30 rounds.

Believe me, war has changed a lot.

WW1 and even the American Civil War showed huge casualties for at that era, technological achievements had outpaced thinking in war. WW2 changed all that with the Blitzkrieg and other methods of fighting. Fire and manuever became the doctrine.

To an extent it is true to this day too. A machine gun can be a fearsome weapon if used right and positioned right, but as one is taught, there is always a flank and always a way to knock it out.

DelayedReaction

hrdwareguy, I do agree that law abiding citizens should not be prevented from owning automatic weapons. I already stated that in previous posts; I was addressing your comment about how deadly automatic weapons can be relative to semi-auto.

I suppose I should clarify myself a little bit. When I say automatic weapon, I mean ANY weapon that can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. The M16, with its 3-round burst capability, is an example of an automatic weapon.

So in essence we're arguing about semantics, while the original point of the debate was agreed upon and left in the dust a couple of days ago.

There is one situation (and this is what I was thinking about; I apologize for not being more specific) where a fully automatic weapon would be far more dangerous than a semi-auto, and that's in a crowd situation. If your goal is indiscriminate killing of a large group of people, firing full auto into a crowd will accomplish that.

Either way, we're all on the same side here.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

hrdwareguy

A shotgun would do pretty good also at close range.

Agreed.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

DelayedReaction

Now what I want is fully automatic, belt-fed shotgun. I would dub it the Sandblaster.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

hrdwareguy

Just imagine the climb and the broken bones.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

DelayedReaction

I never said it would be practical, but imagine what it would do to a watermelon. R. Lee Ermey would be proud.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.