America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by jackconrad. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
PING MAC
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 2:41 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?
Nicar Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 2:43 PM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
To battle against the forces of evil.......


Because criminals and undesirables get guns that hold more than 30 bullets.......



Why ask why? Try Bud Dry!



Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 2:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
ZOMBIES!!!

Don't get all stingy with the bullets!Whistle
Kawak Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 2:55 PM EST
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?


Because liberal nut bags like him always want more then they need. It's their right!
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 2:59 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
There are hand guns that hold more than 30 bullets?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
HockeyDad wrote:
There are hand guns that hold more than 30 bullets?



You ever watch a John Wayne movie? He NEVER reloaded!!!
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?





why shouldn't a civilian have a hand gun that holds ove 30 bullets..?? Huh
Nicar Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
Why would someone want a double barrel shotgun as opposed to a single barrel?

Obviously, the more the better..... now what about triple barrel shotgun? That would be righteous!!!
apachelm Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:12 PM EST
Joined: 04-26-2008
Posts: 8,549
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?


One of the reasons the Founding Fathers wanted the "civilians" to have the right of gun ownership was to have the ability to overthrow the Gov't should they find the need to. Now if the Gov't can control the # and types and such then there goes that ability.
HockeyDad Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
"New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.

King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack."





Soon only the shooter with have a gun within 1000 feet of a politician! (I'm speculating that the shooter will break this proposed law)
daveincincy Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:16 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
DrMaddVibe wrote:
You ever watch a John Wayne movie? He NEVER reloaded!!!


Yet another Rickatorical question....



but if you're gonna shoot like a member of the A-Team, you're gonna need a LOT of bullets.
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
HockeyDad wrote:
"New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.

King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack."





Soon only the shooter with have a gun within 1000 feet of a politician! (I'm speculating that the shooter will break this proposed law)








Scared Everyone needs to send the NRA a couple thousands dollars each ASAP!!!!!
Nicar Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:21 PM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
daveincincy wrote:
Yet another Rickatorical question....



but if you're gonna shoot like a member of the A-Team, you're gonna need a LOT of bullets.



Does that mean stuff will blow up while shooting, if yo're shooting like a member of the A-Team?

I say... awesome!!!!





And I love the reactorial (if that's a word) legislation that's being proposed that HD mentioned.


Baby falls off highchair.... lets ban highchairs.. they are unsafe......



Dog gets ran over by a car in the street...... no more driving on streets.. less you hit a dog.....






Now... were is my 45 clip of .38s for my revolver!!!!








(incase anyone didn't notice... there's a slim bit of sarcasm in this post)
daveincincy Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:23 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
DrafterX wrote:
Scared Everyone needs to send the NRA a couple thousands dollars each ASAP!!!!!


Yet another law that honest citizens will [have to] abide by.

Is it California that is, or soon will, limit the amount of ammo a person can purchase? If so...refer to sentence above.
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:27 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
why does a civilian need a car? We could save far more lives by banning cars than by banning guns.
daveincincy Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:28 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Nicar wrote:
Does that mean stuff will blow up while shooting, if yo're shooting like a member of the A-Team?

I say... awesome!!!!

And I love the reactorial (if that's a word) legislation that's being proposed that HD mentioned.

Baby falls off highchair.... lets ban highchairs.. they are unsafe......

Dog gets ran over by a car in the street...... no more driving on streets.. less you hit a dog.....

Now... were is my 45 clip of .38s for my revolver!!!!

(incase anyone didn't notice... there's a slim bit of sarcasm in this post)



Cars will be flipping all over the place. Fortunately, everyone will walk away with only minor cuts and bruises and the bad guys will always serve their time.

Btw, they are already banning cribs where the side rail comes down. Something about a dozen kids or so getting trapped/suffocated in the last few years.
daveincincy Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Why did Rick **ping** MAC on this? Think
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:33 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
daveincincy wrote:
Why did Rick **ping** MAC on this? Think




Ram hasn't been around much lately... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:35 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Bats don't have 30 round clips.
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
HockeyDad wrote:
Bats don't have 30 round clips.




Think true.... but you can hit 30 people with one bat....
daveincincy Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:43 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
DrafterX wrote:
Think true.... but you can hit 30 people with one bat....


And get 30 homeruns...if it's corked. Whistle
richokeeffe Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:45 PM EST
Joined: 12-07-2004
Posts: 7,020
I did have this conversation with a friend of mine that is an avid hunter and gun owner. For the record, I am mixed about guns and gun control.

I asked if there was really any need to have high capacity magazines, assault weapons, or semi-automatic firing mechanisms for a gun owner. Not is it fun, or is there a right or any of that. He replied "Of course not, but that misses the point" I asked what the point is.

"Because the folks who want to restrict gun rights won't stop there. It will be be just a fight at the next thing anyways. They have no intention of stopping at that, so I want to fight there."

I can't say that I disagree. Once one starts ceding rights, the slope just gets steeper and slipperier.

As an example, look at what has happened around smoking. same sort of thing - passionate anti smoking advocates have gotten it to where legislation has actually been filed (and died in committee thankfully) to ban smoking in your own car. Hidden under the "second hand smoke" and "we're only protecting the children" moral high grounds, of course.

I don't own any guns, and don;t really want to, but I certainly want to have the right to if I feel I need or want one.
DrafterX Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Think which brings up another good question.... why does a civilian need a baseball bat if he doesn't play baseball..??
Nicar Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:50 PM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
Now Drafter... you're getting too deep on us...slow down...
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 3:52 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Sad
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Why is MACS avoiding this question?
borndead1 Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?



If high round magazines/clips were made illegal, do you think criminals would obey this law?

Just where do you draw the line at how much control government can exert over our lives, Rick? I'm asking you to really think about that.

Whenever I discuss gun rights with anyone, I always end up repeating the old line: "It's not about guns, it's about freedom."
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
I PINGED MAC BECAUSE HE IS A POLICE OFFICER AND POLICIE OFFICERS DO NOT CARRY A CLIP THAT HOLDS THAT MUCH AND HE IS THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE, NOT YOU DING BATS THAT CARRY A GUN TO VISIT A NEIGHBOR OR PICK UP A GALLON OF MILK, AND BECAUSE I RESPECT HIS
OPINION IN THIS REGARD..

I WOULD NEVER ASK HIM ABOUT POKER.
Nicar Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:28 PM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
First line of defense?

He is in a highly needed, dangerous, needed position... and when someone is breaking into your house, you tell me who the first line of defense is?



Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall



Also, why not PING BUSA too?
apachelm Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:31 PM EST
Joined: 04-26-2008
Posts: 8,549
Shawn were you hired onto a police force? If so congrats! If not you still have a tough job that I wouldn't want to do.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:38 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
INCIDENTALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR GUN, THEY WILL TAKE IT OR KILL YOU IF THEY WANT IT BAD ENOUGH.

THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS, MORE OF THEM AND THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AIR FORCE, SO YOUR DREAMS OF FANTASY ABOUT.YOUR 30 SHOT GLOCK PROTECTING YOU FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IS A WASTE OF A GOOD DREAM. DREAM ABOUT GORGEOUS WOMEN WITH POINTED BREASTS, KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

SOME LITTLE OLD LADY KNOCKED THE SPARE CLIP HE WAS TRYING TO RELOAD WITH, OUT OF HIS HANDS. SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED A NAIL CLIPPER.
VaMtnMan Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2007
Posts: 3,743
HockeyDad wrote:
"New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.

King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack."





Soon only the shooter with have a gun within 1000 feet of a politician! (I'm speculating that the shooter will break this proposed law)








I think this would be a Great Law. And of course since "No One" will have a gun within 1,000 feet of a Politician, the President and Vice President, they won't have any need for "Armed" security.
Hey if there is a law against it, we know no one would want to break it. Right?
VaMtnMan Offline
#33 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2007
Posts: 3,743
Wow, so why outlaw the 30 round clips, just make sure there a bunch of Old Ladies around when you need them.
apachelm Offline
#34 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 5:45 PM EST
Joined: 04-26-2008
Posts: 8,549
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
INCIDENTALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR GUN, THEY WILL TAKE IT OR KILL YOU IF THEY WANT IT BAD ENOUGH.

You are making the case for NO gun control laws right there


THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS, MORE OF THEM AND THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AIR FORCE, SO YOUR DREAMS OF FANTASY ABOUT.YOUR 30 SHOT GLOCK PROTECTING YOU FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IS A WASTE OF A GOOD DREAM. DREAM ABOUT GORGEOUS WOMEN WITH POINTED BREASTS, KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
I was talking about ANY gun restrictions NOT just high capacity clips. Also there is a scale of numbers that would help keep the gov't in check. If it was so easy for them w/their Air Force and bigger guns why are they have so much trouble in Afganistan?


SOME LITTLE OLD LADY KNOCKED THE SPARE CLIP HE WAS TRYING TO RELOAD WITH, OUT OF HIS HANDS. SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED A NAIL CLIPPER.
Nicar Offline
#35 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 6:07 PM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
why does he persist in typing red, caps..the largest size..what about the little letters??????




whatafuqinmoronheisnowandforeverandcomplainingabout30shotwhenfirstcomplainaboutmorethan30shotflipflopper
HockeyDad Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 6:09 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The attacker was actually stopped by one woman and three men while he was trying to reload.

The argument could be made that were there just one armed citizen in the crowd, there would be a lot less victims.

Pro-Gun control arguments are always based on the assumption the lawbreakers will start obeying the laws.
DadZilla3 Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?


Because it's so damn awkward to get in and out of your car with an M134.
wtjvj Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 7:05 PM EST
Joined: 09-26-2006
Posts: 9,973

Why do politicians lie?
tonyt722 Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 7:21 PM EST
Joined: 06-20-2007
Posts: 23,649
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
INCIDENTALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR GUN, THEY WILL TAKE IT OR KILL YOU IF THEY WANT IT BAD ENOUGH.

THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS, MORE OF THEM AND THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AIR FORCE, SO YOUR DREAMS OF FANTASY ABOUT.YOUR 30 SHOT GLOCK PROTECTING YOU FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IS A WASTE OF A GOOD DREAM. DREAM ABOUT GORGEOUS WOMEN WITH POINTED BREASTS, KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

SOME LITTLE OLD LADY KNOCKED THE SPARE CLIP HE WAS TRYING TO RELOAD WITH, OUT OF HIS HANDS. SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED A NAIL CLIPPER.

Even have their own Air Force huh? No s h i t...I must have been living in bubble or something the past 30 years.
tonyt722 Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 7:23 PM EST
Joined: 06-20-2007
Posts: 23,649
HockeyDad wrote:
Why is MACS avoiding this question?

MACS finally got his G37....you really think he is gonna spend his spare time with us and not in that car?
tailgater Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 10:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?


Rick, we know why you've asked MACS, but I'd like to know why you ask this question?

I've posed similar questions on another thread, but more for my own edification.
Forgive me if I misread your post, but something tells me that you've got more sinister motives.

I agree with the "slippery slope" scenario discussed above.
As a citizen who is witnessing our rights being taken away at an exponetial rate, I don't want to give the inch, for fear that I'll be giving up many miles.
Hell, I'm half-thinking about buying a firearm BECAUSE of the push to systematically disarm our citizens.

It would be interesting to hear why you pose such a question.

Thanks.
dpnewell Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Jan 13 2011, 11:57 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
I PINGED MAC BECAUSE HE IS A POLICE OFFICER AND POLICIE OFFICERS DO NOT CARRY A CLIP THAT HOLDS THAT MUCH AND HE IS THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE,


I'll make this big and red so maybe even a little bit of this can sink through your thick scull. If the police are the first line of defense, then where the hell where they during this murder!? Police are a DETERANT to crime. They are not under any legal obligation to protect you, as declared by the courts. If you call the police and someone is murdered because they fail to show up, guess what? There is nothing you can do about it. You can't even take them to court. I know this is going to burst your little fantasy world bubble, but YOU and only YOU are responsible for your defense. But what do anti gun freaks do when they feel threatened? They call SOMEONE WITH A GUN (police officer) to come and save them. How dare they ask someone else to risk their life for them, when they are unwilling to protect it themself.

Most of the police officers that I know carry 15 to 17 rounds in their guns, with 2 or 3 spare mags. That's 45 to 68 rounds, plus the shotgun or M-4 rifle in the trunk. If they have an M-4, they have multiple 30 round mags to go with it. They also have partners, backup, bullet proof vests, radios to call for even more help, and sometimes even armored vehicles. The vast majority of police officers will never come under fire or even draw their weapon during their entire career, yet they still feel the need to carry all that ammo, even with all the backup they have available to them.

What does the citizen have to defend he and his family with? If he's smart, he has a gun that he has trained with, and that's it. No partners, no backup, no bullet proof vest, no radios, no armored vehicle, yet people like you want to limit the amount of ammo he can carry to defend his family. Of course that's only until you take his gun away too, and make him a helpless victim like the rest of you.

Oh, and another news flash, Ricky poo. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS!!! If they did, then this shooting would never have happened. Of course, in the twisted Liberal world, if there had been a law prohibiting this guy from carrying a gun within 1,000 ft of a government official, it would have stopped him from the shooting. Laws against murder didn't stop him, but some silly gun law would have. Do any of these lawmakers have even half a brain!?
chiefburg Offline
#43 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 12:07 AM EST
Joined: 01-31-2005
Posts: 7,384
Well, it's like this. Whether it holds 30 rounds or not isn't an issue. The real issue is gun control only controls those honest, decent, law abiding Americans for the most part. The insane, the whack-jobs, and the criminals will still have guns and still use them. Period. Most folks in England don't own guns and most the police don't carry guns. The real criminals in England have guns and use them.....
dpnewell Offline
#44 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 12:13 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?

Oh, and one more thing, Ricky Boy, police officers are not military, so hence they are civilians just like the rest of us. So I guess you're asking Mac why police officers need to carry so much ammo. Now I understand. My bad.
jackconrad Offline
#45 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 1:02 AM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Why does anyone need a gas tank bigger than 5 gallons on their car ?
Why does anyone need more than 1 dish or cup'?
Why does anyone need more than i roll of toilet paper?
HockeyDad Offline
#46 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 8:01 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
When a gun is used wrong, it is huge news just like a commercial airline crash.

The 100,000+ successful operations of a gun or aircraft per day are never reported.
HockeyDad Offline
#47 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 8:02 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
...and MACS still has not answered. He knows something and is not telling! Government conspriacy!!!!
Gene363 Offline
#48 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 8:57 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,864
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?


Simple, because gun right advocates know exactly what the following questions will be:

Why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds 25 rounds?

Why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds 15 rounds?

Why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds 10 rounds?

Why does a civilian need a hand gun?



The second amendment is not about hunting or self protection it is about the citizens being protected from the government. True, the military has lot of sophisticated weaponry, how is that working out in the mountains of Pakistan?
DrafterX Offline
#49 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 9:01 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
HockeyDad wrote:
...and MACS still has not answered. He knows something and is not telling! Government conspriacy!!!!




I heard he was banned.... Mellow
Gene363 Offline
#50 Posted: Fri, Jan 14 2011, 9:27 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,864
DrafterX wrote:
I heard he was banned.... Mellow


Looking back over each shoulder Gene whispers, "Or the Platinum upgrade?' Shhh
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top