ATF Shotgun Study - Here it is!

[Xitesmai 1]

[quote name='PostsOnPercocet' timestamp='1299245246' post=I just dont want to be the test case for it...I'll pay the $200 for the stamp if I have to.

Same here, even if just to have free will to mod the damn thing (short of adding a fun switch)

 

Speaking of which...if the firearms is already regarded as NFA due to being a DD...and the owner has a tax stamp

 

...Is there a law preventing the owner from adding a "fun" switch?

Edited March 4, 2011 by Xitesmai

[busarider 23]

You would have to be a Class 3 dealer and register it as a post sample to add the fun switch to anything post 1986. I don't think you can add the fun switch to anything pre 1986 that did not come with either without first going through the same channels mentioned above.

 

 

[quote name='PostsOnPercocet' timestamp='1299245246' post=I just dont want to be the test case for it...I'll pay the $200 for the stamp if I have to.

Same here, even if just to have free will to mod the damn thing (short of adding a fun switch)

 

Speaking of which...if the firearms is already regarded as NFA due to being a DD...and the owner has a tax stamp

 

...Is there a law preventing the owner from adding a "fun" switch?

[TTMR 11]

We need to start a shooting sport that requires attacking a dumby with a bao, fireing from the hip with the stock folded or colapsed, fireing strings of 20 rounds, shooting vehicles with marker grenades all in the dark so that you need a weapon light etc...

 

 

Trick will be getting recognised as a "sport"

[TTMR 11]

You would have to be a Class 3 dealer and register it as a post sample to add the fun switch to anything post 1986. I don't think you can add the fun switch to anything pre 1986 that did not come with either without first going through the same channels mentioned above.

 

 

Bingo, however gay that restriction may be it's the law of the land

Edited March 4, 2011 by TTMR

[Mephis 82]

You would have to be a Class 3 dealer and register it as a post sample to add the fun switch to anything post 1986. I don't think you can add the fun switch to anything pre 1986 that did not come with either without first going through the same channels mentioned above.

 

 

Bingo, however gay that restriction may be it's the law of the land

 

 

And it always amazes me how the people who are so anti-government and start a rant any time this stuff is mentioned, are also the first people to mention laws when someone asks about doing something questionable. Especially when it comes to something as stupid as 922r, which you'll never be nailed with unless you shoot someone with the gun, or openly talk about it being non-compliant.

 

If you're against something, be against it all the way.

 

Automatic weapons requiring tax stamps, and other ridiculous regulations is just as unconstitutional as anything else is. But nobody whines about that for some reason.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Tombs

[TTMR 11]

Oh I'm against it, just like I'm against 922 and any gun law that doesn't make it tough on crooks to get guns. (Most people find it odd that I don't mind instant background checks) However at my current level of training NFA weapons won't really do anything to help me deffend myself so it's not a law I'm willing to think about breaking.

[Mephis 82]

Oh I'm against it, just like I'm against 922 and any gun law that doesn't make it tough on crooks to get guns. (Most people find it odd that I don't mind instant background checks) However at my current level of training NFA weapons won't really do anything to help me deffend myself so it's not a law I'm willing to think about breaking.

 

 

I think the issue with an auto saiga 12 isn't so much a training one, it's that the darned things run entirely too fast to be practical without a drum.

 

Fire rate would have to be reduced to the point where it'd be basically the same as a semi-auto being fired quickly, and even then it'd empty a magazine so fast it wouldn't be of much use.

 

 

Now an AK or an AR15... Yea... I'd be more interested in a burst fire set up than full auto though. It's always seemed pretty pointless to me on anything other than a pistol caliber short carbine. I really don't see why burst fire was ruled to be automatic though. What's the difference between firing one shot or 2-3 per trigger pull? You can't exactly spray lead around with a burst fire only weapon, just like you can't with a semi-auto. All burst fire capability does is give you a bit more stopping power for the smaller more modern rounds that are so popular these days.

Only reason I can think burst fire isn't allowed is for "not possessing any sporting purpose." Which sure it doesn't, but for self defense/home defense it seems 100% reasonable, and a lot more "responsible" for such things.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Tombs

[Xitesmai 1]

You would have to be a Class 3 dealer and register it as a post sample to add the fun switch to anything post 1986. I don't think you can add the fun switch to anything pre 1986 that did not come with either without first going through the same channels mentioned above.

 

 

Bingo, however gay that restriction may be it's the law of the land

 

 

And it always amazes me how the people who are so anti-government and start a rant any time this stuff is mentioned, are also the first people to mention laws when someone asks about doing something questionable. Especially when it comes to something as stupid as 922r, which you'll never be nailed with unless you shoot someone with the gun, or openly talk about it being non-compliant.

 

If you're against something, be against it all the way.

 

Automatic weapons requiring tax stamps, and other ridiculous regulations is just as unconstitutional as anything else is. But nobody whines about that for some reason.

 

Just remember that during Heller vs DC the Supreme Court did discussed this topic...basically the opinion was that the 2nd Amendment was broad in its reaching effects and should be applied just like the 1st and 4th amendments...however they further said the the Constitutionality of other gun control laws was no being discussed at the time and would require their own case...

 

No one has seen fit to take those cases to the Supreme Court yet...

[Xitesmai 1]

Oh I'm against it, just like I'm against 922 and any gun law that doesn't make it tough on crooks to get guns. (Most people find it odd that I don't mind instant background checks) However at my current level of training NFA weapons won't really do anything to help me deffend myself so it's not a law I'm willing to think about breaking.

 

 

I think the issue with an auto saiga 12 isn't so much a training one, it's that the darned things run entirely too fast to be practical without a drum.

 

Fire rate would have to be reduced to the point where it'd be basically the same as a semi-auto being fired quickly, and even then it'd empty a magazine so fast it wouldn't be of much use.

 

 

Now an AK or an AR15... Yea... I'd be more interested in a burst fire set up than full auto though. It's always seemed pretty pointless to me on anything other than a pistol caliber short carbine. I really don't see why burst fire was ruled to be automatic though. What's the difference between firing one shot or 2-3 per trigger pull? You can't exactly spray lead around with a burst fire only weapon, just like you can't with a semi-auto. All burst fire capability does is give you a bit more stopping power for the smaller more modern rounds that are so popular these days.

Only reason I can think burst fire isn't allowed is for "not possessing any sporting purpose." Which sure it doesn't, but for self defense/home defense it seems 100% reasonable, and a lot more "responsible" for such things.

 

Most state laws, and federal law define the limit to be one round with every pull of the trigger...its a slippery slope when talking about how many rounds go down range with one trigger pull, 5-6, 7-8 10-20...where do you draw the line?...it was easier to write the law for one pull, one round..

[Mephis 82]

Most state laws, and federal law define the limit to be one round with every pull of the trigger...its a slippery slope when talking about how many rounds go down range with one trigger pull, 5-6, 7-8 10-20...where do you draw the line?...it was easier to write the law for one pull, one round..

 

 

Easier yes, but since there's a standard of 2-3 rounds, that sounds like more than a fair enough line to draw.

 

 

In all honesty I can see a reason for completely automatic weapons being as heavily restricted as they are because of so many cases of untrained individuals hurting themselves or others.(If anyone could buy a fully automatic weapon, I sure as hell would not want to go to a public range.) I don't see someone shooting themselves because they can't control a 2-3 round burst though.

 

They also need to work on what constitutes an automatic weapon, because the PSL has an "auto sear" and "3rd axis pin" for safety reasons, yet lacks any sort of automatic fire capability. By the current laws, the rifles have to be made to be able to fire out of battery and present a danger risk to the shooter. So their current laws fail in every respect, and must be reworked with some common sense.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Tombs

[TTMR 11]

I agree, IF (big freaking if) auto is to be restricted/banned one round one pull is the place to draw the line.

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

"draw the line"??!! lol, right.

 

How about I draw the line at I'll have whatever gun, in whatever configuration I want to because that is my right?

 

Looks like a real pro gun group is going to have to be started. One that fight for actual gun rights, instead of compromising with ignorant, lying, greedy, scumbag politicians who have motive to remove guns from the people.

 

There isn't anything weird or dangerous about that, either. It's a right that shouldn't be infringed. There are no facts, logic, or reason to suggest we should compromise on our rights.

[Mephis 82]

"draw the line"??!! lol, right.

 

How about I draw the line at I'll have whatever gun, in whatever configuration I want to because that is my right?

 

Looks like a real pro gun group is going to have to be started. One that fight for actual gun rights, instead of compromising with ignorant, lying, greedy, scumbag politicians who have motive to remove guns from the people.

 

There isn't anything weird or dangerous about that, either. It's a right that shouldn't be infringed. There are no facts, logic, or reason to suggest we should compromise on our rights.

 

 

The first step in doing such a thing is being a conscientious objector.

 

Then gathering many more people willing to be a CO. If you want your liberties, you have to fight for them, and to do so will be breaking the law. If you truly are a patriot, breaking a law to secure the sanctity of the constitution shouldn't be much of a problem. After all, the US gained its independence by breaking laws.

[Xitesmai 1]

What you have to understand is the current situtation of law in the U.S.

 

The supreme Court stated... "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

 

This is what REALLY controls gun laws...not too mention, we sometimes focus alot on the Federal Court System here...lets not forget your own states that have laws on the books regarding gun control...

 

The above poster is correct about being an objector to those laws and finding a legal means of opposing / reversing them...

 

...if you want to literally "fight" for what you perceive as your rights ...I'll see you at your trial...

[Mephis 82]

 

The above poster is correct about being an objector to those laws and finding a legal means of opposing / reversing them...

 

...if you want to literally "fight" for what you perceive as your rights ...I'll see you at your trial...

 

 

That's the point. If you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk, or keep your ideals to your self.

 

 

Best way to get stuff like that overturned is through a massive trial and legal process. Sure it'll be painful to deal with, but you might accomplish something huge in the end.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Tombs

[corbin 621]

 

Same here, even if just to have free will to mod the damn thing (short of adding a fun switch)

 

 

Not to derail the topic too much, but are grandfathered DDs allowed to have barrels cut back below 18" (for a shotgun)?

[mikegraffam 11]

Automatic weapons requiring tax stamps, and other ridiculous regulations is just as unconstitutional as anything else is. But nobody whines about that for some reason.

 

Actually, the NFA is a pretty good example of how gun control should be implemented in the United States, IMHO and I don't believe it is unconstitutional. It does not in any way infringe on our ability to bear arms, though it is outdated. The 1938 NFA and tax stamp/registration was the ONLY way they could reasonably be able to do background checks back in 1938. Thats what it was designed for .. to keep automatic Tommy guns out of the hands of the likes of Al Capone and other criminals, while still allowing citizens access to them. They didn't have the ability to do a 20 minute computer background check. In 1938 we still cared about the Constitution, we just wanted to not make it so damn easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.

 

Now, the GCA of 68 and the FAOPA of 86 are entirely different stories.. they are unconstitutional because they prevent ownership of certain weapons by citizens. But our courts have ruled otherwise, saying in effect as long as citizens are afforded the right to own SOME guns, if other guns are outright banned then the 2A isn't infringed.

[Xitesmai 1]

Automatic weapons requiring tax stamps, and other ridiculous regulations is just as unconstitutional as anything else is. But nobody whines about that for some reason.

 

Actually, the NFA is a pretty good example of how gun control should be implemented in the United States, IMHO and I don't believe it is unconstitutional. It does not in any way infringe on our ability to bear arms, though it is outdated. The 1938 NFA and tax stamp/registration was the ONLY way they could reasonably be able to do background checks back in 1938. Thats what it was designed for .. to keep automatic Tommy guns out of the hands of the likes of Al Capone and other criminals, while still allowing citizens access to them. They didn't have the ability to do a 20 minute computer background check. In 1938 we still cared about the Constitution, we just wanted to not make it so damn easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.

 

Now, the GCA of 68 and the FAOPA of 86 are entirely different stories.. they are unconstitutional because they prevent ownership of certain weapons by citizens. But our courts have ruled otherwise, saying in effect as long as citizens are afforded the right to own SOME guns, if other guns are outright banned then the 2A isn't infringed.

 

Actually the FAOPA of 86 ruled that automatic firearms produced after 86 could not be imported or sold...This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It has to do with the Commerce Clause, which is why it is constitutional...the part of the 86 FAOPA you are referring to is the Hughes Amendment...which WASNT passed by congress by vote, then recorded by the speaker as passed...this is what should be fought.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Xitesmai

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

Automatic weapons requiring tax stamps, and other ridiculous regulations is just as unconstitutional as anything else is. But nobody whines about that for some reason.

 

Actually, the NFA is a pretty good example of how gun control should be implemented in the United States, IMHO and I don't believe it is unconstitutional. It does not in any way infringe on our ability to bear arms, though it is outdated. The 1938 NFA and tax stamp/registration was the ONLY way they could reasonably be able to do background checks back in 1938. Thats what it was designed for .. to keep automatic Tommy guns out of the hands of the likes of Al Capone and other criminals, while still allowing citizens access to them. They didn't have the ability to do a 20 minute computer background check. In 1938 we still cared about the Constitution, we just wanted to not make it so damn easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.

 

Now, the GCA of 68 and the FAOPA of 86 are entirely different stories.. they are unconstitutional because they prevent ownership of certain weapons by citizens. But our courts have ruled otherwise, saying in effect as long as citizens are afforded the right to own SOME guns, if other guns are outright banned then the 2A isn't infringed.

 

Yeah, and it failed to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals just like it does know. People like you just. don't. get. it.

 

GUNS DON'T CAUSE CRIME. They are "things". We have to deal with the bad PEOPLE, not things. The government uses gun control as a bullshit line to feed ignorant sheep so they'll think our representatives are trying to do something about crime.

[lbsrdi 1,078]

I hate this thread! Someone please Rap it. Lol

[Xitesmai 1]

Automatic weapons requiring tax stamps, and other ridiculous regulations is just as unconstitutional as anything else is. But nobody whines about that for some reason.

 

Actually, the NFA is a pretty good example of how gun control should be implemented in the United States, IMHO and I don't believe it is unconstitutional. It does not in any way infringe on our ability to bear arms, though it is outdated. The 1938 NFA and tax stamp/registration was the ONLY way they could reasonably be able to do background checks back in 1938. Thats what it was designed for .. to keep automatic Tommy guns out of the hands of the likes of Al Capone and other criminals, while still allowing citizens access to them. They didn't have the ability to do a 20 minute computer background check. In 1938 we still cared about the Constitution, we just wanted to not make it so damn easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.

 

Now, the GCA of 68 and the FAOPA of 86 are entirely different stories.. they are unconstitutional because they prevent ownership of certain weapons by citizens. But our courts have ruled otherwise, saying in effect as long as citizens are afforded the right to own SOME guns, if other guns are outright banned then the 2A isn't infringed.

 

Yeah, and it failed to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals just like it does know. People like you just. don't. get. it.

 

GUNS DON'T CAUSE CRIME. They are "things". We have to deal with the bad PEOPLE, not things. The government uses gun control as a bullshit line to feed ignorant sheep so they'll think our representatives are trying to do something about crime.

 

If you bother to read that exactly what the poster is saying...the NFA of 38 detailed that criminals and the mentally defective cannot own firearms and that fully automatic firearms or other DDs must be registered...it doesn't infringe on 2A rights...

[mikegraffam 11]

 

Actually the FAOPA of 86 ruled that automatic firearms produced after 86 could not be imported or sold...This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It has to do with the Commerce Clause, which is why it is constitutional...the part of the 86 FAOPA you are referring to is the Hughes Amendment...which WASNT passed by congress by vote, then recorded by the speaker as passed...this is what should be fought.

 

A law against the sale of guns to citizens is the same as infringing on the right to bear arms of those citizens in my view. The courts disagreed, and apparently you do as well? I am aware of the issues with the Hughes amendment, and yes the FAOPA should be fought.. I do get that it generally isn't considered unconstitutional in the mainstream view and is backed by the commerce clause.

The commerce clause has been contorted in several ways to, in my view, illegally expand federal power.

 

This has nothing to do with the NFA though. In, say, 1937 it is was possible to walk into a gun store, with no background check and purchase a full-automatic firearm. There were already laws on the books which made it a felony for felons to own guns. The irony of that situation was not lost on the Congress of 1938, so they passed the NFA which required special taxes on the sale of certain guns. This tax and the associated registration of NFA-controlled weapons served as a pre-digital age background check on these weapons. The NFA didn't go so far as to require this tax on all guns, because it would be undue hardship on law abiding citizens, and an impossible mountain of paperwork for the government.

 

In the age of computers, background checks are quick and easy and NFA registration is outdated. But in 1938, it wasn't a bad way to get a handle on the problem.

 

I understand that guns don't cause crime. I understand that criminals are willing to break laws, and are happy to break gun laws too. I understand that black markets will get created; corrupt gun dealers or shill buyers will be found to furnish criminals with guns somehow diverted from legal owners and sellers.

 

So what? The laws arent for criminals, the laws are for ordinary citizens. A good law is a law that, when citizens follow it, helps or enables them to do the right thing.. even if that law doesn't stop a bad person from doing a bad thing.

 

Consider drug laws.

 

We outlaw certain "controlled substances" .. these are illegal to possess, unless you have a special license for research or something. We require a "prescription" for others, approved by a doctor. And then you can go to a pharmacist and get your drug.

 

This process is in place not for the addict to follow - they won't. It is in place for the pharmacist to make sure the person has a script, and for the doctor to make sure the person needs the drug, and isn't simply addicted to it or is going to resell it. The law is for good pharmacists and doctors to have a standard procedure to follow to try, as much as possible from this angle, to prevent drug addiction.

 

Similarly, gun laws are not in place for criminals to follow - they won't. They are in place for the gun dealers to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal.. it gives them a phone number to call to make sure they aren't selling to a felon. Without background checks today, or NFA registration in 1938 - dealers had no mechanism to prevent selling to the next John Dillenger, despite the fact that they may not want to enable a criminal, they had no way to prevent it.

 

Yes that felon may turn around and get it from someone else..

 

But the law enabled a good person to do the right thing.

 

That is what laws are for in a free republic.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Michael Graffam

[mikegraffam 11]

 

Yeah, and it failed to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals just like it does know. People like you just. don't. get. it.

 

GUNS DON'T CAUSE CRIME. They are "things". We have to deal with the bad PEOPLE, not things. The government uses gun control as a bullshit line to feed ignorant sheep so they'll think our representatives are trying to do something about crime.

 

No, I'm afraid you don't get it.

 

Laws aren't for "dealing with bad people" - criminals don't abide by law. No threat of law will influence them. They refuse to consent to law, or be governed.

 

Law is for responsible citizens. As a responsible citizen, I don't whine like a child because I can't get my NFA cookie right NOW NOW NOW. I am content knowing that I am a free citizen and have the right to, and will get it after DUE PROCESS OF LAW has found that I am in fact a responsible citizen.

[Xitesmai 1]

Actually the FAOPA of 86 ruled that automatic firearms produced after 86 could not be imported or sold...This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It has to do with the Commerce Clause, which is why it is constitutional...the part of the 86 FAOPA you are referring to is the Hughes Amendment...which WASNT passed by congress by vote, then recorded by the speaker as passed...this is what should be fought.

 

A law against the sale of guns to citizens is the same as infringing on the right to bear arms of those citizens in my view. The courts disagreed, and apparently you do as well? ...

 

It's not that I agree with the courts...however I am a law abiding citizen and will follow the law as its written...

 

...that means that I cannot own a new MP5 due to Hughes...but its the current law

 

NFA though is outdated, but its still the law...so if I have to pay my $200 for a stamp for my DDs...I'll do that too...

 

However it doesnt mean that I wont press the NRA or my representative for changes to FAOPA or NFA...

[mikegraffam 11]

 

Same here, even if just to have free will to mod the damn thing (short of adding a fun switch)

 

 

Not to derail the topic too much, but are grandfathered DDs allowed to have barrels cut back below 18" (for a shotgun)?

 

Not sure what you mean by a "grandfathered DD" - there is no law against making new DD's.

 

But, yes.. a gun can be a DD and and SBS at the same time - you just need two stamps.. but be sure to review your local laws. Some "NFA-friendly" States have local ordinances against one, or more NFA-controlled devices. In Vermont, for example, you can own nearly anything you like; and there are no handgun permits required or issued for either open, or concealed carry. It is the Old West.. er, East, I guess .. but silencers/suppressors are a $25 violation. I believe the device is confiscated (expensive!) but you lose no privileges or anything like that.

 

So make sure your area/city allows destructive devices - its an unfortunate thing because many areas outlaw these devices for purposes of outlawing pipe bombs or grenades and things like that; but unfortunately for classification purposes, a non-sporting shotgun will get pulled in too. If you're in an otherwise gun-friendly area though, it would probably be pretty easy to lobby local legislatures to get the law reworded. It is an easy way to keep the intended status-quo (no explosives in town, for example) while throwing a bone to the pro-gun side, and at the same time not ticking off the anti-gun side because even they can understand needing to reword law to prevent a shotgun from getting effectively classified as a bomb.

[mikegraffam 11]

 

It's not that I agree with the courts...however I am a law abiding citizen and will follow the law as its written...

 

...that means that I cannot own a new MP5 due to Hughes...but its the current law

 

NFA though is outdated, but its still the law...so if I have to pay my $200 for a stamp for my DDs...I'll do that too...

 

However it doesnt mean that I wont press the NRA or my representative for changes to FAOPA or NFA...

 

I see. Agreed 100%.

 

NFA is certainly not a perfect bill. Technology has changed, both in terms of the guns and required classifications, and also in terms of how best (cheapest!) to do background checks.

 

But yes. One must follow the law in one's individual affairs. Civil disobedience is only useful in numbers.

[mikegraffam 11]

You know, I was just thinking.. While I'm having trouble finding it now, I'm pretty sure the NFA definitions for a DD shotgun specify a smoothbore.

 

Could we get around this by getting a rifled barrel group buy going for our S12s? I'd LOVE a rifled barrel S12 anyhow!

 

Edit: found the regs on ATF's site. Nope, DD definition does not include a smoothbore requirement.

 

But, a rifled barrel S12 should be able to be legally cut down to 16" - because it would now be considered a rifle, from what I can tell.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Michael Graffam

[bigmegina 3]

i do not think 16 inch rifle barrel shotgun barrel would be legal.they sell rifled shotgun barrels and i believe the are 18 and 1/2 inches.

[PostsOnPercocet 32]

Yeah, and it failed to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals just like it does know. People like you just. don't. get. it.

 

GUNS DON'T CAUSE CRIME. They are "things". We have to deal with the bad PEOPLE, not things. The government uses gun control as a bullshit line to feed ignorant sheep so they'll think our representatives are trying to do something about crime.

 

No, I'm afraid you don't get it.

 

Laws aren't for "dealing with bad people" - criminals don't abide by law. No threat of law will influence them. They refuse to consent to law, or be governed.

 

Law is for responsible citizens. As a responsible citizen, I don't whine like a child because I can't get my NFA cookie right NOW NOW NOW. I am content knowing that I am a free citizen and have the right to, and will get it after DUE PROCESS OF LAW has found that I am in fact a responsible citizen.

 

No, I get it. You don't. but....

 

Laws are for responsible citizens? Do you live in a world that uses logic? Responsible citizens wouldn't and don't need laws. I don't run around killing people. I don't drive recklessly. I don't engage in armed robberies. And it's certianly not due to the fact that there is a law telling me not to. And if you know people that would engage in said activities, but are only stopped by said laws, then 1. they are, by your definition, criminals, and 2. not responsible citizens.

 

Look at Katrina. Law broke down there. There were people there that didn't loot and kill. People don't need laws to tell them how to act. YOU govern how you act. Your statement is one of the most idiotic, ass backwards things I've read on this forum.

 

And obviously criminals don't abide by the law, but that IS, in FACT, what politicians tell us when they try to pass them. And NO, you're not being a responsible citizen. At least not in the eyes of the men who founded this country. You are taking up the ass by our very own "representatives" in regards to ALL aspect of life, not just our gun rights.

[lbsrdi 1,078]

I hate this thread! Someone please Rap it. Lol

 

 

You mean like this..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poKx83GUFTY&playnext=1&list=PLE81044AC3791623F

 

Exactly

Way more actual info there than in this thread.