[The Replacements]

I don't know if you have seen this but they are trying to reintroduce the assault weapon ban. Here is the link:

http://thomas.loc.go...?c110:H.R.6257:

Quote

( DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(, is amended by adding after paragraph (30) the following:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

Although it probably won't be passed this session, it is obvious that Congress is going after the gun owners.

[BuffetDestroyer]

The Replacements, on Jun 20 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

I don't know if you have seen this but they are trying to reintroduce the assault weapon ban. Here is the link:

http://thomas.loc.go...?c110:H.R.6257:

Quote

( DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(, is amended by adding after paragraph (30) the following:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

Although it probably won't be passed this session, it is obvious that Congress is going after the gun owners.

Jesus, more this crap! After reading more of this, it is a re-hash with new things added to make it more restrictive than the original...

Just making the value of our currently legal ones go through the roof... Good luck finding more AR receivers after word of this gets out!

This post has been edited by BuffetDestroyer: 20 June 2008 - 11:03 AM

[bayonet lug]

that says H.R. 6257 , what happened to H.R.1022

[BuffetDestroyer]

I am still waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the D.C. ban!

If they rule in favor of our individual rights and not the perverse fascist interpretation (like the Miller case in 1939) that "Only the U.S. Government has the right to keep and bear arms", then this bullshit would hopefully go to the wayside!

It truly baffles me that people are so skewed that they believe a Constitutional Amendment written at a time when there was no official governement (other than England's Monarchy) or organized army or National Guard, our forefathers, who fought tyrannical government oppression, would only want the government to have arms. WTF?

Life, Liberty and Governement Oppression? Makes sense to me!

(Whew!!! - sorry, I had to vent! I know I'm preaching to the choir here.)

[Noob]

Look guys, the asteroid is coming.

Face it, no mater what we are F'd after this election. The timing of this is perfect. Wanna bet Osama makes it a campaign issue? His handlers have big brass balls. As other politicos scurry from the 2nd issue, I can see Osama taking it head on and saying we need "change" when it comes to guns. Of course his version would be no guns at all

It IS coming.....what are you doing about it?

Got enough ammo? (how much is enough?)

Got enough clips (again, how much is enough)

Got spare parts?

[1911]

Noob, on Jun 20 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Got enough clips (again, how much is enough)

 clipmag1.jpg (50.83K)
Number of downloads: 11

[MD_Willington]

bayonet lug, on Jun 20 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

that says H.R. 6257 , what happened to H.R.1022

It still there...


With the election coverage going strong, the rat bastards are pushing this stuff quietly in the background...


Contact your .GOV REP and give them a shit storm ear full...

[waltham_41]

1911 maybe all of his weapons are milsurp bolt actions and are fed by clips not mags (J/K)

[waltham_41]

I took a brief look at this proposal at another forum, and it seems that this one has a lot of "illegal to possess or own" IE assault type weapons and hi cap MAGS thrown in. Perhaps they are shooting for actually taking them away from us?

[Noob]

Clip...mag...who gives a shit...WTF!

Can't ya add anything more intelligent than that?

[1911]

Noob, on Jun 20 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

Clip...mag...who gives a shit...WTF!

Can't ya add anything more intelligent than that?

Wouldn't help anyway if you refused the education you were just offered.

1911

[SaigaNoobie]

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;


They're trying to make all the mags manufactured between 94 and 2008 illegal? Fuck them. Mike, make sure you Manufacture your drums with "Made in 1994" on them!

This post has been edited by SaigaNoobie: 20 June 2008 - 01:03 PM

[SinistralRifleman]

MD_Willington, on Jun 20 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

bayonet lug, on Jun 20 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

that says H.R. 6257 , what happened to H.R.1022

It still there...


With the election coverage going strong, the rat bastards are pushing this stuff quietly in the background...


Contact your .GOV REP and give them a shit storm ear full...

HR1022 is gone...if its not voted on by the end of the session, it's dead. They introduce a new one every year, hence HR 6257

[Agias]

SaigaNoobie, on Jun 20 2008, 08:00 PM, said:

Mike, make sure you Manufacture your drums with "Made in 1994" on them!

[ClickClickD'oh]

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 20 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

If they rule in favor of our individual rights and not the perverse fascist interpretation (like the Miller case in 1939) that "Only the U.S. Government has the right to keep and bear arms", then this bullshit would hopefully go to the wayside!

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but the Miller decision was very strongly pro individual rights.

Also, this new bill clearly exempts hi-capacity magazines or assault rifles possesed before the date the bill takes effect.

Not saying I like the bill. It's absolute BS and needs to be killed in a vicious manner. But, we need to get our arguments right if we are going to be listened to.

[BuffetDestroyer]

ClickClickD, on Jun 20 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 20 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

If they rule in favor of our individual rights and not the perverse fascist interpretation (like the Miller case in 1939) that "Only the U.S. Government has the right to keep and bear arms", then this bullshit would hopefully go to the wayside!

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but the Miller decision was very strongly pro individual rights.

Also, this new bill clearly exempts hi-capacity magazines or assault rifles possesed before the date the bill takes effect.

Not saying I like the bill. It's absolute BS and needs to be killed in a vicious manner. But, we need to get our arguments right if we are going to be listened to.

The Supreme Court wrote in the Miller Case:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Now if you want your Second Amendment rights you have to join the "Militia" which the Supreme Court defined as 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' and then further stated that Congress is the only entity that can call forth this "militia".

The other argument made in the case is that the weapon in question (a Stevens double barreled shotgun) was never used in military service, and therefore did not qualify as a weapon we (the people) are guaranteed to own under the 2nd Amendment.

I would infer this ruling by the Supreme Court means that for me to own this sawed off shotgun, I have to join our government's military and have that weapon in my possession and then register it with the government (or getting the NFA tax stamp) and use it in service (the serial number of the Stevens gun was brought into question as never being registered as a military weapon in that case).

To me this is not "pro-individual rights." None of my current firearms are "ex-U.S. military service weapons" because I am not allowed to own the weapons I used during my military service because the government owns them and requires a tax stamp (hence the case) for any similar true "Assault Weapons". Oh, and further "crime stopping legislation" requires those assault weapons to have been manufactured before 1986 now. Amazingly criminals still have access to full-auto assault weapons and commit crimes with them.

I am not for the governement requiring registration of my firearms and I highly disagree with the 1939 case as well as all of the legislation since (the 1986 ban, the 1989 ban, the 1994 ban). Pretty soon all of our rights will be gone! The problem is the same assholes that want our guns are the ones fighting to let the repeat offenders and convicted felons out on "good behavior" because they are "rehabilitated" and have rights!

[saiga12fan]

Here's what I posted on Mike's drum forum: You have got to be kidding. Not this BullFuckingShit again. Those Motherfuckers don't have anything better to do, but to Fuck w/our freedom. Dicks . Doesn't look like Saiga's are on the roster. Fuckheads . Damn I hate congress. And if there are any reading this...Fuck you Punkass bitches. And that goes the same with the ATF and Fucking...E. Go Fuck w/the the criminals and leave the lawbidding citizens the hell alone. Cocksuckers . And I mean that. FMJ.

This post has been edited by saiga12fan: 20 June 2008 - 04:19 PM

[ClickClickD'oh]

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 20 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

The Supreme Court wrote in the Miller Case:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Now if you want your Second Amendment rights you have to join the "Militia" which the Supreme Court defined as 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' and then further stated that Congress is the only entity that can call forth this "militia".

Quote

I would infer this ruling by the Supreme Court means that for me to own this sawed off shotgun, I have to join our government's military and have that weapon in my possession and then register it with the government (or getting the NFA tax stamp) and use it in service (the serial number of the Stevens gun was brought into question as never being registered as a military weapon in that case).

Woah there. I don't know where you got that reading of the Miller case, but it is very wrong.

Miller didn't allow at all for any absolute prohibition of any firearms. It allowed for a tax on firearms that were not of a practical military purpose. There's a huge difference there.

Yes, a strict reading of Miller does mean that you have to be part of the militia to own a firearm, but people always forget the most important part of the Miller case...

SCOTUS said:

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

Yes, that's right. You don't have to join the militia, you are part of the militia by default just by being an American citizen. Furthermore, you are expected to already own a firearm just in case the militia ever gets called. Take note of that. It doesn't say you get to own a firearm after the militia gets called. You are expected to already have one. Not only that, but that firearm should be one commonly used by the military.

[nsa400]

:killer:Here's what I posted on Mike's drum forum: You have got to be kidding. Not this BullFuckingShit again. Those Motherfuckers don't have anything better to do, but to Fuck w/our freedom. Dicks . Doesn't look like Saiga's are on the roster. Fuckheads . Damn I hate congress. And if there are any reading this...Fuck you Punkass bitches. And that goes the same with the ATF and Fucking...E. Go Fuck w/the the criminals and leave the lawbidding citizens the hell alone. Cocksuckers . And I mean that. FMJ.



YEH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT HE SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



1911 EDUMACATION IS A GOOD THANG!

[BuffetDestroyer]

ClickClickD, on Jun 20 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 20 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

The Supreme Court wrote in the Miller Case:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Now if you want your Second Amendment rights you have to join the "Militia" which the Supreme Court defined as 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' and then further stated that Congress is the only entity that can call forth this "militia".

Quote

I would infer this ruling by the Supreme Court means that for me to own this sawed off shotgun, I have to join our government's military and have that weapon in my possession and then register it with the government (or getting the NFA tax stamp) and use it in service (the serial number of the Stevens gun was brought into question as never being registered as a military weapon in that case).

Woah there. I don't know where you got that reading of the Miller case, but it is very wrong.

Miller didn't allow at all for any absolute prohibition of any firearms. It allowed for a tax on firearms that were not of a practical military purpose. There's a huge difference there.

Yes, a strict reading of Miller does mean that you have to be part of the militia to own a firearm, but people always forget the most important part of the Miller case...

SCOTUS said:

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

Yes, that's right. You don't have to join the militia, you are part of the militia by default just by being an American citizen. Furthermore, you are expected to already own a firearm just in case the militia ever gets called. Take note of that. It doesn't say you get to own a firearm after the militia gets called. You are expected to already have one. Not only that, but that firearm should be one commonly used by the military.

Dude, don't want to get into a pissing match, but:

http://caselaw.lp.fi...c...7&invol=174

See the 7th and 8th paragraphs... Only Congress can call the Militia... That sounds like the government is the only one in charge and capable calling us to arms! The commonly accepted group under this definition that you quoted is everyone who registers for the Draft (so women don't have the right to bear arms in that regard as it specifically states "all males"). The draft feeds a Government Controlled Army, which means it is not a citizen right. I don't recall the folks that got drafted to Vietnam supplying their own M60's and M16's, grenades, mortors, helicoptors, planes, battleships, etc.

Also, under this interpretation of this Case Law and the quote used, I can only have the arms that were in common use at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification!

But my point is that this case can be interpreted in multiple ways, and one of which is that weapons not currently securing our country are not necessary and can be taxed and taken away on the government's whims! This is exactly what is happening with these bans. Our rights are eroded more and more with every law that Congress passes!

(BTW, I love my country and am willing to fight for it if I am called upon without hesitation. However, the Framers wanted us to have a means to fight Oppressive Governments. That is why it is the 2nd Amendment after our 1st right to -CENSORED-!)

[ClickClickD'oh]

Quote

The commonly accepted group under this definition that you quoted is everyone who registers for the Draft

Where does it say that in the SCOTUS decision?

Quote

I can only have the arms that were in common use at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification!

Where does it say that in the SCOTUS decision?

While you are trying to find those things that don't exist in the SCOTUS decision you might want to realize the portion I quoted earlier is there in the decision. I'm not joking. It's right there. Here, I'll copy the whole thing in here for us.

Quote

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Read what the court actually said and not what people have told you the court said. In plain language it clearly says "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". It doesn't say anything about anyone who has registered for a draft, is serving in any current standing force or anything else. The court only say All males when called. And since we've gone and done the equal rights bit since then you can figure everyone has been included. Unless of course you want to go before the SCOTUS and argue that women don't have the same rights as men.

The court also says nothing at all about arms in use at the time of ratification. It clearly states, "bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" What time? The time in the sentance, when the militia is called. The constitutional militia has never been called, therefore you can't fix a time for which the arms are supposed to belong to other than possibly, Current.

There you have it. The SCOTUS echoing directly the actual words of the people who wrote the Constitution. There is no room for honest ambiguity. All persons when called, with arms they privately possesed at home prior to the call to arms. That is a 100% individual rights decision or else they would have defined the militia as, All persons with arms held in government arsenals.

[BuffetDestroyer]

ClickClickD, on Jun 20 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

Quote

The commonly accepted group under this definition that you quoted is everyone who registers for the Draft

Where does it say that in the SCOTUS decision?

Quote

I can only have the arms that were in common use at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification!

Where does it say that in the SCOTUS decision?

While you are trying to find those things that don't exist in the SCOTUS decision you might want to realize the portion I quoted earlier is there in the decision. I'm not joking. It's right there. Here, I'll copy the whole thing in here for us.

Quote

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Read what the court actually said and not what people have told you the court said. In plain language it clearly says "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". It doesn't say anything about anyone who has registered for a draft, is serving in any current standing force or anything else. The court only say All males when called. And since we've gone and done the equal rights bit since then you can figure everyone has been included. Unless of course you want to go before the SCOTUS and argue that women don't have the same rights as men.

The court also says nothing at all about arms in use at the time of ratification. It clearly states, "bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" What time? The time in the sentance, when the militia is called. The constitutional militia has never been called, therefore you can't fix a time for which the arms are supposed to belong to other than possibly, Current.

There you have it. The SCOTUS echoing directly the actual words of the people who wrote the Constitution. There is no room for honest ambiguity. All persons when called, with arms they privately possesed at home prior to the call to arms. That is a 100% individual rights decision or else they would have defined the militia as, All persons with arms held in government arsenals.

OPEN THE LINK! THE WHOLE CASE IS THERE! I AM NOT PULLING IT OUT OF MY ASS! I CAN HIGHLIGHT EACH OF THE QUOTED POINTS IF YOU STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT! YOU EVEN INCLUDED SOME OF THEM AND ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION (arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time).

http://caselaw.lp.fi...c...7&invol=174

No, the "Draft" is not mentioned by name, but how else does Congress call the the people or militia to arms? Do they get on a loudspeaker and just say, "Hey you males out there that are physically able, go to war for us... and bring your M-16's, Grenades, SAW's and line up over there!"

No, they call on the Selective Service program like they did in both World Wars, but sidestepped in Vietnam. Do you remember filling out that little card? I do! How else in history has this ever happened?

So your "individual right" interpretation means that the only time the Constitution gives YOU the right to bear arms is in the case when it involves calling a Militia. This interpretation says absolutely nothing about a person's individual right to defend themself from personal threats...

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

That means that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment should only be applied in the context of the Militia, rather than the People.

The decision disregards the second part of the 2nd Amendment, and solely focuses on A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Nowhere in the decision do they discuss the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THAT is the language where our INDIVIDUAL right stems from!

And an 18" shotgun barrel was thus deemed worthy of militia service according the SCOTUS decision, but ownership of a 17.9" shotgun barrel is not a right protected under the Constitution. Instead it is a one way ticket to jail (unless you pay the government $200, which when it was implemented was equivalent to 1 month's salary - look it up, it isn't in the SCOTUS decision)!

If you still want to believe that some other type or form of Militia will ever be called by Congress (other than Selective Service), feel free! I however would like to keep the means to defend myself when Congress isn't there to call and tell me I can intervene in a life and limb scenario.

Also using similar rose-colored logic, I suppose the 1989 ban is a great law for our sovreignty too since it protects American Commerce! I personally love having to buy $300 worth of aftermarket U.S. made shit to put my rifle or shotgun into it's orginal functional configuration! Maybe we should do the same thing with cars and require U.S. Parts counts to help the little guys like GM and Ford. Then our cars would only cost twice what they do now and be half as reliable!

What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't making sense? The fucking dead horse has been beat again.... I can't believe I am arguing this shit on this forum.... No fucking wonder these bans pass!

[ClickClickD'oh]

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

No, the "Draft" is not mentioned by name, but how else does Congress call the the people or militia to arms? Do they get on a loudspeaker and just say, "Hey you males out there that are physically able, go to war for us... and bring your M-16's, Grenades, SAW's and line up over there!"

No, they call on the Selective Service program like they did in both World Wars, but sidestepped in Vietnam. Do you remember filling out that little card? I do! How else in history has this ever happened?

That's not the constitutional militia. That's a standing army. There's a difference.

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

So your "individual right" interpretation means that the only time the Constitution gives YOU the right to bear arms is in the case when it involves calling a Militia. This interpretation says absolutely nothing about a person's individual right to defend themself from personal threats...

No, that's not what I said. I said it gives us the right to bear arms so that in case someday the congress decides to call the militia, we will have arms ready to go and answer the call. It doesn't say anything about not being able to use those arms for defense, hunting or what ever else in the mean time... as long as you have them ready to go when/if congress does call for you.

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

That means that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment should only be applied in the context of the Militia, rather than the People.

Except that the militia are the people. That's the whole reason they went to the trouble of defining the militia. The people are the militia. They can not be seperated.

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

If you still want to believe that some other type or form of Militia will ever be called by Congress (other than Selective Service), feel free! I however would like to keep the means to defend myself when Congress isn't there to call and tell me I can intervene in a life and limb scenario.

You still aren't catching onto the part about ownership before the call to militia aren't you?

Let's cover this again since you really really don't want to read what was actually written. 1) The purpose of allowing the ownership of firearms is incase a militia is needed. 2) The militia is all citizens of the United States 3) Militia member (US Citizens) are expected to own arms in case the militia is ever called.

Ergo, Yes, you get to own a gun because, Yes, you are a member of the constitutional militia and, NO, Congress has never called the militia, but NO, that doesn't mean you don't get to own a firearm because go back to the begining of this run on sentence.

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

Also using similar rose-colored logic, I suppose the 1989 ban is a great law for our sovreignty too since it protects American Commerce!

What?

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

I personally love having to buy $300 worth of aftermarket U.S. made shit to put my rifle or shotgun into it's orginal functional configuration! Maybe we should do the same thing with cars and require U.S. Parts counts to help the little guys like GM and Ford. Then our cars would only cost twice what they do now and be half as reliable!

What?

BuffetDestroyer, on Jun 23 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't making sense? The fucking dead horse has been beat again.... I can't believe I am arguing this shit on this forum.... No fucking wonder these bans pass!

Seriously, WHAT?

Have you gone mental? What the fuck are you talking about?

[DistalRadius]

Fascinating. Wheres the popcorn?