Shooting at Florida high school

steve2^4 · Mar 2, 2018

Forbin said: ↑

steve2^4 said: ↑

Forbin said: ↑

Nova said: ↑

See this is why you can't have a sane discussion with gun lovers.

The 2A itself uses the words "well regulated"

REGULATIONS on time, place, and manner of gun possession, on the requirements necessary to legally use one and the sorts of weapons that it in the interest of the general welfare to be in private hands, are NOT "assaults on your rights"
Click to expand...

Have you conveniently forgotten all the discussions we've had on what the term "regulated" meant when the Bill of Rights was written? It didn't mean controlled by the government.
Click to expand...

it sure as hell didn't mean "well equipped."

Origin and Etymology of regulate

Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
Click to expand...

Webster
Click to expand...

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Holy shit, the spin you guys put on a single word is dizzying.

Show me the etymology where "regulated" ever meant or was used to mean "equipped." Regulated is from old english and prior to that, Latin. It never meant equipped. Not even colloquially, and certainly not in a document forming the framework of our government.

The logic that other uses of "regulate" in the Constitution, with qualifications for who regulates what, implies that the 2nd cannot mean "controlled" because it doesn't call these out is laughable. A logical person would understand that the Militia is being regulated by the state.

A "well regulated" militia differentiates a trained and controlled group from a mob with guns.

Man Afraid of his Shoes · Mar 2, 2018

steve2^4 said: ↑

The logic that other uses of "regulate" in the Constitution, with qualifications for who regulates what, implies that the 2nd cannot mean "controlled" because it doesn't call these out is laughable. A logical person would understand that the Militia is being regulated by the state.
Click to expand...

So it just goes without saying? An un-written law but a law nontheless?

Man Afraid of his Shoes · Mar 2, 2018

matthunter said: ↑

Two dead in shooting at Central Michigan University, shooter still at large.

Round and round and round we goes, we don't stop as long as NRA cash flows...
Click to expand...

So are we going to go ahead and call this a mass school shooting as opposed to a double homicide that happened in a college dorm room?

Forbin · Mar 2, 2018

Because language never evolves or changes.

matthunter · Mar 2, 2018

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

matthunter said: ↑

Two dead in shooting at Central Michigan University, shooter still at large.

Round and round and round we goes, we don't stop as long as NRA cash flows...
Click to expand...

So are we going to go ahead and call this a mass school shooting as opposed to a double homicide that happened in a college dorm room?
Click to expand...

Seem it was a domestic, but if he'd gone on to shoot others, yeah.

Paladin · Mar 2, 2018

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

...and Trump's doing a lot of good (perceived or real, doesn't matter) for the swing states that put him in office.
Click to expand...

Like what?
Click to expand...

Enticing manufacturing back through lower tax rates and thus creating jobs, getting working class people bonuses as a consequence of the tax cuts, acting on the opioid epidemic, pushing back against illegal immigration, standing up for gun rights, etc.

Man Afraid of his Shoes · Mar 2, 2018

Paladin said: ↑

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

...and Trump's doing a lot of good (perceived or real, doesn't matter) for the swing states that put him in office.
Click to expand...

Like what?
Click to expand...

Enticing manufacturing back through lower tax rates and thus creating jobs, getting working class people bonuses as a consequence of the tax cuts, acting on the opioid epidemic, pushing back against illegal immigration, standing up for gun rights, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh...hence the perceived or real part. Now I get it.

Paladin · Mar 2, 2018

steve2^4 said: ↑

Holy shit, the spin you guys put on a single word is dizzying.

Show me the etymology where "regulated" ever meant or was used to mean "equipped." Regulated is from old english and prior to that, Latin. It never meant equipped. Not even colloquially, and certainly not in a document forming the framework of our government.

The logic that other uses of "regulate" in the Constitution, with qualifications for who regulates what, implies that the 2nd cannot mean "controlled" because it doesn't call these out is laughable. A logical person would understand that the Militia is being regulated by the state.

A "well regulated" militia differentiates a trained and controlled group from a mob with guns.
Click to expand...

"Equipped" is not a good synonym, but in the 18th Century context, the term meant something more like "self-disciplined, exercising self-control."

I posted examples from the 18th Century Oxford dictionary that affirm this definition before.

Where you see "well-regulated" you can read "self-disciplined."

But even if you think that's all bullshit--it's very, very solid, I assure you--you're still left with the fact that the adjective "well-regulated" modifies the noun "militia," and not "the right of the people."

I would interpret the 2nd in modern language thus:
"A self-disciplined militia of armed citizens being necessary to preserve a free state, the right of individual persons to own and carry small arms shall not be infringed."

Paladin · Mar 2, 2018

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

...and Trump's doing a lot of good (perceived or real, doesn't matter) for the swing states that put him in office.
Click to expand...

Like what?
Click to expand...

Enticing manufacturing back through lower tax rates and thus creating jobs, getting working class people bonuses as a consequence of the tax cuts, acting on the opioid epidemic, pushing back against illegal immigration, standing up for gun rights, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh...hence the perceived or real part. Now I get it.
Click to expand...

Well, people can argue over whether Trump has provided any real benefit--I would maintain that he has--but the issue is: do the people in those states perceive him as helping them?

Steal Your Face · Mar 2, 2018

steve2^4 said: ↑

Forbin said: ↑

steve2^4 said: ↑

Forbin said: ↑

Have you conveniently forgotten all the discussions we've had on what the term "regulated" meant when the Bill of Rights was written? It didn't mean controlled by the government.
Click to expand...

it sure as hell didn't mean "well equipped."

Origin and Etymology of regulate

Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
Click to expand...

Webster
Click to expand...

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Holy shit, the spin you guys put on a single word is dizzying.

Show me the etymology where "regulated" ever meant or was used to mean "equipped." Regulated is from old english and prior to that, Latin. It never meant equipped. Not even colloquially, and certainly not in a document forming the framework of our government.

The logic that other uses of "regulate" in the Constitution, with qualifications for who regulates what, implies that the 2nd cannot mean "controlled" because it doesn't call these out is laughable. A logical person would understand that the Militia is being regulated by the state.

A "well regulated" militia differentiates a trained and controlled group from a mob with guns.
Click to expand...

Dude, we go over this every time with you and you still don't fucking get it. I'm sure it came up several times before, but once again, for the umpteenth time, I refer you to posts 28, 44, 78, and finally 151 and 152 of this nearly three year old thread.
https://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/leftforge-doesnt-understand-the-second-amendment.107376/

And when you're done, we can do this again.

Man Afraid of his Shoes · Mar 2, 2018

Paladin said: ↑

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Like what?
Click to expand...

Enticing manufacturing back through lower tax rates and thus creating jobs, getting working class people bonuses as a consequence of the tax cuts, acting on the opioid epidemic, pushing back against illegal immigration, standing up for gun rights, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh...hence the perceived or real part. Now I get it.
Click to expand...

Well, people can argue over whether Trump has provided any real benefit--I would maintain that he has--but the issue is: do the people in those states perceive him as helping them?
Click to expand...

Well, other than possibly the bonuses, I don't see how the benefits could be anything other than perceived. I'd be surprised if the others were already providing real benefit.

:Edit: Oops. I forgot about the Costco membership. So that too.

Ancalagon · Mar 2, 2018

Forbin said: ↑

Because language never evolves or changes.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna link back to this the next time someone whines about how an AR can't be referred to as an assault rifle b/c even though it uses an intermediate round, has a pistol grip and detachable magazine it doesn't have select fire.

Zombie · Mar 2, 2018

Meanwhile back to the incompetence of the Broward Sheriff.

Remember how we were pissed off at the 3 other deputies who didn't go inside?

Turns out they were ordered to form a perimeter.

http://amp.miamiherald.com/news/loc...ticle203015289.html?__twitter_impression=true

"The Broward Sheriff’s Office captain who initially took charge of the chaotic scene at a Parkland high school where 17 people were killed told deputies to form a perimeter around the deadly scene — which they did instead of going in to confront the shooter, according to a partial BSO dispatch log obtained by the Miami Herald.

Capt. Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order, the log shows, identifying her by her police call sign."

matthunter · Mar 2, 2018

Zombie said: ↑

Capt. Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order, the log shows, identifying her by her police call sign."
Click to expand...

Well, when your brother is Green Lantern, may as well fall back and wait for the lightshow.

Paladin · Mar 2, 2018

Zombie said: ↑

Meanwhile back to the incompetence of the Broward Sheriff.

Remember how we were pissed off at the 3 other deputies who didn't go inside?

Turns out they were ordered to form a perimeter.

http://amp.miamiherald.com/news/loc...ticle203015289.html?__twitter_impression=true

"The Broward Sheriff’s Office captain who initially took charge of the chaotic scene at a Parkland high school where 17 people were killed told deputies to form a perimeter around the deadly scene — which they did instead of going in to confront the shooter, according to a partial BSO dispatch log obtained by the Miami Herald.

Capt. Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order, the log shows, identifying her by her police call sign."
Click to expand...

"We'll just wait out here until the shooter runs out of bullets."

Paladin · Mar 2, 2018

matthunter said: ↑

Zombie said: ↑

Capt. Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order, the log shows, identifying her by her police call sign."
Click to expand...

Well, when your brother is Green Lantern, may as well fall back and wait for the lightshow.
Click to expand...

I get it, it's a Hal Jordan joke.

Her superhero name is Yellow Guard.

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee · Mar 2, 2018

So a woman told men to act rationally and everybody is throwing a hissy fit?

Forbin · Mar 2, 2018

Zombie · Mar 2, 2018

Please tell me that's fake.

oldfella1962 · Mar 2, 2018

Maxine Waters? Oh hell no! Every couple of days I see here on the news saying some crazy shit. None of what she says has any scientific or realistic basis which of course means nothing to the democrats she panders to.

Shirogayne · Mar 2, 2018

Forbin said: ↑

View attachment 25785

Click to expand...

Why not both?

Steal Your Face · Mar 2, 2018

Maxine Waters is one of the looniest people the Democrats have in Congress, this doesn't surprise me at all.

Man Afraid of his Shoes · Mar 2, 2018

Forbin said: ↑

View attachment 25785

Click to expand...

There's no way that's real.

shootER · Mar 2, 2018

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

Forbin said: ↑

View attachment 25785

Click to expand...

There's no way that's real.
Click to expand...

I would hope so, but Maxine is nuttier than a barrel full of squirrel turds so anything's possible.

oldfella1962 · Mar 2, 2018

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26645/maxine-waters-says-stupidest-thing-ever-then-opens-joseph-curl

Skrain Dukat · Mar 2, 2018

Ancalagon said: ↑

Forbin said: ↑

Because language never evolves or changes.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna link back to this the next time someone whines about how an AR can't be referred to as an assault rifle b/c even though it uses an intermediate round, has a pistol grip and detachable magazine it doesn't have select fire.
Click to expand...

oldfella1962 · Mar 2, 2018

Some guy was on NPR today explaining how it's silly to use the term "assault" weapon when many civilian hunting weapons have actually a greater pound-for-pound killing capacity than the "assault" weapons that gun haters are afraid of!

Steal Your Face · Mar 2, 2018

oldfella1962 said: ↑

Some guy was on NPR today explaining how it's silly to use the term "assault" weapon when many civilian hunting weapons have actually a greater pound-for-pound killing capacity than the "assault" weapons that gun haters are afraid of!
Click to expand...

We can't let facts get in the way of propaganda and fear mongering.

Man Afraid of his Shoes · Mar 2, 2018

oldfella1962 said: ↑

Some guy was on NPR today explaining how it's silly to use the term "assault" weapon when many civilian hunting weapons have actually a greater pound-for-pound killing capacity than the "assault" weapons that gun haters are afraid of!
Click to expand...

How did they explain that? What hunting rifle is "pound for pound" more deadly than an AR? What does "greater pound for pound killing capacity" even mean?

shootER · Mar 2, 2018

Man Afraid of his Shoes said: ↑

oldfella1962 said: ↑

Some guy was on NPR today explaining how it's silly to use the term "assault" weapon when many civilian hunting weapons have actually a greater pound-for-pound killing capacity than the "assault" weapons that gun haters are afraid of!
Click to expand...

How did they explain that? What hunting rifle is "pound for pound" more deadly than an AR? What does "greater pound for pound killing capacity" even mean?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he was referencing the ballistics of something like a .30-06 compared to 5.56/.223, which is a misnomer when you're talking about a rifle that holds 5 rounds versus one that can hold 30 at a time.

Log in or Sign up

Shooting at Florida high school

steve2^4 Aged Meat

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Forbin Do you feel fluffy, punk?

matthunter Ice Bear

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

Zombie dead and loving it

matthunter Ice Bear

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

Forbin Do you feel fluffy, punk?

Zombie dead and loving it

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

Shirogayne Gay™ Formerly Important

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

shootER Insubordinate...and churlish Administrator

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

Skrain Dukat Banned

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

shootER Insubordinate...and churlish Administrator

Log in or Sign up

Shooting at Florida high school

steve2^4 Aged Meat

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Forbin Do you feel fluffy, punk?

matthunter Ice Bear

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

Zombie dead and loving it

matthunter Ice Bear

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

Forbin Do you feel fluffy, punk?

Zombie dead and loving it

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

Shirogayne Gay™ Formerly Important

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

shootER Insubordinate...and churlish Administrator

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

Skrain Dukat Banned

oldfella1962 the only real finish line

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

shootER Insubordinate...and churlish Administrator

Useful Searches