Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on October 02, 2014, 06:14:43 AM
-
Ban bicycles, ladders, mountains,counters and roofs!!!!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/01/CDC-FBI-Bicycle-And-Falling-Deaths-Far-Exceed-Deaths-From-Mass-Shootings
CDC, FBI: Bicycle and Falling Deaths Far Exceed Deaths from 'Mass Shootings'
Death statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coupled with crime statistics from the FBI show that bicycle and falling deaths far exceed deaths from "mass shootings."
For example, on September 24 the FBI released a study showing there were 64 incidents of "mass killings" (mass shootings) for the years 2000 through 2013. The gunmen in these incidents took the lives of 418 people.
Breitbart News reported that The New York Times and AP jumped all over the study, producing headlines about how "mass shootings" are on the rise and crafting stories that revolved around the attacks at Sandy Hook Elementary and the Aurora movie theater.
The 418 people who were killed over a 14-year period works out to an average of 29.8 persons a year.
To be clear, no one wants to see even one life lost to tragedy, but the mainstream media's focus on "mass shootings" to the detriment of other news where hundreds or even thousands more lives were lost is telling.
For example, the CDC bicycle-related injury report for 2010 shows that almost twice as many people died on bicycles in that one year than were killed in "mass shootings" during the 14 years studied by the FBI. Thus, while there were 418 deaths in "mass shootings" from 2000 to 2013, there were 800 deaths by bicycle in 2010 alone.
Moreover, there "were an estimated 515,000 emergency department visits" due to bicycle accidents.
And CDC death statistics for 2010 show there were 26,009 deaths from "falling" for that year alone. That's right--26,009 deaths in one year from falls from ladders, counters, roofs, mountains, etc.
There were an average of 29.8 deaths a year for 14 years from "mass shootings."
-
Ban FIRE, FISTS and FEET!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/29/FBI-More-People-Murdered-With-Fire-Than-In-Mass-Shootings
FBI: More People Murdered with Fire Than in Mass Shootings
According to FBI crime statistics and the bureau's recent study on "active shooter" incidents (ACIs) in the US, far more people are murdered with fire than are killed in mass shootings.
Moreover, the number of people killed each year with "personal weapons," such as "feet" and "fists," nearly eclipses the number of people killed in mass shootings.
On September 24, the FBI released their study on ACIs showing 418 deaths in mass shootings--or "mass killings"--from 2000 to 2013. On paper, that works out to an average of 29.8 murders in mass shootings each year for those 14 years. But FBI crime stats for murder by other means show that the gap between those killed in mass shootings and those killed with more rudimentary weapons is staggering.
For example, the stats show 580 murders committed with fire from 2006 through 2011 alone. That's 162 more murders by fire in six years than the total number of murders via mass shooters for the 14-year period studied by the FBI.
Moreover, there were 4,873 murders committed with "personal weapons" like "feet" and "fists" and 10,769 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments" from 2006 through 2011 alone. That is an average of 812 persons killed each of those years with weapons like "feet" and "fists" and an average of 1,794.8 stabbed to death annually during that same period.
-
I wish a thumbs up emoticon was available.
-
but guns arw lowd and scawwy!!!
-
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a bicycle and then you will have finally made a valid point with this tired old argument
btw - I'm sure even more people die of heart disease so do you suggest outlawing heart disease or perhaps the things that cause heart disease
-
As such...more children are killed by 5 gallon buckets than mass shootings per year. Trampolines also kill more kids than guns per year.
The FBI also includes children deaths up to the age of 26, go figure that one out.
-
-
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a bicycle and then you will have finally made a valid point with this tired old argument
btw - I'm sure even more people die of heart disease so do you suggest outlawing heart disease or perhaps the things that cause heart disease
in a way we do with "sin taxes"
-
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a bicycle and then you will have finally made a valid point with this tired old argument
btw - I'm sure even more people die of heart disease so do you suggest outlawing heart disease or perhaps the things that cause heart disease
Yes, because classrooms of children are being massacred every single day, week in and week out.
Give me a break, its such a rare occurance, yet people have a fckn freak out and try and change everything, yet if those same kids died simultaneously from, say, gettijg hit by different cars outside that classroom, no one would give a flying fuck.
We shouldn't do shit except be more vigilant in the future. You dont make sweeping policy changes t9 millions of citizens rights over a .01% chance of something happening.
-
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a
Look at this retard.
The stats don't support the gun control ideology taught to him by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, so he comes up with the dumbest and weakest response ever.
Moron, let me know when more people are getting killed in mass shootings than in bicycle deaths and fire and then and only THEN you might have a plausible argument for gun control.
This is the point: MASS SHOOTINGS ARE SO RARE THAT THEY ARE NOT WORTH ALL THE ATTENTION GIVEN TO IT BY THE LIBTARD MEDIA, NOR WARRANT ANY CALLS BY LIBTARDS FOR NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS OR WEAPONS BAN
Capisce, nitwit?
-
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a bicycle and then you will have finally made a valid point with this tired old argument
btw - I'm sure even more people die of heart disease so do you suggest outlawing heart disease or perhaps the things that cause heart disease
your argument is essentially saying that you don't care to address the problem of children dying. because you don't care if kids die. you only care if kids get shot. you want to address the problem of kids getting shot.........by guns.......even if you save way less children from dying because you choose to ignore the things that are actually killing the most children. and the ONLY reason you hold this belief is because TV reports on shootings, not drownings. shootings are exciting and people want to watch that. people don't want to hear about kids drowning. its boring.
I remember a long time ago reading about people in Florida who wanted to ban private swimming pools because so many kids drown every year because everyone has swimming pools. The people fought it said that swimming pools don't kill children. Irresponsible pool owners are the ones at fault. Sound familiar? The funny part is that yes swimming pools do kill a lot of kids.........just by being there........doing nothing.
in my opinion, we should first identify the things that kill the most children. and start with those. but that's just me.
-
your argument is essentially saying that you don't care to address the problem of children dying. because you don't care if kids die. you only care if kids get shot. you want to address the problem of kids getting shot.........by guns.......even if you save way less children from dying because you choose to ignore the things that are actually killing the most children. and the ONLY reason you hold this belief is because TV reports on shootings, not drownings. shootings are exciting and people want to watch that. people don't want to hear about kids drowning. its boring.
I remember a long time ago reading about people in Florida who wanted to ban private swimming pools because so many kids drown every year because everyone has swimming pools. The people fought it said that swimming pools don't kill children. Irresponsible pool owners are the ones at fault. Sound familiar? The funny part is that yes swimming pools do kill a lot of kids.........just by being there........doing nothing.
in my opinion, we should first identify the things that kill the most children. and start with those. but that's just me.
dude - I love how you jump to conclusion and then assume that's what I believe
Let's start with the fact that the "ban it" thread start with a false premise that there is some kind of support for banning guns and then they make these false and conflated comparisons with banning fire, cars, lakes, hammers, fire, fists, feet...etc...
It's an argument that idiots like to make and then congratulate themselves for being so clever
The second premise of these types of threads seems to be that if modest gun legislation can't prevent all gun violence then the only other alternative is to do nothing. Again, a completely stupid premise
I'm not even going to waste my time any more on this thread as we've been over this same ground many times yet here we are with another
"ban it" thread
-
dude - I love how you jump to conclusion and then assume that's what I believe
Let's start with the fact that the "ban it" thread start with a false premise that there is some kind of support for banning guns and then they make these false and conflated comparisons with banning fire, cars, lakes, hammers, fire, fists, feet...etc...
It's an argument that idiots like to make and then congratulate themselves for being so clever
The second premise of these types of threads seems to be that if modest gun legislation can't prevent all gun violence then the only other alternative is to do nothing. Again, a completely stupid premise
I'm not even going to waste my time any more on this thread as we've been over this same ground many times yet here we are with another
"ban it" thread
then why even make the comment that you did about a massacre of a room full of children? you make silly comments. then you back pedal.
the point I try to make is that you can't legislate your way out of murders and accidental deaths. you seem to think that you can stop mass murder by restricting the use of certain kinds of guns? that's just fucking stupid.
and we're all glad that you're done with this thread.
-
then why even make the comment that you did about a massacre of a room full of children? you make silly comments. then you back pedal.
the point I try to make is that you can't legislate your way out of murders and accidental deaths. you seem to think that you can stop mass murder by restricting the use of certain kinds of guns? that's just fucking stupid.
and we're all glad that you're done with this thread.
sure you can
everyone gets a musket and then see how many mass shootings we have
the point I've made is
1. The "ban it" threads are bullshit because there is no effort to ban all guns
2. The premise of these threads (and other arguments against ANY kind of gun legislation) is that it won't stop all gun violence ...therefore it's pointless to do anything (note you just made this same argument above).
same stupid shit that stupid people tell each other and then get mad when others don't share their stupidity
-
sure you can
everyone gets a musket and then see how many mass shootings we have
the point I've made is
1. The "ban it" threads are bullshit because there is no effort to ban all guns
2. The premise of these threads (and other arguments against ANY kind of gun legislation) is that it won't stop all gun violence ...therefore it's pointless to do anything (note you just made this same argument above).
same stupid shit that stupid people tell each other and then get mad when others don't share their stupidity
Some of us dont feel its necessary to take rights to certain firearms from millions of Americans because of a a couple tragedies where a total of few dozen kids died.
I mean, to me, my logic doesnt seem to justify taking from millions of responsible Americans to try and prevent the possible deaths of a few dozen, especially when its like a .0001% chance of happening.
-
Some of us dont feel its necessary to take rights to certain firearms from millions of Americans because of a a couple tragedies where a total of few dozen kids died.
I mean, to me, my logic doesnt seem to justify taking from millions of responsible Americans to try and prevent the possible deaths of a few dozen, especially when its like a .0001% chance of happening.
did the most recent legislation that failed in the Senate have anything to do with that or was it mostly expanded background checks (and didn't even cover friends and family and even specifically banned a national registry....in other words truly the least we could do)
-
did the most recent legislation that failed in the Senate have anything to do with that or was it mostly expanded background checks (and didn't even cover friends and family and even specifically banned a national registry....in other words truly the least we could do)
yes b/c the govt that spies on the press, targets organizations on the grounds of political belief and gives guns to drug dealers is to be trusted?
You have already said you dont have an issue with a national registry...why should anybody trust your dumb ass?
-
Yes, because classrooms of children are being massacred every single day, week in and week out.
Give me a break, its such a rare occurance, yet people have a fckn freak out and try and change everything, yet if those same kids died simultaneously from, say, gettijg hit by different cars outside that classroom, no one would give a flying fuck.
We shouldn't do shit except be more vigilant in the future. You dont make sweeping policy changes t9 millions of citizens rights over a .01% chance of something happening.
straw doesnt care about how many die, only how they die...
-
sure you can
everyone gets a musket and then see how many mass shootings we have
the point I've made is
1. The "ban it" threads are bullshit because there is no effort to ban all guns
2. The premise of these threads (and other arguments against ANY kind of gun legislation) is that it won't stop all gun violence ...therefore it's pointless to do anything (note you just made this same argument above).
same stupid shit that stupid people tell each other and then get mad when others don't share their stupidity
lol you must be able to understand the confusion when you call for the banning of "assault rifles" that fit the definition of all guns where does that lead?
maybe you can speak for your ilk straw and tell us what the difference is between an "assault rifle" and a regular gun?
-
yes b/c the govt that spies on the press, targets organizations on the grounds of political belief and gives guns to drug dealers is to be trusted?
You have already said you dont have an issue with a national registry...why should anybody trust your dumb ass?
you really are this stupid aren't you?
the point was that the legislation was so fucking weak and even gave you guys a ban on a national registry (and yes I'm perfectly fine with that since we register cars, pets, medical devices and plenty of other things) and still it couldn't get done. It didn't contain an "ban" on guns but that of course won't stop morons such as yourself from starting these stupid threads where you try to conflate a non-existent ban on guns to banning absurd things that I've already listed. As I've said, it's an argument that only morons make and lo and behold you continue to demonstrate that you're a moron.
-
you really are this stupid aren't you?
the point was that the legislation was so fucking weak and even gave you guys a ban on a national registry (and yes I'm perfectly fine with that since we register cars, pets, medical devices and plenty of other things) and still it couldn't get done. It didn't contain an "ban" on guns but that of course won't stop morons such as yourself from starting these stupid threads where you try to conflate a non-existent ban on guns to banning absurd things that I've already listed. As I've said, it's an argument that only morons make and lo and behold you continue to demonstrate that you're a moron.
and I state again, we are to trust the govt that spies on the press, targets political opponents and gives guns to drug dealers to not create a registry?
what stupid is someone arguing that nobody wants to ban guns...please tell us what the difference between an "assault rifle" and a regular gun is now straw
-
and I state again, we are to trust the govt that spies on the press, targets political opponents and gives guns to drug dealers to not create a registry?
what stupid is someone arguing that nobody wants to ban guns...please tell us what the difference between an "assault rifle" and a regular gun is now straw
I have no idea what your definition of a "regular gun" is nor an "assault rifle"
try this
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=assault+rifle
once again here is the basic premise of these stupid "ban" threads
first you falsely attribute the position of wanting to "ban guns" to someone
second you present a series of ways that people have also died that don't include guns but do include mundane every day objects that are not even designed to be weapons (bats, hammers, cars, lakes, trampolines, etc..)
third you conflate false premise of "banning guns" to these everyday objects and assert that if the person really wanted to ban guns (again keeping in mind the person never wanted to ban guns in the first place) that they should first want to ban bats, hammers, cars, lakes, trampolines, etc.
fourth you and other morons congratulate each other for being so clever and never realizing how stupid you actually look.
I assume you'll fail to understand any of this and will soon join in on another "ban it" thread
again, if you really believed your own false premise then you would start with banning heart disease and cancer and everything that causes heart disease and cancer
-
Give it up Straw debating with Tony and Dario wont get you anywhere.
They will drag the discussion down to to retard level and beat you with their experience.
-
I have no idea what your definition of a "regular gun" is nor an "assault rifle"
try this
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=assault+rifle
once again here is the basic premise of these stupid "ban" threads
first you falsely attribute the position of wanting to "ban guns" to someone
second you present a series of ways that people have also died that don't include guns but do include mundane every day objects that are not even designed to be weapons (bats, hammers, cars, lakes, trampolines, etc..)
third you conflate false premise of "banning guns" to these everyday objects and assert that if the person really wanted to ban guns (again keeping in mind the person never wanted to ban guns in the first place) that they should first want to ban bats, hammers, cars, lakes, trampolines, etc.
fourth you and other morons congratulate each other for being so clever and never realizing how stupid you actually look.
I assume you'll fail to understand any of this and will soon join in on another "ban it" thread
again, if you really believed your own false premise then you would start with banning heart disease and cancer and everything that causes heart disease and cancer
my definition of "assault rifle" doesnt matter Im not the one arguing for a ban of them. Whats funny is idiots claiming that nobody is for a full ban of guns but knowing what legislation to ban "assault rifles" entails.
there are plenty of people who want to ban guns all together straw only a delusional fucktard would say otherwise either that or a person who has an agenda to hide...you probably fit into both categories my friend
-
sure you can
everyone gets a musket and then see how many mass shootings we have
the point I've made is
1. The "ban it" threads are bullshit because there is no effort to ban all guns
2. The premise of these threads (and other arguments against ANY kind of gun legislation) is that it won't stop all gun violence ...therefore it's pointless to do anything (note you just made this same argument above).
same stupid shit that stupid people tell each other and then get mad when others don't share their stupidity
yes and there would still be people wanting to ban muskets.
-
my definition of "assault rifle" doesnt matter Im not the one arguing for a ban of them. Whats funny is idiots claiming that nobody is for a full ban of guns but knowing what legislation to ban "assault rifles" entails.
there are plenty of people who want to ban guns all together straw only a delusional fucktard would say otherwise either that or a person who has an agenda to hide...you probably fit into both categories my friend
you're the person on this thread that is talking about banning anything and if you want to know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "regular gun" but are unwilling to provide your own definitions then why should I waste my time. BTW - who even says "regular gun". I've never heard anyone use that phrase before so how am I supposed to tell you the difference when I don't even know that that phrase means to you?
-
yes and there would still be people wanting to ban muskets.
yeah but to your question, if we only had muskets then it would be virtually impossible to commit mass murder (and I assume you're referring to a nutbag killing ten to twenty people with a gun since we don't have suicide bombers in this country yet nor do we have any killers committing single incident mass murder with a bicycle, 5 gallon bucket, trampolines or lakes)
-
yeah but to your question, if we only had muskets then it would be virtually impossible to commit mass murder (and I assume you're referring to a nutbag killing ten to twenty people with a gun since we don't have suicide bombers in this country yet nor do we have any killers committing single incident mass murder with a bicycle, 5 gallon bucket, trampolines or lakes)
Yeah - if we only had horses there would be no car accidents either. FNG moron - seriously - go back to be fool
-
Yeah - if we only had horses there would be no car accidents either. FNG moron - seriously - go back to be fool
it was a very specific answer to a very specific question
it was not meant to be take seriously
fucking idiot
-
yeah but to your question, if we only had muskets then it would be virtually impossible to commit mass murder (and I assume you're referring to a nutbag killing ten to twenty people with a gun since we don't have suicide bombers in this country yet nor do we have any killers committing single incident mass murder with a bicycle, 5 gallon bucket, trampolines or lakes)
so you DO want to ban all guns. only allowing muskets is essentially banning all guns.
-
yeah but to your question, if we only had muskets then it would be virtually impossible to commit mass murder (and I assume you're referring to a nutbag killing ten to twenty people with a gun since we don't have suicide bombers in this country yet nor do we have any killers committing single incident mass murder with a bicycle, 5 gallon bucket, trampolines or lakes)
um there was plenty of mass murder before guns dude. come on. you're not thinking this through.
-
um there was plenty of mass murder before guns dude. come on. you're not thinking this through.
Straw is a typical leftist who buys into every idiotic talking point there is on guns.
-
um there was plenty of mass murder before guns dude. come on. you're not thinking this through.
sure but you know we're not talking about non-gun mass murders in this thread....right
take a look at the title and notice the phrase "mass shootings"
hint - save the deliberate stupidity for people like 333
-
sure but you know we're not talking about non-gun mass murders in this thread....right
take a look at the title and notice the phrase "mass shootings"
hint - save the deliberate stupidity for people like 333
again. you don't care if people die. only if they get shot. and yes banning guns would stop "mass shootings". some feel banning guns would also increase crime. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. gun laws don't stop crime.
-
Yes, because classrooms of children are being massacred every single day, week in and week out.
Give me a break, its such a rare occurance, yet people have a fckn freak out and try and change everything, yet if those same kids died simultaneously from, say, gettijg hit by different cars outside that classroom, no one would give a flying fuck.
We shouldn't do shit except be more vigilant in the future. You dont make sweeping policy changes t9 millions of citizens rights over a .01% chance of something happening.
This!!!
-
Strawlib being bent over as usual i see ;D
-
again. you don't care if people die. only if they get shot. and yes banning guns would stop "mass shootings". some feel banning guns would also increase crime. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. gun laws don't stop crime.
If you're just going to repeat the same false premise then I'll just keep reposting this
I have no idea what your definition of a "regular gun" is nor an "assault rifle"
try this
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=assault+rifle
once again here is the basic premise of these stupid "ban" threads
first you falsely attribute the position of wanting to "ban guns" to someone
second you present a series of ways that people have also died that don't include guns but do include mundane every day objects that are not even designed to be weapons (bats, hammers, cars, lakes, trampolines, etc..)
third you conflate false premise of "banning guns" to these everyday objects and assert that if the person really wanted to ban guns (again keeping in mind the person never wanted to ban guns in the first place) that they should first want to ban bats, hammers, cars, lakes, trampolines, etc.
fourth you and other morons congratulate each other for being so clever and never realizing how stupid you actually look.
fifth - fail (or pretend to fail) to understand this and then keep repeating the same bullshit over again
I assume you'll fail to understand any of this and will soon join in on another "ban it" thread
again, if you really believed your own false premise then you would start with banning heart disease and cancer and everything that causes heart disease and cancer
-
and i'll just keep posting this.
so you DO want to ban all guns. only allowing muskets is essentially banning all guns.
you made the point about only having muskets not me. if people were only allowed to have muskets you would have to ban 99.9999999% of guns. correct or not correct?
-
and i'll just keep posting this.
so you DO want to ban all guns. only allowing muskets is essentially banning all guns.
you made the point about only having muskets not me. if people were only allowed to have muskets you would have to ban 99.9999999% of guns. correct or not correct?
LOL - dude you asked me a hypothetical question and I gave you an answer
sorry if you're so utterly confused by that
I can't really help you with that so I'll let you get back to working on the ban on trampolines and 5 gallon buckets
-
LOL - dude you asked me a hypothetical question and I gave you an answer
sorry if you're so utterly confused by that
I can't really help you with that so I'll let you get back to working on the ban on trampolines and 5 gallon buckets
I never asked you anything. you are the one who keeps popping off before you think it through. and now you think you can deny what you said when all you have to do is fucking scroll up!
just because you deny shit you said and follow it up with a witty insult doesn't make any of us forget your idiotic posts.
-
They call him "Straw Man" for nothing.
-
I never asked you anything. you are the one who keeps popping off before you think it through. and now you think you can deny what you said when all you have to do is fucking scroll up!
just because you deny shit you said and follow it up with a witty insult doesn't make any of us forget your idiotic posts.
let me try to remember
you wrote: "you seem to think that you can stop mass murder by restricting the use of certain kinds of guns?"
I wrote: "everyone gets a musket and then see how many mass shootings we have"
then you assumed....what exactly....?
-
let me try to remember
you wrote: "you seem to think that you can stop mass murder by restricting the use of certain kinds of guns?"
I wrote: "everyone gets a musket and then see how many mass shootings we have"
then you assumed....what exactly....?
no you said this
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a bicycle and then you will have finally made a valid point with this tired old argument
my assumption is that you believe that guns are more dangerous than bicycles....because a deranged nerd cannot massacre a room full of children with a bicycle. they're not. the facts state otherwise.
I also assume that you think that mass shootings with guns are a more pressing issue than bicycles and swimming pools. again. the facts state otherwise.
even though the tv says otherwise. my point is that tv says otherwise because they don't care to report on child drownings. its simply not as salacious of a story as a mass shooting. even though it kills way more children........every week.....of every year.
-
no you said this
someone let me know the next time a deranged nerd massacres a room full of school children with a bicycle and then you will have finally made a valid point with this tired old argument
my assumption is that you believe that guns are more dangerous than bicycles....because a deranged nerd cannot massacre a room full of children with a bicycle. they're not. the facts state otherwise.
I also assume that you think that mass shootings with guns are a more pressing issue than bicycles and swimming pools. again. the facts state otherwise.
even though the tv says otherwise. my point is that tv says otherwise because they don't care to report on child drownings. its simply not as salacious of a story as a mass shooting. even though it kills way more children........every week.....of every year.
I see the problem
you're assuming things about me that I've never said.
these assumption are your imagination and nothing more
bears, I can't help it if you're a moron
best of luck to you
btw - the things that I put in quotation marks are actual quotes from you and me so you can't say "no" but you can say those are not the quotes from which you formed your assumptions
-
I see the problem
you're assuming things about me that I've never said.
these assumption are your imagination and nothing more
bears, I can't help it if you're a moron
best of luck to you
btw - the things that I put in quotation marks are actual quotes from you and me so you can't say "no" but you can say those are not the quotes from which you formed your assumptions
LOL ok. so now tell me what you meant by that statement. i'm guessing I wont get an answer.
-
LOL ok. so now tell me what you meant by that statement. i'm guessing I wont get an answer.
can you use a bicycle to quickly murder 20 children
if so then they would be the equivalent to a gun in that sense
I'm not quite sure how you couldn't figure that out from my post
dude - you really shouldn't participate in this premise
It's fucking moronic and you can do better
-
can you use a bicycle to quickly murder 20 children
if so then they would be the equivalent to a gun in that sense
I'm not quite sure how you couldn't figure that out from my post
dude - you really shouldn't participate in this premise
It's fucking moronic and you can do better
the name calling doesn't phase me. anyone with half a brain can read this thread and see that your logic keep running into a wall. and name calling and denial aren't masking your obvious confusion with the point of this thread.
-
the name calling doesn't phase me. anyone with half a brain can read this thread and see that your logic keep running into a wall. and name calling and denial aren't masking your obvious confusion with the point of this thread.
I called the "ban it" thread premise moronic and I've explained why it's moronic
-
Strawlib being bent over as usual i see ;D
How long have you and Straw been a couple?
-
I called the "ban it" thread premise moronic and I've explained why it's moronic
Are you afraid of guns
-
Are you afraid of guns
the same way you are scared of vaginas
-
How long have you and Straw been a couple?
48 memorable, loving years this winter!
-
the same way you are scared of vaginas
LOL - really bro?
You are scared to death of a bb gun
-
48 memorable, loving years this winter!
you must be thinking of yourself and 333
with his recent weight loss he has finally achieved the twink status that he has been talking about all these years
-
LOL - really bro?
You are scared to death of a bb gun
wow, I never thought you'd admit you were afraid of pussy
maybe you're finally starting to come out of the closet
I guess all those year of raging homophobic closet case posts have finally paid off
-
you must be thinking of yourself and 333
with his recent weight loss he has finally achieved the twink status that he has been talking about all these years
Dont be jealous Strawman...we will always have Paris :-*
-
Dont be jealous Strawman...we will always have Paris :-*
why would I jealous
I'm sure you and 333 had a wonderful time there
-
why would I jealous
I'm sure you and 333 had a wonderful time there
STFU pansie. Go cower in the corner at the site of a squirt gun little dork
-
STFU pansie. Go cower in the corner at the site of a squirt gun little dork
says the man who admits he's afraid of pussy
I grew up in Texas where everyone has guns
-
I grew up in Texas where everyone has guns
Oh my, how did anyone survive there???
-
Oh my, how did anyone survive there???
?