Uberpoll: A simple question requiring a YES or NO answer (1264 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.28 on 67 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Tardleby the Gruemaster (View user info) at 2008-11-10 17:45:52 EST
As a result of a discussion I slowly had today, I am wondering how the Ubermensch Society (I stole that)would feel about the subject. I will keep track of the answers I receive in the comments. There are no prizes. I would ask that the first paragraph of your responses be a clear one-word affirmative or negative such as "Yes", "No", "Y", "N", "Si", "Non" or somethng along those lines. Any editorializing or explaining you want to do may be placed in the following paragraph(s). This is just to help me keep track of the votes.
The question to be answered is this: Do you feel that the possibility of legal ownership of guns by the citizenry makes (or would make) you less likely to be a victim of a crime?
I appreciate your input. And now: a random image.
User Reviews
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2008-11-13 16:08:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2008-11-12 13:41:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
NO
Submitted by Replen (user info) at 2008-11-11 13:53:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-11-11 13:45:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
maybe
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2008-11-11 13:40:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i own guns but don't consider them as being there for my protection. A criminal will do what a criminal does so banning guns is not going to change the gun using criminals. they don't care about bans.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-11-11 13:12:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
interesting mix of responses.
i'm pro-gun rights, but agree with mudwhistle re: proper usage and training and storage etc. too many idiots own guns.
that said, i'm not certain that a citizenry's access to guns is necessarily going to diminish their possibility of being a targetted victim of crime. a determined criminal is going to attempt to follow through on his intentions regardless.
however it can sway the end results if the criminal understands that his actions in regard to a particular citizen could possibly result in his/her having to face a gun. this seems most likely in the home invasion/burglary setting that most seem to have focused on in this thread. some gun owners have signage that identifies them as such posted on their property. that is certainly a deterrent (or an invitation to have your guns stolen if the thief can positively assess that you are gone)
also, hearing the click of a hammer being drawn on a revolver, or a shotgun being closed could certainly make someone already in your home and intent on taking your things or harming your family decide to get the fuck back out.
i think a loud dog serves just about as well in that regard though.
hmmm, i seem to be blah blah blahing.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-11-11 13:08:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
NO
Submitted by PioneerBill (user info) at 2008-11-11 12:30:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oui!
I own homes in Texas and Florida, while I don't own a gun myself both states have "Castle" laws where you can shoot anyone that you feel is threatening your home, whether they are armed or not. I'm sure it makes anyone but the most drug crazed criminal have second thoughts about commiting a poperty crime.
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2008-11-11 12:19:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yes. If I had one, some matters would be a lot less complicated.
And they save lives, just like bazooka's, f15's,icbm's and the likes.
Bless mankind for these lifechanging inventions.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2008-11-11 11:55:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
GUNSH DON CILL PEEPOL! PEEPOL CILL PEEPOL!!!
Submitted by sage104 (user info) at 2008-11-11 11:51:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Weird way to word a question, and my answer is not necessarily.
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2008-11-11 11:31:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If I were a criminal, I would think twice about robbing somone, or breaking into a house if I knew evreyone was carrying a weapon, and the laws were such that the intended victim could shoot to kill without fear of ending up in jail. If gun ownership was illegal people would still have them.
If the Govt ever comes for my guns, the only thing they'll get is the bullets.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2008-11-11 11:02:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as laws banning guns go they are pretty worthless to boot. I can go right now and have a gun in my hand within 20 minutes. It wouldn't be legal, but then again criminals don't care about minor technicalities like that.
All gun control serves to accomplish is to prevent the honest law abiding citizen from owning guns.
I say spend time and money going after the criminals, not the rest of us.
Submitted by Gyro_Gearloose (user info) at 2008-11-11 10:51:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yes.
..Although the scope of the question is rather broad.
Are we talking about having a safely stored firearm in the home, or a concealed firearm, legally carried on their person? Two different situations. Two different mindsets.
That being said, as far as wants vs needs are concerned, I think that deserves further comment;
There will always be somebody, somewhere deciding what it is you need and what you're allowed to want. Fact, common sense and reality don't really matter.
Take a look at motorcycles.
They're already bantering about banning them outright in some places, or at least severely restricting them.
Look up Vision Zero in Europe, or over here, http://home.ama-cycle.org/membersonly/magazine/story_dl.asp?id=815 .
All it takes is some hand wringing bed-wetters in power deciding we no longer have the right to determine our own destiny, because, gosh darn it, we just might hurt ourselves.
Besides, who really 'needs' motorcycles? Especially some of those gol-danged 200+ mph sportbikes?
Like has aleady been done with guns, that kind of ban is already being talked about in the UK: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/November/3-9/nov0508-mps-told-to-ban-motorcycles/?&R=EPI-103992 .
Speaking of over-reaction:
Look at Canada. In Ontario, they've outlawed the sale and posession of Pit Bulls, with the exception being currently owned and legally registered pre-ban Pit Bulls, which have been grandfathered and are non-transferrable for the duration of their lives.
WTF? Pit Bulls=Guns ?
No big surprise, though. After all, Pit Bulls are, like, so scary, we just gotta ban them, right? Two or three people have been hurt by these monsters ! We have to do something ! Ahhhhg !
For the record, I own guns and motorcycles, so I'm probably screwed, eventually. I suppose I'll have to take up knitting or something someday..if they still allow me to have the needles.
However, so long as I stay in the US, I can still own a Pit Bull, if I wanted to, so I guess it's not a total loss.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:57:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:54:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
TVs compared to guns?
I'm big time pro gun but that argument is a HUGE stretch
---
It was more a comment on what some people feel others should be allowed to have based on need. "There is no need for semi-auto or assault type weapons." So long as I am not doing anything illegal, my NEED and want are my business. Thats the point I was trying to make. TV's don't kill anything but brain cells but who is to say how big a TV someone else needs?
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:54:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
TVs compared to guns?
I'm big time pro gun but that argument is a HUGE stretch
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:52:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If a person is law abiding, then why does it matter if they own a firearm or not? Or how many? Or what types? No one needs a TV at all, much less a large LCD/Plasma...so why not regulate what types can be made, sold or owned by private citizens? Same with trucks; if a need for hauling/towing is not justified then shouldn't that person be prohibited from owning anything larger than a mini-truck (S10, Ranger...etc)? Or a truck at all? After all, a large truck in the wrong hands could cause a fatal accident due to their size and weight.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:51:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes.
Also: http://www.ubersite.com/m/115024
Where "ubermensch" was stolen from.
Also: The picture is where I almost proposed to my wife, but too many fucking tourists kept walking through when I was going to do it.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:39:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Still yes.
Sorry, Jeanneee, but if the new President has his way, hell will freeze right after he appoints his second Supreme Court justice.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-11-11 08:25:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not really, but it will be a cold day in hell before they repeal or restrict the 2nd Amendment. We love our guns, period.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2008-11-11 07:57:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
YES
Submitted by RoscoMalosco (user info) at 2008-11-11 07:31:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-11-11 07:21:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes
Applying it personally I feel safer in regards to the extent a crime might go against me. Someone may break into my house but they will not steal from me, they will not rape my women or kill us in our sleep....because I have and know how to use guns.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-11-11 07:16:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
NO
But your question is fucked as there are many factors you did not address....would I be trained with a gun, would the average person have to submit to more training than normal, what type of gun, etc.
The fact is that in the hands of the majority of the people, legality aside, guns are dangerous. The average Joe (is that trademarked by the way?) couldn't use his gun to save his life if well...his life depended on it. It would be nearly physically impossible for someone untrained to over come an intruder, intent on doing harm, while they stood shakily....adrenaline pulsing with their cool ass Glock 19. Most people wouldn't want to get close enough to make that Glock worthwhile.
Of course then there is the 'great equalizer'....the shotgun. But again if I put a timer on you and said get to your gun, get a round loaded and ready to fire.....the first 100 times you'd get killed before you were done.
The point is that for the most part having guns doesn't make anyone safer but having a working knowledge and physical muscle memory of how to use one does. In the current state of America this type of training is not mandated nor is proper storage, safe handling or legality of gun use. I'm not sure how they fix it but I do see it as an issue.
Submitted by gonefiguring (user info) at 2008-11-11 06:50:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I appreciate your votes on this. Interesting responses indeed. I spent a bit of time with the statistics last night. There are numbers indicating both "Yes" and "No" might be true depending on where you look. However, the question is not whether the statistics indicate one way or the other. Statisitcs don't live where you live or do what you do every day. The question is whether YOU feel one way or the other.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-11-11 03:59:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
if yall didnt have so many guns there wouldnt be so many shootings
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-11-11 03:59:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2008-11-11 03:59:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No.
Nee.
Nein.
Non.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2008-11-11 01:10:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF are you doing asking the largest dysfunctional family on the internet a question like this?
All the answers you seek are only a few more spasms of your fingers away than what it took to type out your question.
They're called statistics. They're free.
All you'll find here is opinions and hits, which is more than likely what you were looking for in the first place.
The hits I mean.
Submitted by sage104 (user info) at 2008-11-11 00:03:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF is this?
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2008-11-10 23:58:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i fail to see how my owning a gun would deter white collar / corporate crime. which affects the largest amount of citizenry.
duh?
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-11-10 23:47:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Significantly more likely to hit a target, too.
I'll assume my edge is an advantage worth keeping.
Submitted by locksly (user info) at 2008-11-10 23:38:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
NO, stats show it makes you signifcantly more likely to be a target. the reasearch has already been done dude
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-11-10 23:30:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Idyllic bullshit aside....In the meantime, we're keeping the guns.
Submitted by Hookhand (user info) at 2008-11-10 23:09:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If that were the case, there would be fewer murders per capita in the US which has easy access to guns than the UK which does not. This is not the case.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-11-10 22:55:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No
Guns don't deter crime, as seen in the US.
With many weapons in circulation, it's also easier for people who commit crimes to get their hands on a gun (or a bigger one than yours).
You also have to reach for that gun. No one has their gun cocked while going into a parking lot and no one spends the night aiming their rifle at the door, waiting for someone to break in. Guns are often locked safely and even if you have them readily available, you have to find the balls to shoot the bastard. Not to mention actually hit him. That's a lot of ifs.
All guns do is increase the risk of accidents, suicide or certain agressions (especially unpremeditated ones) that would not take place if perpetrators were not armed with firing weapons. It takes more guts to hit your wife with hammer in a fit of rage than it takes to pull a trigger and kill her instantly (just an example).
Basically, what I'm saying is, you have a lot more chances of something stupid happening with a gun in the house than you are likely to heroically shoot someone CS-style to defend yourself.
There's a shitload of suicides and hommicides occuring everyday yet all that is deemed newsworthy is when once a month, some granny scares off a burglar with her gun. That's because the former are a lot more likely than the latter. That alone is pretty much your answer.
Besides, if that logic worked, why is NATO disarming Afghans? They could secure themselves with so many weapons, right?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-11-10 22:40:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no
Submitted by Plus2 (user info) at 2008-11-10 22:18:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No
I own many guns but there is no way I would be able to reach one if attacked, so I don't bother keeping one loaded.
Yeah you hear of somebody getting attacked every once in a while, but it's a big country and I'd like to think the odds of winning the lottery are greater than the odds of getting attacked in my own house.
Mostly I have them because they are fun to shoot. I have:
three .22LR rifles for destroying cans and paper
one .223 M4 so I can pretend I'm in the Matrix
one 12 gauge to remove lug nuts from wheels
one .45 1911A1 for zombies
a break open .30-06 for wilderness camping
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-11-10 22:12:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:34:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That having been said, I need only cite two examples to prove that crime gets worse if the populace is unarmed.
Australia
After they disarmed the population crime soared, and has remained at an all time high ever since.
Don't take my word for it, go look for yourself.
___
OK, I'll go and have a look...
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
OH WAIT A SECOND. IS WHAT YOU SAID COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FUCKING WRONG? DID YOU JUST GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT? OH WELL YES IT APPEARS YOU DID.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
fuck skrap and his logical logic of logicness.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:47:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Still yes.
Falafel - Much as you might hate the idea, I think you'll find that in most locales in the US it is within your rights to kill someone who has invaded your home with real or suspected criminal intent. And I'm with what is probably your intent as to "nobody needs a semi-automatic to 'defend their home'" if not the actual wording. You probably mean an auto-loading rifle or pistol, which make less-than-optimal choices for home defense. I agree with you - use a shotgun. Rounds from an autoloading shotgun don't penetrate two layers of drywall and as such make a much better choice for home defense. People in other rooms aren't at risk when you fire, you see. Beretta makes a nice one that can be fitted with an extended magazine for sustained firepower and pistol rear grip for clear turning in a hallway. Best insurance $1000 can buy. Load it #3,#4,#6 shot (repeat pattern for 9 rounds). If you must use a pistol or rifle, choose compressed powdered metal rather than cast metal rounds. They break up on impact with drywall but not with flesh, reducing the possibility of "collateral damage".
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:34:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Allow me to educate you on the reasoning behind the right to keep and bear arms
We the people had just cast of the yoke of tyranny through armed revolution.
The founding fathers believed that only through an armed populace capable of revolting should the need arise would freedom be maintained.
simply put
the right to keep and bear arms was not then nor should it be today about the actions of the lawless few.
That having been said, I need only cite two examples to prove that crime gets worse if the populace is unarmed.
Australia
After they disarmed the population crime soared, and has remained at an all time high ever since.
Don't take my word for it, go look for yourself.
Washington DC
The ban on owning or keeping handguns.
There were more murders in DC last year (while the ban was still in effect) Than there were the year before it took effect.
Again don't take my word for it go see for yourself.
I own several guns, I have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, I hunt.
Never once have I committed a crime with my weapons. The vast majority of gun owners are just like me.
Don't fuck with us and we won't have cause to shoot you.
That goes for the criminals as well as the government
But wait, I repeat myself
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:32:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
nope
Submitted by experima (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:19:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, you do specify that.
in that case,
NO
Submitted by experima (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:18:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yes
but you don't specify if that means 'yes i'd be more likely to be a victim' or 'yes i'd be less likely to be a victim'
Submitted by Falafel (user info) at 2008-11-10 20:10:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
NO.
And furthermore, nobody needs a semi-automatic to "defend their home". The whole point of having a gun to defend yourself is to disable the person to such a point that they will not be able to harm you or so that they can be subdued. Yes, some deaths will inevitably occur; no one has perfect aim and sometimes, you can't take the chance if they're armed.
It is your right to bear arms for personal protection. It is NOT however, your right to execute someone - without a trial, might I add - for breaking and entering or for assault.
Submitted by Jordan85777 (user info) at 2008-11-10 19:50:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-11-10 19:18:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
But who gives a crap? People have been improvising weapons for over ten thousand years. If a criminal wants what you have, they will attempt to take it regardless of the threat of retribution.
The point of being able to own a gun isn't to protect yourself from crime, or to prevent crime. The Second Amendment was established to arm the people against the government. Thomas Jefferson knew that democracy is an easily corruptible form of government, and should the seats of power be taken by individuals who subvert the majority, the majority should have the ability to dispose of those individuals. By violent means, if necessary.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-11-10 19:07:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, I said 'ducking around.'
fucking + dicking = ducking.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-11-10 19:06:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tokerson (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:49:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
Having a gun may be beneficial if you are a victim of crime, but it wont prevent you from being victimized in the first place as everyone else is just as likely to have a gun. An armed populace is also more likely to pursue criminal endeavours, not to mention owning a gun one's self may make one over confident and reckless in terms of how they handle it.
--
Gotta call bullshit there.
They more LEGALLY armed a town is, the lower the violence. Who the FUCK is gonna break into a house when they know everyone in town has a gun?
99% of those with registered guns are very responsible. It the fuckkheads ducking around with illegals gun who cause most of the problems, not counting accidental shootings.
Look, just make a minor amendment to state gun laws. You need to pass a driving test, right? Make a gun test mandatory. Handling, cleaning, safe storage, put all that on a test before you issue a permit.
------
Ron Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3556.html
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.
"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."
...
"It's the lack of access to law-abiding citizens to have guns in many places that increases our crime rate," he said. "We just can't prevent every tragedy of a maniac. So to pretend this happened because of lack of laws would be the wrong thing to assume."
---------
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/More-Guns-Less-Gun-Violence.htm
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-11-10 19:05:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have a weapon in my home. I do not have children to worry about them getting ahold of it. I live alone.
I don't go brandishing the fucking thing. I keep it in case I'm alone in the house and some sociopath decides to break in and assault me.
True I could still be assaulted, but I would like a fighting chance to defend myself. I don't give a shit about property, that's what insurance is for.
Once I leave the house, I still share the same statistics as everyone else.
If someone is going to come after me, they're going to do regardless.
I just want to even the playing field when I'm in my own home.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2008-11-10 19:01:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
let me put it this way:
today's assault would become tomorrow's murder
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:50:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Depends on where one lives. Duh.
Submitted by Tokerson (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:49:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
Having a gun may be beneficial if you are a victim of crime, but it wont prevent you from being victimized in the first place as everyone else is just as likely to have a gun. An armed populace is also more likely to pursue criminal endeavours, not to mention owning a gun one's self may make one over confident and reckless in terms of how they handle it.
Now you have a random image: http://i36.tinypic.com/28u49rb.jpg
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:27:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe.
As in "Maybe you should shut the fuck up".
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:26:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yes.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:26:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes.
Still. Second votes don't count, I'm sure. I offer this as my reasoning: if it's possible that I have a gun in my house, it won't make a non-robber into a robber or make a difference to the aforementioned escaped aryan biker convict, but it would deter the would-be robber who places a value on his life greater than that that he places on my stuff and therefore opts out of taking the risk. I do have personal experience with legal gun ownership changing the outcome of a crime, but as was said below, that doesn't change the fact that a crime occurred.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:22:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No.
All it does is change the odds. People will commit crimes against their fellow man because it's in their nature or due to some rather fucked up nurturing.
It may slow SOME criminals down knowing there is a good chance the person they are violating might be armed - but others won't give even the slightest of fucks. Violence will inevitably escalate because the tools involved in the darker side of human nature allow even the weakest of the species the opportunity to blow some assholes head off.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:20:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
It's been proven statistically.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:18:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:05:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-11-10 17:57:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no
if some escaped aryan biker convict escapes prison and breaks into my house to rape and kill me, i am not less of a victim of crime just because i shot him. Im just not all butthurt and dead.
-=-=-
thats what I was going to say
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:02:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
I don't think it would make a difference.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2008-11-10 18:00:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Affirmative.
But I dont care. Crimes will happen either way, guns just make them easier.
Submitted by Sincere (user info) at 2008-11-10 17:59:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OUI
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2008-11-10 17:57:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no
if some escaped aryan biker convict escapes prison and breaks into my house to rape and kill me, i am not less of a victim of crime just because i shot him. Im just not all butthurt and dead.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-11-10 17:54:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
n
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-11-10 17:53:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes.