TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44851: Dec 21st 2012 at 10:45:52 PM

Politicized gun control is oversimplified. We shouldn't have to be narrowed down to that in our discussions.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44852: Dec 21st 2012 at 10:46:38 PM

So I looked up Selective Service; that law has not been enforced since the eighties. And if after these last clusterfucks of wars happened they didn't try to draft anyone, I doubt that's going to be relevant to any gun discussion. Public opinion of the idea of involuntary draft is too negative.

[up]Well, politics is the only way to get gun control instated/enforced. Kind of a fair way to approach it in this thread.

edited 21st Dec '12 10:47:25 PM by AceofSpades

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44853: Dec 21st 2012 at 10:48:57 PM

Hydronix: If you haven't signed up, you are breaking a law. Not that they will ever prosecute you except if the SSS ever finds out, like if another Draft is imposed and you're under 25 and haven't signed up, etc.

Ace: You haven't said anything except that you don't understand what a fundamental right is according to the law, not just for self-defense, but for the rights to your own health and treatment. The way you have described a mandatory psychiatric test, in order to exercise the 2nd Amendment, you have to give up the 5th amendment. I'm not talking down to you, but you do need to understand this.

You want to make this work, keep these in mind.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44854: Dec 21st 2012 at 10:49:16 PM

[up][up]Well, I don't like that approach. We're not Congress. We're not having a discussion in order to find a political solution. Our discussion should be an intellectual food for thought, not restricted to trying to find a solution through politics.

[up]I personally think Selective Service Act is morally wrong for this day and age.

edited 21st Dec '12 10:51:28 PM by Trivialis

Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44855: Dec 21st 2012 at 10:58:07 PM

First, I am 29. Second, I am not actively fit to serve in any possible way. Lastly, I'm not the topic here either. So let's drop that right now.

Due process has nothing to do with evaluations, as Ace said.

Oh, and no, a gun will not be used for your health. At all. Self-Defense, agreed. Health? Shooting someone isn't healthy here. Treatment? You are not being treated wrong by making sure you won't hurt someone with the weapon you bought.

I'm sorry, but you're starting to make no sense. A gun is a weapon. A Handgun has self-defense claims. A Hunting Rifle can be used to get food or game for fun. An AK-47 is used to gun down people. Since you brought that specific gun up, I am going to capitalize on that part. Unless you agree that it shouldn't be in the hands of a regular citizen unless they're in war, then I'll drop it(since that... makes sense, not being in the hand of a person who can easily be a burglar).

But I'll ask again; Why are regulations are a bad thing? It is definitely not unconstitutional since militia do have to be tested before being handed a gun or trained. So that's not really true at all.

edited 21st Dec '12 10:58:25 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44856: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:03:39 PM

I think everyone in america should have an AK-47. It's the most dependable firearm in the world. And it's a tool of survival.

And again, can you tell me the difference between an AK-47 available in America and how it is different than a hunting rifle?

Assault rifles are machine guns, and there hasn't been a machine gun mad or imported into the United States legally since 1986. Any of the ones that are remaining in legal hands have long since been registered, and none of these actual machine guns have been used in any crime since the early 90s.

AK-47s made for sale in the United States are semi-automatic and are incapable of automatic fire. Period.

There is nothing in the function of an AK-type rifle available to the common citizen legally that is different than that of any hunting rifle.

The 2nd Amendment has already been upheld in this matter.

Due process. See: competency laws. You are mentally competent until adjudicated that you are not. You are innocent until you are proven guilty. You cannot be involuntarily forced to subject yourself to a check unless ordered so.

So again, with a psychiatric check, you must give up your right to the Fifth Amendment to exercise the Second.

edited 21st Dec '12 11:06:24 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44857: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:06:49 PM

Ok Devil, unless you prefer to hunt with those AK-47s, you've lost me.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#44858: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:08:05 PM

@Devil: And if we don't want to have any gun?

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44859: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:12:18 PM

Well, number one, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It's about defense, we've simply re-purposed military rifles for hunting.

Number two. The thing about trying to demonize the AK-47 or other assault rifles is meaningless unless you know the difference between these so-called "assault rifles" and any other rifle in existence.

For the most part, people don't like AK-47s because they fire fully automatic. What people don't understand is that ones available in the United States don't fire fully automatic. They just look those other rifles.

[up] That is for you to decide whether you want to exercise your right or not. You cannot give up one right for another. They have to be inclusive or else, they are not rights.

edited 21st Dec '12 11:13:38 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44860: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:18:18 PM

The Fifth amendment is about legal procedures. As in you being prosecuted for a crime, or trying to pursue prosecution of someone in a civil suit. Or criminal, if you happen to be a state/city prosecutor. A mandatory psych eval has nothing to do with prosecuting anyone, it has to do with making sure those who are unfit to handle a gun responsibly don't get one, and in the process this prevents police and prosecuters from having to bring that particular person up on charges of gun related crimes.

I'm not suggesting they arrest someone, for God's sake. I'm suggesting they do something to prevent a crime from happening to begin with. YOU don't understand that I have no intention of violating the fifth amendment, and that a psych eval doesn't involve trumpeting private health information to unnecessary parties, or forcing health care on someone, or putting anyone in jail. It has nothing to do with trying to ruin their lives. I don't even know how you're getting to that.

All other claims you've listed are spurious, and due to cultural inertia are unlikely to be relevant unless something really weird happens. (Selective Service involves the draft, after all, and very few seem to support that anymore. Our modern day military buys its own guns and doesn't care to use any you might bring with you, so that part about the militia is also functionally irrelevant.)

We have stricter policies for drivers licenses, and most people need that to go earn a living. Why do we not have the same kind of strict policies on guns, which most of us functionally don't need to live day to day? It is a legitimate question that you refuse to answer with anything but a pat answer about self defense.

edited 21st Dec '12 11:18:49 PM by AceofSpades

Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44861: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:19:12 PM

I think everyone in america should have an AK-47. It's the most dependable firearm in the world. And it's a tool of survival.

In war. It's a semi-automatic. With multiple bullets. You do not need that again anything beyond non-game animals. You do need that against other war people.

And again, can you tell me the difference between an AK-47 available in America and how it is different than a hunting rifle?

Bullet rate. Semi-automatic means multiple bullets. Hunting Rifles do it slowly, which means they are only good against game, not people. They are not self-defense weapons for regular citizens by any means. They can still fire much faster than a rifle or a handgun. That's a major difference. Rifles, depending the kind, are one or two bullets per load. That does matter. Handguns are far slower. Big difference.

Assault rifles are machine guns, and there hasn't been a machine gun mad or imported into the United States legally since 1986. Any of the ones that are remaining in legal hands have long since been registered, and none of these actual machine guns have been used in any crime since the early 90s.

Okay. But this is about semi-automatics, which are faster than either Hunting Rifles and Handguns. Is there any reason someone other than those trying to shoot down a human(which you should not be trying to do outside of war in the first place) needed?

AK-47s made for sale in the United States are semi-automatic and are incapable of automatic fire. Period.

You're confusing automatic with speed. They still fire much faster.

There is nothing in the function of an AK-type rifle available to the common citizen legally that is different than that of any hunting rifle.

Speed.

The 2nd Amendment has already been upheld in this matter.

Not exactly. If you are not a member of the militia, which is a ton of citizens, you cannot get a gun outside of specific ones legally.

Due process. See: competency laws. You are mentally competent until adjudicated that you are not. You are innocent until you are proven guilty. You cannot be involuntarily forced to subject yourself to a check unless ordered so.

You being tested is the same as Driving Tests. There is no difference. When being given something extremely dangerous, a test should be required. No, it is not unconstitutional to test you to make sure you will use the gun responsibly. Which, if you have a Gun License, means you were demeaned fit to use one, were you not? You don't get those easily, atleast not everywhere. Let's keep in mind if you're signed up for the militia, you are very often tested for things, including the ability to keep up in dire situations. Stress. And so on. This is no different from the type of regulations required to prevent unnecessary deaths.

So again, with a psychiatric check, you must give up your right to the Fifth Amendment to exercise the Second.

I could easily strawman/strawdog this out, it's outright ridiculous. No, you do not give up that right to be tested to use a weapon. It's called training. People need to be trained to use something properly. If during training, which should be required, they notice signs of any form of insanity, they have the right to check to see if you are mentally fit. It works in this order.

And I do not believe people are mentally fit enough, or the majority is. Work can be extremely stressful, and those guys would break under pressure with a powerful weapon.

I understand you want everyone to have something more powerful than a Handgun or a Hunting Rifle. Do you understand what would happen if everybody was given one? Because we both know some restrictions must exist.(have to be 18, must be in the militia, something) Otherwise, taking that to the logical conclusion, by your statement alone, would allow children to carry them. But I'm sure you mean actual adults, of course.

Quest 64 thread
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#44862: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:36:50 PM

I believe both Devil and Ace have valid points. Without going into much detail, my issue with Devil's argument is that a mandatory psychiatric evaluation infringes upon one's civil rights. Technically, it is a compromise, but personally, it's a compromise I'm willing to make. I understand that not all gun advocates are in agreement with this. As for Ace, my only major disagreement is with the restriction of high-capacity magazines (not clips, magazines, there is an important difference). I do think you have a point in that just because a law has shown flaws in the past doesn't automatically mean it's ineffective. This goes back to what I said about the North Hollywood Shootout, an incident that occurred in 1997, three years after the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. I'd rather not elaborate much beyond that.

On the psychiatric background checks, it's a good idea on paper, but I have issues with how that would be implemented. As Devil said, psychology is not a precise science, and we would need some sort of countermeasure to accurately determine one's mental stability. With the Affordable Healthcare Act, we could hit two birds with one stone. I'll clarify below.

Hypothetical situation. Under AHA, I go to a counselor or other health professional and get a checkup. I test clear both mentally and physically. No history of multiple-personality disorder, sociopathy, or something like that. Say the government sends me a card in the mail similar to a birth certificate or a driver's license. For the sake of privacy, my mental and physical health history is encrypted in the bar code or serial number, and it can be scanned by a gun store owner, police officer or a EMT. For example, I get in a car accident and fall unconscious. They put me in the ambulance, locate and scan the card, and that tells them any allergies or medications I might need. Again, my privacy is compromised at that point, but I'd rather get proper treatment. That's more important to me.

Anyway, I get cleared on my mental health evaluation, I get my card and take it to the gun store. I want a Springfield Armory 1911 .45 ACP (very nice pistol, by the way). I fill out the background check like already did before, and I give the store owner my health card and the paperwork. He either scans the barcode or gives a coded version of the serial number to the FBI. This is actually quite similar to what they already do. The FBI receives the info, everything is confidential for my sake (the store owner won't blurt out any blemishes on my record or an embarrassing medical condition). I get a green light on the gun, and I go on my happy way.

Far from perfect, I know, but it was an idea that popped in my head.

Now, here's where I have a problem with the psychiatric checks as they would probably play out more realistically. For starters, that card thingy I mentioned is going to have to be updated. If I was convicted of a felony, the court might have to issue me a new card, and we'll say I'm required to have it on me. If the card isn't up to date, that shows on the FBI's records when I try to get my card scanned, and no gun for me. Now, if the test is a run-of-the-mill questionnaire, then we're going to see some serious problems.

What I mean is that honor-system format you've probably seen at the doctor's office or somewhere else. You can easily check "no" on questions such as your medications, doctor's visits, any suicidal thoughts you might have had, and thoughts of wanting to kill other people. Down here in Arkansas, many counseling centers destroy their records, and many people don't have their medications on record, either. Do you use a polygraph to make sure the person isn't lying? No, because polygraphs have gained notoriety for giving false read-outs (why our criminal justice system still uses the damn things is beyond me, but that's a totally different topic).

Do you include a blurb at the top of the page requiring you to swear that all information is truthful to the best of of your knowledge? Sure, but again, you run back into the issue of having to verify that information. Contrary to popular belief, psychiatric records are harder to obtain and verify by an inquiring agency. And what if you've received a citation for a gun-restricting crime, but you are awaiting trial? Some courts have it set up where you aren't allowed to buy guns until the verdict has been made, but again, that card thingy isn't going to be up to date.

I could go on with this, but I need to call it a night. It's just something that was rattling in my head. I like guns and I like owning them, but I also want people to be safer in this country. This is one possible compromise, but we would have to see if the bad outweighs the good.

EDIT: I'm also not in agreement with this whole hair splitting over semi-auto versus bolt action. That, to me, is swatting at the flies and not picking up the manure, so to speak. Ace's proposal of psych checks would probably be a better way to hit this problem closer to the source. Frankly, I can kill you quite easily regardless of the firing operation of my weapon. Controlled shots at long range or rapid bursts at short range, if I'm off my rocker, I don't think I'm going to give a shit one way or the other. But I understand why is is an important to discussion, and while it's not irrelevant, I find it to be overemphasized in the greater scheme of the debate.

edited 21st Dec '12 11:47:45 PM by Aprilla

Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44863: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:45:33 PM

Oh, trust me, Aprilla, I agree with the psych checks more than anything. But I do not see the need for every person in the US to have an AK-47. Any gun should depend on what the person would use or want and depend if they can handle it(physically or mentally).

Or for that matter, I see no need for it outside of militia-use. Handguns and Hunting Rifles have legitimate claims for non-Militia use. AK-47? Hardly. I do consider rate of fire to matter here. Slow fire is less dangerous than any higher rate. Slowest for citizens, cause they don't need higher, ya know?

Quest 64 thread
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44864: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:46:31 PM

[up][up] You -are- suggesting that you deny a person's right based on an evaluation of what someone MIGHT do. You might as well be arresting them. And that is a legal procedure (hence, the whole point of making laws around this, right?)

Well, any psych evaluation will have to be covered by medical performance, right? What is to stop a government sanctioned medical practitioner from informing the cops that since you failed, you are a danger to yourself and others? The whole point of a background check is to check for psychological problems in the past.

There already is this problem, which may be why more people don't see psychiatrists. Refusal to be treated, etc. Which is their right.

[up] Hydronix: Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic and can take detachable high-capacity magazines. They function exactly like the AK-47. What's the difference, except that they look different?

I'm also going to reiterate that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

edited 21st Dec '12 11:49:55 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44865: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:50:50 PM

Japan's managed to implement the same exact law without sending the police after people who fail. And what's to stop us from doing the same here is the wording and intent of the hypothetical law. "Do such and such and if they fail don't give them permission to have a gun." Not "do such and such and oh send the police after them."

You're simply assuming that we'll go to the most extreme version of a thing without considering the lengthy process major bills go through to become law to begin with.

And the problem with people failing to seek mental health care has far more to do with the ludicrous expense and stigma attached to it, as well as this country assuming universal healthcare will send us straight to being communists, than it has to do with guns.

edited 21st Dec '12 11:52:22 PM by AceofSpades

Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44866: Dec 21st 2012 at 11:51:49 PM

Yeah, I'm not going to discuss hypotheticals here. This "what if they go further" is irrelevant. That's not relevant to this conversation at all. It stops at the evaluation for gun-related use only. That is the context we'll deal with when talking about this topic. The reason? I do not find paranoia of "It'll go further than gun-testing" as a legitimate reason. Please don't move the goal posts to useless and irrelevant hypotheticals.

All guns require training. If they show to have problems during that, they get a psychological test. If they to get a gun that is not a Hunting Rifle or a Handgun, and are not an already member of militia, a background check must be required.

Hunting Rifles are designed for game. AK-47's are not. And even so, once again, regardless of the differences, you skipped a lot of other points: Why should every single person, even those who would never fire a gun, have a gun or should have one?

That is, ones not meant for clear defense(Handguns) or a Hunting Rifle(for game only). I am not a member of the militia. Why do you think I should have a gun?

[up][up] And a Hunting Rifle has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Your point? AK-47's are not listed under Hunting Rifles, correct? Then no matter how similar they are to one, they are not one and are an official different kind of gun. Same with a Handgun. Remember, you're talking about getting the AK-47 due to the 2nd Amendment, not the other ones. So let's stick to those and why they are different by default.(functions mean little if they are differently classified)

edited 21st Dec '12 11:54:07 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#44867: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:00:13 AM

@Devil: Nope. You get convicted of a DUI, you lose your license and getting it back is a bitch (at least in my state). That's not done as a punishment. It's done because you might do it again.

Now, you can split hairs and say a more literal example would be "your family has a history of alcoholism, so we're not going to let you drive a car because you might be a drunk". But a test of competency (as in, either you are physically and mentally capable of doing this thing or you aren't) is a perfectly valid form of regulation.

But we take rights and privileges away from people all the time based on what they might do. Another example; felons can never own a gun again ever. There's no way to get that (or your voting rights, for that matter) returned to you.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but there is precedent.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44868: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:01:45 AM

[up] Exactly, you lose your license because you might do it again, not because you might do it when there is no record for this. That's why the Background check exists.

[up][up] Because they are NOT different. I didn't bring up the AK-47. You did. Unless I'm mistaken:

And why should any citizen have a semi-automatic? Seriously? What use do they have besides gunning down people? A hunting Rifle and a Handgun are the only things that makes sense for a citizen. Hunting and self-defense. I cannot fathom any reason for an AK-47 that is for real protection. If you need to have that, that means that you're too paranoid, which means you're already mentally unfit(I do not mean you specifically, to clarify, I mean You as in a citizen, to clarify) as is.

An AK-47 has a practical application as a defense rifle. A handgun is a more practical firearm for protection where a rifle is not applicable (concealed carry in public, etc.) Rifles are there for defending your home and your land.

[up][up][up] To which, affordable healthcare will ease much of this problem. But it still is the patient's right to refuse treatment even if such things are made available.

edited 22nd Dec '12 12:04:29 AM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44869: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:07:22 AM

[up][up]The denial of voting rights pisses me off more than the gun denial.

Again, considering the deadliness of the weapon, denial based on what might happen is reasonable. The reasons the amendment was written don't necessarily apply anymore.

And Jesus, this whole thing about "oooh rights are being violated" are a thousand times worse at actual policy writing level because the NRA has its claws in right wing politicians, which pisses me off because it shuts down all possibility of adult conversation and compromise.

[up]Again, if you want the fucking gun you can submit to a psych eval or decide you can do without the gun. We don't let blind people drive cars, after all. Compromise is a thing, and it's a thing you seem to have an issue with.

edited 22nd Dec '12 12:08:51 AM by AceofSpades

Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44870: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:09:44 AM

Read what DS fully said again. Yes, you get your rights taken away when they believe you will abuse them. Whether you agree with it or not does not mean that is not the case, and to note, is not considered unconstitutional.

And actually, you brought them up first, I just continued with the conversation. Yes, they're semi-automatic. You didn't answer what I asked, though. Are all of them semi-automatic? Or just some? And Hunting Rifles are not considered a weapon to be used by militia anyway, so the 2nd Amendment has no bearing on it. Same with a Handgun. It does matter for the AK-47, correct? Is it considered a militia weapon? I'm not an expert on guns, so I'm asking for this information to make sure I'm getting my debate correct as I speak to.

You can defend your home and your land with a baseball bat. Sorry, but I don't see how an AK-47 makes a difference here. Unless it's not a militia weapon, which means it also isn't covered under the constitution anyway.(yes, the type of weapon matters, since it's specific to militia members only, not any random citizen, so not everybody is registered, or can be)

Quest 64 thread
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44871: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:11:09 AM

I did read it. And the reason why they take your license away is because you already did something, not that you are going to do so. There's a huge difference.

We let the blind have guns.

Cars are not guaranteed by the constitution. Sorry.

Besides, who needs self-defense more than the handicapped? Are you saying that they don't have the right to defend themselves, when they're more at risk than anyone else?

[up] Every hunting rifle in history was designed after something used by the military - "assault weapon" or not. We still have bolt-action rifles in use by the military.

The military uses the same pump-action shotguns we can buy in the store. They use pistols of every kind - and common handguns are semi-automatic as well. These are all the same.

edited 22nd Dec '12 12:18:05 AM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44872: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:14:22 AM

I'll never read Daily News because they require me to answer questions to read there article.

In a way, I'm protesting.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44873: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:15:15 AM

Ah, so any guns counts as militia. Wasn't sure about that.

And did I ever say people can't be allowed to defend themselves? No, I did not. In the cases of handicapped people, I can understand handguns(which is easier for them to use), and for those who are fully capable of movement or thought, they don't need a gun to do that. A baseball bat, once again, works fine.

Please do not assume we mean anything beyond what we exactly state. I do not like it when you say we're for a position that we never said at all. I'm getting a bit annoyed by that hyperbole too, so please stop that. I've dealt with that kind of crap all night. Hasn't been a good day, sorry.

Quest 64 thread
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44874: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:16:59 AM

A baseball bat, once again, works fine.

Unless your being attacked by a person with a gun. Or a long blade. Or maybe even an Ax if their skilled enough with it.

edited 22nd Dec '12 12:18:08 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#44875: Dec 22nd 2012 at 12:17:35 AM

Fiscal Cliff worries causing consumers to cut back on spending.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

Total posts: 417,856
Top