Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #140 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
Look, this is just my opinion, although based on various observations:

Despite of tragedies in America such as Tupac, Proof, Dimebag Darrel, Columbia Incident, recently at the Batman movie, and overall bad neighborhoods filled with gun-totting "gangstas", Americans will hold with their teeth at their precious "right to bear arms"

Doesn't it occur to you that a lot of violence (including arms traffic & organized crime) could be avoided if a very strict firearms regime would be implemented?!
Quite frankly, I'm appalled that an 18 year-old can just waltz in a gun store and walk out with a revolver!

And all of you who say "yeah, because criminals will obviously obey the law": how do you explain a much lower criminality rate in many countries in EU where getting a firearm is rather tough (including psychological examination) and any gun produced or imported can be thoroughly tracked?
What's important is for the society scum to have a much harder time getting their hands on these instruments for easy mass killing. Example from my country:
Most of the criminal gangs, including gipsy family & clans, when waging "war" against one another they mostly use clubs, bats and cheap swords.
First of all not so many get fatally injured, second of all collateral victims are practically none; third of all, in cases such as this, they can easily subdued by law enforcers, who imo should be the only ones wielding firepower

To end my statement: IMO it's much more morally & ethically right to be able to train yourself in order to defend yourself in close combat, than to risk getting shot no matter how big of a tank you are.
How would you feel if you were, let's say, a MMA fighter who gets killed out of nowhere by a skinny **** who's balls consisted in a 6-rounder?...
-2
#185 to #140 - rangeryan has deleted their comment [-]
0
#213 to #185 - rangeryan has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #226 to #213 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
Dude, it's been much more than "one time" and clearly more than "a good person harmed". Examples above.

And it isn't just my country. Most of the EU has this policy, and it's working out just fine.

During a riot A WHOLE BUNCH of bystanders would be hurt if the rioters have firearms. Without them, some water cannons and tear gas along with baton sticks are enough to subdue some violent idiots.
#231 to #226 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
still i know it works for you but do you have mexico at your ass with drug cartels your pretty secure allies all around and we have.... mexico
#219 to #213 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
1. we would have a much higher rate of criminal activity, the only reason it isn't threw the roof and the drug cartels don't roll in from mexico, is because Americans have guns. It would be to costly for them also most regular criminals want to get away with their life.

2. it would be going against the constitution to take it away and the supreme court which is set to uphold the constitution would never go with it.

3. just be cause your country can use that method doesn't mean it would work for every country. in our country a lot of bystanders would be hurt look at riots in similar countries people have firearms to PROTECT themselves, if they didn't only criminals and law enforcement would. there are a lot more criminals to law enforcers and police aren't always there so they would be late most of the time to find a body or more waiting for them.

so before you go blabing your mouth saying oooh guns are bad just because one time a good person is harmed. Then saying no one should have them is complete ******** .

3rd times a charm
#202 to #185 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
I started to read that, then my brain began stabbing itself. Please make it more eligible and post again. This is a serious discussion.
#216 to #202 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
better?
#204 to #202 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
lol just because im afraid for your brain i will
0
#214 to #204 - rangeryan has deleted their comment [-]
#189 to #185 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
I like your argument, but for ****** sake man, run-on sentences are BAD.
#194 to #189 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
eh want me to whip your ass for you who the hell cares
#197 to #194 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
>internet badass
>all respect lost

You must be white trash.
#203 to #197 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
no I'm not a badass neither am i white trash i know what I am why should i care what you think
#207 to #203 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
Because you can't use English beyond the range of a nine year old and it makes the pro-gun side of the argument look worse for having you on it.
#217 to #207 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
why do you keep going on about it and just defend your side of the argument.
#232 to #217 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
Because by making yourself look like an illiterate, you are hindering my argument.
#170 to #140 - itsdonealredy (08/16/2012) [-]
1.) 18 year olds cant buy revolvers, handguns may be only legally bought by 21 or older. I know this is semantics and not your point im just informing you. I think this is a valuable right and one the american people have forgotten, i think state militia should be brought back, and our government should become decentralized.    
   
2.) What anon said about hte second amendment is correct. Also this was time when the states had individual militia and the federal army was not the only army. So the militia was made up of regular citizens who owned their own weapons. The second amendment gave them the right to milita and owning their own weapons.   
   
3.) i heartily believe that it is a fundamental flaw with american society that makes gun violence so high, we are a broken society. No laws can fix that.   
   
4.) the best solution here woud be one of two things, ALL guns are melted down and destroyed, even military, all over the world and everyone agrees to not make any more. Or every one has a gun and learns respect and how to use  it and the value of human life and what it means to kill.    
   
More laws is the pussy way out, you want someone else to take care of you and not take responsibility for your own life and actions.  You are afraid of freedom. You crave a controlled and government regulated life. You are a peasant, shat on by people who would steal your freedom and replace it with a semblance of imitated choice since the beginning of civilization.
1.) 18 year olds cant buy revolvers, handguns may be only legally bought by 21 or older. I know this is semantics and not your point im just informing you. I think this is a valuable right and one the american people have forgotten, i think state militia should be brought back, and our government should become decentralized.

2.) What anon said about hte second amendment is correct. Also this was time when the states had individual militia and the federal army was not the only army. So the militia was made up of regular citizens who owned their own weapons. The second amendment gave them the right to milita and owning their own weapons.

3.) i heartily believe that it is a fundamental flaw with american society that makes gun violence so high, we are a broken society. No laws can fix that.

4.) the best solution here woud be one of two things, ALL guns are melted down and destroyed, even military, all over the world and everyone agrees to not make any more. Or every one has a gun and learns respect and how to use it and the value of human life and what it means to kill.

More laws is the pussy way out, you want someone else to take care of you and not take responsibility for your own life and actions. You are afraid of freedom. You crave a controlled and government regulated life. You are a peasant, shat on by people who would steal your freedom and replace it with a semblance of imitated choice since the beginning of civilization.
User avatar #215 to #170 - madmadworld (08/16/2012) [-]
For statement 2 the constitution really needs a rewrite or at least editing and was actually intended to be rewritten every certain number of years when it was first written up. And if not it should be anyway as the laws of a few hundred years ago don't apply completely to the world of today.
You don't see us hanging people and burning people at the stake because they have a wart and a black cat and "must be a witch". :P

Also I think it's Switzerland where it's the law that each household has a gun and is trained to use it. I think they also still have conscription too and they've got one of the lowest crime rates in the world. (But don't quote me on this as again I am not certain and I didn't verify before this post.)

I agree partially that the people should learn or be taught better by those giving them access to firearms, but in the same sense it also should be the governments job to keep weapons that are used in a militia sense to really be tracked so they at least know that it's being distributed well enough and there aren't crazy people hording guns. That being said there also needs to be classifications on what type of gun you can own, for example in the home it'd be going to a 12 gauge pump action shotgun at the extreme most as that's the most you'll ever need in the home. For self defence outside anything up to .45 calibre, (not an expert or a gun lover so I am not certain on the powers of ammunition), just so we know that the guns being used are actually relative to the purpose they're needed and the people aren't importing ridiculous things or going out of their way to get something like an old ww2 50 calibre machine gun in their collection.

Also the want to not rely on guns and have a responsible governing body to protect you is not a pussy way out or removing any liberties of freedom, that's just wanting a government to do their damn jobs. It's not a fear of freedom it's a want to not having to rely on arming yourself to get a say in the world.
#183 to #170 - gmarrox ONLINE (08/16/2012) [-]
You should write speeches.
User avatar #180 to #170 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
"More laws is the pussy way out". Sure, if you want to call being civilized as "being pussy", go ahead

I DON'T someone to take responsibility for my actions. I DO want a state that would protect me, as it should, that is correct.

I DO NOT crave a controlled life. Most obvious flaw in your reasoning is that the Government CANNOT decide the way you think.
Otherwise, I am a strict adherent to the idea that in a normal, civilized state, each layer of society has its role; citizens with privileges & obligations, state authorities to protect said citizens and a Government to GOVERN (cause that's what it should do, ffs) the masses.

Even the fact that you sustain, that humans are violent by nature, should make you think that we need a body that will REIGN IN that violent nature and force us into civlization.
#211 to #180 - itsdonealredy (08/16/2012) [-]
If there were no laws, and i still didn't kill and cheat and steal, i think that is more civilized than having our rulers tell me i cant do that.

Every government controls the choices of its citizens, its what they do best, you are influenced and conditioned from a very small age to accept their authority and that what they decide is always right for everyone. That more laws must be better.

That is my main issue with government, the propaganda that more laws are always better. I think that less laws and more personal responsibility, more personal choice make my life better; makes me a better person.

I agree with you that ever layer of society has a role, but laws take away the privileges and roles of everyone under the government, soon the citizens have no role, have no responsibility have no choices. Now the government has all the responsibility all the choices. Frankly I dont trust them to make decisions for me, they cant even make decisions for themselves.

I don't sustain that humans are violent by nature, i think the majority of humans desire to be peaceful, but or base instincts; like protecting ourselves/loved ones, finding food and shelter; can push anyone to great acts of violence.

There something special about the new American society that for some reason makes people think it is ok to resort to the extremes of violence to deal with hier problems. I dont know what that is but i think it has to do with lack of personal responsibility, stemming from "nanny state" type governments.
0
#251 to #211 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #229 to #211 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
Well, if you want to talk about personal responsibility versus safety by law, may I remind you that America holds the record for serial killers and other loonies of that type?...

#222 to #211 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
The problem with personal responsibility not being backed up with laws is when Bob McRandomguy says " **** it" and murders 8 people for something shiny.
User avatar #234 to #222 - itsdonealredy (08/16/2012) [-]
I agree with you, but what is it that lets that guy say " **** it, ill just kill a buch of people, that will solve my problems"

how was he taught from childhood?, his life influences? how others around him act?, why can't those 8 people defend themselves from crazies? how the hell does a law stop him in the first place? no gun; ok so he stabs 5 people then.

Seems like the value of life has gone way down, people care for materials over other lives, maybe that what is wrong with us.

Also getting back to the 2nd amendment; i think most people miss the point about the militia, i think that was the real point of the law. So that the federal government couldn't take away the rights fo the states to muster their own armies and defend themselves, its not a paranoid thing, it was a part of american worry at the time when the laws were made. We had just seperated our selves from an overbearing, possibly tyrannical monarchy, the law makers want to leave the state an out in case they Federal government became to powerful and un-just.
User avatar #193 to #180 - gmarrox ONLINE (08/16/2012) [-]
These principles don't work in America because we don't have enough money in our budget to have a police station frequently spaced enough to be within 10 minutes of any possible crime scene. It can take 30 minutes to an hour for police to arrive on the scene of a massacre that could have resulted in many lives being lost before the criminal is stopped, whereas it only takes one armed citizen to stop the criminal. Hell, he doesn't even need to shoot to kill, just to wound. If you'll study American crime rates, you'll notice our cities with the highest crime counts also have the strictest gun laws.
User avatar #218 to #193 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
"Admitting one's mistake is the first step in correcting it".

It's not just about the money, it's about the mentality as well.

Frankly, let's assume someone carried a firearm into the theater where the shooting was recently. Would that really would have made a difference? Wouldn't it have increased the chance of collateral victims?

Once again, it is my belief that this sort of mentality and firearms regime lead to psychopaths just like the dude at the movie theater or the 2 kids from Columbia be created.
User avatar #230 to #218 - gmarrox ONLINE (08/16/2012) [-]
Chicago has always had some of the strictest gun regulations in America. It also has one of the highest shooting/murder counts.

Whereas in other cities, where citizens are allowed to own and protect themselves with firearms, the crime rates and murder rates are significantly lower. So yes, I do believe if someone with a gun and willing to use it had been present, the shooting would have stopped sooner and fewer people would have died. James Holmes purchased his guns legally, but with Cuba and Mexico to our south, getting guns illegally is just as easy, if not easier.

"And all of you who say 'yeah, because criminals will obviously obey the law...'"

Unfortunately, that is the reality. You can't compare the EU to the united states as illegal weapon trafficking is far simpler and more prevalent here. denying law-abiding citizens protection when criminals can easily attain firearms outside of the U.S.'s laws is plain foolish.
User avatar #243 to #230 - madmadworld (08/16/2012) [-]
True for all accounts, but a tighter learning structure, tracking those that have been taught and those that have not that also own a gun and definitely keeping up with a regular training or at least practice regime is a good way to go. Also limiting the types of guns a civilian population can get access to is a good way to go IMO.
It does go against the constitution a little bit, but that passage needs a rewrite IMO regarding the world of today.

Switzerland has basically a militia for it's army, has basically the second amendment going for it and it's crime rate and perceived opinion on guns is a very quiet one. It's got away with the whole lots of civilians owning guns, but it's because they make the owners have to go through their military training first as part of conscription.

I know it's like comparing apples and oranges in regards to Switzerland and America, but they must be doing something right, right? XD

Also it may just be the American "personality" of the gung-ho, boisterous, loud country with the access to guns that may be affecting people's views.
I personally know a few Americans that have had brushes with break ins and they have guns. They're not bad people because they own their gun for protection but they're also not taking it out everywhere they go like underwear y'know? They don't treat it and advertise it as an authority statement, they treat it as what it is, a weapon of death. It's not a tool it's a weapon, a last resort item to be used in the direst of circumstances. That's the image that needs to be put out as a whole from the american gun community. Appreciate them, admire them, build them, own them, practice with them but make sure that the responsibility is always told and the firearm is respected as well as feared, but not letting the fear overcome you too much.
User avatar #244 to #243 - gmarrox ONLINE (08/16/2012) [-]
I agree with you, but in some places you have to carry a gun just to ensure your own safety walking from your house to your car.
User avatar #255 to #244 - madmadworld (08/16/2012) [-]
True, definitely not disputing that those moments exist.
I'm looking for a more "I might need it so it's better to have it than not" mindset being published rather than an "I want to carry my gun around because it's my right to" mindset as one can appear rather antagonistic in a certain setting and the other is more of understanding the responsibility they hold.

I'm an Englishman in England right now and I honestly would buy a gun only for protective purposes in the worst areas of America. Even then I wouldn't go for the highest calibre I am allowed I'd definitely keep it to the minimum of what is needed, just to be on the safe side. It doesn't take much to stop a person in their tracks, usually it's a collection of well placed sincere words.
User avatar #239 to #230 - gmarrox ONLINE (08/16/2012) [-]
For the record, I realize it seems I was saying the shooting occurred in Chicago. I know it occurred in Colorado, I was just using Chicago as an example for gun law.
#192 to #180 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
This is a very solid post. One thing I'd like to dispute about it, however.

Where do we get a body that reigns in that violent behavior? Violent, individualistic creatures governing violent, individualistic creatures can't be expected to perfectly work out.

I have to strongly agree with you that "More laws is the pussy way out" is a stupid sentiment. One of the silliest things I've heard. What works, works.
#191 to #180 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
lol you really are stupid if government had full control they would control the way we think look at what hitler did he manipulated millions to kill and he made them think it that government did not reign in anything they made it worse and without the citizens with weapons what is stopping our government hungry for money i couldn't put it past any of them humans are greedy you can't change that people always do something to benefit themselves and think of others after
#196 to #191 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
If government had a bit more control in the education department, you'd punctuate your argument so that it wasn't a huge, jumbled mess that gives the mental image of a young bumpkin holding a history book upside down and yelling.

Blind mistrust for government is just as silly as blind trust for government You have to pay attention. We're individualistic creatures. That means any organization, including a government, is going to be comprised of some good eggs and some bad eggs. Politicians aren't all Hitler.
User avatar #210 to #196 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
That "blind trust" that you speak of is called "voting" in a form of Government known as "democracy". Most of us desire it, since it's the least bad form of Government we came up with so far

As for "having blind trust in your Government leads to Hitler", that's ******** . Quite frankly, the number of glorious nations leaders strongly outnumber those who committed atrocities. It's just that said atrocities are much easier to remember.

Oh, once again about the HItler crap: aren't we supposed, as a collective whole, to learn from our mistakes?...
#241 to #210 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
"Quite frankly, the number of glorious nations leaders strongly outnumber those who committed atrocities. It's just that said atrocities are much easier to remember."

The same argument can be used for good gun use vs bad gun use.
User avatar #242 to #241 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
If you can seriously name ONE "good gun use"...
#246 to #242 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
http:// therealrevo . com /blog/?p=80174
#163 to #140 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
Second Amendment allows us to bear arms so that we can rise against the government if it ever becomes tyrannical. It's more of a last-ditch thing we're to be prepared for.

On gun control, it's much like the Cold War. Arm one man, and he can kill hundreds, arm every man, and no-one is harmed.
People value their life. If they know everyone has a gun, they won't be as willing to shoot. They're outnumbered and their odds of survival are very low.
On the other hand, leaving guns out of everyone's hands means that, however likely, someone will get ahold of them somehow. And when they do, the amount of damage they can cause is significantly greater, as no-one can mount a defense against them.

Imagine two stone-age tribes. One starts using animal sinew to bind sharp rocks to sticks. They begin hunting animals, gain practice with their weapons.
Tribe number two wants no part of this violence. They never make any spears. They forage for berries and avoid animal territory as best they can.
What happens if tribe one threatens tribe two? Sure, they can try to beat them with superior hand-to-hand combat, but what if tribe one is ALSO skilled in hand-to-hand combat? The spear gives them an edge (haha, punny). It's fact. Tribe two is refusing to keep up and thus refusing to protect itself.

You can kill people by fistfighting. You can improvise weapons. Construction tools can be repurposed.

It doesn't matter what you do. It's not the weapon. The weapon is just another of man's tools. It's the issue of man turning it on its own kind. That issue is impossible to fully solve, so why not let people defend themselves on the same level?
User avatar #168 to #163 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
"as no-one can mount a defense against them"

And THAT is where state authorities usually kick in.
And don't tell me that the Cold War way of thinking is such a great thing. It ended up in 2 sides hating the guts out of each other, without ever really knowing each other ("Red Commies" / "Capitalist pigs")

I don't think that if one group, if somehow gained access to military weaponry, could cause such a great damage. Because it would automatically mean that the OTHER groups will ally against them and shut them down (that is, of course, in a extreme theory, where the state has no role)
#178 to #168 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
The Cold War is NOT a great way of thinking.
But it saved us all from nuclear warfare, so it's proved that it works.

Look, I know what you're saying, but your system has a lot of trust that the human race has proven itself unworthy of time and time again.
You talk about the "State", and your statements about it, such as wanting to protect itself, etc, are good arguments. But you have to remember that the "State" is made up of individuals. From a species that is anything but rational. The fact we argue so vehemently about it, the fact that moral corruption you talk about always ends up stinking up our societies, proves it.
It doesn't take much to see that we cannot achieve perfection as a race. But we make the best of what we got.

Thankfully, where we are right now we can argue passionately about it without erupting into violence. Our society does so much to tame the reactions of our emotions. WIthout society, we'd be arguing this with less clear language, and physically fighting over it as our passions get the best of us. The fact that our nature has been tamed enough to keep things this calm is a huge success in my book.

Sure, we keep moving forward, but you cannot simply refuse to look back. That's what makes history repeat itself. It likes to do that.
#154 to #140 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
Allow me to explain. The 2nd amendment was put into the constitution to protect our countries government from taking complete control. It is there so that we (as in the people) can take control of our own country which was created on a government based off a ruling of the people. Yes, that has been completely reiterated in modern terms for the specific reason that our government controls majority of everything, especially with obama in office. However, with our amendment rights we can actually take our country for the people. Unlike your ****** country where less than few have enough guns to protect themselves.
User avatar #157 to #154 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
And I said already somewhere down in the comments, it seems to me that the precious 2nd amendment is based on paranoia and complete lack of trust. Hardly healthy, society-wise, I would say.

"We can actually take our country for the people". Oh, cripes, here we go with the anarchy ******** again.
IMO, if I had to chose between a legitimate Government (being voted & all) and a bunch of mindless idiots who want to bring it down with guns & violence, I would chose the Government any day of the week. Why? Because it is entitled, as a body, to defend itself from threats, both exterior and interior.

And in my " ****** country" (granted, it's ****** due to a very sick society, moral values wise) we tend to trust the authorities (such as the Police) to protect us firsthand.
The whole idea that "you need guns to protect yourself" tends, IMO, to stray far too close to the law of the jungle.

Like I said, the whole idea of the right to bear arms seems to me based on the preconception that there's always someone, somewhere in the bushes or in the shadows, waiting to cap you. Which IS very, VERY ****** up.
#167 to #157 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
****** up, and not as true as you state it, but always a very real risk. Sure it's sick. But humanity's always been this way. Sorry. We ain't perfect. Find a way to make us not want to kill each other. It's the only way to solve the issue. If you did that, we'd use our killing tools to defend against animals and to hunt for meat.
The presence of our tools did not make us violent. Our tools were made as they were because we're already violent as a species. We have to regulate that natural tendency as best we can, and since we're individuals, its hard
User avatar #208 to #167 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
The best way to distract our collective attention towards annihilating each other is when either a powerful enemy threatens us all, or when we're all bent on great achievements.

Look, and this isn't just for you, but for all who read my posts: read some Orson Scott Card or some Asimov. They're one of the main reasons why I'm pacifist and why I desire a radical change in humanity, for its long-term future sake.
#238 to #208 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
Stop using the word "collective". It's the epitome of everything wrong with your argument. You assume the human race is a hivemind, like we all desire not only the same goal, but also the same means to reach that end, which is an asinine thought.
User avatar #240 to #238 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
Let's go sci-fi here: in the case of an external, alien threat, do you think all of the world's countries will keep bickering about territory, money & resources?...

IMO this kind of cohabitation for survival, in case of something that threatens your very existence, is something coded by nature.
#212 to #208 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
The only issue is, while whatever it is you believe may indeed be the best thing for humanity, the fact that we are individualistic creatures means there will never be a time when everyone happily agrees with you.

Hell, humans are so irrational it's highly likely that there will be different groups who oppose you because you're in charge or groups who oppose you because they deliberately want to see the best hope for humanity fail.

PERSONALLY, I hate violence. I do not own a gun and I'd like to avoid ever doing so. I'd prefer things were worked out in other ways, I just rationally know that will not happen.
User avatar #171 to #167 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
Then step in a boxing ring and knock each other out!

God, I sometimes really wish something akin to Gladiator fights were re-installed.
Now THAT would help a lot of people fix their so-called "native urge to kill" (which is clearly a sign of being mentally ill, fyi)
#179 to #171 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
You act as if fists can't be used to kill.
User avatar #184 to #179 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
Ofcourse they can, but if humans so much crave it, let's organize it into a worldwide killing bloodsport!

I mean, boxing and MMA isn't enough for most spectators, isn't it?
#188 to #184 - doodthedud (08/16/2012) [-]
If all humans valued fairness and honor, you might have a point with that.

All of your points are theoretically sound, but many simply don't work in practice.
#161 to #157 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
People are naturally paranoid, it is what keeps us alive. Being paranoid allows us to think ahead of everything else. Being paranoid is what helped us beat your ass in the revolution.
User avatar #164 to #161 - tkfourtwoone (08/16/2012) [-]
To beat who's ass in what revolution?! How in the world did you reach the conclusion that I must be from UK?!

Talking about paranoia!

How the **** is paranoia mentally and sociologically healthy?!
#175 to #164 - anonymous (08/16/2012) [-]
Lol dese ******* tryin to has an intelligent conversation. Dese nigz don't know **** .
#200 to #175 - rangeryan (08/16/2012) [-]
hmm i think we have found a dumb ****** that can't spell want some watermelon or kfc
 Friends (0)