Why do they want to take it away?

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Why do they want to take it away?

Poll

For or Against Gun Control?

Against Gun Control	22%	22% - 33
Losen some and tighten others	18%	18% - 27
Keep the same	3%	3% - 5
Tighten	18%	18% - 27
Take away all	14%	14% - 21
Guns for everyone	18%	18% - 27
Don't know	4%	4% - 6
Total: 146

2006-04-07 16:20:08

Tushers: Noctwisaskfirtush; +224|6913|Some where huntin in Wisconsin

Hello this a topic that I just descused in school today and found it intresting, but yet discusting at the same time. My view on this subject is gun control is commen sense. I am not the smartest person but I am not the dumbest eitheir. I hunt every fall when season comes around and I fish. Hunting and shooting for recreation is much enjoyed by me and my whole family. I think to say that guns are killers you are wrong. Just about all the killing (not all) are illegaly bought guns, and the ones that are legal and registerd are somtimes stolen or brought into the wrong hands. I know every one say what about the other guns that are legaly owned and purchased, well my friends you have got me on that one.
If you look at the states with he conceld carry law, they have less crime with burgralys and other things like that then for say then Wisconsin or NewYork. If a criminal really wanteds a gun all he has to do is go to the guy siting on a corner or somthing like that and say "I want a gun". Do you think he will accutally go into a store and pass all his background checks and go waltzing out and then go kill every one, the answer my friends is no. All this Police officers is go into the files (if they found the gun) find a match at go catch the guy. Taking away guns or making it ilegal to own one is fucking insane, sorry for the langueage but look at it. they made Pot, Acid, Cocaine, ICP and just about all other drugs illegal, but people still get it.
Knives and car accidents are two of the most commen killers, out there beside guns. But do you see anyone else trying to make a ban on knives and cars...no that is what I thought. I know how it feels to lose a loved one, my cousin was shot by a gang all under the age of 18... how do you think they bought there guns, not from the local gun store, they bought them of the streets. From and illegal dealer. All I am trying to do is to try and let you see the other side of the story, me I have seen both. When I grow up get married and have a kid or two I will raise them to shoot hunt and fish if they want to, and if they don't I will not make them.
All I want to get from this thread is a reponse from all of you guys and girls out there , on your opinions. If your gonna flame anyone i don't realy want to hear about it. If I can get so good ideas from you people i might find it in my and a bunch of others to respect you as humans. Peace out Eric

(P.S. for all you PETA fags out there go fuck your self's, you Basterds!)

2006-04-07 19:05:29

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

Q1: What is the one and only purpose of a gun?

Q2: Are you sure that it is morally responsible to use it? I mean, what if someone did that to you? Or your child?

If someone is holding a 10 inch knife to your throat and is deaf, then OK. Otherwise, no.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-04-07 22:38:54

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra: Alright, you're good to go!; +124|6957|Honolulu, HI

It's not necessarily that gun control laws are not needed in society. I simply disagree with the convoluted red-tape methodology that we have regarding it, at least in the States. First off, it's illegal to own an "assault" rifle, but since "assault rifle" is a rather abstract term, it was legislated to mean (among other things) a rifle with 3 or more of the following: magazine fed, capability of burst or automatic fire, presence of Pictinny rail, pistol grip, presence of a bayonet or bayonet mounting lugs, flash hider/suppressor threading...the list goes on. Note that "capability of burst or automatic fire" doesn't mean that the rifle actually DOES shoot bursts or auto, just that lawmakers determined that certain models can be modified to do so...

So tell me, does a pistol grip make a weapon more lethal? A flash suppressor? A fucking bayonet? A detachable box magazine? "Yeah, you know, he shot me 11 times and then stabbed me with a bayonet, if he had a legal rifle with clips, he wouldn't have been able to shoot me that many times, or stab me with the bayonet afterwards..."

The bottom line is we need LESS legislation, but more enforcement. You can make stupid restrictive laws till you're blue in the face, but will the owners of unlicensed firearms (read: organized criminals, gang members and contract killers) listen? Hell no; all the laws do is infuriate law-abiding firearms enthusiasts.

(edit: wrong smiley face! (and yes, I got that one right on the first try))

Last edited by [QXJZ]Capt_Kefra (2006-04-07 22:39:24)

2006-04-07 23:33:07

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra wrote:
It's not necessarily that gun control laws are not needed in society. I simply disagree with the convoluted red-tape methodology that we have regarding it, at least in the States. First off, it's illegal to own an "assault" rifle, but since "assault rifle" is a rather abstract term, it was legislated to mean (among other things) a rifle with 3 or more of the following: magazine fed, capability of burst or automatic fire, presence of Pictinny rail, pistol grip, presence of a bayonet or bayonet mounting lugs, flash hider/suppressor threading...the list goes on. Note that "capability of burst or automatic fire" doesn't mean that the rifle actually DOES shoot bursts or auto, just that lawmakers determined that certain models can be modified to do so...

So tell me, does a pistol grip make a weapon more lethal? A flash suppressor? A fucking bayonet? A detachable box magazine? "Yeah, you know, he shot me 11 times and then stabbed me with a bayonet, if he had a legal rifle with clips, he wouldn't have been able to shoot me that many times, or stab me with the bayonet afterwards..."

The bottom line is we need LESS legislation, but more enforcement. You can make stupid restrictive laws till you're blue in the face, but will the owners of unlicensed firearms (read: organized criminals, gang members and contract killers) listen? Hell no; all the laws do is infuriate law-abiding firearms enthusiasts.

(edit: wrong smiley face! (and yes, I got that one right on the first try))

So would that me more gun control or less?

Because ENFORCEMENT seems more like gun control then LEGISLATION.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-04-08 03:39:52

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7000|PNW

Spark wrote:
Q1: What is the one and only purpose of a gun?

Q2: Are you sure that it is morally responsible to use it? I mean, what if someone did that to you? Or your child?

If someone is holding a 10 inch knife to your throat and is deaf, then OK. Otherwise, no.

A1: The true purpose of a gun, aside from the entertainment value of target practice, is to maim and kill. There was never any question of that.
A2: What if someone was going to do that to you, or to your child? It is morally responsible to use this tool in the defense of yourself or someone else.

By the time someone is holding a 10" knife to your throat, you're probably already dead. The point of owning a gun for defense is to be able to use it before someone else kills you. I usually keep one on my person at all times. Otherwise, it's holed up in my safe. The moral to using a gun lies in the fact that, in a fight for your life, if you don't, you or some other innocent will wind up dead. But if you want to be a martyr, go ahead and volunteer your life for the cause.

That being said, people who have guns should:

A. Know how they operate and keep them clean. For semi-autos, having a clip in for personal transport is fine, but never leave a round chambered. Always check.
B. Never take someone's word for it that a gun is unloaded.
C. Keep them out of the hands of children and stupid adults while unattended.
D. Practice with them at rifle/handgun ranges, and get used to the feel of firing. But if people want to work on quick draws and disarming techniques, use a properly-weighted dummy weapon.
E. At said ranges, refrain from pointing your weapon anywhere but downrange when unpacked. If it's jammed, don't turn with it towards your neighbor to complain about it...
F. Educate their children about the dangers of guns, and take them to said ranges to use them under damned close supervision.

Anyone who doesn't follow the above guidelines has no business owning a gun. And, if you have the time, go take a tactics course for a bit of an extra umph.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-08 03:47:51)

2006-04-08 05:27:20

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra: Alright, you're good to go!; +124|6957|Honolulu, HI

In regards to what I said earlier: We have these stringent restrictions on who can and cannot own firearms--and the kinds of firearms those people can own--because we are fully aware that they are capable of causing bodily injury and death. By saying we need more enforcement I mean this: Obviously it's quite illegal to own an unregistered firearm or posess someone else's without their knowledge and consent. If we fear these guns causing bodily injury and death, 99% of the time such incidents arise from unregistered or "borrowed" weapons. Thus, passing these silly laws regarding the legally registered, legally purchased weapons while turning a blind eye to (or at least not doing much about) all the illegal, unlisted firearms out there, is a bit like putting on a condom after the big climax. It gives the appearance that the situation is safe and taken care of, when in reality there are millions of lethal sperm lurking about, ready to implant themselves wherever and whenever they choose.* Hence, enforcement over legislation, as we don't need ANOTHER law telling us unregistered guns are illegal, and making more laws restricting ones already in legal possession won't help either.

*Yes, this is a debate and serious talk thread but damn it, if you don't agree with me then at least I'll have made you laugh.

2006-04-08 05:45:01

herrr_smity: Member; +156|6856|space command ur anus

i love my gun

Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-04-08 05:45:41)

2006-04-08 06:03:54

BVC: Member; +325|6924

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra wrote:
It's not necessarily that gun control laws are not needed in society. I simply disagree with the convoluted red-tape methodology that we have regarding it, at least in the States. First off, it's illegal to own an "assault" rifle, but since "assault rifle" is a rather abstract term, it was legislated to mean (among other things) a rifle with 3 or more of the following: magazine fed, capability of burst or automatic fire, presence of Pictinny rail, pistol grip, presence of a bayonet or bayonet mounting lugs, flash hider/suppressor threading...the list goes on. Note that "capability of burst or automatic fire" doesn't mean that the rifle actually DOES shoot bursts or auto, just that lawmakers determined that certain models can be modified to do so...

So tell me, does a pistol grip make a weapon more lethal? A flash suppressor? A fucking bayonet? A detachable box magazine? "Yeah, you know, he shot me 11 times and then stabbed me with a bayonet, if he had a legal rifle with clips, he wouldn't have been able to shoot me that many times, or stab me with the bayonet afterwards..."

The bottom line is we need LESS legislation, but more enforcement. You can make stupid restrictive laws till you're blue in the face, but will the owners of unlicensed firearms (read: organized criminals, gang members and contract killers) listen? Hell no; all the laws do is infuriate law-abiding firearms enthusiasts.

(edit: wrong smiley face! (and yes, I got that one right on the first try))

Over here guns with even one of those features are classified as a "military" rifle, and require a special type of endorsement on your firearns lisence which happens to be VERY difficult to get! The laws are a bit iffy in places eg. Because of the bayonet lug, an Enfeild No.4 would be classed as a military rifle...I don't think we currently require the firearms themselves to be registered, I know that it was abandoned in the 80s because it was a drain on the police, and there were tonnes of errors in the process.

The news recently told me its estimated that there are some 1 million guns in NZ (between 4 million people). We don't have a lot of gun crime, probably the most extreme one was when a guy called David Gray went nuts in a small town with an AK47 and killed 9 people, other than that its mostly hunting rifles and sawn-off shotguns used by bank robbers and meth-makers. I've yet to see a cop carrying a pistol.

2006-04-08 06:20:56

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6945

"Each citezen has the right to bear arms" US constitution.

Unless they write an admentmend against it then i say keep the guns.
I say every1 is allowed pistols and rifles, no SMG's... rifles should be bolt action only since if sum1 got an ak... the poilce hardly can do shit...

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-04-08 07:37:57

sheggalism: Member; +16|6971|France

tighten guns control in the US wouldn't decrease criminality, look at Canadians : they've got guns (though not as much as American) but they don't have so much troubles ==> what did Moore want to tell us in "Bowling for Columbine" ? that's American's temper and today's US status which make this country look like a battlefield (but Brazil's still the worst).

2006-04-08 12:35:31

herrr_smity: Member; +156|6856|space command ur anus

its fantastic that you are able to purchase military weapon in the US.
like a 50 cal sniper rifles or semi automatic assault rifles why why o why

Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-04-08 12:36:13)

2006-04-08 13:19:23

Home: Section.80; +447|7076|Seattle, Washington, USA

I think you should be allowed to own a semi-auto handgun or rifle. I do not think that you should be able to legally buy an Uzi or fully automatic AK. If gun laws were completely taken away, the cops would be rendered useless and the only ones that would be able to stop crimes would be the military.

Tushers wrote:
(P.S. for all you PETA fags out there go fuck your self's, you Basterds!)

What does "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" have to do with a debate on gun laws??

2006-04-08 21:00:45

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

sheggalism wrote:
tighten guns control in the US wouldn't decrease criminality, look at Canadians : they've got guns (though not as much as American) but they don't have so much troubles ==> what did Moore want to tell us in "Bowling for Columbine" ? that's American's temper and today's US status which make this country look like a battlefield (but Brazil's still the worst).

We kinda banned guns (just the auto's and some handguns) and our crime rate has plummeted. We're off the top 50 list for Crime per capita.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-04-08 21:53:00

jonnykill: The Microwave Man; +235|6908

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
"Each citezen has the right to bear arms" US constitution.

Unless they write an admentmend against it then i say keep the guns.
I say every1 is allowed pistols and rifles, no SMG's... rifles should be bolt action only since if sum1 got an ak... the poilce hardly can do shit...

Ever hear of S.W.A.T ?

2006-04-08 22:14:17

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6901|Colorado

Slowly the govenment is trying to take our rights away, we must protect these rights with much fevor.

I am against gun control , I dont agree that everyone should have them , but everyone should start off with the right until they abuse it, like anything else.

2006-04-08 22:50:07

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6945

jonnykill wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
"Each citezen has the right to bear arms" US constitution.

Unless they write an admentmend against it then i say keep the guns.
I say every1 is allowed pistols and rifles, no SMG's... rifles should be bolt action only since if sum1 got an ak... the poilce hardly can do shit...
Ever hear of S.W.A.T ?

yes i heard of them, what if they didnt get there in time? the SWAT uses M4 carbines and MP5's as their main weapons, but AK-47's overpower those two weapons by ALOT. AK-47's can break a brick, M4's can only put a hole through it.

2006-04-08 23:49:44

The_Fighting_69th: Combat medic; +6|6981

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of gun crimes are commited with illegal guns anyway (and most of them are little .25acp pistols and such)

As for SWAT teams in the US, we use just about anything depending on the location of the team. M4s, Mp5s, G36s, etc. Odds are that a swat member will not take a shot trough bricks anyway (and since a 5.56 will go right through a stand brick the perp will still be hit). If there was a BG behind cover with an AK, expect the dept. marksman to take him out. Most departments issue .308 rifles which have a lot more power than the Ak 7.62x39.

We don't even have to wait of a swat team in my department, we have AR15s in every patrol car...

In case you can't tell I'm against most gun control laws as many of them are stupid anyway.

Last edited by The_Fighting_69th (2006-04-08 23:50:34)

2006-04-09 02:48:09

MooseRyder: Member; +37|6883|Montréal, Canada

sheggalism wrote:
tighten guns control in the US wouldn't decrease criminality, look at Canadians : they've got guns (though not as much as American) but they don't have so much troubles ==> what did Moore want to tell us in "Bowling for Columbine" ? that's American's temper and today's US status which make this country look like a battlefield (but Brazil's still the worst).

The major diference here in Canada is that we only have guns for hunting. So any handguns, military, subs or any other guns are illegal and you need to go thru some exams to have a license saying you are allowed to own a hunting gun and/or have the right to use a hunting gun.

You can count around 2 guns per house in Canada. But these guns have only one purpose, hunting animals as a sport.

Take off the handguns in the US and you will see the gun kills dropping a lot. Its really fuckin easy to walk around in the street with a glock whitout anyone knowing and taking it out and shooting someone. Now try to do the same with a 12 gauge. You wont have the same result, In fact i dont think anyone would walk in the street with a shotgun. The major problem i see in the states is the handguns.

And whats sad about this, the normal and responsible americans that own guns for shooting at the range or for home defense, start getting restricted because of these retards shooting each others in the streets with stolen handguns.

2006-04-09 03:25:54

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6945

The_Fighting_69th wrote:
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of gun crimes are commited with illegal guns anyway (and most of them are little .25acp pistols and such)

As for SWAT teams in the US, we use just about anything depending on the location of the team. M4s, Mp5s, G36s, etc. Odds are that a swat member will not take a shot trough bricks anyway (and since a 5.56 will go right through a stand brick the perp will still be hit). If there was a BG behind cover with an AK, expect the dept. marksman to take him out. Most departments issue .308 rifles which have a lot more power than the Ak 7.62x39.

We don't even have to wait of a swat team in my department, we have AR15s in every patrol car...

In case you can't tell I'm against most gun control laws as many of them are stupid anyway.

for the brick part im just talking about the firepower of AK's... but i think ban high fire power weapons like AK's... since its un-patriot to use a weapon that was used in wars against ur country

2006-04-09 04:09:29

Burning_Monkey: Moving Target; +108|7066

I was going to say something about using the search, but this is different, it's a poll. Carry on.

2006-04-09 10:34:42

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7000|PNW

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
for the brick part im just talking about the firepower of AK's... but i think ban high fire power weapons like AK's... since its un-patriot to use a weapon that was used in wars against ur country

That's a bit silly. Swords and knives were used against my ancestors, but it doesn't stop me from keeping one. There's even a captured samurai sword leftover from WW2 in my family.

jonnykill wrote:
Ever hear of S.W.A.T ?

Yeah. S.W.A.T., police, national guard, distant relatives and militant neighbors living two blocks down. All are going to be useless against one guy with a sawed-off shotgun or even a little .22 pea-shooter already walking through your livingroom. I hope that never happens to me, but I would be foolish if I were to dismiss it as an statistical unlikelyhood.

Oh, and you gotta love the thugs who shout "I'm gonna come back and kill you and your family" as they're being chased off by some old fart and his rifle. Everybody's so shocked when they get shot from behind. What a loss to society it is when their punk-asses are eliminated...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-09 10:40:48)

2006-04-09 23:40:22

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
for the brick part im just talking about the firepower of AK's... but i think ban high fire power weapons like AK's... since its un-patriot to use a weapon that was used in wars against ur country

If I use a brand new, highly stealthy, effective, devestating weapon on the US... Do you think the Military is going to give a shit that I used it on them? They'll be like 'Nice gun. Let me have one.'

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-04-10 01:47:40

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7003|Noizyland

I noticed that lots of people are "Guns for All," so I'm not going to be popular here.

I find guns are fine. Guns are great I go hunting and I love shooting! It's a lot of great fun. I myself own a firearms licence which you need to have to buy/own/use guns in New Zealand. However, this American "Guns are our RIGHT" I disagree with. I don't give a flying fuck if it's in the Constitution, in my eyes it is outdated - guns should be a privilage, not a right. Yes, I am going to look at this issue through American lenses.

In a place where guns are a right, EVERYONE can have a gun. This mean that people can protect themselves, but, of course, that people that want to harm other people can have guns. You could say that if everyone has a gun than no-one wants to risk attacking anyone else, but it dosn't work that way. If you are going to attack someone who has no idea that you are atacking them, who do you think is going to get off the first shot?

With stricter gun laws, it would be harder for everyone to get a gun. Here you could say that an attacker could get a gun and attack an unarmed person, but with one armed and one unarmed person, the armed person is less likely to use their gun as there is no threat to them. Unless the attacker is completely sadistic, (and there are those type of people I won't deny it,) no-one should come to physical harm.

Going back to the both people armed scenario, what if the defender tried to counter-attack? Then either the defender is Quickdraw McGraw or the attacker, who already has their gun drawn and pointed at the defender, can quite easily squeeze their hand by the time the defender has even put their and on their holster, (or whatever,) they will be shot.

My point here is, everyone having a gun, DOSN'T mean that they are protected against those who want to harm them. Statistics would show that your twice as likely to shoot a family member, yadda yadda, but I don't trust statisticians. 45% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I definatly think that guns like AKs or LMGs or all this bullshit that militias like buying should NOT BE FOR SALE TO CIVILLIANS, at least not without some kind of licence or permit. There is no need for a civilian to protect themselves with a rifle designed to protect you in a warzone. I don't like the idea of people keeping them for 'collections' either. That's what museums are for. The only reason to have a lot of huge powerful guns is if you suffer from what I like to call, "Needledick Syndrom."
(I know that a few bf2s guys have firearms collections so I apologise for that one.)

Automatic guns like AKs and M16s are designed and meant for killing people. No-one goes hunting with an AK except that one guy who I went out with that time who took his gun to sleep with him. Fuckin' scary because I woke up and the barrel was pointed at my head. It was a modified AK with Semi-Auto firing only and a ten-shot magazine, but you don't want to wake up to that. Trust me.
Why take an AK hunting anyway? If you can't hit a deer with the first shot you shouldn't bloody be hunting anyway. You don't need 30 bullets to take down a deer.

So I've thrown my hat into the ring. I'd be happy to explain myself later if you disaproove, and I know there will be many who do.

By the way, "Needledick Syndrome" dosn't mean, as popular thought would have you believe, that you have a small dick. Just something... lacking in your life. Some people show NS by buying huge sound systems for their car and show off or another such show of machoism that they can't show simply by being themselves.
Not saying theres anything wrong with fast cars or loud sound systems, but if you're going to bore me with useless jagon and hype, yes you have NS, and no, I am not fucken interested.

Last edited by Tyferra (2006-04-10 01:51:17)

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2006-04-10 02:28:57

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6945

Spark wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
for the brick part im just talking about the firepower of AK's... but i think ban high fire power weapons like AK's... since its un-patriot to use a weapon that was used in wars against ur country
If I use a brand new, highly stealthy, effective, devestating weapon on the US... Do you think the Military is going to give a shit that I used it on them? They'll be like 'Nice gun. Let me have one.'

well still un-patriotic. But the Army started stealing/collecting AK's from dead insurgeants and what not, and they use it as main weapon since it can be used by any dumbass in the world and have a high reliability

2006-04-10 03:07:31

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Spark wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
for the brick part im just talking about the firepower of AK's... but i think ban high fire power weapons like AK's... since its un-patriot to use a weapon that was used in wars against ur country
If I use a brand new, highly stealthy, effective, devestating weapon on the US... Do you think the Military is going to give a shit that I used it on them? They'll be like 'Nice gun. Let me have one.'
well still un-patriotic. But the Army started stealing/collecting AK's from dead insurgeants and what not, and they use it as main weapon since it can be used by any dumbass in the world and have a high reliability

And that's a bad thing how (for the people who like guns)?

Guns don't discriminate between who's shooting and who's being shot at. The manufacturers, I don't doubt, are the same.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Why do they want to take it away?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Why do they want to take it away?

Poll

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra wrote:

Spark wrote:

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra wrote:

Tushers wrote:

sheggalism wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jonnykill wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

sheggalism wrote:

The_Fighting_69th wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jonnykill wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Spark wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Spark wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Board footer