Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > American denial

American denial (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2013, 05:47 PM
 
Awwww...

Okay, I can be passive aggressive with family and confrontations, I get that trait from other members of my family, but I don't think I'm like that with strangers, if that makes sense. I think this comes out with people I'm comfortable with, and the internet.

Or maybe I'm just full of drink and it comes out all the time, I'll think about that...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2013, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Gravity isn't black or white.
Neither was Michael Jackson.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2013, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I appreciate hearing that. It might just be me, but it seems like a number of people in general are not good about suggesting this when they soapbox. My theory is that by acknowledging the complexity of some issues they feel like they are validating their opposition's viewpoint?
I think that's more in your head than anything else.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Gravity isn't black or white.
...saw that one coming. The gravitational constant in the universe is probably more absolute than any moral, social, or economic issue you can think of.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2013, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
[invoking the spirit of Spliffdaddy]

SMACKDOWN!!

Speaking of insufferable, no matter what argument you are for or against, these remarks are always annoying to me.

I can't stand it whenever I come across a YouTube video entitled "so and so owns so and so", or "so and so schools so and so". It's no wonder we can rarely have civil disagreement when somebody has to constantly "win".
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, if the voter ID thread is any indication, people don't bother getting drivers licenses or state issued IDs. How would you distribute it (and verify you're giving it to the right person)?
Do you mean denying it to the "wrong" person? The idea is that everyone starts off as "the right person," so there's no challenge in separating "right" from "wrong."


Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Everyone in the US has an implicit "gun buying license", much like how people have an implicit "alcohol buying license".There are certain crimes and actions that can cause you to explicitly LOSE that implicit license.
Yes, and that disparity is exactly what is causing the current problem. It's impractical to explicitly revoke something which is implicit. Making the permission explicit (while still default), fixes this.


If anything, a gun license of any kind would just be a way to identify who has a gun and who doesn't.
I already rebutted this. We already know that drivers licenses don't allow us to identify who has a car and who doesn't. If cars weren't titled property, we wouldn't be able to know who owns one at all.


People who don't ever plan on buying a gun wouldn't ever get the license.
Make it part of the drivers license or social security card. Did you ever "get" your social security card? Is the state capable of revoking your social security number even if you fail to go out and get the card?


Not only that, but it could easily be used by anti-gun states and municipalities to make it extraordinarily difficult to buy a gun, by making the license extremely expensive or simply time-consuming to apply for and acquire.
No they can't, that would be unconstitutional. All manner of scenarios can be thought up in which prejudiced states or towns could (and have) violated the constitution, but that simply falls under another logistics problem, the one of enforcing the constitution. If we're pretending that's an unsolvable problem, then the entire premise of a right to bear arms (and most PWL threads) is moot.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Still, dissecting all of this is just annoying. Politely pointing this out as subego is great, even appreciated by me at least, but going after this is pointless because at the end of the day the internet is still going to be what it is. If the way I write is insufferable to you and you can't be polite about it like subego was, I would much prefer you ignore me for as long as these issues are works-in-progress for me.
You're repeatedly dissecting your caricature of Americans and more specifically, the American right-wing. When is that allowed to be annoying?

You're asking for politeness, but cannot afford an iota of it. Why should this respect be given you for growth's sake when you've not demonstrated an ounce of progress in over the 10 years I've been here? i.e. For better results; try harder.

This place will be a lot less insufferable when you kindly stop trying to sell yourself and others on this abject bs.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Do you mean denying it to the "wrong" person? The idea is that everyone starts off as "the right person," so there's no challenge in separating "right" from "wrong."
I think he means falsifying identification information to get a gun license in someone else's name.

Yes, and that disparity is exactly what is causing the current problem. It's impractical to explicitly revoke something which is implicit. Making the permission explicit (while still default), fixes this.
I disagree - when explicit revocation only happens because of committing a crime or due to a formal diagnoses of a psychotic mental illness, it's pretty easy to do.

You have an implicit right to live next to a school. That right is only explicitly revoked if you end up on a sex offender list (and I'm sure other scenarios but that's the one that comes to mind).

I already rebutted this. We already know that drivers licenses don't allow us to identify who has a car and who doesn't. If cars weren't titled property, we wouldn't be able to know who owns one at all.
The difference is that people who don't plan on owning a gun aren't going to go through the trouble of getting a gun license.

I know people who live in DC and never got a driver's license, because they simply never drive and never plan on buying a car.

Make it part of the drivers license or social security card. Did you ever "get" your social security card? Is the state capable of revoking your social security number even if you fail to go out and get the card?
I don't know what you're talking about with the SS card. I got mine when I was born, like everyone else. Has that changed? Do you no longer automatically get a SS card when the number is assigned to you?

If you want the right to own a gun tied to your SS card, it already is - your SS card is just an indicator of your status as a legal resident of the country. Being a resident is what gives you the constitutional right to own a firearm.

No they can't, that would be unconstitutional. All manner of scenarios can be thought up in which prejudiced states or towns could (and have) violated the constitution, but that simply falls under another logistics problem, the one of enforcing the constitution. If we're pretending that's an unsolvable problem, then the entire premise of a right to bear arms (and most PWL threads) is moot.
You know as well as I do that anti-gun states like California and Connecticut would use a mandatory gun license issuance as a way to prevent people from getting guns.

Fairfax County here in Virginia already does that exact thing when trying to get a concealed-carry license (CCL). It's expensive, it's time-consuming, and they deliberately make it difficult to obtain by requiring you to take your application physically to the county courthouse and wait the full 45 days before they'll even process your application. Not only that but they even require a damned self addressed stamped envelope to mail you your permit. It's these little things that all come together to make it more difficult than it should be to get a CCL.

If a state requires a gun license, they could easily make it expensive and time consuming, with very long wait times and unnecessary delays.

As long as there's a constitutional right to own a firearm, I don't think requiring a license is right.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 02:25 PM
 
I'll admit it was obnoxious to have to register with the Illinois State Police to exercise my constitutional right...

To go to a range and rent a gun which was never going to leave said range.


I'll also throw out there our SA threatened to publish the list of names and addresses of everyone who was registered.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll admit it was obnoxious to have to register with the Illinois State Police to exercise my constitutional right...

To go to a range and rent a gun which was never going to leave said range.

I'll also throw out there our SA threatened to publish the list of names and addresses of everyone who was registered.
Yeah that's messed up.

Roanoke, VA (I think? I forget now) used to publish a list of CCL holders every week in the city's newspaper. The state got smart, though, and CCL records are now sealed.

Is the registering with the police thing a Chicago-only law, or is that statewide?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 03:59 PM
 
Statewide. We're one of the most restrictive states in the union.

I'll cop to a touch of sensationalism. It isn't illegal to rent guns to someone without a license, but no range owner will do it unless someone in the party has one.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're repeatedly dissecting your caricature of Americans and more specifically, the American right-wing. When is that allowed to be annoying?

You're asking for politeness, but cannot afford an iota of it. Why should this respect be given you for growth's sake when you've not demonstrated an ounce of progress in over the 10 years I've been here? i.e. For better results; try harder.

This place will be a lot less insufferable when you kindly stop trying to sell yourself and others on this abject bs.

It's not a caricature/generalization because I think that the entire left or right wing can be reduced to one, it come across that way because you think my identification of a significant population doesn't jive with what what you consider to be a significant population.

Unfortunately, we can't talk about people without grouping them, but the process of grouping them doesn't necessarily imply that other significant groups don't exist. And yes, we all come up with these groups in here daily. How many times have you heard references to these groups/profiles?

- loser freeloaders on food stamps
- the 1%/99%
- the educated elite vs. everybody else

There is a population of people that insist on focusing on one variable of a complex problem while excluding other ones. You obviously seem to feel it is smaller than I do, but it doesn't make me some sort of bad person for discussing this population (which is not really party affiliated, BTW, nor stemming from some unique American characteristic).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
As long as there's a constitutional right to own a firearm, I don't think requiring a license is right.

Should 13 year olds be allowed to buy guns? I'm assuming you are thinking that the only restriction should be age, and of course criminal background/mental health? What about mentally retarded or very low IQ individuals?

Sorry if these questions sound too leading, but I'm simply interested in where you draw this line.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2013, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Should 13 year olds be allowed to buy guns? I'm assuming you are thinking that the only restriction should be age, and of course criminal background/mental health? What about mentally retarded or very low IQ individuals?

Sorry if these questions sound too leading, but I'm simply interested in where you draw this line.
I think the law as it stands is pretty good:

Possession of a Firearm by the Mentally Ill

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
It's just that it's very difficult to enforce it right now, because of the fact that mental illness or retardation isn't always obvious, and you're not allowed to ask.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
It's just that it's very difficult to enforce it right now, because of the fact that mental illness or retardation isn't always obvious, and you're not allowed to ask.

I wonder how that conversation would go...

"Hey there, I'd like one of those AR-15s please!"

"Good choice sir, that's a popular item! Are you retarded?"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 01:46 AM
 
The ATF seems to feel a nice, clean interpretation of this is:

1) Someone legally adjudicated as not having enough intelligence to conduct their own affairs.

2) Someone legally adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others. The danger need not have been adjudicated to be immediate.

3) Involuntary commission.


We can add to that:

4) Convicted felons.

5) Those below voting age.

And I think that covers it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 05:13 AM
 
Maybe the USA should have a mental/emotional fitness exam that's mandatory for; operating a motor vehicle in excess of 100ccs, purchasing a firearm, voting, and buying alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. I could live with the above restrictions:

1) Someone legally adjudicated as not having enough intelligence to conduct their own affairs.
2) Someone legally adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others. The danger need not have been adjudicated to be immediate.
3) Involuntary commission.

After you've taken the exam and passed, you can; drive, buy a gun (and carry it concealed), vote, and smoke/drink. Hopefully not all at the same time, or you run into the other limitation:

4) Are a convicted felon, of a crime involving violence or a weapon/vehicle.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 05:19 AM
 
We need a good mark of Cain to put on their foreheads.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 05:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We need a good mark of Cain to put on their foreheads.
or an ear tag?

Personally, I think a state-issued operator/buyer's license would be good enough, but if you really want a tattoo, knock yourself out.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 07:03 AM
 
I was cleared of those charges.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
...saw that one coming. The gravitational constant in the universe is probably more absolute than any moral, social, or economic issue you can think of.
Not that absolute...
Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Do you mean denying it to the "wrong" person? The idea is that everyone starts off as "the right person," so there's no challenge in separating "right" from "wrong.
I mean whats to stop Jim-Bob who got a his firearms ID at 18 and lost at 22, from going back for another using his just turned 18 brothers name?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 08:41 PM
 
Don't we have a "World socialism/progressives denial" thread yet?
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2013, 09:48 PM
 
I don't think it's even worth the energy to argue about it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I think he means falsifying identification information to get a gun license in someone else's name.
The same way we do it for drivers licenses and social security cards



I disagree - when explicit revocation only happens because of committing a crime or due to a formal diagnoses of a psychotic mental illness, it's pretty easy to do.

You have an implicit right to live next to a school. That right is only explicitly revoked if you end up on a sex offender list (and I'm sure other scenarios but that's the one that comes to mind).
I don't think the whole sex offender situation is an example of something that's "pretty easy to do." It could use a lot of improvement as well.



The difference is that people who don't plan on owning a gun aren't going to go through the trouble of getting a gun license.
That's the whole point of making it be "on" by default. They wouldn't have to do anything extra, it would just be a part of some other thing they are already getting, like a drivers license or SSN card.


I know people who live in DC and never got a driver's license, because they simply never drive and never plan on buying a car.
By far the exception and not the rule. In order for this proposal to solve the "the government has a list" problem, it doesn't need to include everyone who won't get a gun, merely the majority. The government's list of people who have a license will sill be unrepresentative of those who actually have a gun, even if it only covers the number of Americans who currently have a drivers license.



I don't know what you're talking about with the SS card. I got mine when I was born, like everyone else.
That's exactly it. Everyone got one. It rebuts your claim that the lazy would not get one. If the proposed gun license was a part of your social security card/number, then you would have one already without ever having to have done anything.


If you want the right to own a gun tied to your SS card, it already is - your SS card is just an indicator of your status as a legal resident of the country. Being a resident is what gives you the constitutional right to own a firearm.
Except it lacks the mechanism to be revoked, and the mechanism for a gun salesman to check whether a customer's has been revoked. Just add those two parts and it would be a solution to the described problem.



You know as well as I do that anti-gun states like California and Connecticut would use a mandatory gun license issuance as a way to prevent people from getting guns.

Fairfax County here in Virginia already does that exact thing when trying to get a concealed-carry license (CCL). It's expensive, it's time-consuming, and they deliberately make it difficult to obtain by requiring you to take your application physically to the county courthouse and wait the full 45 days before they'll even process your application. Not only that but they even require a damned self addressed stamped envelope to mail you your permit. It's these little things that all come together to make it more difficult than it should be to get a CCL.
The proposal is for something that's "on" by default. What you're describing is not the proposal.


If a state requires a gun license, they could easily make it expensive and time consuming, with very long wait times and unnecessary delays.
Here's an idea, make it a federal document (like the SSN). Does that solve your objection? Are states capable of foot-dragging on SSNs, just because of their backward prejudiced leanings? Can they make it so it's harder for Hispanics to get an SSN?


As long as there's a constitutional right to own a firearm, I don't think requiring a license is right.
By that logic, it's not right to deny firearm ownership to felons or mental patients either. I think you're being disingenuous by drawing two separate lines about the constitutional aspect of this.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The same way we do it for drivers licenses and social security cards
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, if the voter ID thread is any indication, people don't bother getting drivers licenses or state issued IDs. How would you distribute it (and verify you're giving it to the right person)?
To be clear, I like your idea, but under that scenario there's no impetus to get a gun license unless you plan on getting a gun, so it becomes an unofficial national gun owner registry, which gun advocates hate. Maybe if we tie it to selective service?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 03:28 PM
 
If everyone (who isn't a nutter or criminal) has a symbol or seal on their Operator's License allowing them to own/carry a firearm, then it's impossible for the government to know exactly who has them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 03:45 PM
 
Operator's license?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 03:49 PM
 
Driver's license (often called an Operator's license). It could look like this, note the blue icon of a pistol:


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Driver's license (often called an Operator's license).
Not often enough, apparently.

I'm cool by it, but what would people who don't have (or want) a driver's license have to do?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not often enough, apparently.

I'm cool by it, but what would people who don't have (or want) a driver's license have to do?
They'd get a free state ID (which they're soon going to be required to have for voting purposes, anyway).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They'd get a free state ID (which they're soon going to be required to have for voting purposes, anyway).
Well, that depends on the state. That still hits snags on those too lazy to vote.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, that depends on the state. That still hits snags on those too lazy to vote.
Then they can be too lazy to own/carry a firearm too, I'm tired of bending to the will of the perpetually slothful.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then they can be too lazy to own/carry a firearm too, I'm tired of bending to the will of the perpetually slothful.
I thought my solution worked in that case.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Driver's license (often called an Operator's license). It could look like this, note the blue icon of a pistol:


I have to carry a ****ing Glock?

Jesus Christ.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I thought my solution worked in that case.
Selective Service? That's possible, but we'd need to expand its purview and infrastructure. Not a deal-breaker though, because whatever system that would be used to screen crazies and felons would need to be augmented as well.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2013, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have to carry a ****ing Glock?

Jesus Christ.
I don't like them either, I'm a Sig man, but the icon was already in one of my folders. Deal with it.


Edit: BTW, I'm going to float these ideas to my congresspeople, see what they think.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2013, 08:47 AM
 
I don't know... I think Anne Carr Driver is actually kind of cute, but from Michigan? Potentially crazy. Better run that through the check one more time.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2013, 10:42 AM
 
I think she looks an awful lot like Jodi Arias.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2013, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I think she looks an awful lot like Jodi Arias.
I thought she was hot too.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2013, 11:32 AM
 
In the psycho, "I murdered my boyfriend after having some rough butt sex" kinda way.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2013, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
In the psycho, "I murdered my boyfriend after having some rough butt sex" kinda way.
The praying mantis does it, therefore it is not psycho, but perfectly natural.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2