HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: GeorgeFathers ()
Date: March 16, 2013 03:35PM

Wayne Lapierre seems to believe that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." How could this theoretical "good guy" have stopped an assassin hiding in the shadows??

We at least need universal background checks and gun owners must purchase gun insurance just as car owners do. That is common sense. Wayne Lapierre had none.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Danielmybro ()
Date: March 16, 2013 03:38PM

The NRA is nothing but a bunch of trigger-happy old white people who believe everything that is said on FOx News and are just itching to start the next violent revolution because the president is black.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Azkabeeb6 ()
Date: March 16, 2013 04:10PM

There were plenty of "good guys with guns" around on November 22, 1963, and the bad guy with a gun still caused such heartbreak. LaPierre is full of shit.

Guns are the problem.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Harv ()
Date: March 16, 2013 04:17PM

Azkabeeb6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were plenty of "good guys with guns" around
> on November 22, 1963, and the bad guy with a gun
> still caused such heartbreak. LaPierre is full of
> shit.
>
> Guns are the problem.


The Second Amendment is the problem. No Second Amendment, no guns. Pretty simple. It is obviously time to repeal the Second Amenment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: McCarthy ()
Date: March 16, 2013 04:20PM

Yes. If we were allowed to put a slug in the head of commie pinkos like Lee Harvey Oswald when they raise their head up out of Marx's ass (just like the occupy empty space protestors) it may have never happened.

But the liberal bleeding hearts weep for their rights to hate and kill Americans.

Wait until Hollywierd gets a taste of sharia law.

Celebrate!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: ChaChaa ()
Date: March 16, 2013 05:37PM

We have a 1st amendment that prohibits sharia law or any form of religious fairy tale law.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Bi-Polar ()
Date: March 16, 2013 06:05PM

Constitution Bad!

Constitution Good!

I wish you would make up your mind.

?
Attachments:
Star-trek-halfwhiteblack.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Dougless ()
Date: March 16, 2013 06:46PM

There are good and bad parts of the constitution.
1. Feedom of speech = good
2. Blacks are only 3/5ths of a person = bad.

The part of 2nd amendment about guns only being allowed in WELL REGULATED MILIAS is good. The Fox News Teabagger interpretation that lets them think they can stockpile personal arsenals is bad.

Can you keep 2 disparate thoughts in your head there Bi-Polar?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Duh Erp ()
Date: March 17, 2013 12:40AM

Dougless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are good and bad parts of the constitution.
> 1. Feedom of speech = good
> 2. Blacks are only 3/5ths of a person = bad.
>
> The part of 2nd amendment about guns only being
> allowed in WELL REGULATED MILIAS is good. The Fox
> News Teabagger interpretation that lets them think
> they can stockpile personal arsenals is bad.
>
> Can you keep 2 disparate thoughts in your head
> there Bi-Polar?


"Well regulated" in that context doesn't mean what you think it does dumbass. lol

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: MyBro ()
Date: March 17, 2013 07:19AM

Danielmybro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NRA is nothing but a bunch of trigger-happy
> old white people who believe everything that is
> said on FOx News and are just itching to start the
> next violent revolution because the president is
> black.

Bro, chill a bit please.
Attachments:
image.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Liberal Logic 102 ()
Date: March 17, 2013 11:20PM

Liberals really are a very uncreative bunch. Months later still posting the exact same talking points.

Out of curiosity why are you arguing the secret service shouldnt be armed? The liberals use this line to justify taking away guns since they arent fool proof so you are in fact actually arguing that because they dont work every time we should just give up and disarm the secret service and the police.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: here tis ()
Date: March 18, 2013 07:49AM

The constitution was written over 200 years ago, when the average distance between homes was about 100 times greater than now, and roving bands of indians and bear attacks we still considered possible daily threats.

There is no way the great authors of the document could have contemplated the world and technology we have today.

However, as they were very bright, they knew that.

They assumed a "liberal" interpretation of the document in order for it to be as timeless and fitting-of-the times as possible.

One that would protect against the threats of the day, but at the same time, would provide interpretors some flexibility in making determinations some 200 plus years down the road.

Otherwise, I have a right to bear arms. Dammit, I'm gonna go up to the hills and kill me a black bear, and get me a pair of 'em.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: itchy ()
Date: March 18, 2013 08:17AM

You want a nation with no guns, move to Mexico. See how fun that is for you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: derrr ()
Date: March 18, 2013 08:23AM

Who wants a nation with no guns?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: ReadAndWeep ()
Date: March 18, 2013 10:27AM

derrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who wants a nation with no guns?

George Soros, Barack Obama et al.

Since it's obvious that the liberals on this forum haven't a clue about the
Constitution I'll start with this.



|| Federalist No. 29 ||
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

PUBLIUS.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: silly fool ()
Date: March 18, 2013 11:22AM

So, one man's opinion from 1788 is supposed to mean EVERYTHING in today's world?

Let me go check my printing press. I gots me a farm that supports my family. The British are coming...they'll be here in 15 days...we better round up the guys with their muskets, and call back the boys from Pennsylvania that have been hunting injuns up there...they can be back here in hurry, like 5 days if the roads ain't too muddy. As they get close, we'll send 'em smoke signals. Now I got to go, 'cus Thomas Jefferson is about to start a University in Charlottesville, and he plans on having it open in like 30 years.

WTF.

Get real.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: ReadAndWeep ()
Date: March 18, 2013 11:49AM

silly fool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, one man's opinion from 1788 is supposed to
> mean EVERYTHING in today's world?
>
> Let me go check my printing press. I gots me a
> farm that supports my family. The British are
> coming...they'll be here in 15 days...we better
> round up the guys with their muskets, and call
> back the boys from Pennsylvania that have been
> hunting injuns up there...they can be back here in
> hurry, like 5 days if the roads ain't too muddy.
> As they get close, we'll send 'em smoke signals.
> Now I got to go, 'cus Thomas Jefferson is about to
> start a University in Charlottesville, and he
> plans on having it open in like 30 years.
>
> WTF.
>
> Get real.

No, you get real. Whether you like it or not the Constitution is still the law of the land.
The 2nd Amendment is still intact. Ref SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald.
I realize you're too lazy to read and understand the relevancy of the
Federalist Papers but you suffer from your own ignorance.
The 2nd Amendment is all about tyranny. Read and weep.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: ReadAndWeep is wrong as usual ()
Date: March 18, 2013 12:51PM

ReadAndWeep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> derrr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Who wants a nation with no guns?
>
> George Soros, Barack Obama et al.

you're dead wrong, dipshit. why mention George Soros anyway? the only folks who care what Soros might have to say are the stark raving lunatic conservatives. he is rarely ever even mentioned in the liberal press. but i suppose you will have some loony conspiracy-related rant on this as well. your histrionics are so predicable and stupid.

also, the Federalist Papers =! the United States Constitution, and certainly =! the United States Bill of Rights you simpleminded dumbfuck.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Donvonni ()
Date: March 18, 2013 01:04PM

The secret service is an example of a WELL REGULATED militia, which the 2nd amendment allows.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: Liberal Logic 102 ()
Date: March 18, 2013 01:07PM

ReadAndWeep is wrong as usual Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> you're dead wrong, dipshit. why mention George
> Soros anyway? the only folks who care what Soros
> might have to say are the stark raving lunatic
> conservatives. he is rarely ever even mentioned in
> the liberal press. but i suppose you will have
> some loony conspiracy-related rant on this as
> well. your histrionics are so predicable and
> stupid.

Shocking that the liberal press doesnt expose a liberal billionaire, who would have ever guessed. Thinking isnt your strong suit is it? And yes they do want guns banned what do you think theyve been trying to do the last couple months? They didnt politicize sandy hook for nothing

> also, the Federalist Papers =! the United States
> Constitution, and certainly =! the United States
> Bill of Rights you simpleminded dumbfuck.

Which two of those three are actually laws again?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: angry bird ()
Date: March 18, 2013 03:36PM

Angry much?

I usually read the word of men written 250 years as very applicable today.

Those guys knew EXACTLY what the world was going to be like today.

They weren't thinking of their immediate problems at hand, so much, as they were how to address OUR problems and OUR world some 250 years later.

What great and brilliant guys!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: ReadAndWeep ()
Date: March 18, 2013 03:49PM

ReadAndWeep is wrong as usual Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ReadAndWeep Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > derrr Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Who wants a nation with no guns?
> >
> > George Soros, Barack Obama et al.
>
> you're dead wrong, dipshit. why mention George
> Soros anyway? the only folks who care what Soros
> might have to say are the stark raving lunatic
> conservatives. he is rarely ever even mentioned in
> the liberal press. but i suppose you will have
> some loony conspiracy-related rant on this as
> well. your histrionics are so predicable and
> stupid.
>
> also, the Federalist Papers =! the United States
> Constitution, and certainly =! the United States
> Bill of Rights you simpleminded dumbfuck.

I take it you flunked high school government. Soros funds the Violence Policy Center. Read much?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: friskydingo ()
Date: March 18, 2013 03:50PM

Donvonni Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The secret service is an example of a WELL
> REGULATED militia, which the 2nd amendment allows.


My god, I... I don't even know what to say....

 

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: dontgetit ()
Date: March 18, 2013 03:55PM

also, the Federalist Papers =! the United States Constitution, and certainly =! the United States Bill of Rights you simpleminded dumbfuck.


What does the "sentence" above mean? What does =! mean?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: friskydingo ()
Date: March 18, 2013 04:00PM

silly fool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, one man's opinion from 1788 is supposed to
> mean EVERYTHING in today's world?
>
> Let me go check my printing press. I gots me a
> farm that supports my family. The British are
> coming...they'll be here in 15 days...we better
> round up the guys with their muskets, and call
> back the boys from Pennsylvania that have been
> hunting injuns up there...they can be back here in
> hurry, like 5 days if the roads ain't too muddy.
> As they get close, we'll send 'em smoke signals.
> Now I got to go, 'cus Thomas Jefferson is about to
> start a University in Charlottesville, and he
> plans on having it open in like 30 years.
>
> WTF.
>
> Get real.



HA, this was pretty funny. Good work.

 

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Hey Wayne Lapierre, would a "good guy with a gun" have prevented President Kennedy's assassination?
Posted by: ReadAndWeep ()
Date: March 18, 2013 05:12PM

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> silly fool Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, one man's opinion from 1788 is supposed to
> > mean EVERYTHING in today's world?
> >
> > Let me go check my printing press. I gots me a
> > farm that supports my family. The British are
> > coming...they'll be here in 15 days...we better
> > round up the guys with their muskets, and call
> > back the boys from Pennsylvania that have been
> > hunting injuns up there...they can be back here
> in
> > hurry, like 5 days if the roads ain't too
> muddy.
> > As they get close, we'll send 'em smoke
> signals.
> > Now I got to go, 'cus Thomas Jefferson is about
> to
> > start a University in Charlottesville, and he
> > plans on having it open in like 30 years.
> >
> > WTF.
> >
> > Get real.
>
>
>
> HA, this was pretty funny. Good work.

Only if you're too lazy to read the Federalist Papers.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **     **  **     **  **    **  **       
  **  **   ***   ***  **     **   **  **   **       
   ****    **** ****  **     **    ****    **       
    **     ** *** **  **     **     **     **       
    **     **     **  **     **     **     **       
    **     **     **  **     **     **     **       
    **     **     **   *******      **     ******** 
This forum powered by Phorum.