Mr. T Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE23...&sc=1363196 Dan I found out where Mexicans are buying the guns, You have to watch and stop being such a Loser. This is just at 8 minutes long, BUT very well done and very good. You will enjoy it!!!! http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE23...&sc=1363196 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Dan bigmouth - You think that the 2nd ammendment means that Mexican drug cartels are coming here to buy 22 long rifles, eh? How about 12 gage shotguns? Black powder rifles? Tell me, Dan, ... if they come here and can't buy them, what is to keep them from busting in doors and stealing them? And also, please explain that if they buy a REGISTERED gun, and take it back to Mexico... WHAT THE HELL GOOD DOES IT DO ? The Mexican drug cartel has American bought guns, and they are registered. what the hell difference does it make that the guns are registered? Maybe they are registered here and stolen... so ... you think that makes any difference? Or, maybe your Nobama could arrange a prosecution of the owner of the gun that got stolen, to intimidate gun owners? Perhaps, Dan, you should think before you go jawflappy on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 So in the most non confrontational way I ask you what should be done? Politely ask the people who are breaking the law by being in the country to abide by a different law when they pay cash for a handgun out of a trunk of an el camino and go register it before they go shoot at people. That'll deter 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 out of a trunk of an el camino El Caminos don't have trunks, Leg, it that isn't the point. I think we have gone way past the point of no return on gun policy here. There is no way to get guns off the streets. Period. And as for this whole second amendment crap, these NRA fools care less about personal rights than anyone...they just don't want their cock extention taken away. Can you imagine how emascualted these tough guys would feel without their piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Thats funny Leg! Please register your guns before you shoot, Mr. Guzmán. Mexico angry that drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán on Forbes billionaires list. http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11911554 With that kind of money he can pay to outfit a whole Battalion to do his dirty work and overrun a country such as Mexico. I really dont think that Mr. Guzman is interested in buying shotguns from WalMart or buying a cheap 380 in a back alley somewhere. And Obama's stance on all of this is really yet to be heard. I did notice that Obama dosn't understand the seperation powers between State and Federal, he needs to realize that if the Govenor of Texas orders the Texas National Guard to the border, that Obama cannot tell him any different. Maybe Obama needs to read the constitution. That is the USA Constitution not the Kenyan one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 El Caminos don't have trunks, Leg, it that isn't the point. I think we have gone way past the point of no return on gun policy here. There is no way to get guns off the streets. Period. And as for this whole second amendment crap, these NRA fools care less about personal rights than anyone...they just don't want their cock extention taken away. Can you imagine how emascualted these tough guys would feel without their piece? Ha! Yeah the trunk-bed-giant ass thing behind the seats. You can pack more contraband in it. My side of it is kind of in agreement with one of the NRA's point's: More stringent gun laws are only affecting those who purchase them legally. Those seeking to acquire firepower to aid in commiting another crime, faux-protection when they hit the club scene, usually arent using legal channels to purchase the guns anyway. Take a look at Plex, he bought a gun legally, but didn't permit it properly. One of the 4 bodyguards he had with him should have had all of that taken care of and Plex shouldnt have even been carrying one. Whats' done is done. Where I disagree with the registering is in instances like my Grandad: he has a case with a lock etc. that contain old rifles/shotguns and even some of his grandfathers' old rifles and shotguns. I think they've been out of the case one time since I've been alive - to show me when I was about 8. Do they need to be registered? I doubt it. Seems a tad overkillish to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 El Caminos don't have trunks, Leg, it that isn't the point. I think we have gone way past the point of no return on gun policy here. There is no way to get guns off the streets. Period. And as for this whole second amendment crap, these NRA fools care less about personal rights than anyone...they just don't want their cock extention taken away. Can you imagine how emascualted these tough guys would feel without their piece? Dude, leave this discussion to people who actually own firearms, know how to use firearms, and are men. Capish? Good. Now go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 My side of it is kind of in agreement with one of the NRA's point's: More stringent gun laws are only affecting those who purchase them legally. Those seeking to acquire firepower to aid in commiting another crime, faux-protection when they hit the club scene, usually arent using legal channels to purchase the guns anyway. While I have no need for a gun, it is your right as an American to legally own one. I'm fine with this. The rationale you bring is completely understandable. My problem with gun laws, really, is what I stated before, that it is crying about personal freedoms by people who look to have abortion, marijuana and gay marriage banned. Those hypocrites have no problem impinging upon others' rights and oppressing others' personal freedoms but cry when theirs are impinged upon. That's all. So, essentially, it isn't even about guns to me. Dude, leave this discussion to people who actually own firearms, know how to use firearms, and are men. Capish? Good. Now go away. I was wondering when President of the Small Dick Club was going to chime in. Do you ever notice that not one poster here ever engages in conversation with you? Ask yourself why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Your wife said I was satisfying. I think it was in a club in Montana we met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Your wife said I was satisfying. I think it was in a club in Montana we met. Bring my wife up EVER AGAIN and you'll wish you hadn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 While I have no need for a gun, it is your right as an American to legally own one. I'm fine with this. The rationale you bring is completely understandable. My problem with gun laws, really, is what I stated before, that it is crying about personal freedoms by people who look to have abortion, marijuana and gay marriage banned. Those hypocrites have no problem impinging upon others' rights and oppressing others' personal freedoms but cry when theirs are impinged upon. That's all. So, essentially, it isn't even about guns to me. So true. It's also usually about the time they choose to demonstrate their poor understanding of the Constitution. But yeah, I agree with your take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Bring my wife up EVER AGAIN and you'll wish you hadn't. Screw you little man. You can dish it out but you can't take it. Fukc off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Screw you little man. You can dish it out but you can't take it. Fukc off. When your ass gets booted, you can blame me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Your wife said I was satisfying. I think it was in a club in Montana we met. Wow, really? How about a day riding the pine in honor of current NCAA bracket selections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 But yeah, I agree with your take. So what's the solution here? If legislative control isn't going to do anything (which it will not), what's next???? I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 So what's the solution here? If legislative control isn't going to do anything (which it will not), what's next???? I have no idea. Well in the case of the cartels, if pot were the only trafficked contraband, legalizing pot would minimize their requirements for most of the arsenal they stockpile. However, I can't really think of good reasons to legalize coke & heroin, meth, etc., so that isn't a total solution. The other problem is that the drug trade doesn't have to worry about its employees firing off resumes daily on Monster.com - these guys are looking for fast, easy money, not gainful employment (especially once they've had the money already). I actually think stealing business from cartels and gangs & handing it over to the feds would leave them fairly angry at their new definite lack of cash flow. As far as hyper-registering shotguns/rifles, it just would put a serious burden on so many things that aren't just part of the purchase process. The country would lose a lot of father/son &/or grandfather/grandson time, that I personally think is healthy. Hunting/fishing with your family isn't about just pulling the trigger: there's drinking (kidding), bonding, etc. that goes on. Just showing interest in what your kid is up to every now and then goes a long way and those trips are a good place for initiating those conversations. As a participant in the Big Brother/Little Brother program, you quickly find out that what these kids enjoy (and need) the most isn't the pizza or Chic Fil-a that you're taking them out of school once or twice a week for, but that you're actually doing it. Asking them how they're doing in school, helping with homework, etc. So, where I'm going with that analogy would be the equivalent of $20 chicken or $50 pizza (potential higher taxes/prices on ammo). Not that you can't go and spend the "quality time" it just removes the events (or makes attending said events) very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 So what's the solution here? If legislative control isn't going to do anything (which it will not), what's next???? I have no idea. First solution is not to tamper with citizens rights. To many politicians have knee jerk reactions and create a larger problem while attempting to resolve any problem that they want to deam a crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 First solution is not to tamper with citizens rights. I'm more than fine with that. So why outlaw marijuana, gay marriage or abortion? It's the same argument!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm more than fine with that. So why outlaw marijuana, gay marriage or abortion? It's the same argument!!! Make pot legal and lets stick all the potheads together on an Island. Then make them have to provide for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Come on now, how many potheads like in the movies do you really know? A lot of different kinds of people smoke than you think, and in greater numbers too. way to completely dodge gay marriage and abortion too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Queer marriages should not be allowed It is wrecking the fiber of all families, and they shouldn't be able to adopt either. Im sorry but some big fag who likes hairy backs would and can have tendencies to abusing a young child. And abortion should only be used in the case of an emergency and not out of convenience. Oh yes I know some fags, lesbians, and potheads, but they are not coming over to watch the game with me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Legacy there is not a good reason for cigarettes they are a gauranteed death sentance. Any drug honestly (including "legal" drugs) I dont see a "good" reason to legalize any of them. The fact is drugs are a part of all cultures and will be used regardless how addictive or dangerous they are. I would rather tax and control them to take away cash flow to organized crime. Criminilizing selling and using is stupid and too expensive and never ending. Education/rehab/medical treatment/containment is the ONLY viable solution. Alcohol was criminlized and that obviously only enriched Canada/Italian/Jewish mobs and the kennedy family(just thought I would drop them in). It was not controllable and has caused all kinds of issues since. We DEAL with it, we can deal with the other Drugs also. Mexico is really only having massive problems because of the MONEY the cartels make because it is illegal here. Jack Daniels in not killing the cops in there home state..... Neither is any Tobacco company. Criminilizing a commodity only costs society and enriches criminals willing to take the chance and increases violence between criminal elements trying to profit from increased prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Queer marriages should not be allowed It is wrecking the fiber of all families, and they shouldn't be able to adopt either. Im sorry but some big fag who likes hairy backs would and can have tendencies to abusing a young child. That is a piss-poor take. It made me sad. And I think guns wreck families too, but I realize the importance some ppl place on them therefore I recognize your freedom to own one. It's time to enter the 21st century here, friend. I'm serious. You have a horribly skewed view of gays and it saddens me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Good take, sev, and I agree mostly. I think the zolofts & paxils and everything else poses far more severe health risks than an occasional joint (and definitely a vaporizer). But, you're right, it's a cultural thing - hard to shake some peoples beliefs. *cough* middle east *cough* ...Ahem... My main point was that those criminal types in the cartels will move onto something else when their current market dries up, or the price gets too low to compete. Jack Daniels in not killing the cops in there home state..... Neither is any Tobacco company. Criminilizing a commodity only costs society and enriches criminals willing to take the chance and increases violence between criminal elements trying to profit from increased prices. No, not the JD you buy in the ABC, but you better believe people are still getting killed over some moon-moon. You still have 'shiners in Franklin County, VA (MS capital of the world), KY, WV, etc.. Those guys are relentless. I imagine the Latin American cartels to be the same way. Once you legalize any drug, those guys are still going to expect to sell their product and get paid. When that doesn't happen, I imagine they won't be turning the other cheek, and they'll have a handful of bullets to express their displeasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Dan, It's a legit question, "what DO we do?" It would help if we closed our borders to illegal immigration. Flat out. They have no business illegally sneaking into our country. Especially when they are in gangs. Putting pressure on citizens by dissing the 2nd Amendment, raising registration/ownership fees 500% (yes Obama voted for just that in Illinois), wanting federal registration, voting to ban ammo (yes, Obama did that), makes citizens want to buy their guns privately, or at gun shows. The Obama admin and Dems in Congress want to change the law to allow any gun buyer to be found out - I forget the law they want to change - it only provided the buyer's info and purchase to be kept for 60 days or something like that..) well, there are people at gun shows buying guns -outside- of the gun show. People want to sell their guns, they will take them up on it, without hesitation, to avoid red tape inside. There are already background checks in stores, and that shouldn't be any kind of problem. Except... anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun folks and their talk against the Constitution make gun buyers and sellers worry. Shut the borders. Take out the gangs, get them the hell out now. But when anti-gun libs want to screw with the rights of gun owners, they cause the opposite affect of what they want - namely, the private sales get boosted, and resistance to registration (like me), and gun sales go ballistic. I am fine with gun safety training. I don't even mind machine guns, etc, being illegal. I am fine with background checks. Just don't screw with gun ownership, because that makes the above a threat, a first move to take them away. Clinton didn't shut the borders, but far worse - Bush didn't either, after 9/11. We have to get a passport to go to Canada to go fishing now, but Mexican gangs illegally run across the border by the 10's of thousands. Hopefully, Obama may finally slam the illegal immigration door shut. But I haven't heard if his aunt left the country or not. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Oh yeah, about dope, gay marriage, and ... Gun ownership is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Dope is not. Society has a right to protect itself from the damage that illegal drugs do. Controlled drinking - dui is illegal, etc. It's a choice society makes. So too, gay marriage. Where do you draw the line? There's a group somewhere that wants to make sex and marriages with children legal, I read. Society has a right to protect itself. But society cannot deny the Constitutional rights of American citizens to own guns. That's why the 2nd Amendment is there. Same with the 1st Amendment. Society cannot deny Americans the right to free speech. Society/gov. cannot protect itself by denying American citizens guns and free speech. But with any right, there are responsibilities. Like, you can't own a machine gun. Can't carry a gun to work, school, etc. Can't maliciously slander/libel. Society has a right to judge marriage as the legal union of a man and woman, and any other union would be perverse, and detrimental to society. In society, as well as the natural world, nature - the biological sexual structures are a match between a male and a female for reproduction. So too, pleasure. Anything else is considered perverse, on a religious basis and a societal basis, a basic human decency basis, and a biological and natural basis. Well, that's the best explaining I can do. It's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 First off, I am pro-gun. More people should learn how to operate, and more importantly respect firearms. But cal, gun ownership is not explicitly in the constitution. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It can be interpreted to be solely about state militias. And what are these "arms" you speak of? pikes? swords? rocks? guns? I however think that it is a bit ambiguous on purpose, being too clear on what it was would have limited freedoms for Americans. To say dope and gay marriage shouldn't be legal because they don't have their own individual amendments is dumb. They have the 9th and 10th amendments. The reason that the second was written clearly defining that they wanted citizens to be able to be armed and form militias was because there was the very recent memory of overthrowing an oppressive government due to an armed and organized population. Had they simply been granted independence by Britain without the struggle I doubt there would be a second amendment. Drugs should be legalized simply because it shouldn't be up to the government to determine what you can or can't do, so long as you don't hurt other people. Anything in moderation is okay, and you shouldn't take a minority that abuses something and ban something based on that. With gay marriage you draw the line where it should be drawn. Consenting adults. Have one age where you are considered an adult. You get contract rights and all the cool stuff, guns, drugs, alcohol, pornography, fireworks, driving etc. Nobody will be marrying children or dogs or rocks, because none of them have contract rights. And they have no affect at all on you, or your marriage. Everyone is happy so long as they don't look to bother others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 pb&j : The militia that formed this country, was comprised of private citizens, who owned guns. That would never be allowed to change with the 2nd Amendment - private citizens can still be allowed to own guns, and the civilians are able to allay invasion with their guns. Go watch "Red Dawn"... (it was goofy)... but, back in the battle for independence from the tyranny of Brittain, another invasion by the British or anyone else, would be repelled also, by private citizens collectively defending our country, with their guns. If the UN militaries take over our country we would be allowed to repel the UN with our own guns, in terms of what the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended. To say that's ridiculous, is to say that before Pearl Harbor no country would ever attack us on our own shores, or after 9/11, no terrorist would ever hit us on our own shores. Interpretation be danged, the Supreme Court has RULED. THAT is the only interpretation allowed. There is no higher court. The 9th and 10th Amendments? Privacy and states rights? By that logic, you can infer the legality of beastility, sex with children, under age porn, nudity 24/7 anywhere, lsd, meth labs,... Society has a right to protect itself from the above abuses. I consider gay marriage and even gay unions part of that. Gay marriage is biologically deviant, in the natural understanding of the way things are correct. Gay marriage bothers others. In private, society doesn't protect itself from what it doesn't know about. "helter skelter" with no killing is hardly guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments, for cryin out loud. society has an obligation to interpret what falls in the 9th and 10th, in order to protect itself. With your almost anything is legal approach, society and all it's members would be oppressed by the rights of others, and society could not survive. Children don't have contract rights, so they have none? So they are able to be legally abused? WHAT? That's dumb. Society has the RIGHT to PROTECT CHILDREN from perversion, like drugs and gay "marriage", and murder by abortion. But there IS a second ammendment. and there WAS an oppressive foreign gov that went to war with them to control them. *********************************************************** First off, I am pro-gun. More people should learn how to operate, and more importantly respect firearms. But cal, gun ownership is not explicitly in the constitution. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It can be interpreted to be solely about state militias. And what are these "arms" you speak of? pikes? swords? rocks? guns? I however think that it is a bit ambiguous on purpose, being too clear on what it was would have limited freedoms for Americans. To say dope and gay marriage shouldn't be legal because they don't have their own individual amendments is dumb. They have the 9th and 10th amendments. The reason that the second was written clearly defining that they wanted citizens to be able to be armed and form militias was because there was the very recent memory of overthrowing an oppressive government due to an armed and organized population. Had they simply been granted independence by Britain without the struggle I doubt there would be a second amendment. Drugs should be legalized simply because it shouldn't be up to the government to determine what you can or can't do, so long as you don't hurt other people. Anything in moderation is okay, and you shouldn't take a minority that abuses something and ban something based on that. With gay marriage you draw the line where it should be drawn. Consenting adults. Have one age where you are considered an adult. You get contract rights and all the cool stuff, guns, drugs, alcohol, pornography, fireworks, driving etc. Nobody will be marrying children or dogs or rocks, because none of them have contract rights. And they have no affect at all on you, or your marriage. Everyone is happy so long as they don't look to bother others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 The 9th and 10th Amendments? Privachttp://thebrownsboard.com/forums/style_images/ip.boardpr/folder_editor_images/rte-email-button.pngy and states rights? By that logic, you can infer the legality of beastility, sex with children, under age porn, nudity 24/7 anywhere, lsd, meth labs,... That is absolutely a slippery slope. Beastiality is abuse of animals, sex with children is below the age of consent, underage porn is the same as well as the child not having the rights to contracts Meth labs and lsd, xxxx it, I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't ingest. I wont do it personally because I know it is stupid. Society has a right to protect itself from the above abuses. I consider gay marriage and even gay unions part of that. How is it at all an abuse? How will it affect you in anything? Gay marriage is biologically deviant, in the natural understanding of the way things are correct. All marriage is biologically deviant. The whole point is to try to pass on your genes as many times as you can, and hoard as much food as you can. There is no naturally correct way in nature either. Nature is non-judging, things simply happen. We as humans apply labels of "good" or "bad" to things. And homosexual behaviors occur naturally throughout the animal kingdom. Gay marriage bothers others. In private, society doesn't protect itself from what it doesn't know about. "helter skelter" with no killing is hardly guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments, for cryin out loud. It bothers others? So what, people don't have a right to not be offended. It bothers me when the guy in the next apartment snores so loud I can hear it. I don't try to tell him he can't sleep. Children don't have contract rights, so they have none? So they are able to be legally abused? WHAT? That's dumb. Society has the RIGHT to PROTECT CHILDREN from perversion, like drugs and gay "marriage", and murder by abortion. I never said we shouldn't protect children, just that they aren't legally able to sign a contract yet and therefore wouldn't be able to be exploited. That is protecting them, it sets an age of consent and the legal system completely xxxxs anybody who messes with them. I also stated that there would be a universal age where someone becomes an adult. I never said give drugs, hookers and booze to six year olds. Just allow ADULTS to have to choice to be able to decide whether or not they should be able to do what they like without the government knocking on the door. And I cannot for the life of me see how gay marriage affects anything at all for people outside the marriage, it simply is absurd. Two consenting adults, in a private contract with each other. That isn't so hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 First off, I am pro-gun. More people should learn how to operate, and more importantly respect firearms. But cal, gun ownership is not explicitly in the constitution. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It can be interpreted to be solely about state militias. And what are these "arms" you speak of? pikes? swords? rocks? guns? I however think that it is a bit ambiguous on purpose, being too clear on what it was would have limited freedoms for Americans. I think by being ambiguous, it is pretty explicit what the 2nd Ammendment allows. Having just participated in what a "well regulated militia, with the people's right to keep and bear arms" not infringed upon actually does to maintain the security of a free State, it's pretty clear that you should be able to possess and use whatever is necessary to maintain a free society (not your individual freedom to dress like Rambo - but damn well arm & use current firepower should an oppressive situation require it). Which means, to me, that keeping a shotgun or rifle or handgun around the house for sport/ hunting/ protection is a guaranteed right, and should our federal government decide to get stupid, then we have every right to get in touch with our local GM, H&R Firearms, or Colt representative and pick out however many M-16's it will take to 'un-stupid' the feds. But to keep weaponry like that just 'around' because you think that watching Commando & Predator once a week keeps your training up to date is silly and irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.