By ItsHotLinks [682502]
If banning guns worked, Washington, D.C. and New York would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, it's been illegal in Washington, D.C. to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington D.C. is the "murder capital of the United States."
New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.
New York, New York is the 6th safest major city in America according to Forbes, nice copy and paste though.
In addition to hotlinks being wildly incorrect about the safety of New York City, I'd love to know how he explains the United States having a significantly higher rate of firearm ownership than any other country, and yet residents of the United States being 7 times more likely to die of homicide than residents of any other Western nation.
By hotlink's logic, the more guns, the safer we are. And yet we're significantly less safe than residents of other civilized nations.
Also, of course inner city firearms bans don't work. It isn't exactly difficult to drive 30 miles from the city and steal a gun from the house of a hick while the hick is at work.
Almost 70 percent of the guns used in crimes in my state were initially owned by legal owners in other states, some as far away as Georgia.
How come Second Amendment folks never actually acknowledge that almost all guns possessed by criminals were stolen or taken by force from legal owners?
The idea that guns make you safer is one of the most hilariously incorrect pieces of bullshit in this country.
So Rob, I think what you are saying is that because there are bad people in this country who will go to any length to illegally obtain a firearm, then it is necessary that all people have their rights removed in an effort to fix the problem?
I know for a fact that you are an intelligent person, as I have read many an intelligent post from you, but I must say that the inferences that appear in this most recent post of yours seem less than well thought out.
Was the Sandy Hook shooters mother a hick because she had guns?
Should all automobiles be illegal, since most crimes in this country utilize a stolen vehicle?
Here is what I favor:
I favor understanding that there are going to be differences of opinion on this subject, and accepting that there is not going to be a single solution that will make everyone happy...EVER.
I favor the background check aspect of the latest proposals. I favor closing down the loopholes of purchasing guns at gun shows and such, if the person who is selling the firearms is not a licensed broker, who will follow through with all necessary paperwork.
I do not favor labeling certain guns as more evil than other guns, nor do I favor limiting magazine sizes... not because I have any "assault weapons" or "large" magazines myself, but because it is nonsense.
I also favor VERY STRONG sentences for the illegal use of a firearm, the theft of a firearm, or the commission of crimes involving a firearm... if we can lock people up in this country and throw away the key for 3 drug convictions, then we should lock people up and throw away the key after two convictions involving a firearm, and if those convictions are involve the harming or death of another human being, then the convicted should be PUT TO DEATH.
I am not an NRA member, and never would be... but I do agree with the NRA proposal to put at least one armed person in each school. Instead of helping France fight in Mali (latest conflict we probably going to piss away money on), we could put some out-of-work veterans (with specific additional training) to work in this capacity... just an idea.
There are other ideas, but none of them are going to prevent the next mass shooting... in this country, or some other. It is going to happen.
Besides every hilarious f**king thing you just spouted, the idea of getting a "veteran" of the US's recent wars armed to the teeth protecting primary schools has GOT to be the most batshit f**king insane.
By LSD [883567]
Besides every hilarious f**king thing you just spouted, the idea of getting a "veteran" of the US's recent wars armed to the teeth protecting primary schools has GOT to be the most batshit f**king insane.
In case you have not noticed... your opinions of my sanity mean absolutely nothing to me, LSD.
You are an idiot, who rarely writes anything worth reading in this forum... and a snarky idiot at that.
By ItsHotLinks [682502]
If banning guns worked, Washington, D.C. and New York would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, it's been illegal in Washington, D.C. to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington D.C. is the "murder capital of the United States."
New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.
New York, New York is the 6th safest major city in America according to Forbes, nice copy and paste though.
In addition to hotlinks being wildly incorrect about the safety of New York City, I'd love to know how he explains the United States having a significantly higher rate of firearm ownership than any other country, and yet residents of the United States being 7 times more likely to die of homicide than residents of any other Western nation.
By hotlink's logic, the more guns, the safer we are. And yet we're significantly less safe than residents of other civilized nations.
Also, of course inner city firearms bans don't work. It isn't exactly difficult to drive 30 miles from the city and steal a gun from the house of a hick while the hick is at work.
Almost 70 percent of the guns used in crimes in my state were initially owned by legal owners in other states, some as far away as Georgia.
How come Second Amendment folks never actually acknowledge that almost all guns possessed by criminals were stolen or taken by force from legal owners?
The idea that guns make you safer is one of the most hilariously incorrect pieces of bullshit in this country.
So Rob, I think what you are saying is that because there are bad people in this country who will go to any length to illegally obtain a firearm, then it is necessary that all people have their rights removed in an effort to fix the problem?
I know for a fact that you are an intelligent person, as I have read many an intelligent post from you, but I must say that the inferences that appear in this most recent post of yours seem less than well thought out.
Was the Sandy Hook shooters mother a hick because she had guns?
Should all automobiles be illegal, since most crimes in this country utilize a stolen vehicle?
Here is what I favor:
I favor understanding that there are going to be differences of opinion on this subject, and accepting that there is not going to be a single solution that will make everyone happy...EVER.
I favor the background check aspect of the latest proposals. I favor closing down the loopholes of purchasing guns at gun shows and such, if the person who is selling the firearms is not a licensed broker, who will follow through with all necessary paperwork.
I do not favor labeling certain guns as more evil than other guns, nor do I favor limiting magazine sizes... not because I have any "assault weapons" or "large" magazines myself, but because it is nonsense.
I also favor VERY STRONG sentences for the illegal use of a firearm, the theft of a firearm, or the commission of crimes involving a firearm... if we can lock people up in this country and throw away the key for 3 drug convictions, then we should lock people up and throw away the key after two convictions involving a firearm, and if those convictions are involve the harming or death of another human being, then the convicted should be PUT TO DEATH.
I am not an NRA member, and never would be... but I do agree with the NRA proposal to put at least one armed person in each school. Instead of helping France fight in Mali (latest conflict we probably going to piss away money on), we could put some out-of-work veterans (with specific additional training) to work in this capacity... just an idea.
There are other ideas, but none of them are going to prevent the next mass shooting... in this country, or some other. It is going to happen.
I like using hyperbole. :-)
Shockingly, we have fairly similar views on what should actually be done here. And I'm considered a wild liberal.
The only things I would change about your recommendation is that I do not support the death penalty. I believe that life without parole is a vastly safer and more punitive sentence.
I simply cannot and will not support a government having the right to put its own citizens to death.
I do support very stringent mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, though. No excuses, no liberal judges apologizing for criminals. You do the crime you do the time.
I also do not support the guns in school proposal. Look at how terrible this country is at checking out employees. How many daycare workers have abused children? How many teachers have betrayed our trust?
If only two or three of the thousands of people we hire to guard our schools turn bad, the proposal is already not worth it.
I'm just not optimistic enough to think that idea would go well.
I love the idea of giving veterans job, though. We need to treat them significantly better. Why not hire them to be unarmed guards in schools who's job is to be more traditional security that simply watches things and notifies authorities immediately if needed?
As far as ban on assault weapons and large magazines, I'm not sure where that line should be.
At some point there is a line where weapons become too lethal to be allowed in the general public. Certainly 50 caliber machine guns and weapons of that sort shouldn't be legal. I don't think fully automatic guns should be legal. They're indiscriminate killing machines that have no place in civil society.
But where do we draw that line?
I don't think it's unreasonable to debate where the line should be, although I do agree with you that saying "assault weapons" are too dangerous is really pushing the limit pretty far.
I'm much more supportive of banning large magazines than I am of banning "assault weapons."
What's the difference between an "assault weapon" and any semi auto? Not all that much at the end of the day.
However, what is the legitimate need for a 30-round magazine? If you want to go shoot at the range or blow away some watermelons, I don't see the harm in changing magazines after 10 rounds.
Any chance we can start yet another thread on this? I mean two running in tandem is not enough.
Your constitution - although most probably well thought out is a tinsy winsy bit out of date. I mean in 1791 people probably needed personal weapons as vast areas of your country were completely lawless. In 2013 you have an awful lot of lawless people but you are considered by some to be a civilised country. There is no room for weapons to be held by over 270,000,000 citizens of any civilised country in todays world.
You seem to be able to ignore the ammendments you want to yet you all cry over the 2nd one.
The 8th Ammendment prohibits excessive fines (look at BPs recent $4.5billion fine), it prohibits cruel punishment (look at your excessive use of waterboarding of people only suspected of crimes).
You all need to grow up, the red indians aren't going to attack any more stage coaches, the English really do not want it's old colony back and lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, an' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Soldier of the Queen!
By LSD [883567]
Besides every hilarious f**king thing you just spouted, the idea of getting a "veteran" of the US's recent wars armed to the teeth protecting primary schools has GOT to be the most batshit f**king insane.
In case you have not noticed... your opinions of my sanity mean absolutely nothing to me, LSD.
You are an idiot, who rarely writes anything worth reading in this forum... and a snarky idiot at that.
Have a nice day... "nub".
are you expecting to gather the support of others by any chance?
because it really is a retarded idea. it was retarded when the NRA mentioned it, it still is.
it's funny because if no massacre had happened and Obama decided to deploy armed soldiers on the streets for security reasons NRA would immediately claim the country was under martial law in disguise and willing to spend lots of money when going through economic difficulties. but since there was a massacre, all of a sudden it sounds like a good plan.
also, were you seriously talking about putting to death anyone who was convicted for using a gun to harm people?
What I find funny is the people who find wanting to ban 30 round clips a complete over reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting, then in the same breath talk about how its a great idea to put armed guards in every elementary school because of one elementary school shooting. Give me a break.
By Gogs247 [1531870]
Any chance we can start yet another thread on this? I mean two running in tandem is not enough.
Your constitution - although most probably well thought out is a tinsy winsy bit out of date. I mean in 1791 people probably needed personal weapons as vast areas of your country were completely lawless. In 2013 you have an awful lot of lawless people but you are considered by some to be a civilised country. There is no room for weapons to be held by over 270,000,000 citizens of any civilised country in todays world.
You seem to be able to ignore the ammendments you want to yet you all cry over the 2nd one.
The 8th Ammendment prohibits excessive fines (look at BPs recent $4.5billion fine), it prohibits cruel punishment (look at your excessive use of waterboarding of people only suspected of crimes).
You all need to grow up, the red indians aren't going to attack any more stage coaches, the English really do not want it's old colony back and lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
I have personally addressed most of your points on multiple occasions in various threads on this topic, so you will have to pardon me if I don't have the time or interest to really get too deep into readdressing them.
I will say that if any of the other amendments were under near constant attack I would chime in to defend them as well.
Also, I must say that it made me laugh when you mentioned BP's excessive fine of $4.5 Billion for essentially killing off an entire ecosystem in the gulf of Mexico. The extent of the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will likely last decades if not longer, but we should feel bad that BP had to give up... what? About a weeks worth of profit... (exaggeration for effect.)
By LSD [883567]
Besides every hilarious f**king thing you just spouted, the idea of getting a "veteran" of the US's recent wars armed to the teeth protecting primary schools has GOT to be the most batshit f**king insane.
In case you have not noticed... your opinions of my sanity mean absolutely nothing to me, LSD.
You are an idiot, who rarely writes anything worth reading in this forum... and a snarky idiot at that.
Have a nice day... "nub".
are you expecting to gather the support of others by any chance?
because it really is a retarded idea. it was retarded when the NRA mentioned it, it still is.
it's funny because if no massacre had happened and Obama decided to deploy armed soldiers on the streets for security reasons NRA would immediately claim the country was under martial law in disguise and willing to spend lots of money when going through economic difficulties. but since there was a massacre, all of a sudden it sounds like a good plan.
also, were you seriously talking about putting to death anyone who was convicted for using a gun to harm people?
I am not expecting anything.
I think having armed guards to solve this problem is a reasonable consideration, if considerations are to be made about how to prevent the next Sandy Hook style shooting.
Maybe you missed the part where I suggested that these people be specially trained? Maybe they don't need to be armed, as Rob said, though I don't see how that addresses the supposed need to protect our children that has come to the forefront of this debate, due to these most recent shootings.
Yes, I am seriously talking about putting to death anyone who is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of causing harm to anyone else during the commission of a crime involving a firearm (any weapon for that matter.)
What problem does armed guards at elementary schools solve exactly, I mean other than eliminating the problem of schools having an extra $30,000 to spend on kids education.
By TedThomas [887131]
What problem does armed guards at elementary schools solve exactly, I mean other than eliminating the problem of schools having an extra $30,000 to spend on kids education.
It is a salve for the fearful, and nothing more. It will make some people feel safer for a little while, just like labeling some guns "assault weapons", and banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because the additional 3 seconds that passes between changing a magazine would have saved someone in that school, or in Arora... not at VA Tech however, because he didn't use "assault weapons to kill his victims...
It is all just knee jerk reactionary nonsense, but my opinion is that at least an armed guard might prevent someone less desperate from going into a school... maybe?
By Gogs247 [1531870]
Any chance we can start yet another thread on this? I mean two running in tandem is not enough.
Your constitution - although most probably well thought out is a tinsy winsy bit out of date. I mean in 1791 people probably needed personal weapons as vast areas of your country were completely lawless. In 2013 you have an awful lot of lawless people but you are considered by some to be a civilised country. There is no room for weapons to be held by over 270,000,000 citizens of any civilised country in todays world.
You seem to be able to ignore the ammendments you want to yet you all cry over the 2nd one.
The 8th Ammendment prohibits excessive fines (look at BPs recent $4.5billion fine), it prohibits cruel punishment (look at your excessive use of waterboarding of people only suspected of crimes).
You all need to grow up, the red indians aren't going to attack any more stage coaches, the English really do not want it's old colony back and lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
I have personally addressed most of your points on multiple occasions in various threads on this topic, so you will have to pardon me if I don't have the time or interest to really get too deep into readdressing them.
I will say that if any of the other amendments were under near constant attack I would chime in to defend them as well.
Also, I must say that it made me laugh when you mentioned BP's excessive fine of $4.5 Billion for essentially killing off an entire ecosystem in the gulf of Mexico. The extent of the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will likely last decades if not longer, but we should feel bad that BP had to give up... what? About a weeks worth of profit... (exaggeration for effect.)
Don't be such a turd - BP will pay nothing - it's customers at the petrol stations will pay the fine
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, an' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Soldier of the Queen!
By Gogs247 [1531870]
Any chance we can start yet another thread on this? I mean two running in tandem is not enough.
Your constitution - although most probably well thought out is a tinsy winsy bit out of date. I mean in 1791 people probably needed personal weapons as vast areas of your country were completely lawless. In 2013 you have an awful lot of lawless people but you are considered by some to be a civilised country. There is no room for weapons to be held by over 270,000,000 citizens of any civilised country in todays world.
You seem to be able to ignore the ammendments you want to yet you all cry over the 2nd one.
The 8th Ammendment prohibits excessive fines (look at BPs recent $4.5billion fine), it prohibits cruel punishment (look at your excessive use of waterboarding of people only suspected of crimes).
You all need to grow up, the red indians aren't going to attack any more stage coaches, the English really do not want it's old colony back and lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
I have personally addressed most of your points on multiple occasions in various threads on this topic, so you will have to pardon me if I don't have the time or interest to really get too deep into readdressing them.
I will say that if any of the other amendments were under near constant attack I would chime in to defend them as well.
Also, I must say that it made me laugh when you mentioned BP's excessive fine of $4.5 Billion for essentially killing off an entire ecosystem in the gulf of Mexico. The extent of the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will likely last decades if not longer, but we should feel bad that BP had to give up... what? About a weeks worth of profit... (exaggeration for effect.)
Don't be such a turd - BP will pay nothing - it's customers at the petrol stations will pay the fine
Oh goodie, the first name calling has begun, yeah. I knew it would happen.
You are correct sir, BP will pay nothing, but they should... the executives and politicians who let this disaster happen should be cut into little pieces and fed to whatever crabs are still living in the gulf, but wait, that can't happen, because they all have hired guns protecting their sorry asses now don't they?
By Gogs247 [1531870]
Any chance we can start yet another thread on this? I mean two running in tandem is not enough.
Your constitution - although most probably well thought out is a tinsy winsy bit out of date. I mean in 1791 people probably needed personal weapons as vast areas of your country were completely lawless. In 2013 you have an awful lot of lawless people but you are considered by some to be a civilised country. There is no room for weapons to be held by over 270,000,000 citizens of any civilised country in todays world.
You seem to be able to ignore the ammendments you want to yet you all cry over the 2nd one.
The 8th Ammendment prohibits excessive fines (look at BPs recent $4.5billion fine), it prohibits cruel punishment (look at your excessive use of waterboarding of people only suspected of crimes).
You all need to grow up, the red indians aren't going to attack any more stage coaches, the English really do not want it's old colony back and lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
I have personally addressed most of your points on multiple occasions in various threads on this topic, so you will have to pardon me if I don't have the time or interest to really get too deep into readdressing them.
I will say that if any of the other amendments were under near constant attack I would chime in to defend them as well.
Also, I must say that it made me laugh when you mentioned BP's excessive fine of $4.5 Billion for essentially killing off an entire ecosystem in the gulf of Mexico. The extent of the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will likely last decades if not longer, but we should feel bad that BP had to give up... what? About a weeks worth of profit... (exaggeration for effect.)
Don't be such a turd - BP will pay nothing - it's customers at the petrol stations will pay the fine
Oh goodie, the first name calling has begun, yeah. I knew it would happen.
You are correct sir, BP will pay nothing, but they should... the executives and politicians who let this disaster happen should be cut into little pieces and fed to whatever crabs are still living in the gulf, but wait, that can't happen, because they all have hired guns protecting their sorry asses now don't they?
Grow up - I didn't call you a turd - I said not to be one!! Although if you want I will call you a turd.
Turd, turd, turd.
Happy?
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, an' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Soldier of the Queen!
By Gogs247 [1531870]
Any chance we can start yet another thread on this? I mean two running in tandem is not enough.
Your constitution - although most probably well thought out is a tinsy winsy bit out of date. I mean in 1791 people probably needed personal weapons as vast areas of your country were completely lawless. In 2013 you have an awful lot of lawless people but you are considered by some to be a civilised country. There is no room for weapons to be held by over 270,000,000 citizens of any civilised country in todays world.
You seem to be able to ignore the ammendments you want to yet you all cry over the 2nd one.
The 8th Ammendment prohibits excessive fines (look at BPs recent $4.5billion fine), it prohibits cruel punishment (look at your excessive use of waterboarding of people only suspected of crimes).
You all need to grow up, the red indians aren't going to attack any more stage coaches, the English really do not want it's old colony back and lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
I have personally addressed most of your points on multiple occasions in various threads on this topic, so you will have to pardon me if I don't have the time or interest to really get too deep into readdressing them.
I will say that if any of the other amendments were under near constant attack I would chime in to defend them as well.
Also, I must say that it made me laugh when you mentioned BP's excessive fine of $4.5 Billion for essentially killing off an entire ecosystem in the gulf of Mexico. The extent of the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will likely last decades if not longer, but we should feel bad that BP had to give up... what? About a weeks worth of profit... (exaggeration for effect.)
Don't be such a turd - BP will pay nothing - it's customers at the petrol stations will pay the fine
Oh goodie, the first name calling has begun, yeah. I knew it would happen.
You are correct sir, BP will pay nothing, but they should... the executives and politicians who let this disaster happen should be cut into little pieces and fed to whatever crabs are still living in the gulf, but wait, that can't happen, because they all have hired guns protecting their sorry asses now don't they?
Grow up - I didn't call you a turd - I said not to be one!! Although if you want I will call you a turd.
Turd, turd, turd.
Happy?
I think at 50 yo, I am as grown as I will get both physically and mentally... and actually starting to shrink a bit in both regards I think, but thanks for caring about me, and our nations uncivilized gun laws. It warms my heart to know that there are so many concerned people across-the-pond.
There never should have been a settlement with BP. The company should have been taken to trial and the U.S. government should have sought actual damages, as well as punitive damages, and then had the company liquidated.
There is absolutely no excuse for a company that caused that amount of damage being allowed to still exist. (Same goes for Exxon).
I also do not buy the argument that a company's shareholders shouldn't be held accountable. It is the need to generate profit for shareholders that causes bad corporate behavior, therefore when bad corporate behavior occurs it is the shareholders who should pay, sometimes with even more than the simple loss of their stock's value.
I would personally support my government not only suing BP to the point where the company was liquidated, I would also support taking civil action against individual shareholders.
...that or we just dispose of all our nuclear waste in the English Channel and North Sea and call it even.
By TedThomas [887131]
It makes about as much sense as putting the national guard in every movie theater.
Why dont we just put military personnel on every corner with AK-47s and get the conversion to Mexico over with already.
Exactly National Guard can't be on every corner and taking for granted that no law will make the guns magically disappear, when the next sicko stands up in a crowd and starts shooting what could stop him ?
Armed civilians in the crowd could...It's idiotic to think that any law will reduce the availability of guns and their use by criminals.
If you have armed civilians constantly roaming around in crowds, won't that seriously cut into their tyranny-fighting time?
I don't think you've thought this through.
Anyone who thinks everyone having a gun will make us safer should really go back and actually read my link comparing the NRA's America to Pashtun Afghanistan.
If you have armed civilians constantly roaming around in crowds, won't that seriously cut into their tyranny-fighting time?
I don't think you've thought this through.
Anyone who thinks everyone having a gun will make us safer should really go back and actually read my link comparing the NRA's America to Pashtun Afghanistan.
I enjoyed the article. I wouldn't mind finding a copy of his book.
By Gogs247 [1531870]
lets be honest, 270,000,000 hunting rifles, pistols and AK47s are not going to help you one little bit when China invades you.
Can't hurt, and I'd have to think it would help at least a little bit.
Guns need ammunition. Ammunition is made by companies who aim to make a profit. Who does it make sense to do business with? The side hiding out in the hills taking pot shots, or the side with incredibly deep pockets?
Would you rather fight 100 duck sized Predators or 1 Predator sized duck?
I would choose the 1 Predator sized duck instead of dealing with 100 duck-sized Predators. I've already fought a Predator-sized Predator so I am confident I could handle the duck.
Also:
In your films are all the "Ayyaagh's" in the script or do you improvise them?
If you have armed civilians constantly roaming around in crowds, won't that seriously cut into their tyranny-fighting time?
I don't think you've thought this through.
Anyone who thinks everyone having a gun will make us safer should really go back and actually read my link comparing the NRA's America to Pashtun Afghanistan.
you should post it, or at least message me the copy pasta, I won't register solely to read that one article.
![MachineGunSteve [184119]](http://awardimages.torn.com/184119-21906-large.png "MachineGunSteve [184119]")
![LSD [883567]](http://awardimages.torn.com/883567-83115-large.png "LSD [883567]")
![-rob- [65426]](http://awardimages.torn.com/65426-41753-large.png "-rob- [65426]")
![Gogs247 [1531870]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1531870-13732-large.png "Gogs247 [1531870]")
![Spurtung [96875]](http://awardimages.torn.com/96875-71229-large.png "Spurtung [96875]")
![TedThomas [887131]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887131-65195-large.png "TedThomas [887131]")
![-El- [463504]](http://awardimages.torn.com/463504-30159-large.png "-El- [463504]")
![Silent-Rage [193964]](http://awardimages.torn.com/193964-27456-large.png "Silent-Rage [193964]")
![Rekker [1761]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1761-55042-large.png "Rekker [1761]")
![ItsHotLinks [682502]](http://awardimages.torn.com/682502-77907-large.png "ItsHotLinks [682502]")
![Bueno_Excelente [34014]](http://awardimages.torn.com/34014-23924-large.png "Bueno_Excelente [34014]")
![Skunkdoctor [1371548]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1371548-62086-large.png "Skunkdoctor [1371548]")
Follow @TornRPG