By TedThomas [887131]
Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.
The president's life is no more important than anyone elses life, period. Not mine, not yours or anyone else's.
I didnt say i needed one. I have 2 and the ban, if its passed but probably wont be, wont affect me at all. I just know a little about guns compared to most arguing that we dont need them and i know there is no difference between the two. I own both, i doubt you do so you are arguing about something you know nothing about.
straw man argument.
he says "you aren't as important as", and you twist it to "your life isn't as important as".
If you read from the first post i made, i asked what makes protecting his wife and children more important than me protecting mine. I never claimed to be more important, thats just what he took it as.
Its more important because they are under a bigger threat than you are. Anyone that has brain functions above someone in a coma can figure this out. I cant tell if you are actually this stupid and believe this crap, or you are just repeating the daily retard talking point put out by the NRA.
Like I said, if you feel you are under as big a threat than the president, then feel free to hire some trained armed guards like the president does. Or maybe you could sign up for the secret service and then you can own the same gun that they do.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
For example. Alcohol is legal, moonshine and absinthe is not.
Nobody claims that their right to drink alcohol is being eroded because they cant buy moonshine.
Oh boy, please don't try to give the Europeans any more reason to make fun of Americans for being girly drinkers by saying absinthe is the equivalent of an AR-15 military style rifle in civilians' hands but I do believe it is fully legal in the US now, actually. But Everclear is still legal in some states, and that's like 90% ABV
Again, not saying I disagree with you--in fact, I lean pretty heavily on the side of a total ban on all assault type rifles and high powered military snipers. But I'm just saying the two ideas are pretty similar and about equally as likely to result in the violent death of someone. Perhaps we can say Coors, Bud and Miller are the small firearms, wines are rifles, and the varying ABV of vodka/rum/tequila/whiskey can be all the higher end assault rifles with moonshine being an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter?
Sometimes normal conversation is lost on you, Ted. I'll just..... hope that you're being silly and you actually didn't miss what I meant by that statement.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
Alcohol is your choice, to be shot by a random guy who had a bad day - isn't.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
Alcohol is your choice, to be shot by a random guy who had a bad day - isn't.
Getting beat to death by a guy who's wasted isn't a choice though...
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
Alcohol is your choice, to be shot by a random guy who had a bad day - isn't.
ok then, we're all safe from drunk drivers after all.
if that's your sort of input to this, stay in the byline and just watch in silence.
By bosox [278767]
Oh boy, please don't try to give the Europeans any more reason to make fun of Americans for being girly drinkers by saying absinthe is the equivalent of an AR-15 military style rifle in civilians' hands but I do believe it is fully legal in the US now, actually. But Everclear is still legal in some states, and that's like 90% ABV
Again, not saying I disagree with you--in fact, I lean pretty heavily on the side of a total ban on all assault type rifles and high powered military snipers. But I'm just saying the two ideas are pretty similar and about equally as likely to result in the violent death of someone. Perhaps we can say Coors, Bud and Miller are the small firearms, wines are rifles, and the varying ABV of vodka/rum/tequila/whiskey can be all the higher end assault rifles with moonshine being an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter?
you started it really.
you mentioned alcohol in the same sense you mention guns, not only assault rifles.
so if people can still drink alcohol while that doesn't mean they can drink any kind of alcohol, why being able to own guns should mean any kind?
then you go on citing various drinks and firearms, but the core idea is still valid.
if you can't legally drink any kind of alcohol, you shouldn't be able to own any kind of weapon either.
and I'm not saying one implies the other here, just how one accepts restrictions on something and not restrictions on other things, claiming latest would be contrary to personal freedom.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
Alcohol is your choice, to be shot by a random guy who had a bad day - isn't.
Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
For example. Alcohol is legal, moonshine and absinthe is not.
Nobody claims that their right to drink alcohol is being eroded because they cant buy moonshine.
To be fair, moonshine is perfectly legal if you go through the right channels and pay up. Not sure what the deal with absinthe is, and I don't feel like looking it up.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
Alcohol is your choice, to be shot by a random guy who had a bad day - isn't.
Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.
There's a part about that in Jon Stewart's bit on this... gist being that that's why we have such a massive ongoing campaign about regulating bars, alcohol, and cars and have for a long time. And holy shit, it worked a little bit.
By TedThomas [887131]
Still dont see any valid reasons why you NEED an AR-15 type weapon, all the excuses I have seen to why all the other kinds of guns can do the same thing and that they are better for legitimate uses of guns just further prove how unnecessary they are. Just because you WANT something, doesnt mean you get to have it.
While I personally don't really see any need for military style weapons to be made available to the public, I think the rationale behind keeping them legal is probably the same as alcohol. Alcohol directly contributes to just about the same amount of deaths of innocent victims in this country as shootings do, yet we would never allow it to be banned again simply because it's fun and we want it. Same with hunting knives that I'm sure get used in their own fair share of stabbings and murders. Pretty much everything that we kill ourselves with is something that we use/buy for recreational purposes
For example. Alcohol is legal, moonshine and absinthe is not.
Nobody claims that their right to drink alcohol is being eroded because they cant buy moonshine.
To be fair, moonshine is perfectly legal if you go through the right channels and pay up. Not sure what the deal with absinthe is, and I don't feel like looking it up.
I see your point though.
The same is true with automatic weapons.
My point was that there are 1000 other alcohols as good and get you just as drunk as moonshine so the fact that you cant really get it doesnt make a difference to most people's lives. It kind of sucks if you really love moonshine, but there are many other options that will still get you drunk so its not like your "right" to drink is being taking away.
sounds to me like UK people mad that they live in the same crime ridden environment as the usa, cant tell us we live in a shithole country any more... doesnt that suck? LOL
By IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]
As for the UK VS USA debate with crime... those charts i posted before speak of VIOLENT crimes... not crime in general, im sure we got alot of people beat with crime in general, but VIOLENT crimes UK is up there in the world... and im sure a good part of it has to do with most cops dont carry guns. Criminals aren't as afraid to commit crimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime - goes country by country and explains the system they use.
I'm not sure if I can phrase it any clearer than I did before.
The chart (singular) you posted is rigged to show "violent crime" in the UK being disproportionately high in comparison to the other countries listed.
Rigging the chart is possible because there is no uniform definition of which crimes are classified as "violent" from country to country.
The Wikipedia article summarizes the difficulties in coming up with comparable statistics under the "Violent crime by country" heading, even if it doesn't go into detailed specifics.
Do you understand this?
i guess you didnt read the other chart that specifically stated what we deemed violent crimes in the united states, i guess hooked on phonics didnt work for you. rape and all that good stuff is in there.
erm moonshine is legal you can now buy it in any liquor store, exg popcorn suttons brand and sugarshine and many other off the wall brands. Anyways. i am a gun owner i see my guns as tools period. i use them to hunt. I do not own any type of assault weapons and most likely never will. I dont see the need for a gun sitting in my case thats just there to look badass. You cant hunt game with them at least not in my state not big game anyways. I dont see the need for me to own a weapon of that type, but in the same hand if legal law abiding folks want that type of weapon i dont see the harm in it. Why people want them is beyond me i mean really "hey man that ar-15 is bad ass. What do you use that for? I um erm i ummm shoot paper with it. Anyways i dont feel that the sandy hook shooting should be a cause to jump on gun control. i can go on and on and on but wont. BUT lol i have to ask since i see some people popping their mouth off about stupid Americans and gun control. 1 you live in a country that you cant even own a goddamm weapon and your gun crime rate is just as high if not higher. 2 some of you arnt even old enough to buy a weapon even if you COULD own one. So why you are in here running your mouth is pretty stupid to start with.
By TedThomas [887131]
Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.
The president's life is no more important than anyone elses life, period. Not mine, not yours or anyone else's.
I didnt say i needed one. I have 2 and the ban, if its passed but probably wont be, wont affect me at all. I just know a little about guns compared to most arguing that we dont need them and i know there is no difference between the two. I own both, i doubt you do so you are arguing about something you know nothing about.
straw man argument.
he says "you aren't as important as", and you twist it to "your life isn't as important as".
If you read from the first post i made, i asked what makes protecting his wife and children more important than me protecting mine. I never claimed to be more important, thats just what he took it as.
ok, then you have to ask yourself the following: who are you protecting your family from?
also, if you go back, you'll also see I left you a link to a video for you to watch.
it's easy to find, my posts aren't that long.
Anyone who tries to harm them.
2 weeks ago a woman about 3 hours from my house was sitting at home with her twins. She heard someone breaking into the house and took her kids upstairs and grabbed her gun. She hid with the kids in the attic while she was on the phone with her husband, he was on the phone with the police. The guy found them, she shot him 5 times in the face and neck with a 5 shot 38 revolver. The guy was apprehended later. Yes apprehended as in lived and left under his own power.
This wasnt in some ghetto or projects, normal neighborhood. This could happen to anyone.
Best part of the news story on this was at the end, when police said the guy had broken into another home just before he broke into the one where he was shot.
He fled the first home because someone who was unarmed was home.
Read the beginning of the thread you mindless bonehead.
The right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed.
NO WHERE in the Second Amendment are we limited to bearing only small arms. And apparently 99.9 percent of NRA members are too illiterate to understand that nuclear weapons are nuclear arms. Chemical weapons, artillery, and grenades are also arms.
Good luck with your literal take on Second Amendment.
As for the comparisons to alcohol and driving, does this mean the NRA will agree that we should regulate guns in the same way we regulate alcohol and driving?
Because both drinking a beer and driving a Toyota are VASTLY more regulated than owning an AR-15.
By FrOsTy [215567]
BUT lol i have to ask since i see some people popping their mouth off about stupid Americans and gun control. 1 you live in a country that you cant even own a goddamm weapon and your gun crime rate is just as high if not higher. 2 some of you arnt even old enough to buy a weapon even if you COULD own one. So why you are in here running your mouth is pretty stupid to start with.
1 no, I don't. I can own a gun if I choose to do so. our gun crime rate is not even close to yours, either.
2 I am old enough and I CAN own one.
By TedThomas [887131]
Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.
The president's life is no more important than anyone elses life, period. Not mine, not yours or anyone else's.
I didnt say i needed one. I have 2 and the ban, if its passed but probably wont be, wont affect me at all. I just know a little about guns compared to most arguing that we dont need them and i know there is no difference between the two. I own both, i doubt you do so you are arguing about something you know nothing about.
straw man argument.
he says "you aren't as important as", and you twist it to "your life isn't as important as".
If you read from the first post i made, i asked what makes protecting his wife and children more important than me protecting mine. I never claimed to be more important, thats just what he took it as.
ok, then you have to ask yourself the following: who are you protecting your family from?
also, if you go back, you'll also see I left you a link to a video for you to watch.
it's easy to find, my posts aren't that long.
Anyone who tries to harm them.
2 weeks ago a woman about 3 hours from my house was sitting at home with her twins. She heard someone breaking into the house and took her kids upstairs and grabbed her gun. She hid with the kids in the attic while she was on the phone with her husband, he was on the phone with the police. The guy found them, she shot him 5 times in the face and neck with a 5 shot 38 revolver. The guy was apprehended later. Yes apprehended as in lived and left under his own power.
This wasnt in some ghetto or projects, normal neighborhood. This could happen to anyone.
Best part of the news story on this was at the end, when police said the guy had broken into another home just before he broke into the one where he was shot.
He fled the first home because someone who was unarmed was home.
you mean to say shooting a guy in the face and neck wasn't necessary after all? bummer.
Well, frankly I agree that the woman was well within her rights.
She even hid in a closet with her gun for several minutes hoping the guy would just leave. She showed a tremendous amount of restraint, when she legally could have blasted this guy the second he crossed her threshold.
I am certainly not trying to vilify a scared old woman who defended herself.
But would she have died if she didn't own a gun?
Ask the person who lives in the first home the guy broke into.
That being said, you will find zero sympathy for that fact among most NRA members, who wish we could summarily shoot anyone charged in a B and E anyway.
By -rob- [65426]
Well, frankly I agree that the woman was well within her rights.
She even hid in a closet with her gun for several minutes hoping the guy would just leave. She showed a tremendous amount of restraint, when she legally could have blasted this guy the second he crossed her threshold.
I am certainly not trying to vilify a scared old woman who defended herself.
But would she have died if she didn't own a gun?
Ask the person who lives in the first home the guy broke into.
That being said, you will find zero sympathy for that fact among most NRA members, who wish we could summarily shoot anyone charged in a B and E anyway.
I'm not saying the didn't have that right or that she did anything illegal.
only that this out of proportion response is a bad thing.
By -rob- [65426]
Well, frankly I agree that the woman was well within her rights.
She even hid in a closet with her gun for several minutes hoping the guy would just leave. She showed a tremendous amount of restraint, when she legally could have blasted this guy the second he crossed her threshold.
I am certainly not trying to vilify a scared old woman who defended herself.
But would she have died if she didn't own a gun?
Ask the person who lives in the first home the guy broke into.
That being said, you will find zero sympathy for that fact among most NRA members, who wish we could summarily shoot anyone charged in a B and E anyway.
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. She had kids to protect and had no way of knowing whether or not he'd leave without doing her or them any harm. He deserved what he got.
By FrOsTy [215567]
erm moonshine is legal you can now buy it in any liquor store, exg popcorn suttons brand and sugarshine and many other off the wall brands. Anyways. i am a gun owner i see my guns as tools period. i use them to hunt. I do not own any type of assault weapons and most likely never will. I dont see the need for a gun sitting in my case thats just there to look badass. You cant hunt game with them at least not in my state not big game anyways. I dont see the need for me to own a weapon of that type, but in the same hand if legal law abiding folks want that type of weapon i dont see the harm in it. Why people want them is beyond me i mean really "hey man that ar-15 is bad ass. What do you use that for? I um erm i ummm shoot paper with it. Anyways i dont feel that the sandy hook shooting should be a cause to jump on gun control. i can go on and on and on but wont. BUT lol i have to ask since i see some people popping their mouth off about stupid Americans and gun control. 1 you live in a country that you cant even own a goddamm weapon and your gun crime rate is just as high if not higher. 2 some of you arnt even old enough to buy a weapon even if you COULD own one. So why you are in here running your mouth is pretty stupid to start with.
So you would agree that even though it may not be necessary to ban AR-15 like weapons and it might not do anything, they are unnecessary in and of themselves since you can do anything you need to do with a gun that you cant with other types of guns, and according to people in this thread, other guns are even better and can do at least as much damage as them. So banning them is only really "infringing" on people's ability to basically own a cool toy that has no legitimate purpose other than shooting paper and killing as many people as possible.
By -rob- [65426]
Well, frankly I agree that the woman was well within her rights.
She even hid in a closet with her gun for several minutes hoping the guy would just leave. She showed a tremendous amount of restraint, when she legally could have blasted this guy the second he crossed her threshold.
I am certainly not trying to vilify a scared old woman who defended herself.
But would she have died if she didn't own a gun?
Ask the person who lives in the first home the guy broke into.
That being said, you will find zero sympathy for that fact among most NRA members, who wish we could summarily shoot anyone charged in a B and E anyway.
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. She had kids to protect and had no way of knowing whether or not he'd leave without doing her or them any harm. He deserved what he got.
I agree. There is also no doubt the victim showed restraint in a situation where she legally didn't have to show any restraint at all. She's an awesome woman and mother.
But we have a supposedly liberal media, even though 90 percent of the reports on this incident fail to mention that the burglar cased another home just before this and fled when confronted by the homeowner.
Far as I've been able to find, only the Associated Press and Atlanta Journal-Constitution bothered to report this minor detail.
By TedThomas [887131]
Well that's nice that you think that but you arent as important as the president of the United States of America, sorry to break it to you. You arent now nor will you ever be. If you think you are then feel free to hire armed security to follow you around then you have nothing to complain about.
The president's life is no more important than anyone elses life, period. Not mine, not yours or anyone else's.
I didnt say i needed one. I have 2 and the ban, if its passed but probably wont be, wont affect me at all. I just know a little about guns compared to most arguing that we dont need them and i know there is no difference between the two. I own both, i doubt you do so you are arguing about something you know nothing about.
straw man argument.
he says "you aren't as important as", and you twist it to "your life isn't as important as".
If you read from the first post i made, i asked what makes protecting his wife and children more important than me protecting mine. I never claimed to be more important, thats just what he took it as.
ok, then you have to ask yourself the following: who are you protecting your family from?
also, if you go back, you'll also see I left you a link to a video for you to watch.
it's easy to find, my posts aren't that long.
Anyone who tries to harm them.
2 weeks ago a woman about 3 hours from my house was sitting at home with her twins. She heard someone breaking into the house and took her kids upstairs and grabbed her gun. She hid with the kids in the attic while she was on the phone with her husband, he was on the phone with the police. The guy found them, she shot him 5 times in the face and neck with a 5 shot 38 revolver. The guy was apprehended later. Yes apprehended as in lived and left under his own power.
This wasnt in some ghetto or projects, normal neighborhood. This could happen to anyone.
You can also get hit by a car walking down the street at anytime (which is actually 1000x more likely than your situation) but you dont see people walking around in car-proof bubbles because they are afraid to walk down the street.
Shit happens and you cant control everything, thats life.
![TedThomas [887131]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887131-65195-large.png "TedThomas [887131]")
![bosox [278767]](http://awardimages.torn.com/278767-86027-large.png "bosox [278767]")
but I do believe it is fully legal in the US now, actually. But Everclear is still legal in some states, and that's like 90% ABV
with moonshine being an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter? 
![Htr_ [89581]](http://awardimages.torn.com/89581-33542-large.png "Htr_ [89581]")
![Silent-Rage [193964]](http://awardimages.torn.com/193964-27456-large.png "Silent-Rage [193964]")
![Spurtung [96875]](http://awardimages.torn.com/96875-74581-large.png "Spurtung [96875]")
![GirlFriday [570368]](http://awardimages.torn.com/570368-98887-large.png "GirlFriday [570368]")
![Skunkdoctor [1371548]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1371548-62086-large.png "Skunkdoctor [1371548]")
![IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1613784-85186-large.png "IN_COLD_BLOOD [1613784]")
![Stain92 [1040302]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1040302-5823-large.png "Stain92 [1040302]")
![FrOsTy [215567]](http://awardimages.torn.com/215567-25294-large.png "FrOsTy [215567]")
![-rob- [65426]](http://awardimages.torn.com/65426-41753-large.png "-rob- [65426]")
Follow @TornRPG