Odessa - Active Shooter

[Fozzz 152]

18 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

36 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

Sling shot

You think if they ban guns today they won't target sling shots tomorrow?  Not very bright are ya.  

[Fuck Tim Beck 3834]

11 hours ago, Lobo said:

Police last month: "Well, can you describe the man that threatened you and where he lives?"
Neighbor:  "White male, in his 30's.  He's out here in the country near us...here's the location."

Police last month: "We can't find it on our GPS.  Call us back if something else happens."

Neighbor: "Did I say White?  I mean possibly Black."  (sirens whaling before sentence is finished) 

Clearly these heroes just wanted to make it home. Besides, donuts were on sale that day. 

[4HE 156]

On 8/31/2019 at 11:37 PM, Ten Bears said:

On 8/31/2019 at 4:35 PM, workswithseed said:

Don't you hate when people go postal?

Don't you hate it when people trivialize mass murder?

Fucking this. The shooter abandoned his original vehicle, shot a female postal deliver person in the head—killing her, then continued his rampage in her postal vehicle. She laid in the middle of the fucking street for hours because no law enforcement was available to process it. I realize this is Surly but fuck you you pencil dicked little internet tough guy bitch. 

I hope this never happens to you or anyone close you. I get the Odessa hate, but nobody was going around chasing this guy. 

[Iceman 2724]

3 hours ago, Iceman said:

How many mass shootings have  been done by people abiding by the law?

 

The problem is PEOPLE.  Not guns.  Wake up...

6 negs on this post, But no viable replies to what I asked. So typical of the pussies on here that have no answers except to look to the government for solutions. Alleged solutions at that

 

The government must control us goddamnit!!!  If you disagree, you enable mass shootings. Am I right? 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Iceman

[Fozzz 152]

How many murders have been done by people abiding by the law?  If you criminalize murder, only criminals will murder people.  

[JohnnyRage 1617]

27 minutes ago, Iceman said:

So typical of the pussies on here that have no answers except to look to the government for solutions.

 

Wait, are you saying that you want to address the mass shooting crisis in America with non-governmental solutions?

[Js1 85457]

For an Iceman, you ain’t very chill. 

[Beau Vine 54331]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

6 negs on this post, But no viable replies to what I asked. So typical of the pussies on here that have no answers except to look to the government for solutions. Alleged solutions at that

 

You're getting negged because this is the wrong forum for that discussion, you stupid chucklefuck.

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, 4HE said:

Fucking this. The shooter abandoned his original vehicle, shot a female postal deliver person in the head—killing her, then continued his rampage in her postal vehicle. She laid in the middle of the fucking street for hours because no law enforcement was available to process it. I realize this is Surly but fuck you you pencil dicked little internet tough guy bitch. 

I hope this never happens to you or anyone close you. I get the Odessa hate, but nobody was going around chasing this guy. 

I made a joke, I never said I was tough. 

[Beau Vine 54331]

3 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

There are all sorts of CR nonsense in this thread. He is the only one getting negged. 

He's also the only one calling people pussies.  Message and delivery are both off.  

[atomheartbevo 89766]

4 hours ago, Fozzz said:

How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

Invite an aggy to come over and hang out in your yard.  The feral hogs will be so concerned with protecting their asses, they'll ignore your kids.

[atomheartbevo 89766]

5 hours ago, Iceman said:

Because my ownership of firearms should never be the target of proposed legislation.  It s a threat to nobody.

Unless I demonstrate something we all agree is worthy of deeming me unfit for my ownership, i.e mental fitness, felonies, etc., then leave me the fuck alone.

 

4 hours ago, Iceman said:

I absolutely support legislation against crimes committed with guns. 100% on board. 

Possession, however, is not a crime in my opinion,  unless the individual has already demonstrated being unfit to possess that firearm.

Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

[Iceman 2724]

Lolz. "wasn't around in '94."

 

and it won't make you a bit safer.  but you can hug that legislation at night.

[atomheartbevo 89766]

40 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Lolz. "wasn't around in '94."

and it won't make you a bit safer.  but you can hug that legislation at night.

You seemed to act like gun control legislation is a foreign concept that will never affect you, when in fact we've had such legislation in our lifetimes, and it stood up to legal challenge after legal challenge.

It's not about making me safer - some asshole fucking around on his cellphone and blowing through a stop sign or red light is more dangerous to me than a mass shooter, because I see those idiots every single week.  But there's a shitload of people in this country who are starting to reach their limits with these shootings, and they are getting tired of politicians doing jack shit.  

Every time you get one of these shootings, you add more and more people to the list of those who want something done.

It's about people like you, and organizations like the NRA saying "let's compromise a little, let's push through some solid national red-flag legislation and stricter/improved background checks, maybe increase the mental health resources."

But far too many people like you and organizations like the NRA won't budge a single fucking inch, because you think that if you budge an inch, they'll take a mile.

Guess what?  If nothing is done, and things continue the way they are, you're going to be wishing you had budged an inch or two, because they are going to take their fucking mile or two, and I guarantee that we are going to get AWB 2.0, and it's going to make people like you howl.

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

Serious question: what is a "stricter" background check? Right now they require a full FBI check against any criminal or other restrictions for purchasing a firearm

Edited September 2, 2019 by immortal13

[atomheartbevo 89766]

Here's the thing Iceman - solid red-flag legislation and better/stricter background checks would have prevented 2 out of the last 3 high-profile mass shootings - the Odessa guy should have lost his gun after threatening that woman over her trash or whatever.  The Dayton shooter would have been prevented from buying anything, based on the fact that he had some serious mental health issues in high school (and yeah, those records should have carried on past high school).

And Hell, the El Paso shooter's mom expressed some concerns to the local cops over his purchases/habits, and they blew her off.  Solid red-flag legislation might have seen somebody taking a peek at that guy.

[Iceman 2724]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

He's also the only one calling people pussies.  Message and delivery are both off.  

message is spot on.

 

people uncomfortable with the truth.

 

That is at the root of the problem.

 

"we want our side heard.  Your side needs to shut the hell up.  We know best.  Fuck the Constitution.  We need some over-reactive legislation to make us feel safe."

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

Edited September 2, 2019 by Iceman

[atomheartbevo 89766]

4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Serious question: what is a "stricter" background check? Right now they require a full FBI check against any criminal or other restrictions for purchasing a firearm

When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

[Armybrat 40858]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

And it will not affect mass shootings, just like the first one didn’t. The 1994 AWB was deemed a failure in retrospect.

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

You listed "red flag laws" separately, so again I will ask what does a "stricter" background check mean? Do you know what the current restrictions are for purchasing a firearm?

[Armybrat 40858]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

Agree with that, but by god make certain that due process is strictly adhered to and thoroughly investigated when putting the “red flag” laws in action. Just relying on a complaint from someone with an agenda (scorned woman, asshole neighbor, etc.) is a very dangerous constitutional step and ripe for abuse.

[Armybrat 40858]

3 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

You listed "red flag laws" separately, so again I will ask what does a "stricter" background check mean? Do you know what the current restrictions are for purchasing a firearm?

Just belonging to a gang in Texas disqualifies a person, IIRC.

[Armybrat 40858]

4 minutes ago, thestud said:

Some of the above instances you list were failures on behalf of the government. If the government had done what it was supposed those people wouldn't have been eligible to purchase or possess firearms.  And you want to entrust that same government with the ability to confiscate firearms from civilians without due process? 

This is a huge question. Remember what happened in New Orleans after Katrina? That was a clusterfuck.

[Walser 1109]

Iceman, a lot of us get it. The mental exercise and analogies make sense that restricting guns won't change the outcomes. However in reality there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that restrictions and checks will in fact cut down on these mass murders. The proof is in the society of every other country on this planet. It doesn't make sense to me either but here we are.

I value my handguns, my ARs and my shotguns. Liberty is absolutely a top concern of mine. But something has to be changed as it is blatantly obvious we are failing. Even a little bit of compromise will save lives. I think we can get there without dying on crosses.

Also, fuck the NRA. They are not the group I became a member of a long time ago.

[immortal13 4059]

4 minutes ago, Walser said:

Iceman, a lot of us get it. The mental exercise and analogies make sense that restricting guns won't change the outcomes. However in reality there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that restrictions and checks will in fact cut down on these mass murders. The proof is in the society of every other country on this planet. It doesn't make sense to me either but here we are.

I value my handguns, my ARs and my shotguns. Liberty is absolutely a top concern of mine. But something has to be changed as it is blatantly obvious we are failing. Even a little bit of compromise will save lives. I think we can get there without dying on crosses.

Also, fuck the NRA. They are not the group I became a member of a long time ago.

Well I guess there needs to be discussion on exactly what the new disqualifications should be. The criminal background restrictions have been the same for many years, so I don't really see how that process can be made "stricter" without increasing criminal convictions that would result in a disqualification. 

[Iceman 2724]

7 minutes ago, Walser said:

Iceman, a lot of us get it. The mental exercise and analogies make sense that restricting guns won't change the outcomes. However in reality there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that restrictions and checks will in fact cut down on these mass murders. The proof is in the society of every other country on this planet. It doesn't make sense to me either but here we are.

I value my handguns, my ARs and my shotguns. Liberty is absolutely a top concern of mine. But something has to be changed as it is blatantly obvious we are failing. Even a little bit of compromise will save lives. I think we can get there without dying on crosses.

Also, fuck the NRA. They are not the group I became a member of a long time ago.

I've never been a member of the NRA.  Probably for many of the same reasons you have not.

 

where is the overwhelming evidence you speak of that restrictions stop mass murders?  links?

Edited September 2, 2019 by Iceman

[bolverk 29705]

23 minutes ago, Iceman said:

message is spot on.

 

people uncomfortable with the truth.

 

That is at the root of the problem.

 

"we want our side heard.  Your side needs to shut the hell up.  We know best.  Fuck the Constitution.  We need some over-reactive legislation to make us feel safe."

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

Oh look, Swam is back...

[immortal13 4059]

No one is really arguing the fact that the CR is an echo chamber.

[Jack Straw 2954]

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Oh look, Swam is back...

It’s Slorch.  

[Walser 1109]

14 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I've never been a member of the NRA.  Probably for many of the same reasons you have not.

 

where is the overwhelming evidence you speak of that restrictions stop mass murders?  links?

I don't think this merits a response. 

Dammit!

 

[atomheartbevo 89766]

31 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

And it will not affect mass shootings, just like the first one didn’t. The 1994 AWB was deemed a failure in retrospect.

Doesn't stop the fact that we are headed towards another one - the first one was passed before mass shootings were truly a thing.  The only questions are when and how restrictive it will be, and what, if any, loopholes will there be.  

 

[cmontexas 3272]

40 minutes ago, Iceman said:

 

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

You puss negged somebody in the vaping thread for saying they stuck to flower

Every accusation is a confession

[Iceman 2724]

1 minute ago, cmontexas said:

You puss negged somebody in the vaping thread for saying they stuck to flower

Every accusation is a confession

They negged first. I do not. I simply replied in the fashion they chose.

 

If they want a conversation, I'm game...

 

but they do not.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Iceman

[cactusflinthead 27601]

41 minutes ago, Iceman said:

message is spot on.

 

people uncomfortable with the truth.

 

That is at the root of the problem.

 

"we want our side heard.  Your side needs to shut the hell up.  We know best.  Fuck the Constitution.  We need some over-reactive legislation to make us feel safe."

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

How about I neg you and comment?

Fuck off. Take your bag of hostility over to CR.

We're ready for it. 

 

[Pam Cummings 9647]

Lol for real

 

First of all lol crying about rep

 

Second of all lol at having your shitty, dumb post negged, then finding an unrelated post and negging the person back.

 

Also, how does whining about the CR not count as "CRing" a thread?

Edited September 2, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[Iceman 2724]

4 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lol for real

 

First of all lol crying about rep

 

Second of all lol at having your shitty, dumb post negged, then finding an unrelated post and negging the person back.

Boo fuck8ing hoo.

 

Lolz. You negged and expected no response?>

 

I didn't cry about it.  Y'all did.  same ole bitchassed responses as always.

Differing opinion is such a threat.

 

Still waiting on links to  gun restrictions making law abiding citizens less likely to kill others...  Chicago?  London?

Edited September 2, 2019 by Iceman

[Iceman 2724]

6 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

How about I neg you and comment?

Fuck off. Take your bag of hostility over to CR.

We're ready for it. 

 

Hostility?  differing opinion so threatening.  LMAO.

[Iceman 2724]

still avoiding conversation.  just negs.

 

pussies like always.

[Walser 1109]

Hostility?  differing opinion so threatening.  LMAO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atomheartbevo 89766]

32 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

You listed "red flag laws" separately, so again I will ask what does a "stricter" background check mean? Do you know what the current restrictions are for purchasing a firearm?

l listed red flag laws separately (although I still think they go hand-in-hand somewhat), because they generally pertain to removing firearms from somebody, and not just preventing ownership.   They are only around in 15 or so states though.

Last time I bought a firearm where I had to go through a background check was several years ago, so things may have tightened up, but stricter in the sense that we are headed towards universal background checks (even if a lot of mass shooters are already going through the background check).  More importantly, stricter in the sense that we need to be thinking in terms of the kinds of things that would kick a red flag law into effect.  Like I said, if somebody is a nutcase in high school, and is on school officials/law enforcement's radar then, we need to carry that over into adulthood.

Way too many of these shooters are of the "yep, in school, we always thought he'd be the one to shoot up the place!" variety.

[immortal13 4059]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

l listed red flag laws separately (although I still think they go hand-in-hand somewhat), because they generally pertain to removing firearms from somebody, and not just preventing ownership.   They are only around in 15 or so states though.

Last time I bought a firearm where I had to go through a background check was several years ago, so things may have tightened up, but stricter in the sense that we are headed towards universal background checks (even if a lot of mass shooters are already going through the background check).  More importantly, stricter in the sense that we need to be thinking in terms of the kinds of things that would kick a red flag law into effect.  Like I said, if somebody is a nutcase in high school, and is on school officials/law enforcement's radar then, we need to carry that over into adulthood.

Way too many of these shooters are of the "yep, in school, we always thought he'd be the one to shoot up the place!" variety.

So who decides who is crazy?

[MissingInAction 25139]

I'm about to live stream all over your mom.

[atomheartbevo 89766]

42 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Agree with that, but by god make certain that due process is strictly adhered to and thoroughly investigated when putting the “red flag” laws in action. Just relying on a complaint from someone with an agenda (scorned woman, asshole neighbor, etc.) is a very dangerous constitutional step and ripe for abuse.

Agree completely.  We've got 15 states or so that have them, that we can study, and we are starting to see them in action - they've nailed several people, that when you look at them, and read why their firearms were taken, you're thinking "yep, that was a mass shooting just waiting to happen."

We don't want to go back to the days of "Uncle Ed was just locked up in the asylum, because he thought nobody was looking and he was wearing Aunt Ethel's dresses".

But like I said, if a 17 year-old is perceived as a threat by law enforcement and school officials, maybe we shouldn't let him buy a firearm a few years down the road.  And being married to somebody in education, problems with students are fairly well documented.  It's not like some random person cutting somebody off in traffic and getting reported to the cops.  

The Odessa shooter - had the cops bothered to put in the effort (I don't buy the GPS bullshit one bit) and talk to the guy after he threatened his neighbor over the trash in the dumpster, that might have been enough to take his guns for 60 days or so,   The fact that he didn't have electricity and water, and liked to shoot animals in his yard at night would have probably been enough for a West Texas judge to say "yep, let's keep an eye on him"

[SKJ 1311]

9 hours ago, tjhooker said:

I think most are bought legally and background check or waiting period is done depending on the gun. Most these crazies aren't criminals so they pass the checks.  There have been some I can recall either passed the check and shouldn't of due to a screw up or they stole the guns from a relative or friend. 

Yeah,  and also gun show loopholes from the Vegas shooter,  right?

Or do I remember that wrong

[JohnnyRage 1617]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

This is a huge question. Remember what happened in New Orleans after Katrina? That was a clusterfuck.

What does Chris Kyle have to do with this? 

[scottsins 1968]

1 hour ago, Jack Straw said:

It’s Slorch.  

Nah, BUT...

 

Who's the poster from TOS that used to call others "vagina vomit"?  This harkens back to that genius.

[justhookit 4191]

Jesus fuck. You assholes have an entire forum with multiple threads to spew your bullshit. You managed to go about 24 hours before trashing this thread, so congrats I guess.

[Iceman 2724]

46 minutes ago, justhookit said:

Jesus fuck. You assholes have an entire forum with multiple threads to spew your bullshit. You managed to go about 24 hours before trashing this thread, so congrats I guess.

Neggers saving lives, brah...

 

they are fierce.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Iceman

[3adays 454]

So the gunman had failed a back ground check to get a gun. Apparently had mental health issues. It’ll be interesting to see where he got his guns. 

[Guest Lobo]

From the Pants store?