Jump to content

Baton Rouge Shooting. Three Officers feared dead.


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

News say one of the shooters is Gavin Long, 29, from Kansas City, and served the country as a marine between June 2008 and January 2009 in Irak. He apparently changed officially his name to Cosmo Ausar Setepenra to show his belonging to the Washitaw nation, a group of afro-american people claiming to be a sovereign nation just like the native americans.

How am I supposed to trust my army if our government doesn't take care of soldiers with PTSD and the like... :(

PTSD can't be "taken care of", it's not that simple. War breaks peoples minds, and you can't repair them once that happens.

Tips/Donate: u.gamecaster.com/unr3al
Twitch Channel: Twitch.tv/unr3al_twitch
YouTube Channel: YouTube.com/unr3algaming
Twitter: @unr3alofficial

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unr3al said:

PTSD can't be "taken care of", it's not that simple. War breaks peoples minds, and you can't repair them once that happens.

What I meant is being followed by a professional to take care of our veterans! I'm aware it is not something that can be easily brushed off :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Riley24 said:

I've seen videos just like the one that was shared, except the undercover person bought the gun without a background check. That is the gunshow loophole right there. I don't care how uncommon or limited it is, the fact that it exists is unacceptable.

No, what you mean is that the fact that it exists is illegal. If you are selling guns that are bought or made specifically for profit, not from your personal collection, you are required to be a federally licensed FFL dealer at the very least. Any time one of these purchases occurs a NICS background check must occur, or else you are breaking a federal law. If you don't and you get caught, you are looking at a forfeiture of both your license and your 2nd amendment rights for life, around 20 years in federal prison, and a massive fine. No sane dealer is willing to take that risk, and this includes all the dealers that I know.

Before making comments on something that you probably have never experienced, try to do it first. Go out and try to buy a gun (a class I), try to buy one at a gun show; just make sure the transaction occurs in your state and you'll be fine without any extra paperwork outside of the state required (if any) and the 4473. Here is the form straight from the ATF, read it well. Oh, and if you lie on the form, you can get arrested for violating federal law. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

No, what you mean is that the fact that it exists is illegal. If you are selling guns that are bought or made specifically for profit, not from your personal collection, you are required to be a federally licensed FFL dealer at the very least. Any time one of these purchases occurs a NICS background check must occur, or else you are breaking a federal law. If you don't and you get caught, you are looking at a forfeiture of both your license and your 2nd amendment rights for life, around 20 years in federal prison, and a massive fine. No sane dealer is willing to take that risk, and this includes all the dealers that I know.

Before making comments on something that you probably have never experienced, try to do it first. Go out and try to buy a gun (a class I), try to buy one at a gun show; just make sure the transaction occurs in your state and you'll be fine without any extra paperwork outside of the state required (if any) and the 4473. Here is the form straight from the ATF, read it well. Oh, and if you lie on the form, you can get arrested for violating federal law. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

It is perfectly legal in many parts of the country to purchase a firearm from a private seller without a background check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

It is perfectly legal in many parts of the country to purchase a firearm from a private seller without a background check. 

Okay, although I will say that it is irrelevant to the topic that we were on, as that was the 'gun show loophole' (which doesn't exist); even then it would be extremely stupid to spend money to rent a table at a gun show to sell one gun. Furthermore, most gun owners will discriminate as to who they will sell their gun to. They'll check the state of residence, and deny selling to anyone who is buying for questionable reasons. They don't want the liability of selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have had one, no different than a gun store. In fact, it's the only business I know of where you can deny service for pretty much any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

Okay, although I will say that it is irrelevant to the topic that we were on, as that was the 'gun show loophole' (which doesn't exist); even then it would be extremely stupid to spend money to rent a table at a gun show to sell one gun. Furthermore, most gun owners will discriminate as to who they will sell their gun to. They'll check the state of residence, and deny selling to anyone who is buying for questionable reasons. They don't want the liability of selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have had one, no different than a gun store. In fact, it's the only business I know of where you can deny service for pretty much any reason.

It shouldn't be up to the discretion of a random gun owner, there should be a mandated and thorough background check system for every gun sale in the country, private or otherwise. The fact that a gun can ever be sold legally without a background check is ridiculous. That's my argument, plain and simple.

We owe it to our law enforcement officials to make sure that they encounter as few criminals with guns as possible,

Edited by Riley24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

It shouldn't be up to the discretion of a random gun owner, there should be a mandated and thorough background check system for every gun sale in the country, private or otherwise. The fact that a gun can ever be sold legally without a background check is ridiculous. That's my argument, plain and simple.

Honestly, it's not ridiculous, mandating background checks for all purchases is a hassle and just doesn't do anything that gun owners or dealers already do. It doesn't even mean that people will follow the mandate, which brings me to my argument. Regardless of origin, criminals will get guns, adding more ineffective laws only hurts the gun owners and dealers who follow them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crkinnh said:

Honestly, it's not ridiculous, mandating background checks for all purchases is a hassle and just doesn't do anything that gun owners or dealers already do. It doesn't even mean that people will follow the mandate, which brings me to my argument. Regardless of origin, criminals will get guns, adding more ineffective laws only hurts the gun owners and dealers who follow them.

Simply not true. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals. We have an astronomically high circulation of guns in the country, it is possible to cut off avenues by which criminals obtain their guns and make it harder and harder for them to get their hands on them. That then gives the government the ability to prosecute anyone who does not go through those checks. You're advocating for criminals to be able to legally purchase guns, in a thread about 3 cops being shot to death. Think that over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Riley24 said:

Simply not true. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals. We have an astronomically high circulation of guns in the country, it is possible to cut off avenues by which criminals obtain their guns and make it harder and harder for them to get their hands on them. That then gives the government the ability to prosecute anyone who does not go through those checks. You're advocating for criminals to be able to legally purchase guns, in a thread about 3 cops being shot to death. Think that over.

Firstly- no, I didn't advocate for criminals to get their hands on guns legally; I just said that adding more ineffective, near unenforceable laws only hurts the people who have to follow them with consequence (the people who follow the laws normally). That being said I'm moving on to the discussion, debate, or whatever you want to call it.

Okay, and you advocate that by mandating background checks on all purchases regardless on weather or not they are privately conducted, an avenue will be closed to criminals on how to obtain firearms. Sounds good in theory right? How do you force people who make private sales unbeknownst to the government to follow this law? Surely black markets who sell firearms for much cheaper and illegally won't follow this. Lets not forget there is around a $50 fee to this check in the states it is required if you go the legal route, and many times the transaction is between family members or friends. 

I ask you before I make my next point, how do you force people who make private sales unbeknownst to the government to follow this law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crkinnh said:

Firstly- no, I didn't advocate for criminals to get their hands on guns legally; I just said that adding more ineffective, near unenforceable laws only hurts the people who have to follow them with consequence (the people who follow the laws normally). That being said I'm moving on to the discussion, debate, or whatever you want to call it.

Okay, and you advocate that by mandating background checks on all purchases regardless on weather or not they are privately conducted, an avenue will be closed to criminals on how to obtain firearms. Sounds good in theory right? How do you force people who make private sales unbeknownst to the government to follow this law? Surely black markets who sell firearms for much cheaper and illegally won't follow this. Lets not forget there is around a $50 fee to this check in the states it is required if you go the legal route, and many times the transaction is between family members or friends. 

I ask you before I make my next point, how do you force people who make private sales unbeknownst to the government to follow this law?

You are advocating for that, just indirectly. That's a direct consequence of your policy proposal.

And all I've heard for the past four years from gun enthusiasts is how they are "law abiding citizens". Should those laws be put into place, I would expect them to follow the law, and not become criminal gun merchants. Again, you are mentioning the black market but not considering where those guns come from. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals.

Just because you put a question in bold, doesn't make it a smart question. There are COUNTLESS illegal activities that occur unbeknownst to the government. The reason we make things illegal is to discourage it through the threat of penalties, and to prosecute the people who are caught doing it. This is a mentality used by gun enthusiasts ONLY on the topic of guns, NEVER when talking about any other laws. Why is it that you think we have laws? And I have very little interest in your next point, if that first question is any indication of how you are approaching this topic. All I've heard is BS NRA talking points that have been regurgitated online so they can sell more guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

You are advocating for that, just indirectly. That's a direct consequence of your policy proposal.

And all I've heard for the past four years from gun enthusiasts is how they are "law abiding citizens". Should those laws be put into place, I would expect them to follow the law, and not become criminal gun merchants. Again, you are mentioning the black market but not considering where those guns come from. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals.

Just because you put a question in bold, doesn't make it a smart question. There are COUNTLESS illegal activities that occur unbeknownst to the government. The reason we make things illegal is to discourage it through the threat of penalties, and to prosecute the people who are caught doing it. This is a mentality used by gun enthusiasts ONLY on the topic of guns, NEVER when talking about any other laws. Why is it that you think we have laws? And I have very little interest in your next point, if that first question is any indication of how you are approaching this topic. All I've heard is BS NRA talking points that have been regurgitated online so they can sell more guns. 

You and I are the ones who take the blunt force of the consequence for the actions of a statistically irrelevant few, that's what I am bringing up. Criminals aren't going to follow the laws, they figure that there's no point in not breaking another law if they get caught since there's enough laws they've broken anyway. If we break them and get caught, then we get the blunt force of the consequences because we were prosecuted for something that we had done our whole lives legally, and it never hurt anybody (statistic majority by far).

You want another example of laws put into place that hurt only the people that follow them (besides guns), how about service members who can't drink because they are under 21?

I considered where black markets get guns, it just hasn't come up until now. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals, you are right. Black markets get their guns from guns that have been stolen (not many contrary to popular belief though), illegal shipments from other countries and manufacturers, and guns manufactured right at home. Yes, guns manufactured at home. Did you know that many gunsmiths actually make custom guns from the ground up completely with tools that they own in their garage. Even then, you don't have to be a gunsmith to make a gun using common tools.

 A_Crude_Indian_Homemade_%22Gun%22.jpg

Illegal shipments, and smuggling also remains a big problem. France's gun control didn't stop the terrorists from obtaining military grade full auto AKs for the Paris Attacks last November, and Mexico's ban on firearms really stops the Cartels from obtaining guns right? 

 

You are right on another point, the point we make laws is to discourage people from doing something with the threat of penalty, but what good does a law do when it is unenforceable? To be able to enforce something would require other laws to fill in the problems that mandating something would have. This is what gun rights activists are talking about when we refer to the slippery slope: the enactment of more laws following the enactment of other laws.

The point is that you should expect compliance from those who don't want to commit a crime no matter what, and don't expect it from the people who don't follow that because they realize that law is not only unenforceable; it's complete BS to follow it 9/10 times.

Edited by crkinnh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riley24 said:

You are advocating for that, just indirectly. That's a direct consequence of your policy proposal.

And all I've heard for the past four years from gun enthusiasts is how they are "law abiding citizens". Should those laws be put into place, I would expect them to follow the law, and not become criminal gun merchants. Again, you are mentioning the black market but not considering where those guns come from. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals.

Just because you put a question in bold, doesn't make it a smart question. There are COUNTLESS illegal activities that occur unbeknownst to the government. The reason we make things illegal is to discourage it through the threat of penalties, and to prosecute the people who are caught doing it. This is a mentality used by gun enthusiasts ONLY on the topic of guns, NEVER when talking about any other laws. Why is it that you think we have laws? And I have very little interest in your next point, if that first question is any indication of how you are approaching this topic. All I've heard is BS NRA talking points that have been regurgitated online so they can sell more guns. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

A key problem with your argument. The majority of criminals get guns through straw purchases. That's when the criminal has some one else buy a gun for them, which, based on being in dozens of gun stores, signs all around state it is illegal to do so and the 4473 form required to purchase a firearm also states that it is a federal crime to purchase the gun for anyone but yourself.

Additionally, no background check law would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. Straw purchases for the San Bernardino terrorist attack, for example. However, many more mass shooters are capable of passing a background check, such as James Holmes, Omar Mateen, and Micah Johnson.

 

 

 

Edited by c13

Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

You and I are the ones who take the blunt force of the consequence for the actions of a statistically irrelevant few, that's what I am bringing up. Criminals aren't going to follow the laws, they figure that there's no point in not breaking another law if they get caught since there's enough laws they've broken anyway. If we break them and get caught, then we get the blunt force of the consequences because we were prosecuted for something that we had done our whole lives legally, and it never hurt anybody (statistic majority by far).

You want another example of laws put into place that hurt only the people that follow them (besides guns), how about service members who can't drink because they are under 21?

If you choose to break the law because it was previously legal, you're now a criminal. That's a choice, I would have zero sympathy for a gun dealer that chooses to break the law and sell guns without the necessary security checks. And "criminals don't follow the law" is silly. Why bother having any laws then? They're just gonna break them. That's an argument for anarchy, and its ONLY used when talking about guns. We're all required to register our cars, should we not be required to do so because some cars on the road are unregistered? Going through the DMV is a pain in the ass, why can't we just buy a car from our neighbor Bob and hit the road?

 

29 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

I considered where black markets get guns, it just hasn't come up until now. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals, you are right. Black markets get their guns from guns that have been stolen (not many contrary to popular belief though), illegal shipments from other countries and manufacturers, and guns manufactured right at home. Yes, guns manufactured at home. Did you know that many gunsmiths actually make custom guns from the ground up completely with tools that they own in their garage. Even then, you don't have to be a gunsmith to make a gun using common tools.

 A_Crude_Indian_Homemade_%22Gun%22.jpg

Illegal shipments, and smuggling also remains a big problem. France's gun control didn't stop the terrorists from obtaining military grade full auto AKs for the Paris Attacks last November, and Mexico's ban on firearms really stops the Cartels from obtaining guns right? 

Funny how you don't list "bought through a private sale" as one of the ways criminals get guns. Seems like you're very willing to ignore that as one of the avenues. No one is arguing that we can make it impossible for terrorists and known criminals to get guns, we're saying we can make it pretty damn hard. And I'd love for you to compare the rates of gun violence in France to the United States. Weird how French criminals use guns less when guns are less available.

 

Edited by Riley24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

If you choose to break the law because it was previously legal, you're now a criminal. That's a choice, I would have zero sympathy for a gun dealer that chooses to break the law and sell guns without the necessary security checks. And "criminals don't follow the law" is silly. Why bother having any laws then? They're just gonna break them. That's an argument for anarchy, and its ONLY used when talking about guns. We're all required to register our cars, should we not be required to do so because some cars on the road are unregistered? Going through the DMV is a pain in the ass, why can't we just buy a car from our neighbor Bob and hit the road?

 

Funny how you don't list "bought through a private sale" as one of the ways criminals get guns. Seems like you're very willing to ignore that as one of the avenues. No one is arguing that we can make it impossible for terrorists and known criminals to get guns, we're saying we can make it pretty damn hard. And I'd love for you to compare the rates of gun violence in France to the United States. Weird how French criminals use guns less when guns are less available.

 

Now, I'm not saying that a private purchase is not where a possible avenue is, I'm saying that it is not worth making an unenforceable law in a majority of states make perfectly law abiding citizens criminals for not abiding the bs that politicians spew out. As I have said earlier, the stuff that gun owners do is good enough 9/10 times. The problem is straw purchases, just like c13 told you.

Also, it is noteworthy that the United States has a much different history on gun ownership than France. There's a theory that goes like this: criminals in other countries where the police is unarmed, don't have to be armed as an equalizer. This is a theory used to justify why the UK doesn't arm its police force. I'm not arguing however, that the police should be unarmed.

Finally, you completely didn't even comment on my last part which is a psychological indication that you know I'm right on that part at the very least. The slippery slope exists, that's why we push for other laws to keep our rights and punish those who violate the rights of others (criminals). For example, how about Project Exile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

Now, I'm not saying that a private purchase is not where a possible avenue is, I'm saying that it is not worth making an unenforceable law in a majority of states make perfectly law abiding citizens criminals for not abiding the bs that politicians spew out. As I have said earlier, the stuff that gun owners do is good enough 9/10 times. The problem is straw purchases, just like c13 told you.

Also, it is noteworthy that the United States has a much different history on gun ownership than France. There's a theory that goes like this: criminals in other countries where the police is unarmed, don't have to be armed as an equalizer. This is a theory used to justify why the UK doesn't arm its police force. I'm not arguing however, that the police should be unarmed.

Finally, you completely didn't even comment on my last part which is a psychological indication that you know I'm right on that part at the very least. The slippery slope exists, that's why we push for other laws to keep our rights and punish those who violate the rights of others (criminals). For example, how about Project Exile?

"psychological indication"...get outta here, Mentalist. That's the most arrogant thing I've ever heard on a forum. I didn't address your point because it's a bad one. You can claim "slippery slope" about literally anything, it doesn't make it true. It's a throwaway line used by people paranoid that the big bad government is gonna come take their guns.

Yes, straw purchases are illegal. But using your logic, why bother making that illegal? Criminals are just going to do it anyway. By having laws against straw purchasing we're only hurting law abiding citizens that want to go gun shopping together. Right? /sarcasm

And I'd like for you to flip your theory. The police in the UK don't have to be armed, because the criminals aren't armed. The criminals aren't armed because they can't get guns. They can't get guns because the UK doesn't have a multi-billion dollar gun manufacturing industry that pays the NRA to lobby politicians to block gun control, and to spread misinformation and fear that leads people to buy guns in record numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

"psychological indication"...get outta here, Mentalist. That's the most arrogant thing I've ever heard on a forum. I didn't address your point because it's a bad one. You can claim "slippery slope" about literally anything, it doesn't make it true. It's a throwaway line used by people paranoid that the big bad government is gonna come take their guns.

Yes, straw purchases are illegal. But using your logic, why bother making that illegal? Criminals are just going to do it anyway. By having laws against straw purchasing we're only hurting law abiding citizens that want to go gun shopping together. Right? /sarcasm

And I'd like for you to flip your theory. The police in the UK don't have to be armed, because the criminals aren't armed. The criminals aren't armed because they can't get guns. They can't get guns because the UK doesn't have a multi-billion dollar gun manufacturing industry that pays the NRA to lobby politicians to block gun control, and to spread misinformation and fear that leads people to buy guns in record numbers.

Well, actually it is something they teach you in psychology, if it was a bad point then you should have said something before now.

Why are straw purchases illegal, or better yet, why am I okay with that being a law rather than mandatory background checks on private sales? It's because this is enforceable significantly more than with background checks in private sales, and actually has a point. Yes, I said it.

The theory is a theory from departments in the UK, not my own. However, they have never had armed police even when they did have armed criminals, so you aren't even close to being correct.

Also, fun fact, the NRA is funded by it's members not the gun industry. In fact, it doesn't even represent the industry directly, as that is not its mission.

Finally, you will try to spin this in some stupid way, but guns are not the problem. Around 83% of gun crime occurs because of drugs, numerous deaths occur because of perp on perp violence related to drugs which is then spun off by the politicians on guns.The problem with guns in the past few decades have been from drugs. Guns are not the problem, and when we give you a program to solve the problem, you ignore it. If gun laws are to blame on for gun violence, then why is New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont so low in gun deaths? Why isn't there outcry in MA, NY, RI, and CT when each of these states similarly is close like the Chicago and Indiana gun debate which this started from?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

Well, actually it is something they teach you in psychology, if it was a bad point then you should have said something before now.

Thanks for the laugh.

45 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

Why are straw purchases illegal, or better yet, why am I okay with that being a law rather than mandatory background checks on private sales? It's because this is enforceable significantly more than with background checks in private sales, and actually has a point. Yes, I said it.

You're just making that up because the sentence sounds good, where are your facts? Both are activities that you can easily get away with, and done unbeknownst to the government. But if you're caught, there are steep penalties. I think it should be illegal to sell a gun privately without an extensive background check and waiting period. What is it you support, exactly? All I've gotten from you is "eh, fuck it. Enforcing laws is hard"

45 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

The theory is a theory from departments in the UK, not my own. However, they have never had armed police even when they did have armed criminals, so you aren't even close to being correct.

Really? The police in the UK have said that? Please share your sources. Also, you're the one that brought up armed police. Why? What was your point exactly? Because if British police are safer without guns, why aren't you?

45 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

Also, fun fact, the NRA is funded by it's members not the gun industry. In fact, it doesn't even represent the industry directly, as that is not its mission.

You might want to do research into things like the NRA, because you are blatantly wrong. They receive massive funds from the gun industry http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

There are BILLIONS of dollars to be made by scaring the shit out of Americans and getting them to buy guns. Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd73D44L6cM

45 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

Finally, you will try to spin this in some stupid way, but guns are not the problem. Around 83% of gun crime occurs because of drugs, numerous deaths occur because of perp on perp violence related to drugs which is then spun off by the politicians on guns.The problem with guns in the past few decades have been from drugs. Guns are not the problem, and when we give you a program to solve the problem, you ignore it. If gun laws are to blame on for gun violence, then why is New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont so low in gun deaths? Why isn't there outcry in MA, NY, RI, and CT when each of these states similarly is close like the Chicago and Indiana gun debate which this started from?

Of course there are other factors that contribute to gun violence statistics, I never said there weren't. That's also why I'm in favor of ending the war on drugs and combating income inequality. But isn't it a little odd that the top 20 states with the most gun violence are also states with some of the loosest gun laws? Number 2 on the list is Louisiana, where the Baton Rouge attack happened. Louisiana has ridiculously loose gun laws, is it any surprise that Gavin Long was able to get his hands on 3 guns? Thanks to the before-mentioned corporate interests we have more guns than people in the country, that doesn't exist in any other western Country. And we lead the western world in our gun violence rate. Hmmm....funny how that works...

=http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/

http://www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2014-confirms/

 

Unless you have adequate evidence for your arguments, I will not respond. It would be a waste of both of our time.

Edited by Riley24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

 

 

I'm done with this, this has gone on far too long now.

My point is this: there has never been a problem with guns. Guns are a tool, and only that. The solution to gun violence is not to ban any guns, or create more ineffective laws which waste time and money in congress. The problem is poverty, drugs, mental illnesses, and terrorism.  Enforcing these useless laws wastes resources, and money that could be used elsewhere. If this was the case with something else, I'm absolutely sure you would agree, but you don't and that's your right.

I'm happy to live in a state where lax gun laws works outstandingly well, if you want to enact the laws that restrict the 2nd Amendment, please do it in your own state; leave mine alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pics of the weapons used, as well as some security camera footage:

http://www.brproud.com/news/local-news/state-police-release-disturbing-photos-of-baton-rouge-shooter-at-scene

Definitely odd weapon choices for the most recent major shootings. The Sig MCX used in Orlando, AK74 used in Dallas and the Tavor are much more difficult to find than an AR-15.

Edited by c13

Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...