Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Why would anyone need an assault rifle?


Assault Rifles  

441 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

to take out modern superanimals, like the flying squirrel or the electric eel.

Worth it even if it saves only one life imo.

You guys crack me up.  Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns, people.  A guy walked into a school and  killed twenty children and nothing changed about who can own a gun.  Why would someone shoo

Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Sure.

In regards to the incident where 4 men invaded the home of a former veteran, do you think his training helped him survive the situation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

In regards to the incident where 4 men invaded the home of a former veteran, do you think his training helped him survive the situation?

Sure.  Also familiarity with the environs.

 

It might help to know if he was a combat vet or whether he spent 30 years in the exciting endeavor of procurement, but sure.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Sure.  Also familiarity with the environs.

 

It might help to know if he was a combat vet or whether he spent 30 years in the exciting endeavor of procurement, but sure.

Sure. 

Regardless, he went through boot camp. Most of his range time was with the M4 or M16. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Are you slow walking me again to the point I have already conceded?

Let's be clear here. I'm not trying to get you to concede anything. 

I'm slow walking to help the slow people in the back of the room that still don't think that anyone would need an assault rifle. 

You're just helping me prove that point. 

During your career, did you train officers on the use of M16s or AR15s or any other assault rifles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Sure. 

Regardless, he went through boot camp. Most of his range time was with the M4 or M16. 

If you, and he, want to use that weapons platform for home defense or personal defense it is fine with me.  Would I recommend it, even for someone trained by the military in that weapon platform, probably not.  Sure familiarity is great, but there are other factors.  Home defense weapons are used in homes.  Most homes in this country either share common walls in multifamily housing or if single family have setbacks from the property lines of 15 feet or less.  Using a weapon and a round that will continue through walls is irresponsible.  Also, frequently home defense arises at night, after one goes to bed.  Glasses and contacts come off or out, sleep medications are taken, folks are woken during non-propitious points in the REM cycle.   These are not optimal conditions for using a firearm, particularly one which needs careful aiming as opposed to pointing, and particularly not one capable of penetrating multiple walls.  I am not a fan of that weapon for that use just as I would not be a fan of using a slug rather than shot.  You disagree.  Fine, use what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Let's be clear here. I'm not trying to get you to concede anything. 

I'm slow walking to help the slow people in the back of the room that still don't think that anyone would need an assault rifle. 

You're just helping me prove that point. 

During your career, did you train officers on the use of M16s or AR15s or any other assault rifles?

I would not use the term assault rifle.  Yes, I have trained across that platform though I never conducted training exclusively to that platform and when doing so we were likely to be using a carbine version.

 

As for helping you prove your point, I don't think any point can be made from one instance.  You put great stock on the fact that two assailants are dead and the citizen was "only" wounded.  I do not dispute the story or your interpretation.  I do note that we do not have any information as to what the outcome would have been had the citizen had another weapon system.  I do note that were it I my wife may not think this was a successful outcome or a good choice if she was tending me in the hospital and looking forward to a future where I #### into a bag instead of a toilet.  I don't consider getting wounded a good outcome.  Is it better than some that might have come to pass, sure, but does this instance teach us anything about his choice that may be transferable to others, probably not, but O.K.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:
3 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Does one need to pick up a gun in order to read and understand statistics?

Disclaimer: just being a devil's advocate here... this country has MUCH larger issues than gun control we need to focus on - the gun control topic only has two purposes:
1) Distraction from larger, more important issues
2) Get a few votes from people stupid enough to be single issue voters

Does one need to be shot at, or shoot at another person, to read and understand the effectiveness of weapons, ammo, and tactics?

What does that have to do with my question?

1 hour ago, KCitons said:

There are a lot of single issue voters here. Be it guns or anything else. 

I hope you are wrong. Single issue voting is for suckers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

If you, and he, want to use that weapons platform for home defense or personal defense it is fine with me.  Would I recommend it, even for someone trained by the military in that weapon platform, probably not.  Sure familiarity is great, but there are other factors.  Home defense weapons are used in homes.  Most homes in this country either share common walls in multifamily housing or if single family have setbacks from the property lines of 15 feet or less.  Using a weapon and a round that will continue through walls is irresponsible.  Also, frequently home defense arises at night, after one goes to bed.  Glasses and contacts come off or out, sleep medications are taken, folks are woken during non-propitious points in the REM cycle.   These are not optimal conditions for using a firearm, particularly one which needs careful aiming as opposed to pointing, and particularly not one capable of penetrating multiple walls.  I am not a fan of that weapon for that use just as I would not be a fan of using a slug rather than shot.  You disagree.  Fine, use what you will.

I don't disagree. This is where our conversations go off the rails. 

The OP made the statement of "why would anyone need an assault rifle."

Law enforcement has been using assault rifles for some time. Do they need them all the time? Probably not. But, they have the firepower if the find themselves in a gunfight against multiple hostiles. This veteran found himself in the same situation. Yet, we still want to say that no one needs an assault rifle. 

The OP's question was asked and answered. It seems that most here didn't want there to be an acceptable answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I don't disagree. This is where our conversations go off the rails. 

The OP made the statement of "why would anyone need an assault rifle."

Law enforcement has been using assault rifles for some time. Do they need them all the time? Probably not. But, they have the firepower if the find themselves in a gunfight against multiple hostiles. This veteran found himself in the same situation. Yet, we still want to say that no one needs an assault rifle. 

The OP's question was asked and answered. It seems that most here didn't want there to be an acceptable answer. 

You sure went the long way around to get to that short semantic point. 

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I would not use the term assault rifle.  Yes, I have trained across that platform though I never conducted training exclusively to that platform and when doing so we were likely to be using a carbine version.

 

As for helping you prove your point, I don't think any point can be made from one instance.  You put great stock on the fact that two assailants are dead and the citizen was "only" wounded.  I do not dispute the story or your interpretation.  I do note that we do not have any information as to what the outcome would have been had the citizen had another weapon system.  I do not that were it I my wife may not think this was a successful outcome or a good choice if she was tending me in the hospital and looking forward to a future where I #### into a bag instead of a toilet.  I don't consider getting wounded a good outcome.  Is it better than some that might have come to pass, sure, but does this instance teach us anything about his choice that may be transferable to others, probably not, but O.K.

Why do many LE departments have AR15s?

I would assume that they need to meet firepower with firepower. Can't the same be applied to citizens? I know you're going to say that police respond to all kinds of situations. I've seen police respond to felony traffic stop with ARs out. That's not a bank robbery or a mass shooting situation. Are they trained to respond that way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

What does that have to do with my question?

I hope you are wrong. Single issue voting is for suckers.

It's basically the same question you asked me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

It's basically the same question you asked me. 

I was slow walking you to the point that you don't need to have experience with guns to know and understand the statistics behind the risk/reward ratio of our current gun laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I was slow walking you to the point that you don't need to have experience with guns to know and understand the statistics behind the risk/reward ratio of our current gun laws.

Sorry. Wrong thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KCitons said:
7 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

You sure went the long way around to get to that short semantic point. 

I told you. It's for the slow people in the room. 

Everyone knew what the OP's question was really asking. The point you made was already accepted by everyone in attendance; in other words, it was known and no one was disputing it. You seem to be the only person who needed that semantic clarification, yet you are calling other people slow. Not very cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FF Ninja said:

Everyone knew what the OP's question was really asking. The point you made was already accepted by everyone in attendance; in other words, it was known and no one was disputing it. You seem to be the only person who needed that semantic clarification, yet you are calling other people slow. Not very cool.

BS.

This is a carryover from the other thread. There are a large number of people here that want an assault weapons ban. If there was no need for assault rifles, then police wouldn't use them. The same criminal element that they are trying to stop, is the same criminal element that is trying to harm you and I. That proves the need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

BS.

This is a carryover from the other thread. There are a large number of people here that want an assault weapons ban. If there was no need for assault rifles, then police wouldn't use them. The same criminal element that they are trying to stop, is the same criminal element that is trying to harm you and I. That proves the need. 

:lmao: ok Rambo, go get 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

 

There are a lot of single issue voters here. Be it guns or anything else. 

Not really.

I studied Robert Dahl (founder of modern "pluralism" studies in college) and he explained how single issue voting was effective in local elections and decision making. (For example, if a small group of voters want a certain street paved, they can effectively trade their vote for a politician willing to pave the street. This gives that small group power far beyond their numbers, but that power is very temporary: only until the issue is resolved.) But you rarely see single issue voters for national elections. Almost all voters have priorities, but that's not the same thing.

There are also certain issues in which voters will not budge on: abortion is perhaps the best example. Millions of liberals will never vote for a pro-life candidate, while millions of conservatives will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But again this is not the same as single issue voting, because the result of this particular conviction on both sides is a static situation in which we never get pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats. So people rarely choose candidates based on abortion.

No, guns are the only single issue item I can think of, honestly, and it's only on one side: extremist gun owners who believe that ANY restriction on firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, which appears to be the only amendment to the Constitution that they care about. I regard their fanaticism on this issue to be an aberration of our political system. We're poisoned by it.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Rambo?

Why would you call me that?

Because you are clearly staging raids on heavily armed compounds. Surely you weren't implying the "criminal elements" are going to attack me with assault rifles at my house?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Not really.

I studied Robert Dahl (founder of modern "pluralism" studies in college) and he explained how single issue voting was effective in local elections and decision making. (For example, if a small group of voters want a certain street paved, they can effectively trade their vote for a politician willing to pave the street. This gives that small group power far beyond their numbers, but that power is very temporary: only until the issue is resolved.) But you rarely see single issue voters for national elections. Almost all voters have priorities, but that's not the same thing.

There are also certain issues in which voters will not budge on: abortion is perhaps the best example. Millions of liberals will never vote for a pro-life candidate, while millions of conservatives will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But again this is not the same as single issue voting, because the result of this particular conviction on both sides is a static situation in which we never get pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats. So people rarely choose candidates based on abortion.

No, guns are the only single issue item I can think of, honestly, and it's only on one side: extremist gun owners who believe that ANY restriction on firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, which appears to be the only amendment to the Constitution that they care about. I regard their fanaticism on this issue to be an aberration of our political system. We're poisoned by it.  

Blah, blah, blah. 

There is an element from the other side that is just as bad. Those politicians and voters that are hellbent on taking guns away are just as bad as those that believe any restrictions is a violation. The difference is the 2nd Amendment. 

I have a feeling that gun regulation will be important depending on the timing of mass shootings leading up to the election. If we have another Sandy Hook or Vegas type shooting, I could see people voting with their emotions instead of their brains. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Why do many LE departments have AR15s?

I would assume that they need to meet firepower with firepower. Can't the same be applied to citizens? I know you're going to say that police respond to all kinds of situations. I've seen police respond to felony traffic stop with ARs out. That's not a bank robbery or a mass shooting situation. Are they trained to respond that way?

Many LE Departments have them because surplus stock was granted to them.  Many decided after the L.A. bank robbery that they did not care to be outgunned.  Can citizens desire the same firepower for any number of reasons, sure.  As for routine traffic stops no, nobody I know of advocates responding with an M-4.  As for felony stops, well I would just call it a felony stop and take the traffic out of the expression, but sure, at times it may be advisable depending on the information the officer has at hand.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FF Ninja said:

Because you are clearly staging raids on heavily armed compounds. Surely you weren't implying the "criminal elements" are going to attack me with assault rifles at my house?

I'm not raiding anything. What do the police use assault rifles for? They aren't raiding heavily armed compounds? They AR has replaced the 12 gauge shotgun. 

As to criminal elements attacking you with assault rifles at your house? Where did I say that? The sited incident shows that 4 criminals did attack someone in his house. Two of those criminals were armed. If they would have had a knife, then any gun may have been effective. But, when they are armed with firearms (possibly assault rifles), then you have to counter their attack with similar or more aggressive firepower to hope for a positive outcome. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Blah, blah, blah. 

There is an element from the other side that is just as bad. Those politicians and voters that are hellbent on taking guns away are just as bad as those that believe any restrictions is a violation. The difference is the 2nd Amendment. 

I have a feeling that gun regulation will be important depending on the timing of mass shootings leading up to the election. If we have another Sandy Hook or Vegas type shooting, I could see people voting with their emotions instead of their brains. 

I have never met a single issue voter whose single issue was "pro-gun control". Never. I'm not sure such a person exists. There are a growing number of young people, including my daughter, who see this issue as a priority, but almost none of them see it as the top priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

I'm not raiding anything. What do the police use assault rifles for? They aren't raiding heavily armed compounds? They AR has replaced the 12 gauge shotgun

As to criminal elements attacking you with assault rifles at your house? Where did I say that? The sited incident shows that 4 criminals did attack someone in his house. Two of those criminals were armed. If they would have had a knife, then any gun may have been effective. But, when they are armed with firearms (possibly assault rifles), then you have to counter their attack with similar or more aggressive firepower to hope for a positive outcome. 

Not so.  It has supplemented it.  It may even be more ubiquitous now, though I do not believe so, not yet, but soon. It is a trend.  Also seeing a trend of What you might refer to as an AR 10 for LE purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm not raiding anything. What do the police use assault rifles for? They aren't raiding heavily armed compounds? They AR has replaced the 12 gauge shotgun. 

As to criminal elements attacking you with assault rifles at your house? Where did I say that? The sited incident shows that 4 criminals did attack someone in his house. Two of those criminals were armed. If they would have had a knife, then any gun may have been effective. But, when they are armed with firearms (possibly assault rifles), then you have to counter their attack with similar or more aggressive firepower to hope for a positive outcome. 

You said "The same criminal element that they are trying to stop, is the same criminal element that is trying to harm you and I. That proves the need." I'm not out there trying to stop them, so I don't need assault rifles unless, of course, they are trying to use them on me. In other words, you've failed to prove a need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Not so.  It has supplemented it.  It may even be more ubiquitous now, though I do not believe so, not yet, but soon. It is a trend.  Also seeing a trend of What you might refer to as an AR 10 for LE purposes.

It may not be a total replacement. But, the question is, why? 

Right tool for the job? Perhaps there are times that a 12 gauge is more effective. But, they are still choosing the AR15. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FF Ninja said:

You said "The same criminal element that they are trying to stop, is the same criminal element that is trying to harm you and I. That proves the need." I'm not out there trying to stop them, so I don't need assault rifles unless, of course, they are trying to use them on me. In other words, you've failed to prove a need.

No. My point was that the police need to meet or exceed the firepower of the criminal elements that they are dealing with. Why wouldn't you or I need the same thing to protect ourselves? If all criminals only had a knife, then police would be fine with the a .38 special revolver. 

When 4 armed criminals come into your home. You are trying to stop them. If the police arrived to a call that 4 armed people were in your home. Odds are they would show up with an assault rifle. Why is it necessary for them and not me? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It may not be a total replacement. But, the question is, why? 

Right tool for the job? Perhaps there are times that a 12 gauge is more effective. But, they are still choosing the AR15. 

It is some times the right tool for a job as it is a versatile tool.  As to its popularity, well folks stick with what they know and what they hear and with that platform, with Departments having received many of them gratis, well that helps make the decision as economics enters into matters as does the fact that many officers come to Department out of the military and so are familiar with that platform.   

My most recent Department has more than one BEAR.  Very capable vehicles and theoretically useful.  We have rarely had any need of either, but we have two because they were given.  What a Department has is a function of many matters and economics is high on that list.  Still, make no mistake, I am not arguing against any of your points, rather the avenue you choose to arrive there.  And I know, I read the part where this is for the slow people in the room.  I wonder who those are and how they are defined.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dozer said:

Your inability to recognize movie quotes.

Sorry. I haven't seen any of the Rambo movies in a long time. 

If I remember correctly, didn't he take out a bunch of guys with just his knife? Then he got an M16 from one of them?

(and he took down one guy with a rock?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

It is some times the right tool for a job as it is a versatile tool.  As to its popularity, well folks stick with what they know and what they hear and with that platform, with Departments having received many of them gratis, well that helps make the decision as economics enters into matters.   

My most recent Department has more than one BEAR.  Very capable vehicles and theoretically useful.  We have rarely had any need of either, but we have two because they were given.  What a Department has is a function of many matters and economics is high on that list.  Still, make no mistake, I am not arguing against any of your points, rather they avenue you choose to arrive there.  And I know, I read the part where this is for the slow people in the room.  I wonder who those are and how they are defined.

What is the life expectancy of a 12 gauge? Choosing to replace and saving on new are different. 

I think some are choosing to make the change. Obviously, range is much greater with an AR. I think that is a key factor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Sorry. I haven't seen any of the Rambo movies in a long time. 

If I remember correctly, didn't he take out a bunch of guys with just his knife? Then he got an M16 from one of them?

(and he took down one guy with a rock?)

If I remember correctly he disabled folks with his knife and with wire and with wooden spikes in a trap. I don't recall him killing anybody except the one fellow who fell to his death after Rambo threw the rock.  Now in Rambo II there was a bunch of killing.  As for the rest, I have not seen them, except for snippets on T.V. 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

If I remember correctly he disabled folks with his knife and with wire and with wooden spikes in a trap. I don't recall him killing anybody except the one fellow who fell to his death after Rambo through the rock.  Now in Rambo II there was a bunch of killing.  As for the rest, I have not seen them, except for snippets on T.V. 

If I remember correctly, it was the police that had M16's. Not Rambo. Wasn't that where he got it from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

What is the life expectancy of a 12 gauge? Choosing to replace and saving on new are different. 

I think some are choosing to make the change. Obviously, range is much greater with an AR. I think that is a key factor. 

I have and still occasionally use a 12 gauge with a manufacturing date of 1939.  Obviously I would not want to use a shotgun for a shot which calls for a rifle. (Slugs excepted and I do have one such barrel for one of my shotguns though I have only used it maybe a dozen times, ten to get acquainted and twice for hunting).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KCitons said:

If I remember correctly, it was the police that had M16's. Not Rambo. Wasn't that where he got it from?

He procured his weapons from the police and from the national guard.  Going deep in my memory (Cathcart, Robert A.)

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KCitons said:

No. My point was that the police need to meet or exceed the firepower of the criminal elements that they are dealing with. Why wouldn't you or I need the same thing to protect ourselves? If all criminals only had a knife, then police would be fine with the a .38 special revolver. 

When 4 armed criminals come into your home. You are trying to stop them. If the police arrived to a call that 4 armed people were in your home. Odds are they would show up with an assault rifle. Why is it necessary for them and not me? 

You really don't see the difference there? Unlike the cops, I'm not taking the criminal element head-on myself, therefore I don't need assault weapons. We pay taxes and our taxes pay the police to do that.

I don't think four armed criminals with assault rifles will be coming into my home. I get it, that's a small possibility, but it's also a small possibility I get run over by someone running a red light. You can't prepare for every possibility, however, you can use statistics to your advantage. The odds of that assault rifle doing someone harm are probably higher than the odds of me successfully defending myself from armed criminals. It's also likely a wasted investment. Instead of buying guns and gun safes, I spend my money on exercise equipment which is better for my health and will probably help me out if I have a petty thief break into my home (far more likely than 4 guys with guns). And if someone were to break into my house when I'm not around (the most likely of these unlikely break-in scenarios), I'd rather they steal gym equipment than assault rifles. 

Edited by FF Ninja
missing word
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

You really don't see the difference there? Unlike the cops, I'm not taking the criminal element head-on myself, therefore I don't need assault weapons. We pay taxes and our taxes pay the police to do that.

I don't think four armed criminals with assault rifles will be coming into my home. I get it, that's a small possibility, but it's also a small possibility I get run over by someone running a red light. You can't prepare for every possibility, however, you can use statistics to your advantage. The odds of that assault rifle doing someone harm are probably higher than the odds of me successfully defending myself from armed criminals. It's also likely a wasted investment. Instead of buying guns and gun safes, I spend my money on exercise equipment which is better for my health and will probably help me out if I have a petty thief break into my home (far more likely than 4 guys with guns). And if someone were to break into my house when I'm not around (the most likely of these unlikely break-in scenarios), I'd rather they steal gym equipment than assault rifles. 

You have a choice to not have firearms. I'm not telling you that you need to have one. Much less an AR15.

You've moved past the point of discussing the need for an AR15 and are making claims that nobody needs any gun at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KCitons said:

You have a choice to not have firearms. I'm not telling you that you need to have one. Much less an AR15.

You've moved past the point of discussing the need for an AR15 and are making claims that nobody needs any gun at all. 

:shrug:eh, if the shoe fits. I get that it makes some people feel safer... at the cost of increasing risks to everyone around them. Kind of a selfish, crappy move, but to each their own. We've got a lot bigger issues to worry about. This is a silly one to single-issue-vote on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:

:shrug:eh, if the shoe fits. I get that it makes some people feel safer... at the cost of increasing risks to everyone around them. Kind of a selfish, crappy move, but to each their own. We've got a lot bigger issues to worry about. This is a silly one to single-issue-vote on.

Why are you taking this single issue vote angle? Do you make the same claim in the abortion, tariff, health care, immigration, or any number of other threads? No. Why do it here? 

We've been down this road a thousand times. There are lots of things that we have the increases risks to everyone. But, we don't ban them. So, your argument is pointless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Why are you taking this single issue vote angle? Do you make the same claim in the abortion, tariff, health care, immigration, or any number of other threads? No. Why do it here? 

We've been down this road a thousand times. There are lots of things that we have the increases risks to everyone. But, we don't ban them. So, your argument is pointless. 

Because it seems like gun nuts and anti-abortion people are the two largest contingents of single issue voters.

Um, wat? You know smoking is banned pretty much everywhere that it can affect people second hand, right? Smoking is only allowed in designated areas. Maybe that's the way to handle this... Alaska could be the new gun nut paradise. J/k, I wouldn't do that to Alaska. 

Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...