Idiots in the gun control debate

| December 16, 2012 | 934 Comments

Yeah, I’ve read some real stupid shit in teh interwebz today in regards to gun control, but this one just deserved a public answer. It’s from some shithole called Balloon Juice written by a guy named John Cole who explains that he was supposedly in the 11th ACR stationed at Camp Doha between the wars with Iraq;

So why am I telling you this? Because in the middle of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, even with clear Rules of Engagement, every time I went on gate duty, there was a piece of tape over my ammo clip on my M-16 and M1911 .45. Why? Because the most heavily armed military in the world did not want accidental shootings. If a situation arose, I would have to eject my ammo clip, remove the tape, and reinsert and work the action before I could fire.

This was in a combat zone. Yet I have spent the last two fucking days dealing with armchair commandos telling me they need unlimited firepower to be safe in… Connecticut.

If there are bigger pussies in the world than gun nuts, I don’t know who the fuck they are.

So, because he was such an incompetent boob that he needed to have his ammo taped in his magazine, gun nuts are pussies – yeah, I don’t see the connection either. Besides, he calls them “ammo clips” – who, with more than a day in the Army, calls box magazines “ammo clips”? So, I’m thinking that John Cole was a cook, or anything except someone his unit would allow to guard something. And, I’m pretty sure that between the Iraq Wars, the Army was using 9mm Barettas and not the M1911A1 .45 cal pistol.

And the reason any magazines were taped wasn’t to prevent the ammunition from loading. The Army did that when ammunition was passed between guard shifts for accountability. But, of course, any dingus who thought they’re called “ammo clips” wouldn’t know that.

So why do I call Balloon Juice a shit hole? Because all of their writers are gun grabbing facists, apparently. They write shit like this;

Bernard Finel: If it were in my power, I’d seize every fucking firearm in the country other than revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles and melt them all down.

mistermix: If you must own an AR-15 or Bushmaster or AK-47, it should stay locked in your personal gun cabinet at the range, never to leave. If you change ranges, a bonded courier can take it to the new one. The same is true of the high-capacity clips for your Glock, your 100-round drum magazines, and all the other expensive toys that let you bang off a couple of dozen rounds in a minute. Yeah, that’s expensive and a nuisance. So are the laws surrounding other potentially unsafe pursuits.

Mistermix, my Glock uses high capacity magazines, not clips. The ammunition for my M4 is in clips until I put the bullets in the magazine. If you’re going to talk the language of gun control, learn the language of guns first.

After posting the Wikipedia entry for events leading up to the UK’s gun ban, Imani Gandy (ABL) posts this;

Am I suggesting that we ban handguns? No, not really. I am suggesting we have a sensible discussion about gun-control laws that leads to, as President Obama put it, meaningful action.

If you weren’t suggesting that we ban guns, why did you have to tell us that the UK banned guns because of an incident somewhat similar to Sandy Hook? Every leftist gun grabbing fascist on the internet is talking about “a sensible discussion”, but their discussion of a sensible discussion is senseless.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (935)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    Kurt Schlichter perfectly articulates the issues at hand here:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/12/17/lets-have-that-conversation-about-guns-n1468596

    And Glenn Reynolds offers the crucial questions that need to be asked if we’re going to have this “conversation” that the yellers and screamers claim to want:

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159800/

    “Why do people who favor gun-control call people who disagree with them murderers or accomplices to murder? Is that constructive?

    Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?

    When you say you hope that this event will finally change the debate, do you really mean that you hope you can use emotionalism and blood-libel-bullying to get your way on political issues that were losers in the past?

    If you’re a media member or politician, do you have armed security? Do you have a permit for a gun yourself? (I’m asking you Dianne Feinstein!) If so, what makes your life more valuable than other people’s?

    Do you know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Do your public statements reflect that difference?

    If guns cause murder, why have murder rates fallen as gun sales have skyrocketed?

    Have you talked about “Fast and Furious?”Do you even know what it is? Do you care less when brown people die?

    When you say that “we” need to change, how are you planning to change? Does your change involve any actual sacrifice on your part?

    Let me know when you’re ready to talk about these things. We’ll have a conversation.”

    I think Professor Reynolds’ questions are a great starting point.

  2. melle1228 says:

    @502 The only people talking like tough guys is you and your team -sweet pea. Read your post and smell the hypocrisy..

  3. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @502. Okay, everyone who clicked on Frank Zappa’s link raise your hand. Thought so. Post more, moron. We like to see you waste your time. And by the way, the guys who you think would be wetting themselves are the guys you should be thanking God for daily.

  4. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    melle,

    It’s classic projection, with a heaping lack of self-awareness. The whole schtick doesn’t work if the mental midget pseudo-dentist doesn’t get himself worked up into a nice foamy lather before he starts burning all the strawmen he took the time to set up.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    @507 PPR, if we’re lucky, maybe he’ll get so worked up, he’ll explode.

  6. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @507. I think he truly is a dentist. In my mind’s eye I can see him. He is sporting a plastic pocket protector and his mother is behind him yelling, “Why couldn’t you become a real doctor, like your cousin? She’s a real doctor. You’re a dentist!”

  7. 68W58 says:

    AirCav-http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundtracks/l/littleshopofhorrorslyrics/dentistlyrics.html

    “My boy, I think someday
    You’ll find a way
    To make your natural tendencies pay
    You’ll be a dentist
    You have a talent for causin’ things pain

  8. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @510. I wonder if he molests men or women when they are unconscious. Maybe both, huh?

  9. USMCE8Ret says:

    @510 – Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. is no dentist. He’s not listed anywhere. He does troll the internet alot, judging by his electronic imprint, and leaves noxious comments here like he does everywhere else.

  10. PintoNag says:

    Geeezz. NOW I know why I hate going to the dentist…

  11. Nik says:

    @512

    So, he’s the internet version of the cockroach. Hard to get rid of, you’re grossed out when you see them, and they don’t contribute anything.

  12. Hondo says:

    I guess Shakespeare really could foresee the future. He obviously must have been thinking about Mashtots’ comments above when he wrote: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    By the way: “Mashtots” is a rather interesting screen name. The word “mash” has been variously used to signify being sexually attracted towards (1870s through the 1950s or 1960s) and the process of getting stoned out of one’s mind using cannabis (today). The term “tots”, of course, is synonymous with “small children”.

    You think that maybe using the name “Mashtots” is a Freudian slip on his part – and he’s unconsciously trying to tell us he’s either a pedophile or a drug pusher who targets children?

  13. Nik says:

    @515

    Now see, I took Mashtots to mean one who mashes tots…like potatoes.

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    I don’t think he is a real dentist. Real dentists do not want anyone to be afraid of them.

    The acidic diatribe resembles something you might find coming out of a 13-year-old whose mom and dad don’t know what he’s really up to in his room with the door closed. And the name might be an anagram of his real name, too.

    Hmm. I shall work on that.

  15. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @515. You may be on to something there, Hondo. I thought that Mashtots was more than a little odd, too. I still think he may be a dentist. The D.D.S. may be the one item in his tag that actually is legit–the rest reflects his criminality or criminal fantasy.

  16. Hondo says:

    Nik: that’s another interpretation. But based on what I’ve seen from the tool, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out mine is closer to reality.

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    Or he could just be a pedo, as Hondo suggested.

  18. Hondo says:

    2-17 Air Cav: that would also fit. Some dentists use NOx, which incapacitates their patients by putting them under. And I seem to remember a few stories over the years of dentists using NOx getting in trouble for taking certain . . . “liberties” with their helpless patients.

  19. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, Hondo, where’s he coming from? There are several dentists around the Chicago area, from Indiana to Illinois, whose licenses have been suspended and revoked for taking indecent liberties with patients. One dentist was convicted of manslaughter for using too much anesthetic on an 8-year-old girl.

    So where’s he coming from?

  20. JP says:

    Hondo, you’re killing me

  21. JBS says:

    What if we said our weapons were for a collection–a hobby? Why do we need ARs or .44 magnums?–to complete the collection. We don’t infringe on others who choose a hobby, like collecting tatoos or rare coins. That wouldn’t be right now would it? And if I collected a weapon that was inoperable, well that would be like collecting a muscle car that didn’t run.

    I think what scares some is the fact that weapons CAN be used in self defence and keeping a secure home. A “bad” person breaking into your home robbing you (or worse) is just a misguded person looking to feed his/her family or in desperate need of money /sarc/ I think if we stick to the “It’s a collection” point of view, the nerdy left can appreciate that.

  22. DaveO says:

    I wonder if those union thugs in Michigan are regretting their promise to stalk and terrorize the Governor’s daughter? Or the union thugs who stampeded a Democrat banker’s lawn in order to terrorize his son.

    If Prognazis really cared about children, while they always attack the children first?

    As for me, 68 years ago Europeans and some Americans were present for an incredible mass shooting: the Battle of the Bulge. Then as now some of our fellow citizens earnestly wanted America to surrender to the forces of fascism and evil. 68 years ago we said no. Today we say no. Malmedy, Newtown – evil is evil and must be fought wherever, whenever it shows up.

    600

  23. mere mortal says:

    Starting with apologies.

    First, for bothering, I don’t know if I’ve ever changed anyone’s mind with a weblog comment. But, I don’t know if that fact has ever stopped me.

    Second, for the rude visitors from my community. I am a regular Balloon Juice reader, from both before and after Terry Schiavo turned John Cole from a man-the-barricades Republican into a liberal. I’ve made about two dozen comments to his site in the several years of reading, and almost all of them were to call him an idiot. He’s not.

    And third, for doing one of my typical comment and leave acts. It is remarkably unlikely that I will check back in to see responses to this. Any horrible things you say about me will have to be for your own edification. Again, sorry.

    It is unfortunate that what might have been a constructive conversation, or at least a conversation, has to be dominated by x-tards, y-nazis, whether a counterpary’s genitals are of appropriate dimensions, the skill of the possessor’s use of them, and of course the assumption that one’s opponent in argument is part of an undifferentiated group. But it is the Internet, so there you go.

    I wouldn’t have even bothered, but I kind of recognize you guys here, and it is your place, and the BJ members are being rude. Just about everyone is horrified by what happened Friday, and there are a lot of rescue fantasies going around. So, this is a tough spot for both sides (two of the skrillion sides?) of this issue. The x-tards are dreaming of shooting the guy down in the school lobby, and the sub-optimal genital people are going to make sure nothing like this ever, ever, ever happens again. Or maybe it’s the other way around, I didn’t bring my Rorschach blots nor do I have any desire to look down anyone’s pants.

    About you guys. I get the desire to have guns. Haven’t bought one yet, and I’ve seen the statistics that say having a gun makes you vastly more likely to die from one, but you eventually get to a point in your life where the things you want to try to protect are far more important than your personal safety. My dearest friends have guns, some have lots of them. One of my best friends (Navy) owns multiple AR-15′s, he keeps one on top of a bookshelf on a tripod (or whatever you call that thing that holds the barrel up while the butt rests). What I don’t recognize is the glee of expertise, no one I know would taunt someone for using an inappropriate synonym (clip vs. magazine). But it seems to make sense to several here. I also don’t quite get the “I do because I can” sentiment. That one is a bit lost on me as well. Why would you consider buying the CitySlayer 200 round clip (magazine? Pro-tip: I don’t care) just because it is the largest magazine legally available?

    It seems the core of the communication breakdown is that everyone assumes the other fellow is in extremis, or is in extremis in fact. Either all the guns got to go or any weapon allowed to the state should be allowed to the citizen. Some of the y-nazis believe the former, but no one believes the latter. No one argues that they should be allowed to keep and bear doomsday devices. Do they? And another core (does that mean that this is an ellipse?) is the unbounded middle. y-nazis say guns kill, no guns. The poor-sexual-performance people say that since a frying pan can kill, there’s no problem keeping several AK-47′s hanging on the pot rack. Again, might be backwards, not peeking into anyone’s bedroom or reading their political literature.

    Some sick kid, my bet is schizophrenia since 20 is near the sweet spot for onset, had weapons training in high velocity automatic weapons and access to those weapons when his insanity manifested. An unmedicated schizophrenic with those tools is simply a worse-than-worst-case worst case scenario.

    But we can’t seem to talk about that or how to make that scenario less likely going forward, as we are too busy talking around each other, or down at each other. It makes me haz a sad.

    P.S.: I intentionally put one grammar error in this comment. Enjoy.

  24. Ex-PH2 says:

    Here is another interview with Marsha Lanza, done today:

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8923854

    The interesting part of strongarm’s meme is that there is nothing in the article linked into the TPM entry that says one word about Nancy Lanza being involved in doomsday twaddle or being a prepper.

  25. Confused says:

    @ 346
    Certainly nobody needs the internet to express their 1st amendment rights. And if a certain facet of the internet was used to put the public in danger, then I imagine that it would be perfectly reasonable to consider regulating it. After all your first amendment right is not absolute. In fact there are laws against cyber-bullying.
    You really haven’t addressed my sincere question. Do automatic weapons or high capacity mags serve a real purpose? or do you just want them because you think they’re cool? Mind you I’m not knocking you if you think they’re cool. (cause I think it would be pretty cool to have a Tommy gun) I’m just saying that maybe as a society we should look at the prospective cost and decide that maybe those things serve no practical purpose and should not be available.

  26. Nik says:

    @526

    “P.S.: I intentionally put one grammar error in this comment. Enjoy.”

    Does that mean the others are unintentional?

    Kidding. You seem reasonable.

    1. Clip vs Magazine. If someone is going to claim to be a high-speed low-drag badass and they get the nomenclature of their tools of the trade wrong, they’re going to get ridiculed. That’s no different from someone claiming to be a NASCAR champion and saying “gear shifty thing”.

    2. Because I can. You may not identify with the “why” of such a theoretical CitySlayer 200. Is that relevant? I don’t understand the “why” of Honey Boo-Boo. I absolutely don’t disagree with their right to indulge in it. A friend of mine collects Swiss army knives. I don’t see the attraction in them, but I pick one up if I find one that I don’t think he has yet.

    Yes, everything is taken to the extreme. Is that in any way surprising? Take a look around this country. We have people getting killed over what gender they prefer. We have people getting beat up over what team they cheer for. Extreme demonization on the Internet, just because they don’t agree with you, doesn’t shock me.

  27. Nik says:

    @528

    Yes. They do serve a purpose.

    If I find my home being robbed and pull my trusty two-shot derringer only to find out my opponent is armed with a TEC-9, I’m on the losing end of that little contest. And the stakes are crazy high in that circumstance.

  28. Hondo says:

    Ex-PH2: Mashtots isn’t one of the pervert dentists in your neck of the woods. Unless he’s one who moved to Northern VA near DC after getting busted, that is.

  29. Confused says:

    @ 386
    Sorry Old Trooper but you miss the point. It’s all about sensible regulations. I ask what purpose is served by high capacity magazines? Would not having them affect you in any way? Other than you want something you can’t have.
    As far as the difference between arms and explosives, your an idiot if you think the 2nd amendment is only about guns. It was about having the citizenry armed so that it could effectively raise up a militia, (and that is being kind in it’s definition) because there was a debate about having a standing military at the time. Thus, it wasn’t just referring to guns, but weaponry in general, including explosives. If you want to be strict on the second amendment then you must recognize that the right to bear arms would include all weaponry.
    The reason you can’t find ammo for a cannon is that it is regulated. If you argue that you can’t regulate guns, then you can’t argue that other “arms” can be regulated. Because you define arms as guns, doesn’t mean that the 2nd amendment does. Because clearly they included cannons and explosives that were used in that time.

  30. Ex-PH2 says:

    @531 – Ah Ha! Well, it was just a thought. Fairfax, perhaps? Clifton? Centreville? Seven Corners or Reston? Clifton and Centreville are kind of out the DC area — both are 10++ miles outside the Beltway. Maybe Alexandria? Or Arlington Mill Run? All of that used to be my stomping grounds. It’s changed a bit, but not all that much.

    If mashtaters shows up again, let’s try to pinpoint him.

  31. Confused says:

    @ 530
    Yes because the argument is that you should only be allowed to have a 2 shot derringer. What a silly reply. You really want to pretend that only having regular capacity clips would prevent you from effectively defending yourself?

  32. Old Trooper says:

    @534: Why do the police need high capacity magazines (not clips, chet)?

  33. Nik says:

    @534

    That’s not what I said. I used two extremes to illustrate a point.

    A high-capacity, high-caliber, high-rate of fire weapon (-which incidentally is exactly the type of thing people are calling for banning…which ensures only criminals will have them) absolutely outclasses even a less modest weapon.

    If you’re defending your home, don’t you want access to the best weapon you can (legally) have?

  34. Ben Hammer says:

    The correct thing to do when you’ve printed a post full of bogus idiocy about a veteran’s service is to admit that you effed up. Otherwise, everything else you write will be laughed at and ignored.

    If you had any brains, you’d realize that doing so would instantly give you cred as a dependable source who admits it when he’s screwed up. Instead, you’ve won 5 minutes of fame on the internutz for continuing to screw the pooch when your factual errors were easily disproven. And yes, numbnuts, many of us qualified with the Beretta at initial training (in my case, at IOBC in Ft Benning all the way back in 1988 before it was even issued Army-wide) and then were issued .45s in every unit we served in, whether in the US or Europe, for the next 5 years.

  35. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    534,

    20 and 30 round magazines are “regular capacity”. It’s quite frankly nobody’s business if the weapons are kept/used lawfully and responsibly (which they are in 99.99% of US gun ownership, as evidenced by the number of privately owned guns vice gun-related death rate).

    You also seem to know very little of the weapons in question, since “automatic weapons” are heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and any that were manufactured after 1986 are banned from civilian possession.

    Most of what you argued in 386 is a moot point because the laws are already there with “automatic weapons”. The point here is that the definition of “reasonable” continues to be whittled down by confiscationists every time their unworkable magic fixes don’t work. When the last “sensible” law was destined for failure and didn’t work, the definition is changed to suit the underlying desires of the control freaks and label those who disagree with them (who were previously quite reasonable under their former standards) as “unreasonable” in Orwellian newspeak.

  36. Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. says:

    You guys are real sleuths, aren’t you? Since you’re so fascinated, no, I’m not a dentist. Saint Mesrop Mashtots, sometimes romanized as Maštoc’, was the guy who invented the Armenian alphabet. I’m not Armenian, I’m no saint. I just thought the name was a funny one. You might disagree, but I don’t give a shit. It’s funny.

    And I still want to know why you heroes won’t do your fucking self-appointed job and stop one of these massacres. What good are you assholes with your penis extensions if you won’t even use them for anything other than something to jerk off to?

  37. Old Trooper says:

    @532: Fuck you. The 2nd Amendment, as pertaining to militias, was about getting to the battle quickly, by grabbing your rifle, shot, and other misc. supplies that you could carry. Not for bringing the cannons from your bedroom. With that, you are the idiot.

    As for sensible regulations; don’t we have enough of them, already? Quit fixating on the gun and “high capacity magazines” and look at the problem, which isn’t the gun, but the person using it. 90 million law abiding gun owners killed no one on Friday. Chicago has “sensible gun regulations” and is a shooting gallery. Go check the stats on gun related murders in that town for just this year. The only reason the shooting in CT, or Aurora, or even Virginia Tech make the news and give the anti-gunners a butt rash is because of the loss of life at one time, instead of cumulative. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it preventable? Not until we have an honest discussion about the cause, not the effect. The gun is an inanimate object, it doesn’t have a thought, conscience, or an agenda. Maybe we need to concentrate on the person holding the gun/knife/baseball bat/garden sprayer? Yeah, criminals in Colorado used a garden sprayer filled with a flammable liquid to stick the nozzle under the glass at a check cashing place and sprayed down the clerk and counter and then lit it on fire. Do we regulate garden sprayers? Do we regulate flammable liquids? How about lighters and matches? How about deaths due to drunk drivers? Where are the calls to have that discussion? More people are killed every year from drunk drivers than guns, so obviously, the sensible thing we need to do is get rid of high capacity booze bottles.

  38. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    Correction, that should be 532 & 534 for the flawed and fallacious arguments of “confused”.

  39. melle1228 says:

    >>>And I still want to know why you heroes won’t do your fucking self-appointed job and stop one of these massacres. What good are you assholes with your penis extensions if you won’t even use them for anything other than something to jerk off to??.>>>>

    THere’s that tough guy talk again..

  40. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @539. We say you are a dentist and a pedophile, tater.

  41. USMCE8Ret says:

    For those “gun-control” guru’s out there who are still hung up on the whole “well regulated militia” thing, stating nonsense like the founding fathers never intended for 20 kids to get killed, I would offer this history lesson on that:

    First of all, the crime of the day back then was relative to the time. There were no “semi-automatic” weapons back then, but they still had their share of crime – and mass murder, too.

    In an article found in the New Bern North Carolina Gazette, a story from July 7, 1775 reported that “‘a Demoniac’ shot three people and wounded a fourth with a sword, before being shot by others.” Back in those days, organized law enforcement didn’t exist (not as such as we have today), so who was responsible for maintaing good order and discipline? Yes, it was anyone considered part of a militia (able bodied men, ages 17 to 46). They were the law abiding citizens, who had guns handy and killed the lunatic so he wouldn’t rack up a greater body count.

  42. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hondo, now we know: mashtaters is NOT a dentist, he is just faking being one; he’s still obsessed with the dimensions of other people’s private parts; and he likes making fun of/abusing the names of saints.

    Sounds like a social moron, if there ever was one.

  43. Old Trooper says:

    @539: You’re a real fucking gem, too, since several of us have provided examples where an armed citizen did stop a massacre, but that doesn’t fit your narrative, so you ignore it and continue bleating like a fucking 8th grade graduate. Pull your head out of your ass, because your brain needs oxygen.

  44. Jonn Lilyea says:

    539, I guess you missed the news about the guy with a CCW license in Portland who stopped a massacre in a mall this weekend. Funny how when there’s no massacre, no one is interested.

  45. PowerPoint Ranger says:

    I think he just likes any chance he can find to reference penis extensions. He’s definitely a minor example of why mental institutions could provide societal benefit.

  46. Confused says:

    @535
    The same reason that our military does. Because in their profession, they literally seek out situations that put them in harm’s way. Allowing one specific segment of society to have access to something does not mean it should be available to the public at large.
    Again, give me a plausible situation wherein you would need to have a high capacity magazine? And if one exists does it’s likelihood outweigh societies “right” to not have these magazines easily accessible?
    By the way, your concentration on the semantics of calling something a clip, instead of a magazine is simply sophomoric. Apparently, if someone doesn’t use your preferred nomenclature than their argument is void, even if you know exactly what they were referring to. The fact that you try to use it to nullify another’s stance just proves how hollow your argument is. It’s as moronic as saying that somebody’s argument isn’t valid because their spelling, or punctuation is poor. (unless you’re arguing about spelling or punctuation) Obviously you knew exactly what I was writing about. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to understand the difference between arms and guns as it relates to the 2nd amendment.

  47. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    I can’t believe this site would allow a pedophile or a dentist to comment on it! And here we have both in the same commenter! I am aghast and, truth be known, crestfallen.

  48. Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. says:

    Hey, I’m not the one claiming to be Dirty Harry here. I don’t want to shoot anybody. You guys are the ones who seem to think you have something to prove by waving your guns around.

    And, what are you guys going to do when you find out where I live? You’re warm, I’ll give you that. But what are you going to do if and when you narrow it down to my street address? Come shoot me? Shoot my family and my dog, too? Or are you going to call the police to turn me in for, I don’t know, calling you mean names and impersonating a dentist in the intertubes? I’d really rather you didn’t come shoot at me, but if you want to alert the police to my perfidious internet name-calling, then have at it.

  49. melle1228 says:

    I feel so left out. You all have these penis extenders that the denist talk about and I don’t have one. Just a thought: do I need an actual penis to use one? :)

  50. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Damn child molester. I hope he uses the same screen name at other sites so they’ll know too!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *