No ma'am, I won't register my guns

1246734

Comments

  • unsung wrote:
    :corn: :corn: :corn:

    that much popcorn isn't good for you.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    I don’t believe the crooks, bureaucrats  and tyrants in Washington DC should take our guns or neuter or 2nd amendment rights
     
    Speak up!!


    Woot



    Exactly.
  • usamamasan1usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    I am afraid this is the direction the leftists and liberals are taking us on the second amendment rights.






    You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

    Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

    At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.


    With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

    You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...

    In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
    One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

    When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

    The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

    One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door

    and lurches outside.

    As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

    In your country, most guns were outlawed years before,

    and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

    Yours was never registered..

    Police arrive and inform you

    that the second burglar has died.

    They arrest you for First Degree Murder

    and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

    When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:

    authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

    "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

    "Only ten-to-twelve years,"

    he replies, as if that's nothing.

    "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

    The next day, the shooting is the lead

    story in the local newspaper.

    Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

    Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

    Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

    But the next day's headline says it all:

    "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

    The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

    As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

    The national media picks it up,

    then the international media.
    The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

    Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

    The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and

    that you've been critical of local police for their lack

    of effort in apprehending the suspects.

    After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

    The District Attorney uses this to allege

    that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

    A few months later, you go to trial.

    The charges haven't been reduced,

    as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

    When you take the stand, your anger at

    the injustice of it all works against you..

    Prosecutors paint a picture of you

    as a mean, vengeful man.

    It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

    The judge sentences you to life in prison.


    This case really happened.


    On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

    In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

    How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

    It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.


    This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and

    established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

    The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

    Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and

    mandated the registration of all shotguns.

    Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

    Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw.
    When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

    The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

    (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

    Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,

    Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

    For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

    Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

    Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

    The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's

    still owned by private citizens.

    During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,

    the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

    Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,

    claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

    Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

    Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

    "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

    All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,
    and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
    who had no fear of the consequences.
    Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
    had seen most of his collection
    trashed or stolen by burglars.

    When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
    citizens who owned handguns
    were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

    Being good British subjects,
    most people obeyed the law.
    The few who didn't were visited by police
    and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

    Police later bragged that they'd taken
    nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

    How did the authorities know who had handguns?
    The guns had been registered and licensed.
    Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

    WAKE UP AMERICA;

    THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

    "...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
    --Samuel Adams

    If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know..


    You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done.

    And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    ofcourse its the government's right to know what you own..
    you need to pay taxis for what you own


    I guess the government should know what porn every citizen owns too? As we know, criminal sex offenders also have huge stashes of pornography as well. I guess then every legal citizen, in spite of prior convictions, should be forced to register every single piece of pornography they own...then the government could better monitor these potential predators and criminals with much higher accuracy.


    And this is just a point I'm making. I am not stating you didmitris does or does not possess porn. I don't care. That's everyone's own personal business, just like owning a firearm legally.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    edited January 2013
    With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

    Umm.... I'm hearing from all 'proud and loud' gun owners that such gun owners are RESPONSIBLE gun owners, own their guns RESPONSIBLY and store them SAFELY, thus won't be stolen, used by others for 'nasties', taken 'by accident', etc. This is the mantra we hear on these threads - proud gun owners with their guns locked up and ammo locked up elsewhere. No problems.

    So where does having a loaded gun or a gun and your ammo right next to your bed, within reach and readily available when you are half awake come into being RESPONSIBLE and SAFE gun owner?

    Just an observation....
    Post edited by redrock on
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    um, wasn't Bentleyspop being sarcastic?

    O.k, I missed that. It's becoming difficult to tell the difference between whacked-out paranoid gibberish, and sarcasm here on AMT lately.
  • "With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun."

    What kind of brain-tard moron keeps a loaded shot gun next to their bed and uses it while half awake?
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    um, wasn't Bentleyspop being sarcastic?

    O.k, I missed that. It's becoming difficult to tell the difference between whacked-out paranoid gibberish, and sarcasm here on AMT lately.
    you are so right about that...there is a paranoid lately here...
    bananas,farts,eyelook,slaping,cars,airplanes,drinks,sex toys are the same bad as bullets and guns for some responsible gun owners lovers..
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    you are so right about that...there is a paranoid lately here...
    bananas,farts,eyelook,slaping,cars,airplanes,drinks,sex toys are the same bad as bullets and guns for some responsible gun owners lovers..


    I guess as some proponents of increased gun legislation have stated on these boards..."the numbers don't lie". I say track everything and over regulate it. That's definitely the answer. Infringing on legal and law abiding citizen's own personal rights will definitely stop the criminal element. It's quite apparent that is the solution.
  • "With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun."

    What kind of brain-tard moron keeps a loaded shot gun next to their bed and uses it while half awake?
    Its the responsible gun owners that have them safe locked ..blah blah...
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    "With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun."

    What kind of brain-tard moron keeps a loaded shot gun next to their bed and uses it while half awake?
    Its the responsible gun owners that have them safe locked ..blah blah...


    I would say all of the responsible gun owners have them locked tonight.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    DS1119 wrote:
    I say track everything and over regulate it. That's definitely the answer. Infringing on legal and law abiding citizen's own personal rights will definitely stop the criminal element. It's quite apparent that is the solution.

    How does regulating the sale of guns and taking semi-automatic weapons off the streets constitute 'over regulating' anything?
    Oh and legal, law abiding citizen's own personal rights have fuck all to do with the need to regulate guns and ban semi-automatic weapons. But then none of your children were killed at Newtown, or at any of the other gun massacres in the U.S, so why should you give a flying fuck about them, or about the next round of victims, right?
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Byrnzie wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    I say track everything and over regulate it. That's definitely the answer. Infringing on legal and law abiding citizen's own personal rights will definitely stop the criminal element. It's quite apparent that is the solution.

    How does regulating the sale of guns and taking semi-automatic weapons off the streets constitute 'over regulating' anything?
    Oh and legal, law abiding citizen's own personal rights have fuck all to do with the need to regulate guns and ban semi-automatic weapons. But then none of your children were killed at Newtown, or at any of the other gun massacres in the U.S, so why should you give a flying fuck about them, or about the next round of victims, right?


    Because anyone who thinks over regulating the sales of these weapons to law abiding citizens will take them off of the streets is living in a fantasy world.

    Did you know that on average 37 people lost their lives tonight to drunk drivers? Happens every night to. A lot of legislation and restrictions on car ownership but it still happens. I guess to stop that we need to tighten the regualtions on the legal drivers. If we al gave up some more individual rights it will definitely stop the criminial element. Makes sense.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    DS1119 wrote:
    Because anyone who thinks over regulating the sales of these weapons to law abiding citizens will take them off of the streets is living in a fantasy world.

    Did you know that on average 37 people lost their lives tonight to drunk drivers? Happens every night to. A lot of legislation and restrictions on car ownership but it still happens. I guess to stop that we need to tighten the regualtions on the legal drivers. If we al gave up some more individual rights it will definitely stop the criminial element. Makes sense.

    Except nobody's mentioned over-regulating anything. That's just a convenient little fantasy you've concocted in your head that has nothing to do with reality.
    And your selfish, self-serving fantasy also has nothing to do trying to put an end to the daily occurrence of gun deaths in the U.S, and the regular occurrence of gun massacres.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Byrnzie wrote:
    And your selfish, self-serving fantasy also has nothing to do trying to put an end to the daily occurrence of gun deaths in the U.S, and the regular occurrence of gun massacres.



    Not a fantasy at all. Nothing will stop criminals except a stronger police force and increased criminal prosecution. Anyone who thinks somehow banning rifle sales in the US to legal citizens will keep these weapons out of ciminals hands is definitely living in a fantasy world.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    DS1119 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    And your selfish, self-serving fantasy also has nothing to do trying to put an end to the daily occurrence of gun deaths in the U.S, and the regular occurrence of gun massacres.



    Not a fantasy at all. Nothing will stop criminals except a stronger police force and increased criminal prosecution. Anyone who thinks somehow banning rifle sales in the US to legal citizens will keep these weapons out of ciminals hands is definitely living in a fantasy world.

    Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, and Adam Lanza at Newtown, weren't criminals prior to carrying out a massacre. And Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold also weren't criminals. So how does that fit into your scheme of things?

    Maybe hard-core criminals - drug dealers, gang members - will manage to get their hands on semi-automatic weapons. But that has little to do with preventing the regular occurrence of gun massacres in the U.S.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Byrnzie wrote:
    DS1119 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    And your selfish, self-serving fantasy also has nothing to do trying to put an end to the daily occurrence of gun deaths in the U.S, and the regular occurrence of gun massacres.



    Not a fantasy at all. Nothing will stop criminals except a stronger police force and increased criminal prosecution. Anyone who thinks somehow banning rifle sales in the US to legal citizens will keep these weapons out of ciminals hands is definitely living in a fantasy world.

    Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, and Adam Lanza at Newtown, weren't criminals prior to carrying out a massacre. And Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold also weren't criminals. So how does that fit into your scheme of things?

    Maybe hard-core criminals - drug dealers, gang members - will manage to get their hands on semi-automatic weapons. But that has little to do with preventing the regular occurrence of gun massacres in the U.S.



    "Regular occurrence of gun massacres".....love that phraseology. Makes it sound so dramatic. :roll:


    How about for DWI related deaths people start referring to it as the "systematic extermination of the innocent"?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    DS1119 wrote:
    "Regular occurrence of gun massacres".....love that phraseology. Makes it sound so dramatic. :roll:

    Yep, because 21 primary school children being mown down with an automatic weapon isn't in any way dramatic. I mean, they weren't your children after all.

    DS1119 wrote:
    How about for DWI related deaths people start referring to it as the "systematic extermination of the innocent"?

    Because it's nothing of the sort.

    Are you denying that gun massacres in the U.S are a regular occurrence? Go on, deny it. Remind us again how you're completely cut off from the real World.
  • DS1119 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    And your selfish, self-serving fantasy also has nothing to do trying to put an end to the daily occurrence of gun deaths in the U.S, and the regular occurrence of gun massacres.



    Not a fantasy at all. Nothing will stop criminals except a stronger police force and increased criminal prosecution. Anyone who thinks somehow banning rifle sales in the US to legal citizens will keep these weapons out of ciminals hands is definitely living in a fantasy world.

    who said anything about banning rifle sales? are you just arguing with yourself now?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • I am afraid this is the direction the leftists and liberals are taking us on the second amendment rights.






    You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

    Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

    At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.


    With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

    You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...

    In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
    One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

    When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

    The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

    One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door

    and lurches outside.

    As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

    In your country, most guns were outlawed years before,

    and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

    Yours was never registered..

    Police arrive and inform you

    that the second burglar has died.

    They arrest you for First Degree Murder

    and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

    When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:

    authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

    "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

    "Only ten-to-twelve years,"

    he replies, as if that's nothing.

    "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

    The next day, the shooting is the lead

    story in the local newspaper.

    Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

    Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

    Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

    But the next day's headline says it all:

    "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

    The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

    As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

    The national media picks it up,

    then the international media.
    The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

    Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

    The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and

    that you've been critical of local police for their lack

    of effort in apprehending the suspects.

    After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

    The District Attorney uses this to allege

    that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

    A few months later, you go to trial.

    The charges haven't been reduced,

    as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

    When you take the stand, your anger at

    the injustice of it all works against you..

    Prosecutors paint a picture of you

    as a mean, vengeful man.

    It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

    The judge sentences you to life in prison.


    This case really happened.


    On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

    In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

    How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

    It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.


    This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and

    established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

    The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

    Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and

    mandated the registration of all shotguns.

    Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

    Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw.
    When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

    The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

    (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

    Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,

    Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

    For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

    Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

    Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

    The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's

    still owned by private citizens.

    During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,

    the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

    Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,

    claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

    Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

    Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

    "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

    All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,
    and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
    who had no fear of the consequences.
    Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
    had seen most of his collection
    trashed or stolen by burglars.

    When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
    citizens who owned handguns
    were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

    Being good British subjects,
    most people obeyed the law.
    The few who didn't were visited by police
    and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

    Police later bragged that they'd taken
    nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

    How did the authorities know who had handguns?
    The guns had been registered and licensed.
    Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

    WAKE UP AMERICA;

    THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

    "...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
    --Samuel Adams

    If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know..


    You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done.

    And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

    are you taking credit for this? what exactly are the details of the case? or is that why you failed to provide the link to the specific case?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    unsung wrote:
    :corn: :corn: :corn:

    that much popcorn isn't good for you.



    Probably not. But guess what, my loaded gun didn't kill anyone AGAIN last night. How is that possible?



    Actually I am waiting for dimitri to explain further his comment about UN troops. Does he think that they should be on US soil?
  • unsung wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    :corn: :corn: :corn:

    that much popcorn isn't good for you.



    Probably not. But guess what, my loaded gun didn't kill anyone AGAIN last night. How is that possible?



    Actually I am waiting for dimitri to explain further his comment about UN troops. Does he think that they should be on US soil?

    it might if you continue to keep it loaded on your nightstand, you responsible gun owner, you.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I guess someone better not break in to my house and threaten me then.


    But back to those UN troops.......
  • unsung wrote:
    But guess what, my loaded gun didn't kill anyone AGAIN last night. How is that possible?

    guess what, Adam Lanza didn't kill any children until he got a loaded gun. How is that possible?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Are you actually comparing me to him?
  • unsung wrote:
    [

    Actually I am waiting for dimitri to explain further his comment about UN troops. Does he think that they should be on US soil?
    i didnt make that comment...i said was very smart comment,cos was very smart the sarcasm..
    but i can answer as well
    USA dont need UN troops on US soil...
    USA need to bring the USA troops back home of the wars US dont have any fuckin business to get involved and the same time to find the way to stop letting Rambo killing people at schools and movie theater
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    Picking and choosing which laws to follow is not conservative. 'nuff said.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV wrote:
    Picking and choosing which laws to follow is not conservative. 'nuff said.
    no, but somehow a different buzzword gets used in its place. like "patriot", or "rugged individualist"....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    JimmyV wrote:
    Picking and choosing which laws to follow is not conservative. 'nuff said.
    no, but somehow a different buzzword gets used in its place. like "patriot", or "rugged individualist"....

    I will make sure "criminal" is used to describe anyone who willfully and knowingly breaks American gun law whenever and wherever I can.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Picking and choosing which laws to follow is not conservative. 'nuff said.
    no, but somehow a different buzzword gets used in its place. like "patriot", or "rugged individualist"....

    I will make sure "criminal" is used to describe anyone who willfully and knowingly breaks American gun law whenever and wherever I can.
    i blame Hollywood...they confusing people minds,what a "Hero" means...
    no people..isnt the guy who kills the most...its not!!
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Sign In or Register to comment.