|
GUN LAW
Nov 11, 2004 14:13:59 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Nov 11, 2004 14:13:59 GMT -5
THU. NOV. 11/2004/15:15 E.S.T.
Those of you who oppose THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATIONTM & The 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America might want to avoid reading the following article:Gun laws are aimed at wrong target, says expert By Alun Rees and John Steele (Filed: 01/11/2004) news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/01/ngun01.xmlBritain's gun laws are aimed at the wrong target, curbing and criminalising legal ownership while failing to tackle huge rises in shooting offences over the past few years, according to an international firearms legislation expert. Prof Gary Mauser said that Britain was making the same mistake as Canada and Australia in focusing on legal owners - a section of the law-abiding community where gun crimes, such as the Dunblane massacre, were aberrations. The Home Office and police chiefs should instead tackle the possession of guns in criminal hands, said Prof Mauser, a member of the independent Fraser Institute in Canada. He has given evidence to select committees of the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate and predicted the escalation of gun crime on Britain's streets. His warning comes as gun crime incidents are averaging about 29 a day in England and Wales, more than twice the level of when the Labour Government came to power in 1997. In the past two years, there have been cases of schoolchildren and a baby, killed or injured by guns. "I believe that factors of political correctness are at work," he said. "Police crackdowns, Home Office initiatives and over-regulation of legally held weapons create froth and they may even fool the police themselves into believing they are doing something about gun crime." Prof Mauser added: "The sad truth is that while the police officers are inspecting farmers' gun cabinets to see if they comply with regulations somewhere in the UK, someone, who has not filled in a firearms certificate form, will be smuggling a gun into the country or selling one to an inner city youth." Recorded gun crime rose by three per cent to 10,590 incidents in the year to June. Two-thirds of gun crime takes place in London, Birmingham and Manchester. Many of the offences are linked to the crack cocaine trade, and the activities of a core of black youths immersed in the Yardie-style criminal world. But there has also been a clear trend of younger generations in other criminal gangs, such as the Turkish/Kurdish and south Asian, to turn to weapons to settle scores.
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Nov 11, 2004 15:00:16 GMT -5
Post by ladytass2001 on Nov 11, 2004 15:00:16 GMT -5
Could it be? oh HALLELUJAH!! Someone, somewhere is finally getting the point. Taking gun's away from ordinary law abiding citizens(as I modestly consider myself) Is WRONG!! The problem is not and never has been with such people. It has been and alway's will be with the people who are NOT the ordinary citizen,but the criminals. If the police forces of the world would actually turn their eye's and ears to the actual problems that exist such as terrorists,gunsmugglers,drug dealers, gangsters and fanatics than MAYBE,just maybe,if they worked together to stop these factions it might make a difference. Taking the legal gun's away will not do any good,especially since it isn't the legal registered weapon's that are being used to commit such crime's. It isn't the owners of such weapon's that are committing these crime's,so how in frellings sake is taking away our gun's helping? all it is doing is depriving us of our rights and freedom's as guaranteed by our fore fathers blood sweat and tears. as one of my favorite actor's recited "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Nov 14, 2004 14:19:11 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Nov 14, 2004 14:19:11 GMT -5
Could it be? oh HALLELUJAH!! Someone, somewhere is finally getting the point. Taking gun's away from ordinary law abiding citizens(as I modestly consider myself) Is WRONG!! The problem is not and never has been with such people. It has been and alway's will be with the people who are NOT the ordinary citizen,but the criminals. If the police forces of the world would actually turn their eye's and ears to the actual problems that exist such as terrorists,gunsmugglers,drug dealers, gangsters and fanatics than MAYBE,just maybe,if they worked together to stop these factions it might make a difference. Taking the legal gun's away will not do any good,especially since it isn't the legal registered weapon's that are being used to commit such crime's. It isn't the owners of such weapon's that are committing these crime's,so how in frellings sake is taking away our gun's helping? all it is doing is depriving us of our rights and freedom's as guaranteed by our fore fathers blood sweat and tears. as one of my favorite actor's recited "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" SUN. NOV. 14/2004/15:21 E.S.T.
LADYTASS,
I grok the fullness of the totality!
MR. CHARLTON HESTON is a bloke whom I should like to buy a drink, 1 day soon. www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5032285.shtmlNew laws aim to ban shops from selling knives Glasgow Evening Times NEW laws banning high street shops from selling assault knives, machetes and other weapons could be introduced by the end of next year. Sales of replica guns will also be banned because they can be converted into useable firearms. First Minister Jack McConnell has been in talks with chief constables on how to combat the rising level of knife crime, which is at its highest level for 10 years. There will also be tougher sentencing powers for knife assaults, and a proposal to give police random stop and search powers is being considered. The age at which young people can buy household knives and axes may also rise from 16 to 18. A commitment to review the law and enforcement on knife crimes was part of the Executive's Partnership Agreement. An Executive spokesperson said: "We are looking at existing legislation to determine whether it is sufficiently robust and flexible to respond to the illegal use and carriage of knives. "Related to that work, we also plan to consult on proposals to increase the powers of our record number of police officers to deal with knife and violent crime." Details of the new proposals are expected to be revealed in a parliamentary Bill early next year. Over the past four years the number of incidents involving knives has risen by 350%, and in Glasgow alone 7500 people were victims of knife crime last year. Under current legislation, councils can ban market traders from selling non-household knives but have no power to prevent their sale in high street shops. The Evening Times was praised in the Scottish Parliament for campaigning for a crackdown on knife attacks and violence on the streets. Glasgow's growing problem was highlighted in the Scottish Parliament by Shettleston MSP Frank McAveety after four men were killed in his constituency in a weekend of violence last month. During First Minister's Questions he produced photographs of makeshift weapons, including scissor blades taped to a broom handle, to demonstrate the extent of the problem. Mr McConnell said then that ministers were looking at strengthening laws on the sale and carrying of knives, increasing police powers and strengthening sentences as soon as possible. Among the shops affected by the new law would be Victor Morris whose owner Martin Morris describes his stock as "sporting and collectable" items. He said the new measures would be pointless and that most knife crime involved kitchen knives. Mr McAveety said today: "The quicker we strengthen the law the better. "Many attacks are carried out using domestic knives but a belt and braces approach with rigorous controls over shops which sell dangerous weapons is needed."
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Nov 14, 2004 16:55:10 GMT -5
Post by ladytass2001 on Nov 14, 2004 16:55:10 GMT -5
And again what good is going to do? If the wrong people are willing to use them they are still going to get them. Taking them away from the ordinary citizen is still not going to do any good. When are the powers that be going to learn the truth?
I am also wondering what they plan on "monitoring" next? Beware anyone with a garden hoe, or farm implements as they can be considered "weapons". Where is the insanity going to stop?
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
GUN LAW
Nov 14, 2004 22:54:32 GMT -5
Post by spike on Nov 14, 2004 22:54:32 GMT -5
THU. NOV. 11/2004/15:15 E.S.T.
Those of you who oppose THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATIONTM & The 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America might want to avoid reading the following article:Gun laws are aimed at wrong target, says expert By Alun Rees and John Steele (Filed: 01/11/2004) news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/01/ngun01.xmlBritain's gun laws are aimed at the wrong target, curbing and criminalising legal ownership while failing to tackle huge rises in shooting offences over the past few years, according to an international firearms legislation expert. Prof Gary Mauser said that Britain was making the same mistake as Canada and Australia in focusing on legal owners - a section of the law-abiding community where gun crimes, such as the Dunblane massacre, were aberrations. Malcolm, I have to admit I have mixed feelings on this issue. As a longtime hunting longarms owner, I've often wondered about some of my guncollecting friends that own handguns, which to my mind are solely designed and manufactured with "killing humans" in mind, and I see no real reason why civilians would need to own them. I have similar feelings about private ownership of military weapons (M-16s, AK-47s (both Hungarian and Chinese made) et al) and weapons based on those arms (AR-15s, Ruger Mini-14s ("sporterized" or not), et al). They're fun to fire, and I've done so, but I'm sure rocket-launchers and tanks are fun to fire too, and I certainly wouldn't advocate private ownership or either. I understand our current Canadian laws regarding firearms ownership, and respect them. I've registered all of my weapons, they are kept under lock and key out of sight (you'd be lucky to even *find* my gunsafe in my home, it's that well hidden). I also understand the NRA's stance looking at the current British laws, which are admittedly over the top, banning private ownership of practically *any* firearm. But the NRA's stand of "I should be able to own any weapon' goes too far in my mind. "Personal defence" isn't a justifiable reason for applying for a firearms license in Canada (I personally know an acquaintance in the US that filled his girlfriend with .375 holes mistaking her for a burgler... she was lucky to survive the incident), and handguns and automatic weapons are useless/stupid/dangerous in a hunting situation. Your "Dunblane" reference hit a nerve, adding to my mixed feelings... Several years ago when I was a field tech I was having lunch in the Fairview Mall foodcourt. I was wearing a Canadian NATO helicopter pilot jacket with a "Ontario Handgun Assoc." patch sewn on the shoulder (that a friend had given me). I had a gentleman approach me and ask about the patch. I was friendly in my response, but soon found myself subject to an unbelievably profane rant about Dunblane and that it was "all the fault of people like you". I admit that I lost control and shouted obscenities right back, mostly focussed on leaving me alone to eat my lunch in peace (it wasn't a proud moment). I was outraged to be associated with such an awful event. I pride myself on being a responsible gun-owner. That all said (and I've nearly lost what I meant to get to), I still support our current laws. I fully support the health record background check and the criminal background check. I support the insistance that a firearms safety course be passed (the guys in my class and test were frightening, and I'm glad half of them didn't pass). Our laws aren't perfect and don't address the gun crime in our large urban centers, but a high-rated cause of death in our rural areas (where gun ownerhsip is much, much higher) is gun-related domestic violence and alcohol-related firearm accidents (allow me to regale you sometime with the tales of near-misses I've had in the bush with bullets whizzing past my ears). The NRA would see all restrictions removed, and I just can't get on board with that. Heston is no hero of mine. Adam
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Nov 21, 2004 0:54:08 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Nov 21, 2004 0:54:08 GMT -5
And again what good is going to do? If the wrong people are willing to use them they are still going to get them. Taking them away from the ordinary citizen is still not going to do any good. When are the powers that be going to learn the truth?
I am also wondering what they plan on "monitoring" next? Beware anyone with a garden hoe, or farm implements as they can be considered "weapons". Where is the insanity going to stop? SUN. NOV. 21/01:56 E.S.T.
LADYTASS,
The only flaw in your reasoning is that its logic appeals to The Rational Mind, whereas anti-gun lobbyists focus almost exclusively on exploiting propaganda that has been designed to appeal to one's emotions.
I was once prevented from boarding an aeroplane in Toronto because my keys dangled from "a blunt instrument", while the bloke in front of me had a LeathermanTM on his belt (which includes a knife!), but was permitted to take it aboard, while I had my keys confiscated, possibly to be lost or stolen before I landed @ Calgary.
Earlier this week, I was denied entry to a building because I had *voluntarily* declared a penknife to Security Personnel, whereas a bloke with long screwdrivers in his pockets was given free admittance to that same place.
Am I to infer that my *perceived* criminal intent was determined on the basis of my skin colour, whereas the other individuals' was "hidden" by their being Caucasian?
According to MR. GEORGE ORWELL, the next thing to be "monitored" is thought itself....
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Nov 21, 2004 1:38:42 GMT -5
Post by ladytass2001 on Nov 21, 2004 1:38:42 GMT -5
Thought is *already* being monitored(why not ask the kids in Texas,who are being denied the right to learn about Birth Control) just as what I write on these boards is being monitored(backlash of 9-11), Just as what I wish to listen to on the radio is being monitored(Ask Howard Stern about his fines) and just as what I watch on Tv is being monitored as well. For supposedly being the *freest*(sp?) Nation in the world it is seeming more and more like communist Russia(that should send a few red flags up,I expect they will be adding to my File after this) LOL But in all reality it is getting ridiculous on what is being sensored and tucked away from the American Public,What do you expect from a country that is willing to fight to the death for another country but can't seem to understand what is wrong with a president that should not be president to begin with?
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Nov 21, 2004 3:34:38 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Nov 21, 2004 3:34:38 GMT -5
Malcolm, I have to admit I have mixed feelings on this issue. As a longtime hunting longarms owner, I've often wondered about some of my guncollecting friends that own handguns, which to my mind are solely designed and manufactured with "killing humans" in mind, and I see no real reason why civilians would need to own them. I have similar feelings about private ownership of military weapons (M-16s, AK-47s (both Hungarian and Chinese made) et al) and weapons based on those arms (AR-15s, Ruger Mini-14s ("sporterized" or not), et al). They're fun to fire, and I've done so, but I'm sure rocket-launchers and tanks are fun to fire too, and I certainly wouldn't advocate private ownership or either. I understand our current Canadian laws regarding firearms ownership, and respect them. I've registered all of my weapons, they are kept under lock and key out of sight (you'd be lucky to even *find* my gunsafe in my home, it's that well hidden). I also understand the NRA's stance looking at the current British laws, which are admittedly over the top, banning private ownership of practically *any* firearm. But the NRA's stand of "I should be able to own any weapon' goes too far in my mind. "Personal defence" isn't a justifiable reason for applying for a firearms license in Canada (I personally know an acquaintance in the US that filled his girlfriend with .375 holes mistaking her for a burgler... she was lucky to survive the incident), and handguns and automatic weapons are useless/stupid/dangerous in a hunting situation. Your "Dunblane" reference hit a nerve, adding to my mixed feelings... Several years ago when I was a field tech I was having lunch in the Fairview Mall foodcourt. I was wearing a Canadian NATO helicopter pilot jacket with a "Ontario Handgun Assoc." patch sewn on the shoulder (that a friend had given me). I had a gentleman approach me and ask about the patch. I was friendly in my response, but soon found myself subject to an unbelievably profane rant about Dunblane and that it was "all the fault of people like you". I admit that I lost control and shouted obscenities right back, mostly focussed on leaving me alone to eat my lunch in peace (it wasn't a proud moment). I was outraged to be associated with such an awful event. I pride myself on being a responsible gun-owner. That all said (and I've nearly lost what I meant to get to), I still support our current laws. I fully support the health record background check and the criminal background check. I support the insistance that a firearms safety course be passed (the guys in my class and test were frightening, and I'm glad half of them didn't pass). Our laws aren't perfect and don't address the gun crime in our large urban centers, but a high-rated cause of death in our rural areas (where gun ownerhsip is much, much higher) is gun-related domestic violence and alcohol-related firearm accidents (allow me to regale you sometime with the tales of near-misses I've had in the bush with bullets whizzing past my ears). The NRA would see all restrictions removed, and I just can't get on board with that. Heston is no hero of mine. Adam SUN. NOV. 21/2004/0436 E.S.T.
ADAM,
You are free to believe as you like, of course.
Obviously, I advocate the safe handling & storage of firearms & ammunition by private citizenry, the better to keep our progeny from coming to harm.
I obey the firearms laws of any country in which I might find myself, but I cannot claim that I "respect" them, since I was not a party to their creation, & was not consulted about practises like "grandfathering".
I see no difference between private ownership of long-barrelled weaponry & pistols/revolvers, beyond the fact of the latter's relative ease of concealment from public view, so the distinction between hunting & personal defence is of little consequence to me, since both technologies are potentially fatal to humans, regardless of their stated purpose & design.
The issue of whether fully automatic weaponry should or should not be made available to private citizens is directly proportionate to how safe or unsafe people feel about the fact that *known criminals* are in possession of same, so I shan't sit in judgement over Americans who want them, although I do think it wrong to use assault weapons on big game.
Your American friend who shot his girlfriend ought not to have discharged his .375 (HOLLAND & HOLLANDTM Magnum Elephant Gun?!) unless & until he was sure of his target, so he was negligent, yes, but that does not in any way undermine the validity of firearms possession for personal protection from armed hostiles.
I made no "Dunblane reference" anywhere in my own writing, but owing to the heat around it, I suspect that it was a massacre, probably in Scotland?
"Gun-related domestic violence" & "alcohol-related firearm accidents" are unfortunate events, particularly the former, since blokes & birds who elect to shoot their wives, girlfriends, ex-wives, ex-husbands, children, et cetera, are seizing upon a given technology to expedite the deaths of people they would have killed some other way, were they not in possession of a firearm (registered or unregistered), so I find that argument fallacious.
I have never consumed alcohol while discharging firearms or beforehand, so that is outside of my own experience, thankfully.
I feel more strongly that people who kill & maim others while under the inlfuence of drugs &/or alcohol are the greater MENACE II SOCIETYTM.
THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATIONTM is not interested in "see[ing] all restrictions removed", but does want responsible, private citizens who are trained in the safe & proper handling & storage of firearms & ammunition to have access to same, in order to better protect themselves from armed criminals who might otherwise victimise Americans with impunity before engaging the services of a lawyer to finagle a "Not Guilty" verdict for their crimes (oftentimes through threats & intimidation).
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Jan 15, 2005 22:18:12 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Jan 15, 2005 22:18:12 GMT -5
The following articles were sent to me today:MANCHESTER NEWS Friday, 14th January 2005 75% want right to use lethal force Three-quarters of the public believe householders should have an "unqualified" right to fight back against criminals who break into their homes - up to and including the use of lethal force - a new poll has found. www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/142/142745_75_want_right_to_use_lethal_force.htmlnews.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=600307How do you explain this to the British public? From a UK correspondent: The Daily Express front page and page 2 lead story yesterday (Weds 12th January) "Rough Justice" is particularly appalling. The same story is in today's SUN. A man found two scum MUGGING his five-year-old in his own back garden, into which they had climbed. They are from a council estate and have been plaguing him for weeks, based on the wholly mistaken belief that he had won the national lottery and was a "multi-multi-millionaire", hoping that if they harrassed him and his family badly enough, he would pay them some of his "millions" to stop. The man, who is a school governor, charity fund-raiser and churchgoer, heard the wee lad screaming in the garden as one mugger seized him held his body up whilst the other removed his BRAND NEW shoes - they had already stolen one shoe. He bravely ran outside, even more bravely caught hold of one 13 year old scum, and cuffed him about the ear then threw him out (letting him get away). The other jumped over the fence and ran off. Knowing where the lads lived, he at once called the police on "999" and described all that had happened, believing that they would take an attack on a 5 year old lad in his own back garden very seriously. Clearly his action showed ENORMOUS self-control as some people would have beaten the lad until subdued and then tied him up in their shed until the police arrived, as they might think that one can use reasonable force to effect a citizen's arrest - our common law right. The police arrested the man and charged him with assault and he has been given 18 months probation and a criminal record. His dim-wit liberal defence lawyer said if he didn't plead guilty, and demanded to be tried in front a jury, he would almost certainly go to prison. The wee lad may well have become seriously afraid of strangers had he not been rescued. I thought after the Bulger case, that assaults on such young ones by council house scum might be taken seriously. Evidently, I was wrong. This is insanity of the highest possible order !!! Meanwhile the Home Office is to publish stats of people prosecuted for assaulting burglars INSIDE THEIR HOME so avoiding this incident, avoiding shopkeepers who forcibly detain a shoplifter, and the police arrest THEM and then their shop is burnt down that very night whilst they are not there (yes, that one's a real story too) etc etc etc etc etc etc - all anonymised stats so that the cases can't be checked to see if known stories that got into the media, are there
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Jan 15, 2005 23:09:59 GMT -5
Post by ladytass2001 on Jan 15, 2005 23:09:59 GMT -5
I would believe that as it is know against the law over here to hit a person back when they are assaulting you--Yes You heard me right,while they are assaulting you- They call it assault by mutual consent-Of all the things in the world assault by mutual consent is as stupid a thing as I have ever heard-Please sir keep assaulting me and I will let you since I don't want to end up in jail too!!! It won't do any good to call the police and have them investigate you beating the he** out of me, because they will just say Well if you want to file a complaint then you have tell me who it was(well if you don't know who it was you are pretty well screwed) because trying to get a sketch of the person when your eye's are swollen and your nose is broken is pretty darned hard. But don't you dare hit them back.
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Jan 17, 2005 9:35:56 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Jan 17, 2005 9:35:56 GMT -5
I would believe that as it is know against the law over here to hit a person back when they are assaulting you--Yes You heard me right,while they are assaulting you- They call it assault by mutual consent-Of all the things in the world assault by mutual consent is as stupid a thing as I have ever heard-Please sir keep assaulting me and I will let you since I don't want to end up in jail too!!! It won't do any good to call the police and have them investigate you beating the he** out of me, because they will just say Well if you want to file a complaint then you have tell me who it was(well if you don't know who it was you are pretty well screwed) because trying to get a sketch of the person when your eye's are swollen and your nose is broken is pretty darned hard. But don't you dare hit them back. LADYTASS,
I am appalled by that revelation.
I hope that whichever lawyer came up with that nonsense suffers the same fate as those victimised by it, only tenfold.
Does this mean that Texan law, "He needed killin', Your Honour", no longer applies
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Jan 17, 2005 11:44:23 GMT -5
Post by ladytass2001 on Jan 17, 2005 11:44:23 GMT -5
Only if you are really good at hidin the body afterwards. They are getting rid of self defense as a reason.
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Jan 20, 2005 1:27:18 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Jan 20, 2005 1:27:18 GMT -5
Only if you are really good at hidin the body afterwards. They are getting rid of self defense as a reason. Schweinhunden!
|
|
|
Post by ladytass2001 on Feb 5, 2005 1:28:03 GMT -5
Mx, I found this on Jumbo joke.com I thought you would find it funny-I know I did, I guess the anti gun Guru's haven't found this out yet-LOL-
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand. Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
|
|
|
GUN LAW
Feb 5, 2005 11:08:20 GMT -5
Post by MALCOLM XERXES™ on Feb 5, 2005 11:08:20 GMT -5
Mx, I found this on Jumbo joke.com I thought you would find it funny-I know I did, I guess the anti gun Guru's haven't found this out yet-LOL- Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand. Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention. LADYTASS,
I'm impressed by your discretion in this matter; thanks for the intel.
The Hippocratic Occupation Conspiracy *must* be crushed, or they will only kill again "in the name of Medical Science"!
|
|