Guns Guns Guns Everything guns

[Ivan Seeking]

Gun Control: Can it even work?

There is another report out specific to Australia that I haven't found yet. Apparently the new Australian law, which led to the destruction of millions of guns, has also led to an increase in crime of various sorts, including armed robbery. Here is another related article.

There are several recent national and world reports --exposing the dangers of misbegotten gun legislation that has backfired -- causing crime rates to skyrocket and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It's proof that most gun laws infringe only upon the law-abiding citizen and further threaten continued lawful gun ownership by all sportsmen.[continued]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-05/03-20-05/e10sp964.htm

As for the question at hand, I say no way. The results reported in Austrailia are exactly what gun proponents have long predicted. What we need is a justice system that works, not the loss of yet more constitutional rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is one specific report. [assuming this to be accurate]

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late! [continued]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1366727/posts

Not millions of guns as I first thought I had heard. The correct number appears to be 640,381.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you could take every gun every human being has and stop the production of guns and imprison every citizen of the world and take their guns during the time and let them out once all the guns have been confiscated (then some citizens jail all the people who did the first searches and took away their guns)... THEN gun control would work. Otherwise its just a pipe dream.

Sure people can stand for gun control on principle... but sinec people do actually die because of gun control laws, they need to stand for it in principle ONLY and not try to get legislation passed. Not 1 single city/country has passed gun bans in the modern era outside of dictatorships and ended up with less gun-related crime.

What I just don't understand about people is why they can't get simpel following fact into their head:

"Law abiding citizens do not wish to commit crimes with their firearms
Criminals do and since they are in fact criminals, they will NOT be affected by a law seeing as criminals by definition, do not listen to laws."

I am completely unable to convince people of that. I am not sure what they think. I think they lean towards more the idea that if people have guns, they immediately commit crimes as if its some sort of psychological reflex. Not many people argue that criminals will listen to laws.

I currently have a 12 gauge and a .22 and they are in my closet safe and sound. I have had them since a month after my 18th birthday and i have yet to commit or even dream about commiting a crime with them... although that mailman out there is kinda annoying with all the bills he sends... maybe ill kill him...

 

[loseyourname]

Weren't handguns banned in Washington DC, the murder capital of the USA for many years afterward? I believe they're trying to do the same thing in San Francisco.

 

[motai]

One of the main reasons that gun control doesn't work is that there is always a black market. Criminals don't liscense their gun with the federal government :tongue2:. They will always find their sources elsewhere, and it probably will not be with a legal pawn shop.

As long as the illegal importation of guns continue to flow into the country, there will always be a problem. Not to mention the current number of guns (registered and unregistered) in the wrong hands in the first place.

 

[Pengwuino]

Weren't handguns banned in Washington DC, the murder capital of the USA for many years afterward? I believe they're trying to do the same thing in San Francisco.

Yup, 100% accurate post :D

 

[Pengwuino]

As long as the illegal importation of guns continue to flow into the country, there will always be a problem. Not to mention the current number of guns (registered and unregistered) in the wrong hands in the first place.

Yup, 100% accurate presumption. Your not allowed to buy fully automatic AK 47's yet California is practically afghanistan with em.

 

[Moonbear]

As for the question at hand, I say no way. The results reported in Austrailia are exactly what gun proponents have long predicted. What we need is a justice system that works, not the loss of yet more constitutional rights.

As I've debated this issue many times, I think my views have evolved similar to what you stated. However, while a complete ban on guns is not the solution to the problem, for the reasons stated above (criminals will still get them), tighter controls on licensing of guns is still a good idea in my mind...not to prevent crimes so much as to help prevent the accidental shootings that occur when people own guns without proper safety education.

 

[BobG]

For the most part, there's no correlation between gun control laws and crime. ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm )

Of course, if you really read the details the report, that's because there just hasn't been enough independent studies (gun control proponents and gun rights proponents all tend to wind up gravitating toward their favorite report over and over).

There isn't even a proven correlation between gun control laws and the number of firearm accidents.

About the only proven correlation is that having a five day waiting period at least reduces the number of suicides via firearms (however, it doesn't result in a significant drop in suicides overall).

There is a definite correlation between your income level, the neighborhood you live in, and your chances of being a victim of violent crime.

So, maybe, if you live in a low income neighborhood, owning a firearm might make you safer - of course, if you live in a low income neighborhood, you're also more likely to shoot one of your family members in a drunken rage or be shot by a jealous husband/wife - so maybe it's a push; we don't know.

If you live in a higher income neighborhood, you're not very likely to have someone shoot you - even a low risk of a firearm accident would outweigh the chances that a gun might save your life.

 

[Informal Logic]

...tighter controls on licensing of guns is still a good idea...

Agreed, though I was thinking about semi-automatic weapons, for example, and that in addition to tight control of licensing, perhaps these weapons should be banned. In other words, the right to bear arms is based on premises of preventing tyranny, to hunt, and protect self and property.

Did anyone else notice how Bush completely ignored gun control? I was wondering if he decided not to address it (the way he decided not to discuss using marijuana?) or if he doesn't care about the issue, or was just derelict of duty (like ignoring memos about an attack on the WTC., etc.). I suspect it was the latter...

 

[Pengwuino]

Well ignoring gun control can mean he doesn't support it. And the President of the United States doesn't receive individual memos from low level field agents for the FBI in Arizona :)

 

[Informal Logic]

I probably should specify what I was referring to. First:

On August 6, 2001, over a month before 9/11, during the "summer of threat," President Bush received a PDB at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The memo was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", and the entire 11 page memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US.

There was an old thread on the topic, and if I recall correctly, the conclusion was neglect by Bush and his administration. As for the topic of this post, I was referring to the legislation to ban assault weapons, which Bush also ignored and was brought up as follows:

Oct 14th, 2004 - Presidential Debate
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties….

SCHIEFFER: Senator?

KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.

But I'll tell you this. I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting.

And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47.

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him.

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.

And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it…

So I believe America's less safe.

I own a gun, so obviously believe in the right to bear arms. With regard to the legislation on assault weapons, I believe Bush spaced on this.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok so Bush says he didnt do it because it would waste Congressional time. Sounds like your just taking 1 parties side for the truth on this one. And pretty much most experts know that briefing didnt demand any major action on the President's part and was very vague so i don't know what to tell you.

ahaha i said waste congressional time... what a joke

 

[lawtonfogle]

As I've debated this issue many times, I think my views have evolved similar to what you stated. However, while a complete ban on guns is not the solution to the problem, for the reasons stated above (criminals will still get them), tighter controls on licensing of guns is still a good idea in my mind...not to prevent crimes so much as to help prevent the accidental shootings that occur when people own guns without proper safety education.

YES, good idea, also if you are against this, 1/2 of the meat my family eats comes from hunting. It would be expensive if we had to buy all that meat instead.

 

[lawtonfogle]

that type of ban (asault weapons) is good, for those weapons provide no benefit to a normal law abiding civilian

 

[Alkatran]

On a related topic: anyone who wants to ban guns for hunting needs to learn how the world works.

Yes, people are over hunting some species, but hunting is REQUIRED for most species to not overpopulate.

Anecdote: They banned deer hunting for a year (in such and such area) and deer-related car accidents sky rocketed.

 

[russ_watters]

Yup, 100% accurate presumption. Your not allowed to buy fully automatic AK 47's yet California is practically afghanistan with em.

One of the reasons for that is that a lot of guns (not just ak's) are specifically made to be easy to convert. That's one restriction that needs to be tightened-up: they need to be engineered in such a way as to make them more difficult to convert.

Did anyone else notice how Bush completely ignored gun control? I was wondering if he decided not to address it (the way he decided not to discuss using marijuana?) or if he doesn't care about the issue, or was just derelict of duty...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here: this wasn't a major issue in this campaign. There's nothing inherrently wrong with that because there are literally an infinite number of issues you could choose as the basis of a campaign.

...like ignoring memos about an attack on the WTC., etc.

We've discussed those memos already: they did not contain specific information that could be acted on tactically (ie, names and dates). They indicated a broad-based security threat and law enforcement/intel shortfall that would require years to remedy.

Please don't hijack the thread.

 

[Moonbear]

YES, good idea, also if you are against this, 1/2 of the meat my family eats comes from hunting. It would be expensive if we had to buy all that meat instead.

I guess that depends on whether you're a good shot or not. I've been told ammo is pretty expensive. :tongue2:

On a related topic: anyone who wants to ban guns for hunting needs to learn how the world works.

Yes, people are over hunting some species, but hunting is REQUIRED for most species to not overpopulate.

Anecdote: They banned deer hunting for a year (in such and such area) and deer-related car accidents sky rocketed.

Agreed. However, this is yet another reason why I think licensing of guns needs to go hand in hand with rigorous safety training. A number of people I know who used to enjoy hunting say 20 or 30 years ago (the old-timers if you will), have given up on the sport simply because they no longer feel safe out in the woods with the hot-heads shooting at anything that moves, orange vest or not! Actually, for hunting purposes, you could even implement the safety training as a requirement for getting the hunting permit, as hunting safety requires additional precautions that are different from just knowing to lock up your weapon, store it unloaded, point it at the ground and keep your finger off the trigger when not aiming at something, etc. You also need to add into check that you're clear of other people, and that your target is actually the deer or bird or whatever it is that you're supposed to be hunting for, and not a fellow hunter or child playing in the woods. It's not like target practice on a closed range where people aren't wandering around behind the targets.

 

[Informal Logic]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here: this wasn't a major issue in this campaign. There's nothing inherrently wrong with that because there are literally an infinite number of issues you could choose as the basis of a campaign.

Well then, I guess this isn't a very important issue, so debating it is not a good use of time. The point I was making is that Bush ignored the legislation, which he basically admited to in the presidential debate. Personally, it all seemed a bit lame to me.

We've discussed those memos already: they did not contain specific information that could be acted on tactically (ie, names and dates). They indicated a broad-based security threat and law enforcement/intel shortfall that would require years to remedy.

Please don't hijack the thread.

My original comment was made in passing, therefore it was not my intention to change the topic. And I did make reference to the earlier thread, but apparently you came away with a very different conclusion then I did (not surprisingly).

 

[Alkatran]

I guess that depends on whether you're a good shot or not. I've been told ammo is pretty expensive. :tongue2:



Agreed. However, this is yet another reason why I think licensing of guns needs to go hand in hand with rigorous safety training. A number of people I know who used to enjoy hunting say 20 or 30 years ago (the old-timers if you will), have given up on the sport simply because they no longer feel safe out in the woods with the hot-heads shooting at anything that moves, orange vest or not! Actually, for hunting purposes, you could even implement the safety training as a requirement for getting the hunting permit, as hunting safety requires additional precautions that are different from just knowing to lock up your weapon, store it unloaded, point it at the ground and keep your finger off the trigger when not aiming at something, etc. You also need to add into check that you're clear of other people, and that your target is actually the deer or bird or whatever it is that you're supposed to be hunting for, and not a fellow hunter or child playing in the woods. It's not like target practice on a closed range where people aren't wandering around behind the targets.

I have an archer's hunting permit and they definitely covered safety.

We were told not to shoot if there were ANYTHING in the way, because even a strand of grass can apparently throw an arrow of course by a large amount.

We were also told that if we did kill something, not to display it for the world to see on the top of a truck. Hunting has a bad enough name as it is, apparently.

I never did end up going deer hunting, though.

 

[Pengwuino]

@Alkatran

Yah, i had training in hunting with firearms and they said don't put your kill in plain site. Plus if you put up a deer the wrong way on your truck and it snot moving very fast, someone might mistake it for a live deer and open fire.

@lawtonfogle

Theres no reason to ban assault rifles other then to take away gun rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals will get assault rifles, law or no law so that's not the reason. And the idea that they provide no use to a law abiding citizen doesn't mean anything. A wallet made of gold provides no real use to a citizen but you don't need to ban them. You can go off and get a small SUV and do the same thing as a H2 so you can say the H2 is unncessary but you don't see anyone asking to ban them (or well... most people dont).

Plus these laws are made by politicans so they are inherently stupid. I don't think some yale graduate who hasnt stepped foot in a forest knows what a good gun law should include.

Plus of course most sensible people agree that any gun ban is flagrantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government from popping up and telling us that we can't have the weapons that will allow us to fight back is just preposterous

 

[SOS2008]

@lawtonfogle - Theres no reason to ban assault rifles other then to take away gun rights of law abiding citizens.

What would law-abiding citizens want an assault rifle for?

Criminals will get assault rifles, law or no law so that's not the reason.

If assault rifles are illegal, it's another way to arrest and hold criminals when investigating them for other related crimes. I suggest you ask someone in law enforcement what they think about your argument.

Plus these laws are made by politicans so they are inherently stupid. I don't think some yale graduate who hasnt stepped foot in a forest knows what a good gun law should include.

Both Kerry and Bush went to Yale. Kerry likes to hunt--I don't know if Bush is into hunting, and Kerry served in the military, unlike Bush. So why was Kerry against assault rifles, and Bush seems unconcerned? And maybe assault rifles go beyond the intent of the second amendment.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why should a law-abiding citizen need to have his assault rifle taken away for? LIke i said, why does someone need a golden wallet? Should it be banned too?

And I've heard law inforcement's view on teh situation. They all admit that gun laws don't do anything to help their job. Police in cities with gun bans say its actually made their jobs relatively worse. Remember, gun bans mean nothing to criminals. Also remember, if your a criminal and you could walk into a gun shop and buy an M16, you WONT get past the background check if its done correctly and you most likely WONT want your name and weapon in a government database.

And unfortunately, your off-topic factless attack on Bush doesn't help you at all seeing as he was in the military and all real military records show he served honorably (in a rather unsafe fighter by the way). And I think you must have no idea what teh 2nd amendment is if you think assault rifles go beyond the intent of the second amendment. I honestly have no reply to that except absolute awe and wonder at why someone could even think that. I mean... the second amendment allows you to fight back against the government... and somehow assault rifles are far too great adn unnecessary for this purpose... even though the government's forces would be armed with fully automatic .50cal machine guns and artillery and high tech machine guns? Or do you think there armed with pistols or something.

 

[russ_watters]

My original comment was made in passing, therefore it was not my intention to change the topic. And I did make reference to the earlier thread, but apparently you came away with a very different conclusion then I did (not surprisingly).

Fair enough: but you may want to have another look at that thread. As they often do, that one started with a lot of rhetoric and posturing and didn't get down to the nuts and bolts until later. It is unsurprising to me that the thread died quickly and quietly after it became apparent that the truth wasn't what people wanted to hear.

Why should a law-abiding citizen need to have his assault rifle taken away for? LIke i said, why does someone need a golden wallet? Should it be banned too?

You're missing the point: guns, like cars, are inherrently dangerous, so you must balance need and safety. We don't just ban things because people don't need them. Currently, the gun lobby is so strong that guns are exempt from even the most basic of product safety legislation. Ironic.

 

[Reshma]

How about guns which use fingerprint technology? There are some guns to my knowledge which have the ability to scan your fingerprint. There are useless if any other person other than the owner of the gun tries to use it. If more guns manufactured today integrate fingerprint technology, there will be less chances of the guns being used by the "wrong" people provided the gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

 

[SOS2008]

While in the Gallop Organization site looking for other information, I always see so many interesting things such as this, so thought I'd post this while reading about it:

Positive ratings of the NRA are a bit more prevalent today than when previously measured, but that could be attributed to the fact that the NRA image question in the latest survey was preceded by a new series of questions about gun use. These questions may have enhanced the NRA's ratings by focusing respondents first on the self-defense aspect of guns.

In particular, Gallup found that 62% of Americans believe arming pilots with guns would make airplanes safer; only a third believe armed pilots would make planes more dangerous. Americans are more divided on the effect of arming judges in courtrooms, with 50% saying the measure would make courtrooms more dangerous versus 43% who say it would make the courts safer. Americans mostly agree, however, that arming school officials would make schools more dangerous (73%).

Recent high-profile crimes have propelled each of these proposals into the national spotlight. But as the data show, a majority of Americans believe the risks involved with arming judges and school officials outweigh the potential of those same officials being defenseless against the rare violent attacker. This is somewhat in line with Americans' attitudes about personal gun ownership. According to Gallup's 2004 Crime survey, 42% say having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be, while 46% say it makes the home more dangerous.

Attitudes are different about pilots, possibly because pilots are already entrusted with their passengers' lives, and because the memory of the horrifying 9/11 terrorist hijackings is still vivid.

Knowing that the NRA helps to preserve wildlife, I tend to view the NRA somewhat positively, but at the same time I do not favor making things such as armor-piercing bullets legal. So these findings don't strike me as odd. Anyway, I thought I'd share this.

 

[loseyourname]

Arming judges? Isn't that what the bailiffs are for?

 

[hypatia]

Our District Judges are armed here in Detroit. In case the bailiffs become irate? I'm not sure if any of them have any training with them, nor would I want to be in a court room with the Judge shooting back{towards the people}.
It would put a whole new twist to the Judge Judy show.

 

[SOS2008]

And unfortunately, your off-topic factless attack on Bush doesn't help you at all seeing as he was in the military and all real military records show he served honorably (in a rather unsafe fighter by the way).

Because this comment is off-topic, I won't reply to the lack of fact in it. BTW, please feel free to source claims that you make.

 

[Pengwuino]

Because this comment is off-topic, I won't reply to the lack of fact in it. BTW, please feel free to source claims that you make.

Your the one who made hte first non-accepted claim so i think the burden of proof is on you for this one.

 

[Pengwuino]

We don't just ban things because people don't need them. Currently, the gun lobby is so strong that guns are exempt from even the most basic of product safety legislation. Ironic.

What other product do you have to wait for 10 days for the governmet to run a background check on you to buy lol. And these guns are not meant to be safe. There meant ot kill things so i really doubt someones going to seriously legislate it to be 'safe for use by children' or anything like that.

And really, what if our government gets out of control and tries to take over. Are we just going to take it up the butt? I mean the people who drew up the Constitution envisioned an America where there'd be militias under citizens controls capable of overthrowing the government is necessary... so how is any of this stuff even remotely constitutional?

 

[SOS2008]

And I've heard law inforcement's view on teh situation. They all admit that gun laws don't do anything to help their job. Police in cities with gun bans say its actually made their jobs relatively worse.

This is what I was questioning with regard to sourcing.

Your the one who made hte first non-accepted claim so i think the burden of proof is on you for this one.

Many don't view the Guard the same as the military--certainly not seeing action in war time. But here is some info:

George W. enlisted in the Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. In 1994 Bush remarked, “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.” That sure sounds like someone who was looking to avoid the draft. Obtaining a slot in the Guard at that time was not usually easy--for the obvious reason: lots of young men were responding to the call of self–preservation (think Dan Quayle). Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. The Texas National Guard was open to string pulling by the well connected, and there are charges that the then-speaker of the Texas legislature helped George W. gain admittance. Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer."

The Boston Globe obtained copies of Bush's records. The records suggest Bush skipped out on the Guard for about a year. (And during that time he had failed to submit to an annual physical and lost his flight status.) He had gamed the system and avoided a year of service, before wiggling out of the Guard nearly a year before his time was up. Apparently he served four, not six years as required.

Back to the topic...

And really, what if our government gets out of control and tries to take over. Are we just going to take it up the butt? I mean the people who drew up the Constitution envisioned an America where there'd be militias under citizens controls capable of overthrowing the government is necessary... so how is any of this stuff even remotely constitutional?

Here you make a good point--with regard to the second amendment and small militias that have popped up here and there in the news/history--these groups are usually put down via government intervention.

 

[Pengwuino]

http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html

Theres one...im lazy though lol

And for Bush, here you go http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/politics/03GUAR.html?ex=1113796800&en=1c8e4368fcb9cbaa&ei=5070

As far asthe militias go... we should be allowed to have our own militias. I mean its absolutely clear in the Constitution... don't see how the government gets away with it.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html

Theres one...im lazy though lol

And for Bush, here you go http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/politics/03GUAR.html?ex=1113796800&en=1c8e4368fcb9cbaa&ei=5070

As far as the militias go... we should be allowed to have our own militias. I mean its absolutely clear in the Constitution... don't see how the government gets away with it.

Thanks. Truly, in being reminded of the militia concept, it get's one thinking. An old favorite movie of mine is "Red Dawn" based on the possible need for arms in the event of foreign invasion. Anyway, it certainly is an interesting topic:

http://defencejournal.com/dec98/militia.htm

While recent years have seen a dramatic increase in militia groups, the bombing in Oklahoma City has brought these usually faceless groups, notoriety and worldwide attention.

Many of the militia groups were formed out of a genuine belief that the US government had gotten too big, too unwieldy, too intrusive into the private lives of its' citizens and is out of touch and often hostile toward the very people who voted them to govern.

Contrary to popular belief, most militia members are hard-working, average Americans who are loyal to the United States, the Constitution, and the rights granted thereunder. However, there are also many who can accurately be described as right-wing extremists, terrorists or racists; sometimes... all three.

Presently there are over 441 militia groups active in the United States. By far the largest group is the Michigan Militia which claims membership of over 10,000 with units in nearly all of Michigan-s 88 counties.

Every militia is anti-government to some degree. Some, like the Michigan Militia, advocate armed resistance to federal authority. They see international trade agreements (like NAFTA) and peacekeeping operations involving US troops as evidence of a sinister international movement toward one world government.

For decades Americans have seen terrorism all over the world-but not in the US. Even after the Oklahoma bombing, the American public still found it incomprehensible that Americans could perpetrate such a horror against other Americans. Even after Timothy McVeigh-s conviction, the general mood has been that terrorism is over. It was some kind of aberration.

The militia movement, however, continues to grow...

Maybe if I'm not too lazy I'll find more information on this (this seems a bit out-of-date, but still relevant).

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey someone told me to watch Red Dawn... never ended up doing it but now that youve mentioned it adn i remember... i think ill write it down somewhere to rent or something :)

Probably going to download it since pff, renting this would probably be near impossible. I wish i knew where to get bittorrent listings... Get some seinfeld off there :D