eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...awesome for jacuzzi tubs and sliding bases *nods*... if only to provide that protective anal flap ... cn
...awesome for jacuzzi tubs and sliding bases *nods*... if only to provide that protective anal flap ... cn
In jacuzzi tubs, you can use it to blow chords with your very own bubbles. cn...awesome for jacuzzi tubs and sliding bases *nods*
In my Polish household, my boys refer to that as a Polish bubble bath.In jacuzzi tubs, you can use it to blow chords with your very own bubbles. cn
*gets the Puffs 50 grit to wipe the tears from his mind* The visual was like a chorus of tiny bubblesIn jacuzzi tubs, you can use it to blow chords with your very own bubbles. cn
In my Polish household, my boys refer to that as a Polish bubble bath.
...nice! And, how TP has evolved This brings a question to mind. Would one be better off with, say, a dog's pink guillotine? I mean, fckn instantly clean...you're good to chase down a frisbee straight away - or go meet that btch down the road.eye, I'll need to get some of that 50 Grit. It sounds like just the thing to counter a brace of brain pheasants. Pheasant dreams? cn
eye, I'll need to get some of that 50 Grit. It sounds like just the thing to counter a brace of brain pheasants. Pheasant dreams? cn
Brain...completely...tied in knots. I bet this is what it would be like to hang out with Yoda if he were on shrooms.Can't resist ... "you may want to pet him first". cn
Fuck that NOISE. If nobody has a gun, you can bet that the fuckers who are carrying (and aren't LEOs) will have very little trepidation about using theirs. In states like Utah, people will be AFRAID to try to rob a store; there are videos of assholes trying to rob old ladies or clerks at grocery stores, and customers arrest them at gunpoint! Thats the kind of shit that happens when everybody is armed. When nobody is armed, you get peak gun crimes like we saw in WashDC for bloody YEARS. Educate yourself, FFS. I'd rather be armed for a "just in case" because often times than not, you find yourself in a situation where you wish you were armed. Its not just the rightists or the leftists, everybody is ignorantly turning "anti-gun" because of the lies the media spouts out, and the teachers trying to create "their" utopia without having any experience in living in a utopia. All they're really doing is disarming us in every way imaginable -- taking away our bark AND our bite. They like us to be defenseless, just like the criminals do. They even try to rewrite the english language, making changes or removing words... I remember when the media tried to label people who are defending themselves as vigilantes! Self-defense is NOT vigilantism! But they would like you to think it is. They would like you to think that defending yourself is wrong.. thats pretty well summed up in christianity. These are all methods of CONTROL, but its all just an illusion. Remember that. Pieces of paper only try to solidify the illusion.but she didnt. better case for everyone NOT having a gun, IMO. not outside your fucking house. besides hunting, there really isnt a reason to take a gun off your property. shooting range, ok.
if what you say were actually true then countries that have strict gun laws would have more crime, which is simply untrue.Fuck that NOISE. If nobody has a gun, you can bet that the fuckers who are carrying (and aren't LEOs) will have very little trepidation about using theirs. In states like Utah, people will be AFRAID to try to rob a store; there are videos of assholes trying to rob old ladies or clerks at grocery stores, and customers arrest them at gunpoint! Thats the kind of shit that happens when everybody is armed. When nobody is armed, you get peak gun crimes like we saw in WashDC for bloody YEARS. Educate yourself, FFS. I'd rather be armed for a "just in case" because often times than not, you find yourself in a situation where you wish you were armed. Its not just the rightists or the leftists, everybody is ignorantly turning "anti-gun" because of the lies the media spouts out, and the teachers trying to create "their" utopia without having any experience in living in a utopia. All they're really doing is disarming us in every way imaginable -- taking away our bark AND our bite. They like us to be defenseless, just like the criminals do. They even try to rewrite the english language, making changes or removing words... I remember when the media tried to label people who are defending themselves as vigilantes! Self-defense is NOT vigilantism! But they would like you to think it is. They would like you to think that defending yourself is wrong.. thats pretty well summed up in christianity. These are all methods of CONTROL, but its all just an illusion. Remember that. Pieces of paper only try to solidify the illusion.
This video was banned for some reason, from the OP. I would have loved to see that racist bitch defame herself.. which is probably why it was banned. Because black people aren't racist. Nope. The law clearly states racism is *only* when a non-minority does it to a minority.. Whatever that means! Easy to create a majority when you can say anybody "white" is the same, but then everybody is a minority due to per-country classification. Jews are white, but adamantly refute such claims, so therefore created a minority among themselves. Good for them! I may appear white, but I'm black for fuck sakes, so calling me white is racist. Whatever you think you are, just check the "other" box instead of labeling yourself. That takes the power away. Then when some shit finds you, you can admit you belong to the "other" minority, and everybody can go fuck themselves.
You "simply" cannot compare one country to another. Statistically, there is no control. When you look at Washington DC during the strictest gun-control period, versus the same city *after* citizens were allowed to possess firearms, gun-related crime dropped SUBSTANTIALLY. Refute that. Gun control only means citizens don't have guns. You think laws will stop criminals from possessing guns? Laws only stop the lawful. Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns. You're from Vancouver, so I understand that you've been trained like a well-groomed pet that citizens shouldn't own a gun for any reason at all. But did you know that before all of the gun-control, firearms have been a part of Canadian culture longer than you can imagine. In fact, you used to be able to buy ammunition from pharmacies! And nobody was gang-banging. People could walk down the street with a shotgun over their shoulder and nobody would think odd about it. These are facts. How about you cite some cases where gun control has been good for the people.. and please try not to mention Nazi Germany.if what you say were actually true then countries that have strict gun laws would have more crime, which is simply untrue.
Well, less people = less people going off.less guns = less guns goimg off.
In Rod we Trust. LOL. I think they were upset that he was challenging the bill because they knew it wasn't real. Usually the "racist card" is thrown because they know they can push people around with it and get people to take their fake money. Its always the truth that makes people the most upset.Yup. When she hopped that counter to go toughguy, I'm pretty sure the last thing her drunk ass expected was a much bigger ex convict with a metal rod. Karma.
Come to think of it, if everybody already had a gun, then more guns DOESN'T mean more guns "going off."less guns = less guns goimg off.
[h=2]Contents[/h] |
Country | Total firearm-related death rate | Homicides | Suicides | Unintentional deaths | Year | Sources and notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74.57 | 74.57 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 51.77 | 51.77 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 50.36 | 50.36 | NA | NA | 2009 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 47.44 | 47.44 | NA | NA | 2009 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 46.70 | 46.70 | NA | NA | 2007 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 38.52 | 38.52 | NA | NA | 2009 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 37.16 | 37.16 | NA | NA | 2004 | UNODC 2006[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 33.00 | 33.00 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2004[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 14.15 | 10.58 | 0.73 | 0.28 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 12.74 | 8.07 | 3.13 | 0.93 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 12.92 | 12.92 | NA | NA | 2010 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 12.07 | 9.88 | 0.91 | 1.27 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 10.27 | 4.14 | 5.71 | 0.23 | 2004-2006 | CDC[SUP][4][/SUP] |
| 9.46 | 9.46 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 9.19 | 2.11 | 3.05 | 0.32 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 7.35 | 7.35 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 7.14 | 7.14 | NA | NA | 2007 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 6.86 | 0.86 | 5.78 | 0.12 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
Northern Ireland | 6.82 | 5.24 | 1.34 | 0.12 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 6.4 | 0.58 | 5.61 | 0.13 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 6.35 | 0.44 | 5.14 | 0.11 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 4.78 | 0.76 | 3.72 | 0.22 | 1992 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 4.75 | 4.75 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 4.56 | 0.42 | 4.06 | 0.05 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 4.39 | 0.3 | 3.95 | 0.12 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 3.72 | 1.28 | 1.28 | 0.21 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 3.48 | 0.6 | 2.56 | 0.06 | 1990 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 3.32 | 3.32 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 3.24 | 3.24 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 3.07 | 0.35 | 2.51 | 0.2 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 3 | 3 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 3 | 0.72 | 1.84 | 0.13 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 2.95 | 1.66 | 1.11 | 0.11 | 1992 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 2.94 | 0.44 | 2.35 | 0.11 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 2.66 | 0.17 | 2.14 | 0.09 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 2.6 | 0.23 | 2.25 | 0.04 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 2.36 | 0.18 | 2.09 | 0.03 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 2.17 | 2.17 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 1.87 | 1.87 | NA | NA | 2009 | OAS 2011[SUP][2][/SUP] |
| 1.77 | 1.77 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 1.57 | 0.22 | 1.17 | 0.04 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 1.5 | 0.59 | 0.84 | 0.04 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 1.47 | 1.47 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 1.28 | 1.28 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 1.25 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 0 | 1995 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 1.21 | 0.23 | 0.88 | 0.09 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 1.21 | 0.03 | 0.94 | 0.11 | 1991 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 1.2 | 1.2 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 0.93 | 0.93 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 0.9 | 0.21 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 1993 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 0.77 | 0.77 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 0.7 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 0.58 | 0.19 | 0.33 | 0.02 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 0.47 | 0.47 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 0.46 | 0.46 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 0.42 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 1994 | Krug 1998[SUP][3][/SUP] |
| 0.38 | 0.38 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 0.35 | 0.35 | NA | NA | 2000 | UNODC 2000[SUP][1][/SUP] |
| 0.29 | 0.29 | NA | NA | 2002 | UNODC 2002[SUP][5][/SUP] |
| 0.46[SUP][3][/SUP] 0.38 | 0.07[SUP][3][/SUP] 0.15 | 0.33[SUP][3][/SUP] 0.2 | 0.01[SUP][3][/SUP] 0.03 |