• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

The impact of gun control legislation - The Galveston County Daily News: Guest Columns

September 28, 2016

Three Musketeers The impact of gun control legislation

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Island Runner posted at 7:06 am on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    More GOP BS with no real data to back it up.

  • saraishelafs posted at 10:21 am on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    I still haven't gotten a good answer to my question - How do we keep firearms away from criminals and the mentally ill without background checks?

  • bvresident posted at 11:00 am on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Criminals don't usually go about acquiring their weapons legally so a background check isn't going to do squat about keeping guns out of their hands. As for the mentally ill, I don't believe the federal government allows the release of mental health records for the purchase of guns or anything else. FYI, background checks are required now for new gun purchases unless you're Attorney General Eric Holder and you need a few thousand guns purchased illegally to go down to Mexico to be used by the cartels to murder hundreds of people. Then background checks can be circumvented.

  • gecroix posted at 1:33 pm on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6191

    You already have to be background checked to purchase a firearm from a retail dealer.
    One would think that a family member would know that another one was a head case or a criminal before selling or giving them a firearm.
    Your basic question, no doubt well intentioned, is best answered this way: You CAN'T keep firearms away from criminals and the metally ill in a free country. Neither will obey any law impacting honest citizens. Either can easily avail themselves of a weapon from a dishonest source.
    There are already thousands of firearms laws on the books, with poor enforcement the norm now.
    It's already against the law for criminals and the mentally ill to buy a firearm at all, from any source.
    If they'd obey the law, they wouldn't be criminals.
    If they were competent to purchase, they wouldn't be mentally ill.
    USE the laws we already have to put away criminal users of firearms.
    Reinstate the ability of judges to order nonconsentual mental evaluations when it's obvious there is someone needing one.
    Two easy, sensinble steps, that do not impose yet another law and more expense and trouble on people who already obey laws.

  • sverige1 posted at 3:45 pm on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, geocrox -
    Some family members (although good intentioned) are very likely as cracked in the head as the mentally unbalanced individual of whom they are vouching for. I mean, would Uncle Sidney (who has flashbacks from his Nam years) be a good testimonial to his nephew Tyler (who got suspended 6 times every school year, holds 3 domestic abuse convictions) in regard to selling/giving Tyler a firearm?

    Perhaps weaponry should be available to a limited number of qualifying persons, not unlike law degrees awarded to the very few who manage to pass the bar exam. That is, extensive psych evals for folks wanting to possess/use weapons, along with the ability to show precision in shooting exercises at firing ranges. Then, a requirement to renew weapons licensing every 3 years. If no renewal, than weapon(s) can be convoscated.

    Bottom line is that not too many folks need guns. Limited gun availablity means less guns circulate, less criminals get ahold of them. People, without the rampant gun availablity, can acquire more meaningful hobbies.

  • kevjlang posted at 4:42 pm on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Even if you could get people to agree on such a process, it would be very difficult to get from here to there. There are just too many guns distributed now to gain that kind of control on things.

    I think it's better if we, as a society, do a better job of educating people as to their rights and responsibilities with respect to guns. Perhaps a bit more focus on the ethics of posession and ownership, too, so that people with guns don't feel that wanting something that you have is enough reason to pull a gun to take it.

    Under the current situation, we really have no means of ensuring that a criminal, once released from jail or prison, will not get access to a gun. Ethically, it would be wise for people to know who they're transferring guns to, but many of the criminals get their guns from people that aren't thinking too straight, or from other criminals.

    Certainly, we need to figure out things we can do--especially things we can do before someone commits their first gun crime--but socially and politically, we can discard any thoughts about any kind of gun control program.

  • bvresident posted at 6:30 pm on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    servitude1, I don't know why didn't I think of that. Have you ever considered taking that comedy act on the road? The great part about living in a non-socialist society is that if you don't want to do something or own something you don't have to. Well, I forgot that we're being forced to have health insurance. But if you don't want to own a gun then don't. I don't have the same warm, fuzzy feeling you have about placing my entire safety and well-being in the notion that a popo will be just around the corner if I need him or her. Your baseless claim that if there are fewer guns there will be fewer violent crimes committed with guns is wishful thinking. Here's a little evidence of that.


  • gecroix posted at 8:35 pm on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6191

    The country would benefit greatly from Blithering Nitwit Control.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:12 pm on Tue, Sep 3, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Someone out there would then lose all entertainment. [beam]

  • Paul Hyatt posted at 5:50 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    Paul Hyatt Posts: 295

    I see that you hate our Constitution and want to give up your rights that were afforded by it.... We the people disagree with you.... Give up your rights if you want but do NOT tread on mine....

  • sverige1 posted at 7:22 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to Paul Hyatt posted at 5:50 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013:

    This "don't tread on me" catchphrase is a low-level and emotional reaction to the complicated issue of gun safety. The Constitution nor freedom is compromised if gun ownership is restricted to the few who earn the privilege. The same logic applies to folks who simply can't afford a Lexus. We all have the "freedom" to purchase a luxury car, yet we don't because 1. we can't afford it, and/or 2. we are not equipped to drive a vehicle. An individual NOT owning a Lexus (or not owning a gun) isn't getting his/her "rights" taken away from him/her. This individual does not need a gun, and/or does not need a luxury car.

    Given that many folks are not equipped to carry, store, nor fire a weapon, yet and still we hear countless news stories throughout the country of people who leave their guns under their bed, in a cabinet - and little Brandon gets ahold of it and accidentally shoots his little brother. I hasten to add that any of us on this forum (geocrocxs, Paul Hynatt, Kev, Saraishefs) - if any of us unfortunately had a little one who met his/her demise through a carelessly stored household gun....we would change our tune in regard to the need for tighter gun restriction legislation.

    Saraishelafs has a point. The background checks are not only necessary, they are the first line in weeding out the citizenry who simply don't need a gun. I've said it many times, and I'll reiterate. A prime example is last December's Sandy Hook incident. Mama Lanza nor mentally disturbed son Adam were hardened criminals. But, if Mama Lanza had no weapons, Adam would not have had that easy access as he was still an adult living under her roof. A background check would know that Mama Lanza had a mentally disturbed son - as the questionnaire would have a question - "Do you have a mentally disturbed family member under your roof?" BTW - I propose that the background check questionairres be notarized with 2 witnesses. That way, folks like Mama Lanza would not get away with allowing guns in the house since at least one of the witnesses would have sense to say, "Excuse me honey, but you have that crazy son that shouldn't be around any guns. Please don't try to have guns in your house." Same applies to the nutcase in Aurora, CO. He was an assumingly "intelligent" college student. If he had a witness or two sound the alarm that he's a looney tune, then the theatre incident perhaps could have been abated. On top of that, his campus psychologist perhaps could have been more empowered to sound her own alarm when she had her suspicions that he was a nutcase. We're all so concerned about "freedoms" at the expense of public safety.

    The example regarding the Lanzas, again, illustrate a case where there are no hardened criminals involved. There are countless stories of non-criminals who simply have "snapped" and caused bloodshed. Thus, we surely need more stringent gun control safeguards. But, it should be a "given" that any convicted criminal (from DWI on up) should be banned from possession/ownership of a gun for the rest of his/her life.

  • Jbgood posted at 11:01 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Well,...I thought I'd just peek in on this thread, and see what was going on. Normally, I just bi-pass threads like these, but this one intrigues me this morning for some reason. You know, it always baffles me how some Americans can be so unaware of what is going on around them!
    I mean, the world is falling down all around us, and many are just ballet dancing with their hands in the air,...circling around on their toes, with their eyes closed to all that can be seen by BLIND Bartimaeus, and Ray Charles if they were still alive!
    We have several here, as always,..taking about the way things should be, and how nice it would be,...if things flowed a certain way! Then you have still others like Mr. Gecroix, Mr. Bvresident, and Mr. Paul Hyatt,..who are talking reality! They are talking about the times THAT ARE!
    This is NOT 1940,...when people had much more work ethics, pride,integrity, character, and respect for others and their property. Years ago, people would leave their homes and go on vacation, without locking their windows and doors!
    Years ago, people would sleep on their porch, or inside their homes with their doors wide open with nothing between them and the outside but a screen door!
    Years ago, there were no police departments in public schools,...Why? Why do we need in some school districts 150-200 gun packing,...policemen with steel telescopic head sticks hanging on their hips?
    Why did 5-6 young men go into SPRING HIGH SCHOOL this morning stabbing people like the world was about to end? Many were injured and one is DEAD? WHY? What is Ole JBG getting at?
    I'll tell you what I'm getting at,...and it is the world has not changed but the men in the world have! The moral turpitude, and values systems of mankind has dropped to alarming levels! Many today wants what others have and are willing to take, or kill them to get it. They don't give three dams weather they shot and individual,...stab them,..or hit them over their heads with steel rods to get what they are after!!
    A gun is just a weapon of choice,...but a knife or machete will do! the reason I say that is because ALL of these people who are so gullible toward guns, will be the same if a MACHETE was what criminals were using to ply their trade!
    Hey! It is not the weapons,...it is the people, who are so destitute and lacking of home training,...character, and morality,...that this country is not safe for law abiding citizen unless they have something to protect themselves,families, and properties with! Another thing,..a CROOK is going to get a gun, weather you won't sell him one or not. The point is DO YOU HAVE ONE? If not,..and you don't think there is a need for one,...would you be willing to demonstrate that, by having your name place on a national registry saying "I" don't own a gun, nor will "I" allow one in my home! Then put you address and phone number there too, so "THEY" will be able to come for you!
    I might listen to what is being spewed out about gun-control then!

  • sverige1 posted at 11:30 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to Jbgood posted at 11:01 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013:

    Well, JBG - what you write reminds me of an old "All in the Family" episode where Archie is defending the readily accepted use of guns. When the gun control was proposed to him by his son-in-law Meathead - Archie's answer included the notion that any weapon could be used by saying, "Would you rather people be killed by being pushed off of a high-rise building?"

    Notice I used the word "readily" in the 1st paragraph. Guns are readily used out of convenience. Yes, knives are used. Yes, hand grenades are used. And, yes, folks are pushed off of high-rise buildings (as you see usually in the 1st murder scenes in a crime show). However, guns used as weapons are used much more often.

    Keeping on topic and going along with the title of this article "impact of gun control legislation" - I don't think that democracy would have worked thoughout history if societies decided to throw their hands up in the air and abandon such governmental theory - simply because the legislation did not work. That's what happens in such a system. Old legislation is outdated and must be changed. After all, we don't need old rules anymore (EX: we don't need legislation saying "it's illegal to milk another person's cow"). That's b/c we have so much enclosed industry that houses the cows indoors. Some wayward person isn't going to stop at a pasture and milk someone elses single cow.

    Ipso facto, we need "new" legislation to go with the times in regard to gun control. Will it be perfect? No. Will there be other means, as from Spring ISD incident this morning? Yes. But, just think if we threw hands up in air and said, "no gun laws" - how many folks would get ahold of even more guns though both marginally law-abiding citizens or through blatantly non-law abiding criminals.

    BTW - there IS less gun violence in New York City (less frequency of gun use by population) due to the mayor's orchestration of more policing and increased personalization of "cops on the beat" in the several NYC sub-communities. I saw a news story on how the citizens have gotten to know the police and trust them more than in the past decades.

  • saraishelafs posted at 11:47 am on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    Background checks at gun shows where a criminal can now purchase a weapon would reveal felony convictions, etc. Or would discourage this easy access for people with criminal intent. Same with internet purchases. It's too easy. Why would a criminal go underground if it is this easy legally? As for databases of people with mental illness, the privacy laws are an obstacle. I guess we could just ask Google or NSA for this kind of info.

  • Jbgood posted at 12:23 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Just sign up, and let the criminals know where you live and if you have a weapon!
    That or just put a sign on your house saying "I don't believing in gun ownership,...come on in!!!" You do that and a year afterwards,..if YOU are still here, I might sell my guns. If not,..then just keep talking.......

  • gecroix posted at 12:49 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6191

    I watched a show about Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers. Very impressive.
    Then watched a movie about them, (hollywood fictional, but 'based on reality'...).
    In the movie, one of the swimmer characters said he 'saved all he could, and the rest were in God's hands'.
    You can't save people who don't want to be, or can't be for wahtever reason.
    So, no use wasting time trying to fix the ones who can't be fixed.
    Leave them to Darwin.
    Just walk on by...

  • kevjlang posted at 1:24 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Oh, sverige1 is just baiting everyone. He has an armory that would make the Marine Corps jealous. [beam]

  • bvresident posted at 3:40 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Maybe, but if he does then using his own criteria regarding those who really shouldn't have guns he shouldn't have any guns. In any case, if you're trying to bait someone usually you'd try to make a compelling argument for your position. He just can't seem to pull it together.

  • IHOG posted at 11:09 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    WE need more enforcement and one new law enforced with '0' tolerence.
    That law would say no one gets a second chance to use a gun in crime. Yes I'm talking about "jail till dead". No exceptions, no repeat offenders. Gun crime would become so rare we'd need no other gun laws.

    The big difference between crime trends in Chicago and New York is Chicago has the most restrictive laws with no enforcement. New Youk, under Gullianni, began enforcing their gun laws. They are still in the top ten of gun deaths per 1,000 population but improving slowly.
    How laws are enforced is more important than how many laws there are.
    If Chicago enforced all their gun restrictions they'd be a safe city with a lot of starving criminal trial lawyers.

    The U.S. has excellent immigration laws but little enforcement of any.
    Enforcement of all existing immigration laws would solve our illegal immigration problem. And eliminate "undocumented Democrat voters".

  • IHOG posted at 11:25 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    One error.
    More people are killed with blunt instruments than guns.
    Toxic liquids are second most used.

  • IHOG posted at 12:17 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Ignorence is the main problem with guns.
    In my extended family guns were a commmon tool that was stored, unloaded, where it was handy. Ammo was kept where infants couldn't get it. More to keep them from swalowing a cartrige than anything else.
    Learning gun safety began as soon as a child became interested, usually by age 5. Most kids owned their first gun by age ten. I bought my first 410 shotgun from Western Auto at age nine. Earned ammo money by killing rats and vermin.
    The ISD school I attended had gun racks on one side of "home rooms" and a shelf for ammo on the other wall. We hunted coming and going to school. No one was ever shot. No one played with guns. We didn't play with brooms, shovels, hammers or axes either. They were just tools like guns we used for intended purposes.
    The first time I heard of someone being afraid of guns I thought they must be nuts, but learned they were just liberals.
    Ain't had much use for anyone that dumb since.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:31 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 3:40 pm on Wed, Sep 4, 2013:

    "Criteria for folks not needing guns" I've expressed: 1. mentally disturbed relatives close by, 2. irresponsible securing of weaponry (unlocked cabinets, in presence of children, under beds). I don't think that's off base.

    So, bvresident -
    Furthermore - NYC is a prime example of a society whose mentality has been reversed in regard to reduced gun ownership and the better relationship with law enforcement. General, mainstream society doesn't need a weapon at hand. We're not the wild west.

    Any move to reduce weaponry and to help remove the temptation of volitile persons from committing a crime of passion is a worthwhile discussion.

    It's real easy to identify with the pack 'em and use 'em mentality, but much more difficult to intelligently discuss and perhaps conclude that society as it is now is unacceptable.

    When you express your anger about our current President, I wonder if you are safe with a gun. Now, doesn't that sound as logical as what you just said in your post?

  • Jbgood posted at 11:17 am on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    "OUR" ...current President has Changed my CALCULUS,....he has Erased my ALGEBRA,....and he has Wet on my ARITHMETIC!
    Do you know what? I do not LIKE IT,....especially the situation with my arithmetic!!!
    Now,..that's all I want to say! I'm trying to find some football threads!!

  • bvresident posted at 5:00 pm on Thu, Sep 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Ah yes, when the loopy left-wingers can't argue their point coherently then out comes the "angry" accusations. We don't have to look far to know that those on the left are far less in control of their emotions than those on the right.

    As for NYC, it's not a mentality that changed rather its the laws. Stating that "mainstream society doesn't need a weapon at hand" is just more of the left's incessant need to dictate every want and need of everyone around them. If you don't like guns then don't own one. It's that simple.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:32 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to

    "If you don't like guns then don't own one. It's that simple."

    Actually, it's not as simple as that. The mentality our country has teaches folks to use force when angry (guns, knives at schools, etc.). It would be ideal for society to gradually shift into a mindset where guns are to be used in a "controlled environment". Hence, the title of this article. Hunting, the home (where law enforcement and the stir of the populace of law enforcement/security is not around you) - that's the controlled environment.

    I would hasten to say the "if you don't like guns" statement would go for anyone in a school, bank, grocery store, or public building. Again, who would want a phone call from the county sheriff dept. saying that your Aunt Clarece was shopping at Arlens and her "gun went off" from her purse. Why does Aunt Clarece need a gun in her purse just to go shopping? Is she expecting to be robbed? What a way to live.

    For the record, I like guns. What I don't like are "gun happy" folks who get all right-loopy over the government wanting to "take them away". Hogwash. That's the loopy right "clinging to their guns and religion." Our President was right in that statement.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:50 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    And folks:

    You will all notice I changed my Avatar to "Pax Christi International" - a statement that we can worldwide strive for peace and justice.

    Yes, there are voices of reason that remain. I am representative of that. Let the debates continue.

    AMY DAVIS for Governor - "May Texas Progress for the 21st Century"

  • Jbgood posted at 8:18 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    There you go, again interjecting "LARISM" into the atmosphere again. Maybe with the kinds of nuts trolling the streets, hiding in every corner, and cranny, in today's society, many women feels it necessary to carry a gun. However, I know that would never occur to you,....don't ask why,...I just know it. MAYBE IF WE LIVED IN A UTOPIAN SOCIETY WHERE EVERYTHING WAS PERFECT, WOMEN OR NOBODY ELSE,...OR THAT MATTER,... WOULD FEEL IT NECESSARY TO PACK A WEAPON,...BUT WE DON'T!!!
    Crime, assaults, rapes, etc. taking place especially against women, are going through the roof in this country, and you make the statement of why does a female need a gun in her purse to go shopping? Do you not realize that many crimes against women takes place in parking lots of SHOPPING CENTERS?
    I think you just talk to be talking,..for lack of anything BETTER to do! Another thing,...your President has changed my Calculus,....erased my Algebra,...and messed on my Arithmetic, and I'm not happy about it. I don't appreciated it. No sir! I don't appreciate it ah...tall!
    He has officially disowned his own RED LINE, that he drew in the sand, and on worldwide TV! Now he wants to get America in a war with Syria and Iran,..because he made a fool out of himself and he does not want to go down in the history books as looking weak around the world,...like Jimmy Carter. I'm all for a man saying what he thinks.......but.......think about what you say,....BEFORE YOU SAY IT! Taxpayers are not paying him to go on a world's stage and make a fool out of himself! Some things are best kept at home!
    Now,..I'd like for you to make me a favor! Write him a letter, ( since yall are partners) and help him out. Okay? Alright then! I'm out,...trying to find somebody who know something about football.

  • bvresident posted at 9:21 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    servitude1, you never responded to the link regarding the gun ban instituted by Australia and their subsequent increase in violent crime. Why is that? Maybe because it doesn't support your talking points. Here's what I understand about people like you who ignore or transform facts to suit their point of view. I heard Andrea Mitchell state this week that your president was approaching the beat of war drums against Syria with "caution and his anti-war view". Say what? But that's the nonsense coming from your side.

    What I find amazing is that so many on your side advocate gun control while supporting the violent video game industry, the violent hip-hop music, and the violence (much of it gun violence0 in Hollywood. Kind of like Al Gore complaining about the carbon footprint put out by the little guy while he flies around the world on his private jet!

    My view that if you don't like guns then don't own one is simple and realistic. The change that you want starts with you. So don't ever own a gun and you've made your own little contribution to society. While you're at it try taking a different pattern of thought with that. And that's that your point of view is just that-yours. Stop trying to do what the left always does and that's that if you don't like something then nobody else should like it either. It's hypocritical and more than a bit fanatical.

  • sverige1 posted at 11:33 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 9:21 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013,
    Response to Jbgood posted at 8:18 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013:

    My lands, you two folks sure got your panties in a bind over a simple reiteration that gun culture in this country needs to be transformed to a more healthy state of being. The point I've been illustrating goes with the title of this entry "the impact of gun control legislation." I shall again state that we need effective gun control for the sake of our country's safety.

    Austrailia doesn't hold a candle to the gun violence we have here in the States. Whatever is "rising" over there could be a result of world-wide decay of societal integrity. A similar situation is in Great Britain. After all, within the past 2 decades they've had to impose more of the "bobbies" using weapons. They used to have the reputation of not needing them nearly as much as here in the U.S.

    Which further illustrates my point. It's the mentality that society holds. If you (women, men..doesn't matter) feel unsafe and feel you have to carry a gun in your purse, then that means we as a society have failed to "legislate" salient gun laws.

    All I've been saying is we need to keep trying to find that "utopia".

  • sverige1 posted at 11:54 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 9:21 am on Fri, Sep 6, 2013:

    Well, I never said I was a big fan of "the violent video game industry" or "the violent hip-hop music industry". That would be like jumping to the conclusion that you are so much on the "right" that you don't let your wife wear bluejeans, forbid your daughter from getting her ears pierced, and you still think The Beatles are representative of that "devil worshipping" rock and roll noise.

    I'm one of those who basically leads a pastoral/clerical existence. Hate the crowds and hoopla.

    Speaking of rap - I do still like "Papa Large" - Ultramagnetics. Can't believe that came out so long ago - in the 90s. They were pretty hip even back then.

  • Jbgood posted at 1:31 pm on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Times "SHO" have changed! I remember when a dollar was silver,..coke was just a drink,....and a joint was a bad place to be! [smile]

  • sverige1 posted at 5:40 pm on Fri, Sep 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    "Stop rollin' downhill like a snowball headed for hell!" Are the good times really over for good??

    Poppa Large: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkPsYvOgTtI