Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ATF classifies Chore Boy pot scrubber pads NFA firearms

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:46 AM
Original message
ATF classifies Chore Boy pot scrubber pads NFA firearms
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearms Technology Branch has deemed “Chore Boy copper cleaning pads, along with fiberglass insulation,” a firearm, subject to registration and a $200 transfer tax, an official letter obtained recently by Gun Rights Examiner reveals. The response to an attorney inquiry by John R. Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, offers one of the more creatively restrictive assessments since ATF declared a shoestring to be a machinegun.

The rationale Spencer uses:

A silencer is a firearm per U.S. Code, subject to National Firearms Act registration and transfer tax requirements.

ound/gas absorbing materials manufactured from Chore Boy copper cleaning pads, along with fiberglass insulation, constitute a silencer…”

Therefore, it is illegal for an individual to replace deteriorated material within an already- registered suppressor without an approved ATF Form 1, ‘Application to Make and Register a Firearm,’” along with a “$200.00 making tax” and “a ‘no-marking’ variance…since there is no viable area in which to apply a serial number to the sound-absorbing material.”

More here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/atf-classifies-chore-boy-pot-scrubber-pads-nfa-firearms

More nonsense from the ATFE.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Refresh | +6 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. And, while you're scrubbing, the DEA will break down your door to get your pots stash
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 08:52 AM by Orrex
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hmmm.
This is akin to requiring you to pay a vehicle registration fee every time you have a repair done on your vehicle.

I suspect the policy behind this is "extract as much money as possible from as many people as possible."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. It would be interesting to monitor "constructive possession" cases.
Just because.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. Smells like bullshit.
Try finding a source that's not fascist RW propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
7.  If you feel that way, then find it yourself. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I'm not the one posting RW crap.
Take some responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
14.  If you don't like the source then find one you do agree to.
It is not my responsibility to find sources that YOU agree with.
So quit yer bitchin and find it yourself.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. The Brady's worked for Ronald Reagan, so
please refrain from posting any of their lunacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
53. Guess they took off after post #27 refuted their slur of the OP.
Color me unsurprised...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. BATF has a record of saying those kind of things
Elsewhere I saw this with a PDF including official letterhead. Would that be enough for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. Technical branch has said similar things before
Possessing steel tubing and fender or Belleville washers could get you into a heap of trouble as well. The law prohibits possessing silencer parts, or parts which could be assembled into a silencer. They simply added pot scrubbers to their list of possible silencer parts.

It is the same attitude which assumes anyone who possesses a $70,000 a "London's Best" Holland & Holland shotgun is just itching to saw it off with a $1.29 Chinese hacksaw from Wal-Mart hanging in the garage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
8.  Don't forget the full auto shoelaces! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Not likely to forget that classic bit of buruacrattic bullshit
The ATF is hard to pin down. Consistency, clarity, and common sense have never been a hallmark of ATF rulings. Yes, back in 1996 the ATF did rule a boot-lace was indeed, a machinegun.

When the question was asked again in 2004, the ATF reiterated its position a boot-lace was still a machinegun.

"We already told you a bootlace is a machinegun!" Letter Note closely the metal tag with the serial number on the shoestring.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. If you read the edited-out parts, this means that
they don't want deteriorated silencers replaced in guns without proper registration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. You did not read that right
What they said is you cannot replace the stuffing in an already registered silencer without re-registering the thing and giving them another 200 bucks.... and since you cannot easily mark a serial number on the new stuffing, you have to ask for a variance to reuse the serial number of the worn out silencer you are fixing.

Does your brain hurt yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. What is the justification for a silencer, anyway? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Maybe the same reason your car has a muffler?
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:32 AM by one-eyed fat man
Unless you are a teenager who like loud pipes on her car. When I was in New Zealand they were sold over the counter for fifty bucks, no paperwork, to minimize the noise. Keep from disturbing the neighbors, damaging the shooter's hearing, any number of benign reasons.

To assume that there are only sinister reasons for possessing a silencer is as demeaning as assuming all women pedestrians at night are streetwalkers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. As a neighbor, I'd rather know when someone was shooting nearby.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:45 AM by pnwmom
So I could keep my family indoors. I would think hunters would also like to know when there's another hunter in the area.

Your analogy with women and streetwalkers is really disturbing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. They would know.
The hollywood portrayal of the effectiveness of a 'silencer' (really a 'suppressor') is about as accurate as anything else they produce.

Ive even seen shotgun 'silencers' that, in use, might actually qualify as 'loudeners'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. And you call us paranoid?
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. When did I call anyone paranoid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. By "you", I meant anti-gun people in general. Examples abound in the gungeon.
My apology for being unclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. (self-delete)
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:46 PM by pnwmom
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. My husband owns hunting guns, so we're not "anti-gun."
We don't have any silencers, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Just because you own firearms...
..does not mean you're not anti-gun.

Many of the most vocal gun control advocates do own firearms. They just don't want "the wrong kind of people" to have them. "Wrong kind" defined as anyone not just like them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. Being pro gun-control doesn't make a person "anti-gun."
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 05:38 PM by pnwmom
I don't think psychotic people should own guns. Or people with drug addictions, or records of violent felonies. Not because they are different from me, but because there is a greater risk they'll use a gun improperly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Not only do we agree on that
it has also been the law since the 1930s (for felons) and 1960s for adjudicated mental incompetents and addicts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. And those are examples of good gun control legislation. It doesn't have
to be an all or nothing situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. Yeah, sorry but it does.
If someone is adjudicated insane, then I have zero problem with him having his rights restricted. However, he should also be under someone's care.

Drug addictions? That's a touchy one. If they are actively in jail, obviously they are unarmed. Upon release and upon being clean, why not? We don't take firearms away from known alcoholics.

Violent felons? They should be in jail. Again, obviously disarmed.

Those are not gun control issues. They are issues dealing with criminal penalties. The fact that they cannot own a gun is incidental.

So yes, supporting gun control does by definition make you anti gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. No worse than yours
Deny the negative inference you made, " What is the justification for a silencer, anyway?" Your nasty inference that only criminals would want a silencer got the snark it deserves in response.

Silencers in real life are not like they are depicted in the movies. Just like your muffler dosn't not make you car as quite as an electric car. The gunshot still sounds like a gunshot just not quite as loud.

As for, "So I could keep my family indoors." unless you bought one of those surplus missile silos in North Dakota, your house is piss-poor protection

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. I would hope that the chances of one of my children being shot
by an neighbor's errant bullet would be greater if they were outside than in -- but you're the expert. I didn't realize it would be that easy to accidentally hit something as big as a house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. That would depend why you have bullets flying in your area
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 02:29 AM by one-eyed fat man
If you are troubled by once a year city slicker road "hunters" out in the country the problem is different than if your neighbor is a crack dealer involved in a business dispute.

Then again, if your children are wont to trespass on neighboring farms during hunting season, perhaps keeping them restrained is prudent.

Flippancy aside, if there is a neighbor who regularly shoots where you live it is likely a place with a backstop, a hill, a berm, something where he can be pretty certain the bullets are stopped.

Similarly, hunters I grew up with knew the lay of the land they lived on and hunted. That knowledge included which directions were safe to shoot and which directions had unseen houses or livestock to consider.

Rifle bullets will routinely defeat building brick. Pistol bullets will spectacularly shatter concrete block. A couple sheets of drywall or a wall stud won't stop much. As it happens, some bullets will penetrate better after they have traveled 200 yards than they will at 20.

Can allegedly modern educated adults be idiotic, unthinking, clueless, and dangerously irresponsible?

Ask yourself that the next time you encounter someone with presumably a functioning brain, licensed by the state, and in all likelihood a college degree, texting merrily away at 70 mph, and hopefully not oncoming in your lane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. What you would like to know...
...has no bearing on what others do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Finland has a hunting regulation
that requires them in some areas. Many shooting ranges in France do as well. Like New Zealand and Norway, they are completly unregulated there too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I would accept Finland's laws on silencers for their all but outright ban of guns in public.

They have it right -- keep your guns in your home unless hunting or actually target shooting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Thank goodness no one really cares what you have to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. For your edification...
From Cracked.com, "5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)"
I would draw your attention specifically to the first item listed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. In europe, at indoor ranges, they are usually REQUIRED.
It's all well and good to wear hearing protection for yourself, but it's hard to pass out enough ear plugs to every person within earshot.

They do not 'hide' the firearm/shooter. They simply reduce the decibel level to a range that is less likely to cause hearing damage.

If someone is shooting with one of these things, you'll still hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
44. It would help when shooting at indoor ranges, even ear protection...
is not enough if someone is ripping away with a .45 - 70 Government round. Also, some European nations require the use of so-called "silencers" (really noise-suppressors) when hunting so as not to disturb other wildlife and people living within the hunting area.

I understand the argument against silencers (being able to hear poachers/illegal shooters), but many poachers already use .22s, some with make-shift suppressors, to escape detection. I think noise suppressors would be a good thing for both range shooting and hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Only the manufacturer of a registered suppressor can refurbish or repair it.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 06:40 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
For example, if you owned a registered legal suppressor and a part inside failed or deteriorated... you could just "replace it" with something of your own design or installation. Nor could you duplicate the part and subsequently replace it - even if you had proper material, skill, machines and tooling to do so.

Only the manufacturer of the suppressoror or a registered SOT manufacturer can refurbish or repair it.
This ruling from the ATF is consistent with previous stances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Similar problem if the receiver is damaged on a machine gun.
only the manufacturer can replace a damaged receiver and serialize it.

Most all of the full auto stuff in the hands of collectors is World War One and Two military surplus. There is some late Cold War stuff and if you damage your registered M16A2 you can return it to the factory for a replacement receiver.

On the other hand Vickers is unlikely to have any interest in supporting a gun that went out of service in England in 1968. You probably couldn't convince Rock-ola to replace a damaged M2 carbine receiver.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. I believe the ATF recently nixed the replacement and duplicate serialization of receivers.
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 02:26 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
It used to be that the company provided a new receiver with the same serial number and returned it to the owner... same number, no new tax/paperwork needed.

I'm pretty sure that is no longer doable because some SOTS were basically building new MGs using old pre-86 numbers from the ATF database (numbers from lost, destroyed, or unaccounted) and selling them. I think what really PO'ed the ATF was when numbers didn't match the model of the machine gun... like using the registered number or receiver of destroyed gun "A" to build gun type "B". Some silencer companies were doing that recently too - using different serial numbers to rebuild suppressors into different silencers altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Small point
when very few of the manufacturers still exist. I have an M1A/M14 suppressor built by PAI. They have been out of business almost 30 years. Westinghouse makes no BAR parts. Vickers will not fix a receiver. Savage won't repair the Lewis gun. Colt will replace the lower on the XM16E1 but it won't be a partial fence early lower, nor will it have the "United States Property" marks as it is a 1968 amnesty gun.

As an investment they have done better than gold. I have had some of them for 40 years or longer. Most of them were bought when the $200 tax was considerably more than the price of the gun.

I did read something about some guys in Arizona(?)running some kind of scam where they took the serial number of some registered piece of crap like a Cobray MAC-10 and somehow turning it into an M1919 belt-fed Browning.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." ...easy to believe that Napoleon had dealings with the ATF.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Hey, hey, hey... easy on the Ingrams!
I've got a nice little pre-86 Cobray M-11/nine with a sten mag conversion. I love it.
Sten mags used to be dirt cheap (built like bricks too) so I've got a bucket of mags for it.

If anything ever happens to it, I'll just pound it back into shape and reweld it. ;-)
They might be cheap, but nothing throws lead quite like a M-11. It's little buzz saw!

I heard, as recently as a few years ago, that Ruger would replace & reserialize AC-556 rifles with new guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Cobray, not Ingram
I remember back in the '60's when Mitch WerBell would sometimes show up on the MTU's practice range at Benning with car trunk full of exotic hardware. The handlebar mustache he sported was damn near a trademark. He founded Sionics which made what were really high performance suppressors at the time. The relief valve made suppressing full auto practical, as I recalled he teamed up with Ingram for a time

He had to be in his fifties then, veteran of WW2, the OSS and had been all over southeast Asia. He'd be over on his end of the range, whispers about who he was and rumors of what he'd done, but we never spoke to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Probably because there are safety issues involved. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. No, It stems back to a time when you could freely buy any spare parts of a suppressor for repair.
Individuals would buy ALL the parts (separately) and then just stuff them into a homemade tube. Basically, you could manufacture a commercial grade silencer illegally at home thus bypassing the registration and tax system. Since then, the ATF has ruled that ANY part of a suppressor (even a spare part) is a suppressor itself and requires a serial number and taxatoin if possesed separately from a complete serialized suppressor assembly. In short, no more spare parts are allowed to be bought or possesed outside of the registration system.

The only loophole that exists is for the possesion of spare "wipes" for cans that use disposable wipes integral to their design... which makes sense because wipes are designed as a disposable part of the suppressor requiring replacement every few dozen shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. Such as... ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Basically big brother trying to red tape up something they don't trust you with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. If the ATF would spend more of its time stopping gun smuggling ...
rather than encouraging it by allow guns to "walk" and stop wasting so much effort on honest citizens rather than criminals, the bureau would have a far better reputation with gun owners.

I believe the agents on the ground are good law enforcement agents interested in doing a valuable service to our society. Unfortunately, the ATF has often been hampered by incompetent management who often have advanced to their positions because of their willingness to treat honest gun owners and gun store owners as criminals and to pander to politicians who oppose gun ownership by any citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
27. For the doubters...


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. What a buch of fucking idiocy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. What was that about taking responsibility?
Probably doesn't have a hair on his ass either
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 18th 2024, 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC