Gun control inaction.

[dude1394]

From a guy in Florida :

My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho
Socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.). So last spring
I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood
party.

The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me
Take down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take
Such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would
Be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which
If there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the
Sign in seven days."

After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there
Was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder.

I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friendsat the hunt club but
That seemed to make him even more angry.
I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions
Would be welcome.

[chumdawg]

Is that a poem the guy wrote?

[dude1394]

Beats me...just another unfunny post.

[Flacolaco]

That would be pretty funny if it weren't a hack ass photoshop job.

[dude1394]

It's still funny...what do you have against hack-ass photoshop jobs?

[chumdawg]

Oh, you meant it WAS supposed to be funny?

[Usually Lurkin]

It is kinda funny

[dude1394]

It was funny.

[mcsluggo]

No, really its not. Perhaps you mean "ironic" again? It is just exactly as funny as all the clever leftist bumper stickers you would see at a Cindy Shehan rally.... which is to say about as funny as an ass boil. Basically... this is republican emo.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Basically... this is republican emo.

I'm going to steal the sh!t out of that one...


(it could make a clever bumper sticker to sell to those liberals)

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

No, really its not. Perhaps you mean "ironic" again? It is just exactly as funny as all the clever leftist bumper stickers you would see at a Cindy Shehan rally.... which is to say about as funny as an ass boil. Basically... this is republican emo.

You must spread some Reputation....

You've gotta love the quivering, polarized masses. It's funny (in an ironic and somewhat tragic way) that the most polarized are usually the least equipped to discern that they are being played. Of course, they actually want the world to be as simplistic and easy as possible for their own lack of control over their consciousness. It's one highly destructive feedback loop.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

You must spread some Reputation....

You've gotta love the quivering, polarized masses. It's funny (in an ironic and somewhat tragic way) that the most polarized are usually the least equipped to discern that they are being played. Of course, they actually want the world to be as simplistic and easy as possible for their own lack of control over their consciousness. It's one highly destructive feedback loop.

I think it is funny for a different reason.

Too many hypocrites in America:

They are willing to stand behind their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech -- as long as it doesn't cost them anything, but get all pissed off when someone else stands behind their 1st Amendment right. Of course they don't want to stand behind the second Amendment because the cowards would have to actually admit that the government is "by the people and of the people and supposedly FOR the people" and each individual is responsible for his or her own actions -- not the invisible "Government" who will save them from "everything - most importantly their own screwups".

Unfortunately Gun control really comes down to one thing -- who is responsible. I think I am responsible for the health and well being of my family and liberals think the Government is -- that way they have someone else to blame when something happens. It all comes down to lack of responsibility - which leads to hypocrisy.

Personally I don't need the government to provide healthcare, retirement, or anything else --- except what it was designed for "control of the military to keep other countries from deciding to take over". Don't get me wrong, I like the benefits of clean water, good food, etc that are federally programmed right now, but I believe that the state is the one that should be running it.

I will say this though Rib -- the masses are polarizing.

[Usually Lurkin]

- - but it actually is funny. If Hank Hill or Cletus the slack jawed yokel or some other tv character were to put this sign up or say something like it, I'd laugh. It's easily as funny as those "This house patrolled by shotgun 3 days a week, you guess the days" signs that you really do see. It's funny. If you don't think it's funny, it's because you've got a political bias (or anti-bias) that's getting in the way.

[Underdog]

Adults acting like children = funny


(if you don't believe that, you're probably an Anti-Semite...)

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Adults acting like children = funny

Hey there...behave, will ya ?

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I think it is funny for a different reason.

Too many hypocrites in America:

They are willing to stand behind their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech -- as long as it doesn't cost them anything, but get all pissed off when someone else stands behind their 1st Amendment right. Of course they don't want to stand behind the second Amendment because the cowards would have to actually admit that the government is "by the people and of the people and supposedly FOR the people" and each individual is responsible for his or her own actions -- not the invisible "Government" who will save them from "everything - most importantly their own screwups".

Unfortunately Gun control really comes down to one thing -- who is responsible. I think I am responsible for the health and well being of my family and liberals think the Government is -- that way they have someone else to blame when something happens. It all comes down to lack of responsibility - which leads to hypocrisy.

Personally I don't need the government to provide healthcare, retirement, or anything else --- except what it was designed for "control of the military to keep other countries from deciding to take over". Don't get me wrong, I like the benefits of clean water, good food, etc that are federally programmed right now, but I believe that the state is the one that should be running it.

I will say this though Rib -- the masses are polarizing.

I can understand where you are coming from. I used to wax poetic on our "rights" until I discovered that there really aren't any; there are merely privileges. The same elements of control present today to those who have a discerning eye were present in the formation of the Republic. Our tax dollars are funneled to European banking interests, the policies of this government are formed outside of the political process, and the media who is supposedly here to illuminate the spectacle is now completely controlled by 6 corporate entities which engage in programming that appeals to the least conscious amongst us. They, in turn, act as replicants, spewing forth the memes and ideas of someone other than themselves.

The American political system is here for entertainment purposes, as it is with any representative form of government. How can one decry said system when the very act of participating in it is, by definition, an act of handing authority over to someone else?

Government appeals to man's base fears. And in so doing, it is imbued with flaws on a collective level. We want government to stop people from doing things that challenge our worldview, regardless of how limiting it may be.

Obama was being groomed for his current position years ago, by the same people who groomed Bush. The owners of this country understand the human psyche and wait until they see which way the overall sentiment of the proles is blowing, and then insert someone who can appeal to the fears of the majority, while still striking an image of control and power. It tends to be cyclical. We get someone who demonizes intellectuals when the owners of this country need treasure abroad, and we get someone who champions them when we need to recover from the cost of the previous war. At all times, however, a polarity is needed. If it weren't there, people might actually have to go about making decisions for themselves and be accountable for their actions. They might actually realize that we are all being screwed and that the political process is one big circle-jerk.

When I see someone firmly invested in the political dialectic, it's not funny to me. It's sad. And in the context of the OP's persona here, it's very sad.

I wasn't born needing a right to grant me the ability to speak freely. The government isn't designed to protect you from foreign invasion, it's designed to protect the owners from you and to convince you that their interests are your interests through coercion. That should be evident to most people nowadays, but apparently tossing around a few narratives and some iconography convinces us otherwise. Clean water is the product of city governments. Clean food can be (and is) grown in my backyard. You don't need a gargantuan State government apparatus to provide those things for you. I would recommended seizing upon your current angst towards Statism and holding onto those objections to it even when a more appealing sock puppet is offered up for your representation.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Unfortunately Gun control really comes down to one thing -- who is responsible. I think I am responsible for the health and well being of my family and liberals think the Government is -- that way they have someone else to blame when something happens. It all comes down to lack of responsibility - which leads to hypocrisy.

Um...that's an interesting interpretation of their motives. I thought gun control advocates seek to make our society a safer place to live.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Um...that's an interesting interpretation of their motives. I thought gun control advocates seek to make our society a safer place to live.

How can it be safer, if you are removing the ability of the law abiding person to be able to defend themselves?

You aren't removing the ability of the law breaker, as they are breaking the law either way.

You are simply trying to relieve fear by having a place to put the blame -- that is not on oneself when things happen.

-------------------------------------------------
Does outlawing drugs mean drugs are unavailable? or that we have a place to put the blame when something happens?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

II used to wax poetic on our "rights" until I discovered that there really aren't any; there are merely privileges. .

It's all about how you frame it for yourself. You always have the opportunity to influence them to be more "rights-like" or more "privilege-like." Heck if you try hard enough you can make them be "violation-like." Whatever you want them to be should fuel your perspective, and that should fuel your actions.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

<snip>
At all times, however, a polarity is needed. If it weren't there, people might actually have to go about making decisions for themselves and be accountable for their actions. They might actually realize that we are all being screwed and that the political process is one big circle-jerk.
<snip>

I wish I could give you more rep, just for the part above. (I'll have to spread some around I guess)

I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, but the part above especially.

-- Sometimes I just wish people would think for themselves and be able to voice their opinions without it being some sheeple type response from one form or another of the media. I think people are more and more allowing themselves to be controlled - instead of using their brains.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

How can it be safer, if you are removing the ability of the law abiding person to be able to defend themselves?

You aren't removing the ability of the law breaker, as they are breaking the law either way.

You are simply trying to relieve fear by having a place to put the blame -- that is not on oneself when things happen.

-------------------------------------------------
Does outlawing drugs mean drugs are unavailable? or that we have a place to put the blame when something happens?

We're talking the motives of those who advocate for gun control...not debating the efficacy of gun control. Certainly there are instances of death by gunshot that most likely would not have occured if possession of said gun was illegal. No argument there, correct? This is a motive that many gun control advocates have. Again...debate the efficacy all you want, but I think the motive is clear and plain to see.

As for the drug analogy, I'm having a hard time grasping your point. You are talking about individual responsibility in place of collective responsibility. How are you, the individual, going to prevent a stranger from taking drugs? (Assuming you would want to, that is.)

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I wish I could give you more rep, just for the part above. (I'll have to spread some around I guess)

I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, but the part above especially.

-- Sometimes I just wish people would think for themselves and be able to voice their opinions without it being some sheeple type response from one form or another of the media. I think people are more and more allowing themselves to be controlled - instead of using their brains.

Me too, man. You can see that same trance in the controlled opposition. Those who are truly served by big government aren't worried in the least about protests. They are merely an opportunity for their goon squads to have some target practice and further social divisions. It is when people start actually working together that the control system if terrified. I think the main reason many of us favor servitude is because we are acutely aware that we are not ready to be without big daddy government.

The first step in governing oneself is simply complete and total honesty. Our current system only works by leveraging commodities needed for survival. If I have a relationship with a farmer or rancher (which I do), my food is now free from their grasp. If I generate electricity or work with others in my community to do so, I have freed up the means of certain aspects of production. It's really that simple, yet it takes work. And we have been convinced of our uselessness through many of our institutions. We specialize in one thing because it makes us good worker bees, but at the cost of our full spatial awareness. So open up. Get to know your neighbor. Learn to do something you're not supposed to know how to do. Form connections. Stop fearing everyone. Accept your failures unconditionally. Speed up your own personal operating system. Stop investing so much in things that only bind you. That is freedom.

A few excerpts from Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle. I found it to be a fairly dead-on assessment of what we are stuck in and how things came to be this way:

In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.

The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudoworld that can only be looked at. The specialization of images of the world evolves into a world of autonomized images where even the deceivers are deceived. The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the nonliving.

The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as society itself, as a part of society, and as a means of unification. As a part of society, it is the focal point of all vision and all consciousness. But due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is in reality the domain of delusion and false consciousness: the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of universal separation...

In a world that is really upside down, the true is a moment of the false...

The first stage of the economy’s domination of social life brought about an evident degradation of being into having — human fulfillment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed. The present stage, in which social life has become completely dominated by the accumulated productions of the economy, is bringing about a general shift from having to appearing — all “having” must now derive its immediate prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances. At the same time all individual reality has become social, in the sense that it is shaped by social forces and is directly dependent on them. Individual reality is allowed to appear only if it is not actually real...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

- - but it actually is funny. If Hank Hill or Cletus the slack jawed yokel or some other tv character were to put this sign up or say something like it, I'd laugh. It's easily as funny as those "This house patrolled by shotgun 3 days a week, you guess the days" signs that you really do see. It's funny. If you don't think it's funny, it's because you've got a political bias (or anti-bias) that's getting in the way.

I agree totally... it IS easily as funny as the others signs you talk about, and also easily as funny as "You Can't Hug With Nuclear Arms" or "God Loves Everyone, Even Republicans" ... a laugh riot.

The POINT of these things isn't to be funny--- The point is to make a political statement. If you like the statement, fine--- you are more likely to tolerate (or even enjoy) the "joke". But they aren't by any stretch of the imagination "funny".








now a drunk schmuck stepping on a rake and getting smacked in the nuts and falling into a cactus patch... THAT is funny.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

As for the drug analogy, I'm having a hard time grasping your point. You are talking about individual responsibility in place of collective responsibility. How are you, the individual, going to prevent a stranger from taking drugs? (Assuming you would want to, that is.)

I am not going to prevent a stranger from taking drugs --- just like you aren't going to remove guns from a stranger by making them illegal. How are you going to remove all guns from unlawful people?

Yes, it might save a few lives if guns were illegal because of accidents. It also might cost thousands or millions of lives because guns are a strength equalizer.

Example: I hear women here in America say that they would not ever be treated like the women "seem" to be in some Muslim countries. You know the veil, and walking three steps behind the man, the harems, etc.

Why can they say that? because with a gun, they could kill a man - any man. Without it, their chances have decreased immensely. Women (in general and not any specifically) have the rights that men give them, or that they are willing to pick up an equalizer and take the chance of dying for. It is the same everywhere -- the strong will overpower the weak, IF they cannot either equalize the fight or drastically outnumber the opponent. What do you think these same women would be saying, if they were raised in those countries though?

So when you get to individual responsibility versus collective responsibility -- you get to the point of who's version of "right", when you speak collectively versus the version of "right" seen individually. (History is written by the victor)

Does might make right?
Remember slavery was once legal in the US, and they had the might to enforce it --- so did that make it "right" at that time?

I do not have to agree with the collective masses -- else I become just like the German people during WWII times. I can control one person, myself. I have the choice of either living within the boundaries set by the collective or trying to think for myself, and living/dying with the consequences.

The biggest difference is, I don't fear death.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I agree totally... it IS easily as funny as the others signs you talk about, and also easily as funny as "You Can't Hug With Nuclear Arms" or "God Loves Everyone, Even Republicans" ... a laugh riot.

I think funnier than those. Less funny than the SNL Sarah Palin skits. Maybe as funny as the "my kid can beat up your honor student" bumper stickers, or about as funny as the "Teabonics" pictures that are out there.

The POINT of these things isn't to be funny--- The point is to make a political statement. If you like the statement, fine--- you are more likely to tolerate (or even enjoy) the "joke". But they aren't by any stretch of the imagination "funny".

Well, you are wrong. Political humor has been around a long, long time because much of it is simply funny. Some things are funny and political. And if you can remove your own bias, then you can have a good laugh (or at least a fair chuckle) at much of it.[/quote]

now a drunk schmuck stepping on a rake and getting smacked in the nuts and falling into a cactus patch... THAT is funny.

can't disagree there.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I am not going to prevent a stranger from taking drugs --- just like you aren't going to remove guns from a stranger by making them illegal. How are you going to remove all guns from unlawful people?

Yes, it might save a few lives if guns were illegal because of accidents. It also might cost thousands or millions of lives because guns are a strength equalizer.

Example: I hear women here in America say that they would not ever be treated like the women "seem" to be in some Muslim countries. You know the veil, and walking three steps behind the man, the harems, etc.

Why can they say that? because with a gun, they could kill a man - any man. Without it, their chances have decreased immensely. Women (in general and not any specifically) have the rights that men give them, or that they are willing to pick up an equalizer and take the chance of dying for. It is the same everywhere -- the strong will overpower the weak, IF they cannot either equalize the fight or drastically outnumber the opponent. What do you think these same women would be saying, if they were raised in those countries though?

So when you get to individual responsibility versus collective responsibility -- you get to the point of who's version of "right", when you speak collectively versus the version of "right" seen individually. (History is written by the victor)

Does might make right?
Remember slavery was once legal in the US, and they had the might to enforce it --- so did that make it "right" at that time?

I do not have to agree with the collective masses -- else I become just like the German people during WWII times. I can control one person, myself. I have the choice of either living within the boundaries set by the collective or trying to think for myself, and living/dying with the consequences.

The biggest difference is, I don't fear death.

I don't disagree with anything you said. However, we somehow got away from what we started out talking about, which was whether there is hypocrisy in gun control advocacy. You were talking about individual responsibility, and you brought up illegal drugs. My point was that once we decide as a society to make drugs illegal, there is no "individual responsibility" you can take on to help rid society of drugs. (Or at least, none that is at all significant.) That responsibility has shifted from the individual to the collective. That is a far, far different thing than shirking responsibility altogether.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't disagree with anything you said. However, we somehow got away from what we started out talking about, which was whether there is hypocrisy in gun control advocacy. You were talking about individual responsibility, and you brought up illegal drugs. My point was that once we decide as a society to make drugs illegal, there is no "individual responsibility" you can take on to help rid society of drugs. (Or at least, none that is at all significant.) That responsibility has shifted from the individual to the collective. That is a far, far different thing than shirking responsibility altogether.

I can't destroy my own stash, and then make sure my family (at least the ones I am responsible for) destroy their own stashes.

Just arguing now to argue.

I see your point, but still see the hypocrisy in the desire to control so you can feel safe, even if you are really entertaining less safety and less freedom.

[DirkFTW]

Some of you need to stop being such

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Example: I hear women here in America say that they would not ever be treated like the women "seem" to be in some Muslim countries. You know the veil, and walking three steps behind the man, the harems, etc.

Why can they say that? because with a gun, they could kill a man - any man. Without it, their chances have decreased immensely. Women (in general and not any specifically) have the rights that men give them, or that they are willing to pick up an equalizer and take the chance of dying for. It is the same everywhere -- the strong will overpower the weak, IF they cannot either equalize the fight or drastically outnumber the opponent. What do you think these same women would be saying, if they were raised in those countries though?

Did you really just write that women's suffrage was gained by the barrel of a gun?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the next Republican candidate for the Texas Board of Education.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Did you really just write that women's suffrage was gained by the barrel of a gun?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the next Republican candidate for the Texas Board of Education.

Not exactly.

Do women all have the same rights around the world?

Did women get the right to vote, by voting it in themselves - when they didn't have the right to vote?

So they have rights because of ??

Let's see what did I say? Women (in general and not any specifically) have the rights that men give them, or that they are willing to pick up an equalizer and take the chance of dying.

-------------------------
So you are going to say that Women's suffrage was won without the gun- I agree, but not with what I said, which was MEN gave them this right.

I also said that they could have won this right with the gun, but I did not say that they did get this right with the gun.

You see a gun in the hands of my wife make her more powerful than any man until the bullets run out. That is my point. Would you like to find out?

And PS: I don't care to be called Republican or Democrat. I hate to be stereotyped that way.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think funnier than those. Less funny than the SNL Sarah Palin skits. Maybe as funny as the "my kid can beat up your honor student" bumper stickers, or about as funny as the "Teabonics" pictures that are out there.


Well, you are wrong. Political humor has been around a long, long time because much of it is simply funny. Some things are funny and political. And if you can remove your own bias, then you can have a good laugh (or at least a fair chuckle) at much of it.

I am not disagreeing that political humor can be hilarious. It can be. What I am saying is that political "humor" is an abused beast, and people often lob out items as "jokes" that wouldn't even make the high "Laffy-Taffy" standards. Furthermore, people at the edges (on all sides) of the political spectrum LIVE in this non-funny zone.

For instance: Lots of people make funny Bush or Obama jokes. "Jokes" from rabid foaming wild-eyed fanatical truthers on either side... not usually so funny. Similar not-funny "joking" behavior comes from bullies and a-holes of all stripes. If 5 steroid-laden guys are "making jokes" as they beat the shit out of the effeminate kid in the locker room... is it all "fun and games"?

I am going off on a tangent here, but my point is that political humor can be hilarious, but often instead of a "joke" it is just a bald political statement with a "ha ha" tagged on the end. That is fine, but if it ain't funny it an't funny. My more SPECIFIC point was that Dude's "jokes" ALWAYS fall into this category.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

If 5 steroid-laden guys are "making jokes" as they beat the shit out of the effeminate kid in the locker room... is it all "fun and games"?

Yes, but only if the Benny Hill theme song is playing in the background...


(you know you cracked a smile when you visualized it!)

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Similar not-funny "joking" behavior comes from bullies and a-holes of all stripes. If 5 steroid-laden guys are "making jokes" as they beat the shit out of the effeminate kid in the locker room... is it all "fun and games"?

a properly effeminate kid beating up 5 steroid-laden guys might have more potential.

I am going off on a tangent here, but my point is that political humor can be hilarious, but often instead of a "joke" it is just a bald political statement with a "ha ha" tagged on the end. That is fine, but if it ain't funny it an't funny. My more SPECIFIC point was that Dude's "jokes" ALWAYS fall into this category.

but this one was funny, in a "neighbor hoisted by own petard" sort of way. A rabid anti-Dude bias is as bad as any other political rabidity in this case.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

So you are going to say that Women's suffrage was won without the gun- I agree, but not with what I said, which was MEN gave them this right.

I also said that they could have won this right with the gun, but I did not say that they did get this right with the gun.

I could sort of humor your rhetoric until you get to the point where you say men 'gave' women the right to vote. It sure sounds like you're kind of man-glossing over 70+ years of suffrage history in the U.S. alone, where women organized politically and fought politically--yes, all without the right to vote. But men didn't 'give' women anything, nor would they have if the women hadn't organized and applied political pressure. I wonder how many husbands were denied their 'husbandly prerogative' before they understood that women were serious about being treated equally. (Pudenda > Pistol. )

Beyond that, though, you seem to be conflating wildly disparate concepts-- what can be achieved via political power and organization, versus what can be taken by violent means, versus a person's right/ability to defend him/herself-- into some sort of male supremacist screed.

Originally Posted by dalmations202

You see a gun in the hands of my wife make her more powerful than any man until the bullets run out. That is my point. Would you like to find out?

And then you end up challenging me to fight your wife in order to prove your point?

You sure sound like a keeper, man.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

A rabid anti-Dude bias is as bad as any other political rabidity in this case.

you are probably correct here... but i have put a flag in the sand and will have to die defending it

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yes, but only if the Benny Hill theme song is playing in the background...


(you know you cracked a smile when you visualized it!)

well, duh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsif_yofsMc

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

well, duh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsif_yofsMc

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

you are probably correct here... but i have put a flag in the sand and will have to die defending it

Now that was funny but probably not in the way you think.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

this one is actually much funnier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkJmo...eature=related



(and there are MUCH worse ones, with actual death camp footage... showing that even Benny Hill can't make EVERYTHING funny)

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Now that was funny but probably not in the way you think.

very cryptic !