3749
What the fuck (media.patriots.win)  shall not be infringed. 
posted ago by Duckanddodge ago by Duckanddodge +3752 / -3
Comments (248)
sorted by:
234
deleted 234 points ago +234 / -0
272
TommyLasordasBallBag 272 points ago +272 / -0

Gotta make sure the Taliban is properly equipped

99
deleted 99 points ago +99 / -0
62
KSMOconservative 62 points ago +63 / -1

and ChyNah

53
DoIMAGAYouHornyBaby 53 points ago +53 / -0

But certainly not the Australians/South Africans

11
HKgoneWild 11 points ago +11 / -0

Just their steppers.

Not their serfs.

Can't have them dirty peasants getting any ideas, now can we?

-91
deleted -91 points ago +7 / -98
27
CaptainSmirk 27 points ago +28 / -1

Handshake motherfucker gonna handshake! Your mom says its time for your bath. You're gonna get banned anyway.

26
Cesare_Borgia 26 points ago +27 / -1

It's anaconda. In between occasionally useful posts we're also witness to his stroke like rants from various alt accounts.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
SordidPontification 0 points ago +3 / -3

A broken clock is right twice a day.

But in his case it's probably random chance.

-90
TKAdams -90 points ago +2 / -92

It has to be Anaconda because the account mimics some of his writing patterns, right?

Someone else wouldn't possibly be using him as a scapegoat to (apparently successfully) dupe all of you.

14
BeijingJoeHastoGo 14 points ago +15 / -1

Found another Anaconda alt account.

3
Forbidden_outcast 3 points ago +4 / -1

I defended him a few times, too.

Truth is, he ain’t that important to have anyone try to imitate him.

Everyone already does not love him.

He doesn’t provide special insight, or contribute in a positive way.

Nine times out of 10, he has a take so far out there, that I sometimes wonder if he’s specifically trying to make this place look bad.

TLDR: why would anyone try to imitate him, when maybe only a few compassionate souls have once tried to see where he was coming from?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
Jack_HinsonTN 9 points ago +10 / -1

It's a alt for a certain snake. Said snake rants the exact same way about the same things, with the same text format.

5
TurdFergusen 5 points ago +5 / -0

Maybe you folks should read the fine print. What he said was "I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment applies so that we the American people can keep and bear arms,” DeSantis said. “It does not apply to Saudi Arabians.”

4
Destineed369 4 points ago +4 / -0

That has so much to do with this thread wow

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Daedalus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Deport this fag.

2
TheEvacuator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Shut the fuck up, Anaconda.

40
deleted 40 points ago +44 / -4
35
MustangManny 35 points ago +35 / -0

Basically everyone gets a gun except American citizens.

14
Destineed369 14 points ago +14 / -0

The only group that exercises any kind of responsibility, education and weapons training/ Discipline. Everyone else LITERALY SHOOT GUNS IN THE AIR IN THE TOWN SQUARE to celebrate what the ever. Yet western ammunition is sold out and we can afford to buy it. Genius level gymnastics.

2
Whitespace 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hey, show some love to Canadians. Could we have a few billion in a full spectrum of armaments?

2
TwoPlusTwoEqualsFour 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, but only pistol/carbine rounds. I assume you'll just give them to the govt.

2
Whitespace 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just a couple of blackhawks and I'll be out of your hair.

0
UrShulgi 0 points ago +2 / -2

/JustSaying: I think I heard USA owns half of all guns in existence. So this statement seems wrong.

4
SordidPontification 4 points ago +4 / -0

Pay careful attention: This is a LEO/gov gun, meaning it's likely select-fire meaning it supports burst fire mode.

Civie guns do not. You can get them as an NFA item depending on vintage and FFL status but no, his statement is broadly "wrong" if you're thinking guns generically. However, his statement is 100% correct if you think of specific guns that are .gov only.

7
TheEvacuator 7 points ago +7 / -0

We the people have the right to buy any type of firearm, full auto or not, if the government can have a cannon, so can we, period.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
12
Hanging_Chad 12 points ago +12 / -0

Just say you're using it for export

12
NotAnotherNPC 12 points ago +12 / -0

Exporting the cartridges....

5
lafingman0 5 points ago +5 / -0

does it count if i use it to export lead?

119
TheKeknadian 119 points ago +119 / -0

yes, its exporting bullets

48
deleted 48 points ago +49 / -1
1
deleted 1 point ago +11 / -10
49
deleted 49 points ago +52 / -3
23
deleted 23 points ago +28 / -5
3
ChinaAreNazis 3 points ago +4 / -1

Hehe I’m agreeing with Anaconda this must be a sign of the end times.

1
BeijingJoeHastoGo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck you, ball sucker. ACB sucks BBC, she let the Big Steal proceed and votes with the Left to allow tyrants to mandate "the Vax." Same with the rapist Kavanaugh, name one good ruling he's made since the showboat confirmation hearings.

2
GorillaTactics 2 points ago +2 / -0

Youre both right. He’s providing a comparative description, and you, an absolute. We have experienced an improvement, but one still on the wrong side of the curve. While court behavior has slightly improved, it’s still far from the constitutional bedrock it must adhere to. I struggle with how to bring things back to what made this nation such a shining beacon in human history.

17
YouNeedVPN 17 points ago +19 / -2

Slavery is just bad branding.

Humanity is more enslaved than it used to be. The slaves now must provide their own food, shelter, etc.

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
8
Joequill 8 points ago +9 / -1

They operate it terms of real slavery. Human trafficking is a problem they could very well shut down if they wanted. Just like the vast drug trade.

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
3
independentbystander 3 points ago +3 / -0

Modern slavery is not nearly as bad as being physically shackled and abused.

It is very common in America for citizens to be shackled and abused (and forced/coerced to work against their will for little or no pay, and raped in the worst cases.) They call it the "Prison/Industrial Complex."

2
Whitespace 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep. And with the mass migration, there is a very real human trafficking element. Drug addicted prostitutes are often full on slaves. I don't know if you've ever met any pimps, but they are disgusting excuses for human beings.

I understand that women turn whores and are morally flawed, but most of them don't deserve how they are treated. Fentanyl is, if anything, worse than chains.

1
ChinaAreNazis 1 point ago +1 / -0

Modern is worse when sick fucks operate on their foster kid slaves to make tranny pets of them. No confederates ever did that.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-1
YouNeedVPN -1 points ago +3 / -4

Why? It's so much cheaper to not have to provide for your slaves.

7
deleted 7 points ago +9 / -2
3
Chosimbaone 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think the amendment was well intended, but worded in a way that left too much wiggle room.

6
BeardedNinjaPede 6 points ago +6 / -0

SCROTUS declared abortion a Constitutional right because of the 14th Amendment. That one took some serious legal leaps not intended by the lawmakers at the time

1
Chosimbaone 1 point ago +1 / -0

I completely agree.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
2
BeardedNinjaPede 2 points ago +2 / -0

that's why we need to put more constitutionalists/originalists on the court as trump did to replace the activist judges.

I agree with the need, but disagree that "Trump" appointed even a single Constitutionalist or Originalist. In brief because of: no standing, moot, and latches.

1
OPsMom 1 point ago +1 / -0

Of course slavery is wrong. That's not what I said. I said the first communist leaning act of our country was to bypass the states' rights to make slavery illegal. Whether the subject is right or wrong the act was one of an authoritarian government that a war was fought over. Doesn't mean that I think slavery is right. I think MANY things are wrong, but I believe we as individual states need to address the issues and work through them. Had the Civil War never been fought, I truly believe slavery would have eventually been outlawed by most states within the next decade. And all of them by the turn of the century.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +3 / -5
8
pattrn 8 points ago +10 / -2

Because freedom is a right.

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
2
TheEvacuator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Trust me, it ain't happening anytime soon, we've been trying to do that since the 1930's.

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
3
DonttrustChina 3 points ago +4 / -1

Lol WTF?

-5
deleted -5 points ago +7 / -12
3
Chosimbaone 3 points ago +5 / -2

Well it was over a myriad of reasons in the same way Iraq wasn't just about oil. There were other things involved, but as always, resources, slaves or oil, were the driving motivators.

7
scyenceFiction 7 points ago +7 / -0

Taxes. Lack of representation in Congress because the population of blue northern states gave them a lock on the House. Mandates and regulatory overreach that took away the ability for southern farmers to get a fair price for their goods.

Not once, in any article of secession, were slavery rights mentioned. Outrage against slavery was a tool to get the rich folks in NY, Boston and Philadelphia to back the war.

4
Chosimbaone 4 points ago +5 / -1

I'll leave a second reply in case you've seen the other one first.

You aren't wrong about the taxes. The north had been shitting on the south for decades with crippling tariffs that hurt the south and helped the north.

There's even an element of States rights insomuch as "can a state actually leave the union" which was settled with a war. I concede that the north didn't pick up their guns and put on uniforms to free the slaves.

However the south definitely seceded in order to keep their slaves, and felt wronged by states that wouldn't protect what they viewed as (and legally was) their property. Why pay taxes and participate in a union that is against your way of life?

The south was no gem of virtue, but neither is there a shining northern army in my mind, the Yankees were huge assholes. I happen to feel they were correct to preserve the union.

The abolition of slavery was a good add, but after Lincoln's death reconstruction went to hell in a hand basket turning into punishment rather then reintegration.

And even then, it's not like Lincoln is above approach either.

And so on and so on. I guess my point is it's complicated.

2
scyenceFiction 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agree, fren. I still think the issue of slavery in the South was as much a hot button issue after the fact.. but from the perspective of "how dare the northerners tell us we can't" to get the southern elite to fund the cause.

It's a tough subject to research. There is so much revisionist bullshit pumped out by academia, the only good sources left are letters, preserved from the people themselves.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
scyenceFiction 1 point ago +1 / -0

On paper, Democrats had a small majority in the Senate in 1860. In reality, it was divided more finely and they did not vote as a bloc.

On the issue of slavery, it was divided three ways- pro-slavery, abolitionist, and popular sovereignty (state gets to choose). On many other issues, like the Morrill Tarriff, Democrats were deeply split as well. They couldn't even get things like the Crittenden Compromise out of committee to take a vote on it.

With the Lincoln administration eyeing up the Supreme Court's vacancies to pack, and the admission of three new states on the forefront to tip the Senate, I can totally get their frustration.

0
Chosimbaone 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think you need to go back and read those again

2
deleted 2 points ago +8 / -6
3
BadRonald13 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sounds defensible if you ask me

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
69
PaulieM91 69 points ago +69 / -0

Weld a plate over it with 2A engraved on it

23
RegularAmerican 23 points ago +26 / -3

No these are reminders. Would you scratch over the swastika on a war trophy?

18
PaulieM91 18 points ago +19 / -1

No, because M1911 parts are not interchangeable with p36 or p08 parts

53
CovfefeVideo 53 points ago +54 / -1

That'll buff right out...

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
1
The_Knight_of_sunset 1 point ago +2 / -1

Give me a file and I'll provide the elbow grease.

1
Whitespace 1 point ago +1 / -0

Elbow grease makes great gun oil.

40
Amateurgynecologist 40 points ago +40 / -0

I have mags that i bought from former LE that say that too

Don't worry fed fags i gave them away

Come and check idc

6
UK_Pede 6 points ago +7 / -1

I'm guessing they're at the bottom of a river now huh?

In Minecraft.

6
fakewhiterage 6 points ago +7 / -1

Boat accident? Yeah I heard about that

3
DRKMSTR 3 points ago +3 / -0

Literally everything at surplus stores say this too.

39
Rydanovich 39 points ago +39 / -0

I am the export.

36
OccasionalCortex21 36 points ago +36 / -0

Oh no theres some shit etched on it I guess i have no choice but to listen

27
based_trekkie 27 points ago +28 / -1

So what you are saying is that we can weapons if we secede?

12
Skogin 12 points ago +12 / -0

We can has weapons.

4
2
Skogin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Loose with the trigger discipline…

but kitty can haz.

2
Whitespace 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kids dun do don't learned grammars these days. Why back in my day we uttered grammatical grunts.

1
Skogin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Guttural grunts?

10
Inquisitor_Corvus 10 points ago +11 / -1

I’m ready!

19
Pelosi_Halitosis 19 points ago +20 / -1

Iirc, all Colt le6920 receivers are marked as such.

16
DicksOutForHarambe 16 points ago +16 / -0

Only older ones

4
Pelosi_Halitosis 4 points ago +4 / -0

Is that recent? It's been awhile, but when Walmart still sold them, I thought they had the same markings. I was searching for an in state Walmart that sold them, they were less than $700 at the time. I gave up after I bought an early Sig M400.

9
Cuck_Slayer24 9 points ago +9 / -0

Its probably a receiver made between 1994 and 2004. The Ban years.

0
DrBJTester 0 points ago +1 / -1

Or they are tooling up for another Resident Biden ban.

5
scyenceFiction 5 points ago +5 / -0

You can buy brand-new lowers from Aero and a couple others that have the same stamp. Cosmetic for authenticity on their "AR" clone lowers, but missing on the M4E1.

The wording means precisely jack shit unless it's got an auto or TRB fire control group.

16
Kekistan_United 16 points ago +16 / -0

weird, i have all these 'gun shaped' metallic parts that dont have any inscription on them at all

1
Whitespace 1 point ago +1 / -0

As long as it's not a cookie bitten into a gun shape, I think you're okay.

15
Savagemuderfucher 15 points ago +15 / -0

Its from the era of the Clinton AWB. Mine has the same engraving

-5
deleted -5 points ago +10 / -15
10
AtomicShnoz 10 points ago +10 / -0

Wrong, Clinton awb.

9
Chopblock 9 points ago +9 / -0

Like Trump, Reagan fought an internecine battle for control over his own administration, and lost most of the cabinet positions to the ‘Bushie’ natsec-controlled branch of Republicans (opposed to Reagan’s ‘Goldwater’-style ‘Big business’ branch).

Understanding this dynamic is a key to making sense of the Reagan years.

5
logan34 5 points ago +7 / -2

Imagining how great Chicago would be if machine guns were all over the place

8
akira2501 8 points ago +8 / -0

Well.. I would feel better visiting Chicago if I had a mounted 50 cal in the bed of my truck.

3
SuperMario 3 points ago +4 / -1

Shall. Not. Infringe..

There is no such thing as a "good law" that restricts your freedoms. Period.

1
Savagemuderfucher 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dumb fuck, Bill Clinton signed the assault weapons ban. Read your history ass hat.

1
BeefyBelisarius 1 point ago +1 / -0

Obligatory reminder that the Hughes Amendment was a poison pill meant to prevent passage of the FOPA. Added to the bill in the middle of the night under sketchy circumstances as well.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
11
Recyclops 11 points ago +11 / -0

They spelled Well Regulated Militia wrong.

7
CheekyHawk 7 points ago +7 / -0

I hate to nitpick but it’s actually spelled “shall not be infringed” sir.

9
side_o_beef 9 points ago +9 / -0

Quick work with an angle grinder.

8
SaltyArmy 8 points ago +8 / -0

It's a colt. I own one

8
Winston_Smith84 8 points ago +12 / -4

It is a stamp put on AR-15s (semi-auto folks) by some manufacturers that are intended to be marketed at a discount price to law enforcement or veterans or potentially for export.

It is perfectly legal to also sell them to civilians (which is at the discretion of the store) and, no, they don't have to be used to do so. Doesn't mean anything. Colt marketed a "Law Enforcement (LE)" model for years that had that marking. Other makers have done the same.

Do a little internet search before you post or sticky some stupid shit.

13
Noire 13 points ago +14 / -1

You are missing the point, Sir. Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear. The notion that they would even try to distinguish between civilian models and LE/Military is bullshit and you being okay with it is the same as people being okay with red flag laws. Slippery god damn slope.

5
Chopblock 5 points ago +5 / -0

SLIPPERY SLOPE OF GUN BANS SLIDES ALONG A FALSE BELIEF IN GOVERNMENT POWERS AND IGNORANCE OF HISTORY: “The NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one.  It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.

In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986.  It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the Hughes Amendment as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.

If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.”  It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress -- and that’s saying something.

It has been reported that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.”  That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came.  And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.

If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.

In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace.  It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/how_the_federal_government_nullified_the_second_amendment_to_ban_automatic_firearms.html

1
AtomicShnoz 1 point ago +2 / -1

Completely wrong, do some of your own research.

6
warlord1 6 points ago +6 / -0

Gun control = gay

5
NeverInterruptEnemy 5 points ago +5 / -0

It’s a 1994-2004 ban marked lower, not too uncommon and worth more because it says “cool” stuff on it.

4
d_bokk 4 points ago +4 / -0

There's nothing more unamerican than producing a firearm, or accessory, that can't be bought domestically, but can be bought by someone in a country that doesn't have a second amendment.

3
KSMOconservative 3 points ago +3 / -0

"I'll export this as soon as I'm done with my purge"

3
knnbccb 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cool, I'm an exporter.

3
spezpedobestfriend 3 points ago +3 / -0

Welcome to the Brady Gun Ban AR. A completely pointless bill that drove up AR prices for those smart enough to buy extras.

I got a better idea, lets ban the ATF. The FBI does the background check. The ATF had done two massacres on US soil, directly led to the Oklahoma bombing in response to their behavior, and has worsened relations with Mexico by selling guns to Narcos who killed Mexican and US citizens including federal employees. The ATF is beyond incompetent and should be removed.

1
Cantshadowbanthemall 1 point ago +1 / -0

The FBI were principal in the greatest terrorists events in this country's history: 9/11 and the Vegas shooting.

1
SneedsFeedNSeed 1 point ago +1 / -0

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

3
smartass 3 points ago +3 / -0

That'll buff right out

3
OnlyTrump20 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's a gun made for every human on the planet except for the American civilian.

3
IamDevo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Soo, They're saying we can all have one if we intend to enforce the law of the land?

Nice.

3
trauncher 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its a lower that was produced under a government contract. something Joe Biden produced to give away to terrorists and to China... he's silly like that.

3
US3RNAM3 3 points ago +3 / -0

I need to get off my ass and start making lowers. :)

2
IamDevo 2 points ago +2 / -0

I see what you did there.

Gotta get back to the machine shop or I'd say something funny. My bad.

3
BostonVoter 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is for Law Enforcement, for sale at my local gun shops , since they can't sell ar15s to the public at a store. But you can buy them used

3
BoughtByBloomberg2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well By the People. So I am the government.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
GodKingHarambe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I am President and Commander in Chief of the sovereign nation of "Gofuckyourselfstan" and it has been legally exported to me.

2
ClarenceBeeks 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sooooo that means everybody but US citizens?

2
Buff_cousin_Elroy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have a colt with that roll mark

2
joebama-smells 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Federal government making sure only our enemies are armed, aka, "Common sense gun control."

2
YN31964 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gonna' give 'em to incoming illegals at the southern border.

2
InterloperKO 2 points ago +2 / -0

So everyone except American citizens?

2
Sylvester1212 2 points ago +2 / -0

1934 and prohibition brought the desecration of 2A.

2
BanHammered 2 points ago +3 / -1

It probably wasn’t made in the US, so they want it exportable to the US.

There may also be a country of origin stamped somewhere on it.

2
MakeFloridaRed 2 points ago +2 / -0

You should only be building you AR-14 from an 80%. Don’t let them know what you have.

2
PepePedebone 2 points ago +2 / -0

Deserving of good glass. Disregard I noticed the bullet button.

2
TaxDollarsHardAtWork 2 points ago +2 / -0

The "export" part really puts the cherry on top of that shit cake.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Angry 2 points ago +2 / -0

We don't get full auto, They do.

1
SquidThrowFaux 1 point ago +1 / -0

The wealthy can and that should piss "patriots" off even more.

2
TheGasNinja 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Clinton ban" era

2
ChynahIzAzzhole 2 points ago +2 / -0

Taliban was just too obvious.

2
ShampocalypseWOW 2 points ago +2 / -0

Identify as a militiaman in your own private militia. There, now you're "military".

2
Gerhard1791 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup, back during the "assault weapons ban" 1994-2004 Colt went full government shill. Not sure the exact year but they stopped manufacturing guns for the public. They stamped AR's with that. Apart from their dod contract only cops could buy those. Now you can buy em and the stamp is a relic of the Clinton regime.

2
FightingTeuton 2 points ago +2 / -0

Export?

2
magamemer 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, I'm taking it to the former port. The ex-port as it were. To get those container ships unloaded. My damn treadmill is out there somewhere!

2
Trash 2 points ago +2 / -0

I feel like the constitution has written citizens in as the most important member of “Government” so you’re good.

1
f_bastiat 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everyone but the citizens basically.

1
MostlyPeacefulMurder 1 point ago +4 / -3

I think it's from a fully automatic AR15(M4), military LE only.

5
RegularAmerican 5 points ago +5 / -0

They wrote this on all ARs during the AWB

5
zzyzyx 5 points ago +6 / -1

AR15 are not select fire. An M16/M4 is.

2
Noire 2 points ago +2 / -0

By how it's used colloquially, that is they key difference most people recognize. That doesn't mean they are correct though. The original ArmaLite AR-10 and AR-15 pitched to the mlitary absolutely had select fire.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0