Seeking to dispel the notion that he's some sort of effete gun-hating pansy ass, Barack Obama revealed in a hard-hitting interview that he has actually held a gun when shooting skeet at Camp David. No, really!
"We do skeet shooting all the time," bragged Mr. Obama, making a show of scratching his alleged testicles. "Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there." And if you can't trust the manliness of a guy who throws down words like "oftentimes," you're clearly a racist.
Dirty Barry, as he likes to be called when he's "packing heat," claims that he has profound respect for the tradition of hunting in our country (despite a tragic experience with a snipe hunt in Hawaii when he was high on weed and a little blow), and says that those who dismiss his gun-loving ways out of hand "make a big mistake." Presumably because he might shoot them while having his monthly surge of testosterone.
Still, in the face of the president's broad new push against guns, it's reassuring to know that he deeply respects the Constitution's second amendment, which explicitly and without infringement gives Americans the right to defend their homes and shores from the tyranny of skeets.
Better late than never.
ReplyDeleteIt's all part of barry's master plan to pretend to support that part of the Second Amendment he 'believes' (*snort*) is acceptable -- firearms for hunting and (limited) sporting purposes -- while working behind the scenes to hamstring it (sky high taxes on ammo, registration, imposing liability insurance requirements, etc.) and eventually eliminate it.
Here's his true position.
In 1996 obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago voters group, Independent Voters of Illinois, asked him this question. Here are his answers.
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Was that transparent or what? Also amusing to note that this comes on the heels of Bill Clinton's patronizing comments last week as well.
ReplyDeleteNote: It's all about backwards folk who need to keep their guns for their "tradition" of hunting Bambi or possum. It's certainly not about "personal protection" or the prevention of tyranny.
@CenTexTim- Frankly, I'm sick of hearing those on the Left try to define our 2nd Amendment rights solely in terms of getting access to venison. Meanwhile, Homeland Security is stocking up on weapons and ammo- presumably in case our nation is attacked by terrorist deer.
ReplyDelete@John the Econ- Not only do I find it impossible to believe that Barry shoots skeet, I don't think he'd allow anyone else to shoot in his vicinity unless he was lying under a protective pile of Secret Service agents. Which he'd probably enjoy.
"Dirty Barry!" Okay, time for the paper towels on the monitor. That's a good'un.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mooche would know how to prepare skeet. Anyway, if Dirty Barry gets bored with them, he can always scare up some Squatch.
What IS the deal with this DHS ammunition grab? Is this fact or urban legend? If true, what is the "official" purpose put forth by Napoleonitano?
@Grafton Cheddar- Michelle can make delicious skeet by layering it in a casserole pan with sliced yams grown by schoolchildren in the Whitehouse garden.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, DHS (and other government agencies) really have been buying "assault" weapons and a lot of hollow-point "designed to kill" ammo. I don't know the importance or unimportance of these purchases, but they're...interesting.
The media will never report it as such, but the reality is that the Obama Administration had seriously overreached last week. They're not prepared (yet) to invoke a Constitutional crisis via executive orders, especially after last week's rebuke over "recess appointments". Also there was the sudden realization that well over half of the US Senate consists of senators from "flyover country", where there is little debate over what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Very few Democratic senators are willing to commit suicide for gun control, or this President.
ReplyDeleteSee? Guns do prevent tyranny.
As comments on a few other sites have brought out, the reason for the stockpile of hit and kill ammo, and now the requisition of 7,000 personal defense weapons (PDW) that have been declared useless and too dangerous for private citizens use for personal defense, it will make it easier to control the general population.
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading about the West Point Terrorism Study in an article dated 23 January 2013. It states in part: "A West Point think tank has released an extensive report warning of a growing domestic threat from “far right” conservative groups...it also targets groups that value the personal liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and emphasize the need to limit the power of the federal government.
These anti-federalist groups, as Perliger labels those who embrace a limited, constitutionally defined role for government...support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government.”
Funny thing is, by waiting until AFTER the election, they're going to be paying 50 - 70% more than they would have just 2 months ago..
ReplyDeleteStilton, I loves me the small of some skeet and yam casserole in the morning, especially when I knows that li'l liberal chillens have had their dirty little mitts all over it. I'll bet that Mooche knows her cookin' and learns them kids well how to keep them botoxins out of the pot.
ReplyDelete@John the Econ- I'm still concerned that the Obama administration will manage to create a "precipitating event" which will give them cover (barely) to take more aggressive anti-gun measures.
ReplyDelete@American Cowboy- Almost from the day that Barry took office, "potential terrorists" have been described as military veterans, Constitutionalists, people concerned about our immigration policies and, of course, the Tea Party. The combination of these continuing lies and the stockpiling of government arms is disconcerting, to put it mildly.
@Pete(Detroit)- I believe the requisition was made in June of last year, so maybe they got a good price before market demand sent costs skyrocketing. Then again, the government is spending our money, so they surely don't care one way or another.
@Grafton Cheddar- According to Michelle's cookbook ("The Joy of Being Cooked For"), the secret to a great-tasting Skeet & Yam casserole is arrugula. MMmmmm!
Grafton Cheddar: DHS has purchased over 1.4 billion rounds of ammo, much of it .40 cal hollow point and a lot of .357 mag rounds that can penetrate walls. They've also purchased a number of bullet-resistant checkpoint booths with 'stop and go' lights. DHS and the military are also tooling up with riot gear. All of this stuff along with supported weaponry has been stockpiled around the country. It would almost appear that there is an expectation of civil unrest in all of this.
ReplyDeleteAdd to this the curious procurement by the national weather service of nearly 50 thousand hollow point rounds, while the social security administration has gotten 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition. Now why such organizations would need ammunition, let alone of this type, is not so much a question as a common thread; significant purchases by organizations that clearly don't need them. Now, in the gun business, they might call these 'straw purchases', which are illegal (well, for the average citizen that is).
Now, being that federal officers are required to practice with the ammunition they will carry into the field, and that these are five year contracts, and that it's probably a good idea to have some left over after target practice, then perhaps I'm just being paranoid.
And being the cold Monday morning that it is, I can see nothing good on the horizon. I may see it all differently come Friday afternoon.
Stilton: Reminding me of that "precipitating event" notion pretty much ensures the view will look just as bad on Friday afternoon.
SJ- I have read your HNC cartoons since you started them. There have been some HILARIOUS ones over the years, but this is my all time favorite. Thanks for all of the work you put into this, and I am very sorry that you have the option of 4 more years of it. The only upside seems to be for your fans, since we stand to get 4 more years of your wit. I am not a schmoozer, but I can't recall a single time that I have disagreed with your opinions. Thanks again!
ReplyDeleteI can’t help but compare Barry’s skeet shooting to the time Jed Clampett shot golf… and then Mooch could cook the golf eggs like Granny. Then they could get Jethro (Joe Biden) to eat them.
ReplyDeleteWheee Dogies!
The Libocrats are going to hit us with everything they can think of, in hopes of gaining some ground, thereby making themselves look good to the tree huggers and baby killers, thereby getting re-elected, blah blah yadda yadda. If we fight back, they’ll not gain much; there are still a lot of Senators and Congressmen from states that are NOT California or New York that really know where their bread is buttered. Contact your representatives and let ‘em know where you stand!
Please, please, please would just one MSM “journalist” ask Barry to show us serfs exactly where the second amendment says even one lousy syllable about hunting.
@Colby -
ReplyDeleteJethro = Joe Biden was funny when I first read it, but upon further reflection I believe you owe Jethro an apology...
Great cartoon!! And, I'm sure our dumbed-down populace will jump all over that one (if they even know what skeet-shooting is). I know the MSM will play this up big. I can see 'hardball', the'edshow', 'rachel maddow', and the especially reprehensible Lawrence O'donnel makin big on this. Sheesh.
ReplyDelete@Mike Porter- Thanks for doing such a nice job of dispassionately summing up the rather troublesome facts. It's possible that these are simply commonsense purchases which, if clearly explained, we'd support. And it's also possible that trouble is coming. I'm open to either possibility, but wish I wasn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm afraid that I'm also quite open to the notion that this administration would be willing to provoke a large and bloodsoaked "precipitating event" to get the ball rolling. Because I can promise you: they value the lives of conservatives even less than they value the lives of the unborn.
@Jeb Owens- Thank you, sir, for that spirit-lifting sentiment! I assumed you weren't a schmoozer since the cartoons are already free, and I don't really have any tchotchkes to give away. Nope, you're just a discerning fan of good humor and trenchant political commentary. And perhaps a drinker. That tends to be a pretty frequent combination around here... (grin).
@Colby- The moment I read about Barry boasting of his skeet-shooting prowess, I knew I had to put together an "ass over elbows" picture of him firing a shotgun. And I must say, the end result is pleasing.
There's no question in my mind that Barry can not ram through gun confiscation and other such measures by working through standard legislative channels. Nope, I think it would have to come as an offshoot of martial law. And considering that Obama has previously praised the building-burning, car-crapping, rapists of Occupy Wall Street, as well as threatening to turn over bankers to the "crowds with pitchforks," I think he's perfectly willing and able to gin up enough civil unrest to make it happen.
Stray thought: has Rahm Emmanuel been deliberately making Chicago the murder-capital of the country just to lay groundwork for a massive gun grab "from the gangs?" Seriously, who doesn't want guns taken away from gangs, right? And then the murder statistics go way, way down...and Chicago will be the model for our new, safer, gun-free society. HMmmm.....
@CenTexTim- Biden is the first "double-naught" vice president.
@PRY- On MSNBC, Barry will be portrayed as the greatest hunter since Clyde Beatty (not to be confused with Ned Beatty, from "Deliverance," - although that would probably be a lot closer to Barry's actual experience in the wild.)
SeaDog want....Will This Shotgun Be Banned?
ReplyDeleteI need a little help y'all I am kinda confused.
ReplyDeleteWhy is according to the media that if I want an AR -15 it's a deadly despicable assault rifle but if janet "reno" nutpalitano wants one it's a ' personal defense' gun?
The media says AR-15'S are too hard for women to shoot but nutpalitano will arm her female agents with them and new front line eligible female military members will be armed with them? (and with 30 round magazines no less)
I just gets so darned hard to think like a liberal and hurts my head so I was hoping someone might help me out.
A side note the jhp (jacketed hollow point) ammo was purchased and repurchased for 'target practice'. No mention of what the targets are but heard they plan on plinking cans- (I fear they mean AmeriCANs)
ReplyDeleteSince this ammo is specificaly banned by the Geneva Convention for use on enemy combatants its interesting to note that whoever they use them on will not be considered an enemy combatant or afforded the coverage of the Geneva Convention.
An yet this administration at the very least offers the gitmo crew Geneva Convention coverage even though thy do not warrant it. hmmmm?
@REM1875, The reason your head hurts is probably because its setting squarely on your shoulders. To think properly like a libtard, your head has to be firmly jammed up your @ss!
ReplyDeleteSkeet - (Obonics, n.) Slang reference to old white men associated with the writing of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe lib's bandy around the 'assault weapon' term, but can not actually define it. I've provided a goo article by Dan Ryan-Galt on What Is An Assault Weapon - click on my name link above to read.
ReplyDeleteSJ - I was on the site early & didn't see your post - assumed you had finally taken some time for your own self! Wrong! But again you've nailed it! Guns for hunting may be ok - for now. I so hate what he's doing to our country!
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting your post up again - for all of us!
@CenTex - a, b, & c - tell the entire story.
@John the Econ - you are right in that he is finding nuance in the 2nd amendment (all lawyers do).
@Mike Porter - I am also a bit paranoid - this admin. is so intent on removing all opposition, where will they stop?
@Colby - ditto to your 2nd amendment question!
@SeaDog52 -- Why don't we just do what the libtards do with language? They want to spin, fold and mutilate words so that their meaning is twisted up inside their version of reality.
ReplyDeletePlain and simple: 'assault weapon' becomes reborn, correctly, as 'defense weapon'. Why do we let these post-modern assplows define the framework of the argument?
SeaDog52, this is the one *I* get wet for... even in semi auto it would be SOOO sweeet!!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c
Of course, the grenade rounds will not EVER be legal for civvies - and frankly, I think I'm Ok w/ that...
I looked up the actual story and
ReplyDelete"Not the girls, ..."
Where are all the Fembots after a sexist comment like that?
@SeaDog52- That triple-barreled shotgun offers impressive stopping power!
ReplyDelete@REM1875- There you go, trying to use logic when analyzing liberal thought. It can't be done.
And interesting angle with the Geneva convention and bullets designed for maximum bodily destruction. Maybe it's time we got the House to propose a bill making it illegal to use such bullets against American citizens?
@Necron99- I said roughly the same thing, but you said it way better.
@Velcro- So called because those revolutionaries fought using muskeets.
@SeaDog52- It seems that the real defining element in an "assault weapon" is if it looks scary.
@Irene Peduto- For now, you can assume I'm here M, W, F like usual. I just made a typo in the posting time for Monday's cartoon, so it appeared later than usual. By the way, even when I screw up there should be something on the site no later than 9am (CST), because Mrs. Jarlsberg will have awakened me with the cry "your cartoon didn't post!" as she did yesterday.
@Gang of One- You're right that we shouldn't concede the all-important semantics. "Defense Weapon" sounds good, as does "Choice Provider" - for those people who believe in making the choice between life and death for themselves.
@Pete(Detroit)- Sweet mother of pearl! That is one heckuva shotgun!
@Anonymous- Great point! Obama made a point of saying that "the girls" don't shoot skeet, and in his defense of hunting referred to rural areas where "boys of 10 go hunting with their fathers and uncles." Nope, guns certainly don't belong in the hands of women in Obama's sexist world...except, oh yeah, when he's putting them in frontline combat.
When I was in the Corps, a 'machine gun' was a belt fed, crew served weapon, primarily (then) the M-60 which I carried in the 'assault' configuration (bi-pod, canvas ammo bag) so a 'loader' was not required; the M-2 (.50 cal) was relegated to Weapons Platoon along with the heavy mortars. The media/politicians have defined anything that looks scary to them to be an assault weapon. Other thing, about 95% of the dufuses ranting about semi - automatics don't even understand how they operate. The now infamous interview with Bob Sheiffer where he admitted that he thought a semi meant that you emptied the magazine with one trigger pull was a classic. Mag size is just as ridiculous as pointed out in the testimony linked below (and experience), it only takes a couple of seconds to change out a magazine.
ReplyDeleteAnother point, has anyone seen the autopsy results from the Sandy Hook shooting? Be interesting to see if all the wounds were .223/5.56.
I like the attached testimony before Congress from a person who survived the Kileen Lubys shooting, educating them on what the 2nd Amendment really means - applies now as it did then (and notice the congressional critters pretty much remain the same players: Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp - Survivor of the 1991 Kileen TX Lubys Shooting Massacre Testimony
According to most of the comments here, everyone is downplaying the importance of the second amendment by mainly using it to describe hunting.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to say this right away so that you can groan and throw socks at me: I tend to view it that way too.
Also saying this fact too: I don't own a firearm. Not even a BB Gun. You may stare in shock and pity and shake your heads. :)
Now--the people I know who legally have guns tend to work in law enforcement or are close to those that do.
Notice I said "legally." I'm not counting illegal gun owners here because the laws really don't affect them. They'll get the guns anyway, sadly.
Moving on; the second amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm going to basically say that means people can keep firearms for protection (because maybe law enforcement and the military are corrupt and going to shoot you despite you being innocent? And being a geek, I am not discounting a zombie outbreak happening ;) )
The other thing for protection is against criminals. "The bads guys have guns so the good guys have to have guns to stop them. Just look at situations like Aurora Theater."
I'm really sorry but even after these shooting, I don't think every trip to the movies will have a psychopath coming in to kill us all. I certainly hope a quick visit to get groceries won't get me killed. But if I'm shopping my hands will have bags, so I couldn't get the gun anyway.
Also, of the people who want the weapons for protection, how many have been trained to deal with surprise situations like that? Not to be funny. but if we're at the store together, you get your gun out to save us all and in your nervous state you miss your shots and make the person kill even more people because the criminal now knows at least one person is armed, wouldn't it have been better without you trying to shoot?
I honestly mean no offense and I respect the right to bear arms but I really just can't see defense reasons for assault weapons unless your area tends to have people wandering around in body armor a lot and no police or military to stop it.
Given all of that... you can see that the only reason I can feasibly see a high-powered firearm being used for every day civilian life is... hunting.
I don't know if my thought process is the same one the government's using, but it might help some of you understand that not everyone who equates rifles/powerful firearms to military/hunting isn't trying to be degrading, it might just be a result of something similar.
Thanks! :)
S.A.
@airotciv, with all due respect, have you ever fired a gun? My wife is pretty liberal and didn't like guns, until I took her shooting. And now she loves them. They're a blast! (No pun) As for military style guns, why not? Back in the day of the founding, guess what, citizens had the exact same type of guns the military had. Admittedly they were not as efficient as firearms today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I understand your concern about an untrained individual pulling out his gun to possibly stop the commission of a crime. I would point you to the gentleman is Seattle(?) I think it was, who stopped a gunman just by pulling out his own gun, He did not fire because if he missed they're could have been innocents hurt. But it stopped the lunatic and that was good enough.
Anyway, just some of my own thoughts on your concerns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(waited a while, and my last comment never showed up so I'm trying again; hope this isn't a dupe)
ReplyDeletefirst of all, as long as we're sharing info about sweet shotguns, check out this sure-to-be-illegal at some point beauty from Kel-Tec. It's pump action, but I still really, really want one.
Now, @Airotciv. Short answer is that I disagree with you. I find it odd that you quote the Constitution, then - like a lot of other people - ascribe to it meaning that is blatantly not in the text. Nothing there about hunting... and yet you conclude that it only protects hunting?
Anyway - you make the mistake that many people take in trying to apply the Second Amendment (2A). You ask why someone "needs" some particular weapon. The protection afforded by the 2A is not about "need" any more than that afforded by the First Amendment (1A). A liberal news anchor does not "need" to be able to call George W Bush a terrorist, or equate his term in office with Nazi Germany. But the 1A recognizes and protects their Right to do so.
In the same way, the 2A does not try to determine the citizens' need to own a particular gun. It simply recognizes their Right to own it, and tells the government not to infringe on that Right.
People say "obviously, they didn't mean that people could own weapon xyz." Those people are wrong. When written, most of the firearms on this continent were owned by private citizens. When we fought for independence, where did the cannons (equivalent of today's heavy artillery) come from? If you answered anything other than private citizens, you would be mistaken. And after the war effort, those pieces of dangerous heavy artillery were returned gratefully to the families who owned them.
I should be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy the same kind of select-fire "assault weapons" that the DHS is looking to purchase. Not because I fear the government, or want to go hunting with it, or even to defend my home. All of those might be true of a given individual, but the only "reason" I need is that I want it (in my case to punch holes in paper targets and have fun with it).
Just some thoughts for you to ponder... thanks for stopping by.
@SeaDog52- If non-medical people can make the rules for Obamacare, why can't people clueless about guns make the rules regarding ownership? (Beats head on desk).
ReplyDelete@Airotciv- You don't have to own a gun to care passionately about the issue (I don't have a gun, but my property is riddled with Burmese tiger traps).
The second amendment clearly isn't about hunting, it's about making sure that The People can own the arms necessary to formulating a well regulated militia (note: the gun ownership happens first - by the time you need to create a militia, you'd better already have your weapons at home).
Regarding your example of poorly-trained good guys with guns possibly doing additional damage, I'll take my chances rather than have a shooter casually killing everyone in sight. How badly do I wish that there was someone - ANYone - with a defensive gun at Sandy Hook that awful day?
A final note is that the bad guys carry some very nasty weaponry these days, and citizens should have access to at least the same firepower.
All of that being said, thanks for making your points in such an open and interesting way. Good conversational fodder!
@WMD- Good points.
@txGreg- Well said. (I feel like I should add more to that, but...well... you already did a great job!)
Thank you all for taking the time to reply--and very politely too!
ReplyDelete@WMD Unless you count paintball and BB guns (and video games), I have not shot a gun. I have shot with compound bows & crossbows, though. They're very heavy and hard to pull back. Quite the workout!
I didn't know about the gentleman in Seattle (We'll just stick with that city for the location :) ) but I suppose you have a point--isn't there a town in Texas where everyone is required to carry a gun and there's no crime due to it? I'm not sure if that's fact or urban legend though... sorry!
@txGreg You made me facepalm when I realized that you were right. It's really easy to grasp the concept once you move from "need" to simply "I want it." More so because I have some swords that just look nice and never plan to use them. I just wanted them so I got them.
Applying that logic to guns makes the issue pretty cut and dry (though I'm sure the powers that be would disagree and start citing safety and the like. Le sigh) Thank you for clearing it up! :)
@Stilton Traps? Darn. Well, there goes the thought of sneaking on you while you're sketching the next comic. :D
I didn't think about the militia bit and weapons either... thank you for clearing it up. Though I think I'll thank you guys instead for explaining it so clearly!
@airotciv: Amendment II. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ReplyDeleteThe point/purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a necessary check on government by it's citizens, by providing a means of recourse when the government strayed too far in it's powers. Simply stated, there would not have been a Revolution against King Charles if the citizens did not have their own arms. The last of the 2nd Amendment insured that the government could not deny it's citizens arms, thus denying recourse against tyranny - remember King George's/England's tyranny was the reason behind the revolution.
The 2nd Amendment does not reference 'hunting' or 'assault' weapons, nor does it address magazine sizes. One could argue that 'the founders could not have envisioned such weapons', but in fact, there were many weapons of the day capable of mass casualty - especially when a wound was normally mortal. Triangular bayonets come to mind - I have a rifle of the era whose bayonet is 18" long, 1/2" wide and a curved triangular cross section (when they said 'run you through', they meant it) the wound could not be staunched. I believe that the founding fathers were instead, purposefully non specific to allow the words as written as guidelines for whatever the future held forth - also remember, many of these signers were visionaries.
Read the Declaration of Independence, and see if those tyrannies listed by the colonies do not apply today - I think one would be surprised how parallel the situations are.
Just a historical note: The primary weapon of the British army (infantry, anyway) of the 1776-1783 period was THE BAYONET. The smoothbore musket wasn't much good as a firearm in regard to accuracy. The British infantryman was highly-disciplined and would advance determinedly when the lead was flying toward them, and it must have been a truly terrifying sight to see them coming no matter how many of them fell to lucky shots.
ReplyDeleteNeed an image of Barry shooting a sheet shotgun sideways, gangsta style... left-handed.
ReplyDeleteWhich would actually make sense because it would eject the shell downward instead of into his face... if he was shooting a typical shotgun.
The media is trying to tell me that people who just took up their own personal arms in rebellion to over throw a strong central govt (who was trying to disarm them) saw no value in staying armed
ReplyDelete(see Cuban revolution to find out how well that worked). Does this even make sense to anyone? What sort of liar does it take to twist the moral of this story to state only a strong central govt was to be armed? Worse yet what sort of convuluted logic does it take to actually believe this story?
airotciv - recognising this probably won't be seen, as we all move on to today's cartoon, but contrary to stereotype, here at H&C we welcome dialog w/ other opinions, and tend to discuss politely when politeness is offered. Yay all on success mode. An AR makes a pretty good home defense gun, per many knowledgeable gun writers, as does a shotgun. High capacity mags (NOT "Clips" PLEASE!) are arguable in the event you need several shots each to put down a gang of drugged up junkies assaulting your domicile. However, the point remains - the 2nd is there so that, if necessary, the citizens can take out evil governments.
ReplyDeletePeriod.
txGreg - that *is* a hottie of a shottie, to be sure! I LIKE that it can be loaded w/ a variety of ammo, and select per side (shot on the right, slugs on left, for instance) Kinda pricy, but SCHWEEEETTT!!!
@ REM1875
ReplyDeleteIf Janet Napolinutso thinks an AR-15 is hard to shoot then she hasn't shot mine. It is the sweetest thing I've ever shot and I've been shooting for nearly 50 years.
Can you guess where the skeets got the wood for their muskeets?
ReplyDeleteFrom mesquite trees (the latin form of the word)...