cadillac, cadillac cts, cadillac seville, cadillac forums, lincolns of distinction, forum, lincoln mark viii, Performance, parts, lincoln, mark viii, mark vii, lincoln ls, lincoln town car

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums


(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums




Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma



Back to the Archive Main Page


Pages: 1

Less-Lethal Rounds

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: glanga

Anyone use less lethal rounds for home defense? Since these days if you shoot someone for breaking in your SOL. Especially in NJ.



Posted by: ground_zero298

Do shotshells reloaded with copper wire count?



Posted by: glanga

I was thinking more along the lines of those bean bags police use.



Posted by: ground_zero298

Those things look like they hurt BAD.



Posted by: JoshMcMadMac

Hell no. Hydra-shok in the chamber of every pistol...if you are in my house and are not smart enough to leave when I warn you of getting shot, I am shooting to kill. The shotgun runs bird-shot, but that is more to inflict damage without killing someone down the street than it is to not kill the perp.



Posted by: stang99x

dead people can't sue you.



Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:
Originally Posted by stang99x View Post
dead people can't sue you.
Quoted for truth...
If you're firing, you're firing because your home and life are in jeopardy. In that case, I'm not going to fire a bean bag at a crack head that MIGHT slow him down a little.

And what happens when you fire a non-lethal round and THEY have a gun firing real bullets?



Posted by: glanga

Doesn't matter. That's now how it works in NJ. If someone breaks into your home your supposed to run and lock yourself in a room or run outside and away. If you engage the intruder you are at fault and liable. If you kill the intruder you can be brought up on charges. Even if they are firing lethal rounds. That's just how NJ is and it's really stupid. I personally would kill someone if they threatened my family or I, but I would also be content with knocking him unconscious and having him arrested.



Posted by: JoshMcMadMac

Quote:
Originally Posted by glanga View Post
Doesn't matter. That's now how it works in NJ. If someone breaks into your home your supposed to run and lock yourself in a room or run outside and away. If you engage the intruder you are at fault and liable. If you kill the intruder you can be brought up on charges. Even if they are firing lethal rounds. That's just how NJ is and it's really stupid. I personally would kill someone if they threatened my family or I, but I would also be content with knocking him unconscious and having him arrested.
"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."



Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:
Originally Posted by glanga View Post
Doesn't matter. That's now how it works in NJ. If someone breaks into your home your supposed to run and lock yourself in a room or run outside and away. If you engage the intruder you are at fault and liable. If you kill the intruder you can be brought up on charges. Even if they are firing lethal rounds. That's just how NJ is and it's really stupid. I personally would kill someone if they threatened my family or I, but I would also be content with knocking him unconscious and having him arrested.
Who told you this nonsense? Heres the real deal laws on this:

Quote:
1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "New Jersey8 Self-Defense Law."9 10 2. The Legislature finds and declares that:11 a. It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their12 families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of13 prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of their own well14 being and the well being of others.15 b. The "Castle Doctrine" is a long-standing American legal16 concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's17 abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and18 immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending19 oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of20 prosecution.21 c. Article I of the New Jersey Constitution guarantees the 22 citizens of this State the rights "of enjoying and defending life and 23 liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of24 pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."25 d. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution26 affords the people of this nation the right to keep and bear arms.27 e. All who reside in and all who visit this State have a right to28 expect to be unmolested and safe within their homes, residences and29 vehicles.30 f. No person should be required, as a point of law, to surrender31 their personal safety or well being to the unlawful actions of a32 criminal, nor to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.33 g. It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper, and within the34 public interest, to ensure that law-abiding people are justified in35 protecting themselves, their families and others from intruders and36 attackers, and that they may do so without fear of prosecution or37 civil action.38 39 3. N.J.S.2C:3-4 is amended to read as follows:40 2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force41 justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of42 this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward43 another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that44 such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
A159 MERKT, MCHOSE3 himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on1 the present occasion.2 b. Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.3 (1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:4 (a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a5 peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is6 unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect7 such arrest; or8 (b) To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property9 or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the 10 person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect 11 the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:12 (i) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his13 duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making14 or assisting in a lawful arrest;15 (ii) The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property16 and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or17 (iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to18 protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.19 (2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section 20 unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to21 protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it22 justifiable if:23 (a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious 24 bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same25 encounter; or26 (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using27 such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering28 possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or29 by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which 30 he has no duty to take, except that:31 (i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless32 he was the initial aggressor; and33 (ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance34 of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or35 a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing36 an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty,37 effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or38 threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom39 such action is directed.40 (3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this41 subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the 42 necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating,43 surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal 44 duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.45 c.[(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5,46 N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon47 or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
A159 MERKT, MCHOSE4 when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately1 necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in2 the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the 3 present occasion.4 (2) A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself5 or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense6 or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor7 and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to8 act instantly and:9 (a) The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict10 personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or11 (b) The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or12 withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.13 (3) An actor employing protective force may estimate the 14 necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating,15 surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which 16 he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.]17 (Deleted by amendment, P.L., c.)(now pending before the18 Legislature as this bill).19 d. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-20 9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an21 intruder is justified when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril22 of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another.23 For the purposes of this subsection, a person is presumed to have24 a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm25 to himself or another and, therefore, is justified in using force when 26 the person against whom that force is used (1) is in the process of27 unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling, residence or28 occupied vehicle; (2) has unlawfully and forcibly entered at29 dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or (3) has removed, or is30 attempting to remove, another against that person's will from a31 dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle. A person also shall be32 presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or33 serious bodily harm to himself or another and, therefore, be justified34 in using force when the actor knows or reasonably believes that an35 unlawful and forcible entry is occurring or has occurred, or when 36 the actor knows or reasonably believes that an unlawful and forcible37 act is occurring or has occurred.38 A person presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril39 of death or serious bodily harm to himself in a dwelling, residence40 or occupied vehicle has no duty to retreat and is justified in using41 force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is42 necessary to do so to prevent death or serious bodily harm to43 himself or another.44 As used in this subsection:45 "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind,46 including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is47 temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
A159 MERKT, MCHOSE5 it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people1 lodging therein at night.2 (cf: P.L.1999, c.73, s.1)3 4 4. N.J.S.2C:3-6 is amended to read as follows:5 2C:3-6. Use of force in defense of premises or personal property6 Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property.7 a. Use of force in defense of premises. Subject to the provisions8 of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or9 toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in10 possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be11 thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent12 or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or13 attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in14 or upon such premises: provided, however, a person who unlawfully 15 and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling,16 residence or occupied vehicle is presumed to do so with the intent17 to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence and the use18 of force upon or toward that person is justifiable. 19 b. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of premises.20 (1) Request to desist.[The]Except in those instances where,21 pursuant to subsection a. of this section, the use of force is22 justifiable upon or toward a person who unlawfully and by force 23 enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence or24 occupied vehicle and is presumed to do so with the intent to commit25 an unlawful act involving force or violence, the use of force is26 justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the27 person against whom such force is used to desist from his28 interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes29 that:30 (a) Such request would be useless;31 (b) It would be dangerous to himself or another person to make32 the request; or33 (c) Substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of34 the property which is sought to be protected before the request can35 effectively be made.36 (2) Exclusion of trespasser. The use of force is not justifiable37 under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the 38 trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily39 harm.40 (3) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is not41 justifiable under subsection a. of this section unless the actor42 reasonably believes that:43 (a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to44 dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right45 to its possession; or46 (b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to47 commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
A159 MERKT, MCHOSE6 theft or property destruction; except that1 (c) Deadly force does not become justifiable under2 subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor3 reasonably believes that:4 (i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or5 threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or6 (ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or7 prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would8 expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of9 bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have10 a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must11 rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; or12 (iii) The actor is in imminent peril of death or serious bodily13 harm to himself and, pursuant to N.J.S.2C:3-4, is justified in using14 force, including deadly force.The State must rebut this15 presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 16 c. Use of force in defense of personal property. Subject to the17 provisions of subsection d. of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the18 use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable19 when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he20 reasonably believes to be an attempt by such other person to21 commit theft, criminal mischief or other criminal interference with22 personal property in his possession or in the possession of another23 for whose protection he acts.24 d. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of personal25 property.26 (1) Request to desist and exclusion of trespasser. The limitations27 of subsection b. (1) and (2) of this section apply to subsection c. of28 this section.29 (2) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in defense of30 personal property is not justified unless justified under another 31 provision of this chapter.32 (cf: P.L.1987, c.120, s.2)33 34 5. (New section) In addition to the justifications for the use of35 force otherwise authorized under this chapter, a person, not engaged 36 in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any place where he has a37 right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his38 ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he39 reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or40 serious bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent a crime of41 violence.42 43 6. (New section) a. A person who is justified in using force 44 under this chapter is immune from criminal prosecution and civil 45 action for the use of that force.46 As used in this subsection, "criminal prosecution" means47 arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the 48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
A159 MERKT, MCHOSE7 actor; provided, however, a law enforcement agency may use1 standard procedures for investigating the use of that force and, if it2 determines that there is probable cause that the force so used was 3 unlawful, arrest, detain, and charge or prosecute, as appropriate.4 b. A court of competent jurisdiction shall award reasonable5 attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income and all6 expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action 7 brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune8 from prosecution pursuant to subsection a. of this section.9 10 7. This act shall take effect immediately.11 12 13 STATEMENT 14 15 This bill, the "New Jersey Self-Defense Law," authorizes a16 person to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder or17 attacker in a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle in those 18 instances where the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death 19 or serious bodily harm.20 The bill sets forth the circumstances under which a person is21 presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent period of death or22 serious bodily harm. Those circumstance include instances where a 23 person: (1) is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a24 dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; (2) has unlawfully and25 forcibly entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or (3)26 has removed, or is attempting to remove, another against that27 person's will from a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or (4)28 when the actor knows or reasonably believes that an unlawful and29 forcible entry is occurring or has occurred; or (5) when the actor30 knows or reasonably believes that an unlawful and forcible act is31 occurring or has occurred.32 The bill clarifies that a person has no duty to retreat before33 justifiably using force in instances where that person is attacked,34 reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to35 himself or to prevent death or serious bodily harm to another.36 Finally, the bill provides immunity, both criminal and civil, for37 any person who is justified in using force. Under the bill, the court38 is authorized to award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs,39 compensation for loss of income and all expenses incurred by a40 defendant who is wrongly subject to a civil action.41




Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Federal Hyda Shocks all the way baby!! Someone comes in here there will be strange remains for fingerprints.



Posted by: glanga

I was always told that was the law. Hey, I may be wrong but that is what I have always been under the impression it was. And I beleived it since so many homeowners are sued or brought up on charges for killing or shooting or harming someone breaking into their house. Good to know that though. Forget less than lethal rounds. I would use some Black Talons if I could get my hands on them, or some hollow points.

Anyone have any good pistol reccommendations? I have and over under skeet rifle and pump 12 guage but I'm looking for something simple, small, effective. A parole officer freind reccommended a .40. He uses an HK .40 standard issue and likes it because even if it doesn't kill it has the power to knock the person down. Anyone say anything else? I like Sigs a lot too.

Geno, where do you find all these laws? You just have all these saved for a rainy day? haha



Posted by: fossten

Cor-Bon hollow points for me.



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by glanga View Post
I was always told that was the law. Hey, I may be wrong but that is what I have always been under the impression it was. And I beleived it since so many homeowners are sued or brought up on charges for killing or shooting or harming someone breaking into their house. Good to know that though. Forget less than lethal rounds. I would use some Black Talons if I could get my hands on them, or some hollow points.

Anyone have any good pistol reccommendations? I have and over under skeet rifle and pump 12 guage but I'm looking for something simple, small, effective. A parole officer freind reccommended a .40. He uses an HK .40 standard issue and likes it because even if it doesn't kill it has the power to knock the person down. Anyone say anything else? I like Sigs a lot too.
HKs are nice, but expensive. Glock 27 in .40 is my carry weapon. Concealable, good strong caliber, utterly reliable, plug and play.

If you want some more info on this, I recommend this site:

www.concealedcarryforum.com

Very friendly community, and nobody can ask a stupid question.



Posted by: pagan_blood

really like my bro's Sig 226 .40. probably the first handgun i'm gettin as soon as i turn 21



Posted by: NHLSV8

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshMcMadMac View Post
"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
QUOTED FOR THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!


12ga with #4 bird shot under the bed, 45 with 14 rounds with easy access for longer range. I'll drop an army before I let anyone get to my little girl!



Posted by: JoshMcMadMac

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten View Post
HKs are nice, but expensive. Glock 27 in .40 is my carry weapon. Concealable, good strong caliber, utterly reliable, plug and play.

If you want some more info on this, I recommend this site:

www.concealedcarryforum.com

Very friendly community, and nobody can ask a stupid question.
Kahr MK40 here. The Glocks are nice, and they have the G36 now; a single stack .45 that is even easier to conceal than the 20 series. The polymers just do not fit my hand well.



Posted by: NHLSV8

I conceal my Springfield XD 45ACP no problem... and with 14 rounds of 45, overkill becomes an understatement, but I'd rather have over kill than killed



Posted by: glanga

I really like the Sig 226 also. And the Walther P22



Posted by: NHLSV8

sig makes a great side arm! I love them! I just thin I got more bang for my buck out of the XD! Very similar weapons!



Posted by: NHLSV8

I dont like the 40 per say. Its too much of a well rounded type of caliber IMO. The 9mm is easy to shoot and has good pennitration. The 45 is thought to be harder (no matter what you carry you need to shoot and shoot often to be effective) but has amazing knock down power. The Koreans were wraping themselves in wet seaweed that when dried acted as a bullet proff vest. The 9MM was bouncing off. The 45's the marines started to carry after that were kocking them down and out even with their seaweed. The 40 is inbetween the two... not as much penn as the 9 and not as much knock down as the 45. Pennitration is asking for a criminal case... it will go through walls into neighbors houses. The 45 will destroy your wall, but wont kill your neighbors. Plus with body armor being easier and easier to get ahold of, knock down power is parimount in my book! At the end of the day, you're the one who has to carry it and God forbid use, so get what fits you. You're needs, abilities, and environments should decide what to buy not what we think of our guns.



Posted by: KD00LS

Use a katana like a real man.



Posted by: glanga

Ok, next time someone breaks into your house you use your katana on them and let me know how it goes.



Posted by: Kbob


Samurai Home-Defender!



Posted by: KD00LS

Quote:
Originally Posted by glanga View Post
Ok, next time someone breaks into your house you use your katana on them and let me know how it goes.
Haha yeah on second thought. With your original statement I think I've heard something about that as well. Something about using unneccessary or lethal force and you will get tried. Don't remember where I heard it from.



Posted by: glanga

I could've sworn that was the law, and I've heard it numerous times from leo friends. But oh well, I'd much rather save my own life or my families than let someone walk all over me in my house.

I think I'm leaning towards a .45 Sig.



Posted by: NHLSV8

the other nice round is the 357 sig. Same overall balistics as a 357magnum, except that its a semi auto. I love my 45 though



Posted by: ground_zero298

I prefer the five-seven



Posted by: KD00LS

Desert Eagle.



Posted by: eastcoastLS

IIRC, in Florida and your life is being threatened, you must shoot one warning shot, and then if they continue to threaten your life you can lawfully shoot them. But everyone knows, you shoot'm first and fire the warning shot second



Posted by: stang99x

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastLS View Post
But everyone knows, you shoot'm first and fire the warning shot second
Yeah, ain't that the truth. I don't care what law says what in any case, shoot to kill if they are in your home. If they run out, shoot them in the back and drag them back in. Then say you were blinded by the muzzle flash and don't know what happened.

As for carrying, well, heh, the state currently prohibits me for the next 5 years from owning any device that uses an explosive or electrical dishcharge to propel an inanimate object. Prior to that, my personal carry choice was a glock model 30, .45 caliber 10 shot mag with talons. I also have (Er my parents have) a sig p225, walther p22, Kimber TLE/RL, colt trooper mark III
.357, kel-tech .380, beretta tomcat .22, AK-47, and some rifles. I think that covers most of them. (slight enthusiast) I've pulled a gun once on a guy.....he came at me with a knife in front of his wife and kids, and I pulled that glock and used the old tombstone line "come any closer and I'll turn you head into a canoe." He got back in his car and left.



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by KD00LS View Post
Desert Eagle.
Spoken like a true 20-year old.

Seriously, think that through. Do you really want to kill your neighbors along with the bad guy? The Desert Eagle is hardly suitable for home defense. It does have its uses though - like killing black bears and agents in the Matrix.



Posted by: glanga

I think he was kidding. But on the other hand the sight of a Desert Eagle might deter someone without a shot being fired.



Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Hell with the Eagle Ill pop them with the Casul!! LOL!! HAMBURGER!!!!!



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by glanga View Post
I think he was kidding. But on the other hand the sight of a Desert Eagle might deter someone without a shot being fired.
Didn't know they glowed in the dark.



Posted by: KD00LS

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten View Post
Spoken like a true 20-year old.

Seriously, think that through. Do you really want to kill your neighbors along with the bad guy? The Desert Eagle is hardly suitable for home defense. It does have its uses though - like killing black bears and agents in the Matrix.
Damn you really nailed my age. Haha, good thing it was a joke. I play Call of Duty 4 too much.

Magnums carry a bit more of a kick don't they?



Posted by: KD00LS

This doesn't look like too extreme of a setup...



Posted by: workin_ike

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshMcMadMac View Post
"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
Thats my signature on my CZ forum. It's the only way.
Carry Hydros' 38's in my S&W mag concealed weapon, Winchester hollows in my .40 Duty gun, and in my CZ.40 home protection. For what its worth, when I got my ACT235, my fiance shot 1 point better than I did. 143 out of 145.

As for the D.E. you can get smaller than the .50 they also have Baby DE. They are the size of XD's but much heavier, and come in 9mm, .40 cal and .45 cal. http://www.magnumresearch.com/products.asp I almost bought a baby eagle but too heavy.



Posted by: devilchild

forget the gun...

ill just toss my nude girlfriend at them...

thatll distract them long enough for me to dive out the window..



Posted by: fossten

Quote:
Originally Posted by KD00LS View Post
Damn you really nailed my age. Haha, good thing it was a joke. I play Call of Duty 4 too much.

Magnums carry a bit more of a kick don't they?
Yes they do. And don't get me wrong, Desert Eagles do serve a purpose. They are great gun porn.

I've heard good things about COD 4. Personally, I play EVE.



Posted by: ground_zero298

A pair of these work pretty well also.



Posted by: ground_zero298

A pair of these, not so well.



Posted by: devilchild

Quote:
pair of these, not so well.
maybe not for a deterent... but they probably work great as an early warning alarm system



Posted by: KD00LS

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossten View Post
Yes they do. And don't get me wrong, Desert Eagles do serve a purpose. They are great gun porn.

I've heard good things about COD 4. Personally, I play EVE.
EVE?





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser

Loans:Loans:Naruto Shippuden Episodes:Credit Cards:Camilo jose cela