use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
詳しくは検索FAQを参照
高度な検索: 投稿者や、subredditで……
9,994 人のユーザーが現在閲覧しています
/r/inthenews /r/worldnews /r/politics new comments
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.
Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews
Your post will likely be removed if it:
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
>>>Expanded Rules<<<
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news /r/truereddit - insightful articles /r/self - any self-post /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting /r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects /r/politics - for shouting about politics /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc. /r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts /r/patriots /r/personalfinance /r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
After San Bernardino attacks, concealed gun requests skyrocket in area (usatoday.com)
neuhmz が 14時間前 投稿
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]Amoryovins 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 13時間前 (73子コメント)
Alot a good a gun will do you when you can't have one in a gun free mass murder zone or can't get a CCW because its out of reach of the average person. All gun control is illegal under the second ammendment and anyone caught advocating for it, passing it, or enforcing it should be tried for treason and sentenced to life without possiblity for parole. · 7
[–]xfortune 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 6時間前 (1子コメント)
Lmao sentenced for life for having an opposing view point? Wow.
[–]Squints753 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)
Welcome to /r/news
[–]stillclub 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)
Because fuck freedom of speech
[–]rhynodegreat 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前 (2子コメント)
All gun control is illegal under the second ammendment
Are you sure about this? Is the current gun control illegal?
[–]wolfofoakley 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)
technically speaking, the whole pint of the second amendment was to have military fire power in the hands of civilians in case the country got attacked or we decided we had enough with the government. Now i can totally buy not letting people own things like grenade launchers, but much short of that and we were supposed to be able to lay our hands on it.
[–]Soleksus 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)
If you go strictly by the words of the constatution, 'shal not be infringed' would make it seem that he is right.
Now even though I'm on the gun rights side, I don't have a problem with most current gun laws (execpt the NFA, SBS and SBR laws are dumb, suppressors are safety equipment and I don't agree with the machine gun registry being closed, but I do agree with machine guns being NFA).
so while you can say technically anti-gun laws are illegal, its not bad to have some restrictions on weapons in my opinion. now just how far these restrictions go is the debate.
[+]Effectx スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 6時間前* (12子コメント)
So because I think crazy people and criminals should have limited to zero access to fire arms I should be sentenced to life without parole?
Apparently the only amendment that matters is the second one.
[–]T4Ligase 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 5時間前 (9子コメント)
Well as a thought experiment: Why do we deny felons some but not all rights after they served their time and are no longer on parole/probation? If we're still worried they'll be violent, why are we letting them out of prison? Why can a previous felon not vote or own a gun but we allow them to exercise free speech, freedom of association and enjoy the 4th and 5th amendment?
I'm not saying I don't agree with it but why as a society do we deny rights forever to those who have apparently served their time.
[–]Effectx 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (8子コメント)
Because it's a reality that those who have committed a crime once are more likely to do it again when compared to another person. It doesn't help that our prison system does little to actually reform people.
[–]neuhmz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 5時間前 (7子コメント)
So Martha Stewart shouldn't have a gun?
[–]Effectx -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 4時間前 (6子コメント)
Do I really need to be specific that I'm talking about violent criminals?
[–]nvkylebrown 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 4時間前 (3子コメント)
Yes. The law is not specific that way.
[+]Effectx スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 4時間前 (2子コメント)
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
[–]nvkylebrown 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)
Then step one is not to propose a blanket ban on guns for criminals. Step one is to differentiate between violent/non-violent criminals. Right now, you are a felon, or you are not a felon - no assessment of violence risk in that at all. You'll need legally binding violent/non-violent categories before you do anything else.
[–]Effectx -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)
I'd be the first to suggest that the justice system is in dire need of an overhaul.
[–]effWhat_uSay 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 4時間前 (1子コメント)
But the law says felons, not violent criminals.
[–]Effectx -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)
Not saying that the law is always right.
[–]DBDude 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5時間前 (1子コメント)
Someone I know got in a fight with a bad guy about 40 years ago, and ended up making a plea deal that gave him a record. He hasn't been in trouble with the law since, and is now a nice old retiree. Oh yeah, we're doing a great public service keeping guns out of his hands.
Even better, what if you take a wrong turn in Philadelphia and end up over the river in New Jersey with your concealed carry, and get railroaded for a felony gun charge. Now you're a criminal who can't exercise your right because you, well, exercised your right.
[+]i_have_severe スコアが基準値未満のコメント-19ポイント-18ポイント-17ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)
Totally, man. That's why it took up until 2008 to say that with a split court and plenty of historians and academia saying it was not in line with the meaning of the Constitution. You don't sound too up there.
[+]kurisu7885 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-16ポイント-15ポイント-14ポイント 4時間前 (2子コメント)
So you missed the "Well regulated" part of that amendment?
[–]Im_ur_huckleberry 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント 4時間前* (0子コメント)
"Well regulated" in this context means well supplied/well trained. If you want to get technical, The State should be supplying weapons, ammunition, and training to all members of the militia. The militia being all men who have reached the age of majority.
[–]aroc91 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)
You must have missed grammar class and the Supreme Court's very clear explanation.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's the right of the people, not just the right of the militia.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-38ポイント-37ポイント-36ポイント 8時間前 (47子コメント)
Listen to you, society and the enviroment we live in is constantly changing our rights change with it. Had the same constitution been written 2000 years ago it wouldn't have guaranteed the right to a gun. America being a recent country means that the rights you hold dear are relatively modern but as the country ages they are less important.
Trying to join freedom to gun ownership is pathetic, your not any more free because you own a gun. Your much less free if you think owning one makes you free. Is Britain not free? France? Germany?
[–]FourteenFour 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
Guess we should just void that First Amendment while we are at too, after all your tripe works for any argument and totally ignores the fact that the Constitution was written to prevent exactly what you want.
More free in some ways, less free in others. All freedoms lost are because of individuals similar to you who would have no problem with the government walking over others they don't agree with while ignoring the fact you are likely next in line
[–]razor_beast 33ポイント34ポイント35ポイント 8時間前 (21子コメント)
I would say yes. They are less free. The ability to defend yourself effectively is a basic human right. Being forced to rely on the state for that is inhumane and unrealistic.
If I need the police I need them NOW not 10 minutes from now. That is what a firearm is for. You are the first responder to your own life. Expecting others the care about your life to the same degree you do is a foreign concept to me that I'd rather not adopt.
[+]only_response_needed[🍰] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-34ポイント-33ポイント-32ポイント 8時間前 (1子コメント)
Expecting others the care about your life to the same degree you do is a foreign concept to me that I'd rather not adopt.
... and that's exactly another reason why this country will never progress and will continue to chase its tail.
[–]razor_beast 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
In other things? Sure. Self defense? Hell no. That is your responsibility. The very nature of law enforcement makes it impossible for them to beam in star trek style to save you just in the nick of time and expecting otherwise is unrealistic.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-38ポイント-37ポイント-36ポイント 8時間前 (18子コメント)
And yet more Americans are killed every year than British people.
Sounds like you need a better method to defend yourself. Or as the war of 1812 showed Americans are shit at defending anything.
[–]razor_beast 31ポイント32ポイント33ポイント 8時間前 (10子コメント)
That's actually not true. In the recent meta study conducted by the CDC under orders from Obama in the aftermath of Sandy Hook they found that between 500,000 and 3 million Americans successfully defend their lives with a firearm each year and statistically having a firearm greatly increases the chances of surviving a violent encounter. A gun is first and foremost an effective deterrent. Only 8% of the time is a round even fired. The rest of the time the assailants approach the defender, the defender insinuates they have a firearm or draws and the assailants immediately retreat. In fact, this happens so often that the great bulk of DGU's go unreported because it's viewed as a non-event. I've heard those old claims from anti-gun lobby groups in the 90's but they never had any hard facts to back it up.
On top of that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. The rest of the actual legitimate gun deaths are homicides committed mostly by felons with records that obtained their firearms illegally and commit these killings during gang warfare due to the drug war. The average person is not running around shooting people with any alarming regularity. There are countless MILLIONS upon millions of gun owners in America. The amount of incidents and instances of negligence and accidents are infinitesimally small compared to the sheer amount of people who never cause any problems what so ever with their firearms.
There has been an excess of 200% increase nationwide of concealed carry permit holders in the last couple of years yet violent crime continues to drop like a rock and break record lows. There are more guns actively on the hips and in the hands of people than ever before and yet violent crime keeps dropping.
You are more likely to be struck by lightning than by anywhere near a mass shooting. More people are killed by hands, feet, blunt objects and knives than long guns of any type combined each year according to FBI statistics. This fear of being gunned down by a crazed lunatic with an AR-15 is way overblown.
Furthermore states like Vermont have almost no gun control laws yet have almost no violent crime what so ever. They even have constitutional carry which means you don't even need a permit to carry a firearm. There are towns deep in the heart of Texas with almost 100% gun ownership rate with knives, sharp sticks, explosives and maybe even artillery along with weapons of every other type imaginable in the hands of average citizens yet they have almost no violent crime.
There is absolutely NO credible evidence to suggest that more guns equates to more crime. Guns do not CAUSE crime. Crime is the result of our crumbling socioeconomic status. If we took the time, money and attention away from scapegoating guns and invested all that into infrastructure, education, universal health care, economic strengthening measures and ending the drug war we'd be in a hell of a better place than we currently are.
If you go back to my impoverished neighborhood in Detroit and ask people what would make their lives better NOBODY would say gun control. People need education, jobs and opportunities.
This hysteria over gun deaths is manufactured and overblown to clownish proportions and twisted for the sake of a political agenda and ratings on the news. Taking away or reducing my capability to defend myself is illogical, immoral and inhumane as there is nothing being done to improve the socioeconomic motivations behind violent behavior.
We don't live in a utopia and until then I will practice my constitutional right to bear arms and defend myself effectively against the real world threats that exist. This hippy dippy, kumbaya hand holding bullshit sounds nice but it's not applicable to the real world.
Also we sure as shit defended the colonies. We defended South Korea. We defended Paris and other cities in WWI. We defended various locations in WWII. Your bullshit just doesn't hold up. I love it when ignorant people talk. It provides so much entertainment.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-27ポイント-26ポイント-25ポイント 8時間前 (9子コメント)
Two question
How many people per 100,000 are killed in Great Britain?
How Many people per 100,000 are killed in America?
[–]PleaseStopCalling 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)
China and Saudi Arabia have murder rates even lower than the UK. So what is your point? Perhaps the UK should emulate China and Saudi Arabia? Then your rates will drop even more!
[–]razor_beast 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント 8時間前 (7子コメント)
That's irrelevant. Most of the deaths are from suicides and gang warfare. Attempting to misconstrue this as average people shooting each other in the streets 24/7 is disingenuous.
Also since the United States is just that, a collective of nations wouldn't a better comparison be all of the European Union and all of the US?
We can go on and on for hours, the bottom line is I'm willing to bet you know nothing about firearms outside of fictional sources such as movies, television and video games or anti-gun lobby propaganda. Usually these are the type of people who support gun control because they don't know any better and are useful idiots being mislead by the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg.
You can go on and on about how evil the NRA is or how AR-15's are baby killing death machines that can shoot down planes and derail trains but that doesn't make it the least bit true. You generally have to know something factual about the subject before your opinion is considered of value.
Now run along back to guns r cool where your "arguments" will be brainlessly lapped up and applauded.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-29ポイント-28ポイント-27ポイント 8時間前 (6子コメント)
Answers: 0
[–]PaineThomas 22ポイント23ポイント24ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)
You are owed none
[–]hugehambone 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 6時間前 (3子コメント)
He answered the impetus of your question and his reason for his stance, while not providing a source, it's still a genuine response. He is saying suicide and drug trade/organized crime inflate the numbers. He is giving his personal reason for feeling a basic irrevocable need to carry a firearm. As a Canadian, I find that fascinating and it helps me to understand the mindset. Helpful discourse is respectful dialogue and a post like "answers: none" while you may think is witty, just belies your foolishness and inexperience. You're more concerned about scoring points than actual dialogue about guns. Which, If you actually care about changing the situation with guns as your questions imply, all you have put forth is a model of how not to interact with gun advocates. And if guns are responsible for many deaths as you have insinuated, your lack of tact is concerning. Either you're a sociopath, playing up your concern of gun crime to score political points, or you're just a damn fool. As you can see, neither option is good. And I see this type of mindset repeating itself in other areas of politics (I consider myself liberal) and it is disturbing to say the least. A culture of non conversation, and rude, dismissive, holier than thou antics does not a good society make. That all being said, again as a Canadian, I feel significantly less concerned about gun crime up here, although we have other issues, and definitely issues with the drug trade, I feel safer here in that I don't expect anybody to ever pull a gun. That being said, I don't fear guns while I'm in America that much either, I just feel a bit safer here. I also as a Canadian who is supposed to be the model of politeness, I find Americans extremely polite and hospitable for the most part. Like, people actually have manners in a lot of places. Anyway, my last thought is I would like a source on the number of gun deaths from suicide/drug trade. I believe you, I would just like evidence for posterity. In Canada although we have much less gun deaths, most of those deaths are suicides as well.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント 5時間前* (2子コメント)
You make a substation, you back it up.
Also I find it incredibly rude to ignore basic questions, far ruder than highlighting someones ignorance.
Ironic you saying Holier than thou while saying I'm a sociopath. You hypocritice.
Since I figure you wont back it America has 3.8 murders per 100,000 every years, with a population of around 300,000,000 (300 million) results in 11,400 murders per year, at the best case scenario America has about 2,000 murder linked to drug related crimes thus that figure is brought down to 9,400 per 300 million or 3.1 a figure 3 times greater than Britain despite accounting for drug violence AND suicide.
source: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/isil-vs-mexican-drugcartelsunitedstatesislamophobia.html
[–]razor_beast 26ポイント27ポイント28ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
I have no obligation to answer stupid questions nor let you frame the debate to manipulate what I'm saying to your advantage.
[–]Patriotkin 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 8時間前 (6子コメント)
I should hope so. We're 5 times the size. And we have drug wars and no socialized mental healthcare.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント 8時間前 (5子コメント)
Britain has had a war on drugs, and I was talking about per 100,000 which corrects for population difference.
[–]PleaseStopCalling 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)
Does Britain have a 3000km+ desert border with a significantly poorer country where some of the world's biggest drug cartels are?
If you're seriously implying that an island nation's war on drugs is going to have the same effect as the US war on drugs, you're either consuming those drugs yourself or you're being blisteringly disingenuous.
[–]Patriotkin 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
Britains war on drugs isn't shit compared to the US.
[–]hugehambone 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 6時間前 (2子コメント)
Why don't you just drop the charade and post the numbers yourself.
[–]mrv3 -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 5時間前 (1子コメント)
1 (UK), 3.8(US) per 100,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
[–]PleaseStopCalling 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント 8時間前 (3子コメント)
Listen to you, society and the enviroment we live in is constantly changing our rights change with it.
Does the First Amendment's protection not apply to internet speech? Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to your smartphones, laptops, and thumb drives?
They certainly do. When the environment around us changes, we adapt to them by interpreting the language which outlines our rights as inclusive of what it does not specifically exclude. Notice that the Second Amendment does not once mention the word "gun" or "firearms". The fact that the right of the people to keep and bear "arms" in general is indicative of the amendment's adaptable nature. Arms could be anything from swords and pikes of the 15th Century to the laser rifles of tomorrow.
America being a recent country means that the rights you hold dear are relatively modern but as the country ages they are less important.
That's preposterous. Tell me, which of the other 9 Amendments in of the bill of rights should also be so casually discarded?
Trying to join freedom to gun ownership is pathetic, your not any more free because you own a gun.
And how in tarnation are we any more free when our freedom to own adequate tools for self defense is taken away?
Is Britain not free? France? Germany?
Funny you should say that. The Jews of France and Germany have now lamented that they no longer feel safe in their own countries. Do you really think that having to hide your faith when going out in public is something befitting of a free country? Where is that freedom and free will when you're being raped and attacked like in Cologne? And how are your freedoms being protected when the government would turn a blind eye to crimes against committed against you? How are you free if your government tacitly allows your right to self determination to be abridged by others?
Your boot-licking contempt for the basic human right of self defense and self determination is what's really pathetic here.
[–]PeteTodd 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)
The 3rd, well, we'll see how that plays out in the future.
The order of amendments clearly matters, because if soldiers wanted to stay in my house, it'd be easy if I didn't own a gun, but since I can/do, I can keep them away if needed.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)
Muslims don't feel safe in America. Is America not free?
[–]TinyLittleTyrants 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)
That's the equivalent of Germans not feeling safe in Holland, 1943.
[–]Patriotkin 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 8時間前 (14子コメント)
The second amendment is simply the right of self defense codified into law. It's timeless. People will always have that right.
America is a country that emphasizes individual rights and liberties and there's nothing wrong with us respecting that.
[+]Redsnow3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント 6時間前 (3子コメント)
Actually the law states militia, doesnt explicitly say any single human has a right to a gun but an organized militia pro gun people seem to forget that one for some reason. The only reason militias arent the only ones allowed to own guns was because of a super controversial 5-4 supreme court case.
[–]PleaseStopCalling 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 6時間前* (0子コメント)
"A well educated Academia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
Now tell me, is the right to keep and read books being given the Academia or to the people? You're saying that the "militia" referred to in the first part of the sentence should just replace "people" in the second part. So why even use "the people" in the second part at all? "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." is a preamble introducing the intent of the Amendment here while the rest is a sentence of its own. If the right to keep and bear arms belonged to the Militia, the authors could have just as easily used "Militia" as the subject in the main sentence. They didn't.
Furthermore, all other 9 Amendments forming the Bill of Rights articulate individual rights that belong to the same "people" as in the Second but yeah, totally, they just threw in a supposedly collective right and used the same language as all the other amendments because reasons. Just for shits and giggles.
[–]Patriotkin 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)
We are the militia.
[–]BrownNote 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)
You should look up what the US militia actually is.
No.
America until recently banned gay people from marrying so drop that notion of individual rights, that's only based on your current perception not an absolute.
Should I be allowed to personally own a nuclear weapon?
[–]Patriotkin 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
It's classical liberalism. Just because enough rights weren't extended doesn't mean other rights should be taken away.
And nuclear weapons would have been considered 'ordnance' at the time the constitution was penned. We've never had a right to that.
[–]PaineThomas 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント 7時間前 (3子コメント)
I'm a gay gun owner and ccw holder. And it is my right to be both.
[–]TinyLittleTyrants 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 7時間前 (2子コメント)
Question, and no judgement here, but are you gay or do you own a gay gun? I am totally in favor of both you and your gun being allowed to holster themselves wherever they choose, I'm just curious.
[–]PaineThomas 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 6時間前 (1子コメント)
My gun is german, so no funny business there. Well, austrian, but tell that to the reich.
Just me. My gun shoots straight.
[–]TinyLittleTyrants 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)
OK, well, shoot it in good health, friend.
[–]PleaseStopCalling 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント 7時間前 (2子コメント)
Your complete lack of understanding of American law is showing.
Marriage itself is not a guaranteed constitutional right like the right to keep and bear arms.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)
Why isn't it?
[–]paparoush [スコア非表示] 27分前 (0子コメント)
Because it isn't in the Constitution.
[–]of_the_brocean [スコア非表示] たった今 (0子コメント)
Love the reduction to absurdity here. Clearly you are aware that a gun fires controlled projectiles in a single direction and a nuclear bomb sends alpha particles in every fucking direction, right? No one can be this dense.
[–]TheGuyAboveMeEatsPoo 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 6時間前 (4子コメント)
.... The 2a says keep and bear arms. It's a blanket term that lasts through time. Had they used the same terminology 2000 years ago, it would still be directly relevant.
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント 6時間前 (3子コメント)
So should I be allowed to own a nuclear weapon?
[–]TheGuyAboveMeEatsPoo 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 6時間前 (2子コメント)
Sure. If you have the several billion dollars to buy one.
[–]puckslut 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)
And the technology to propel it further than you can throw it
π Rendered by PID 27064 on app-677 at 2016-01-20 19:12:25.744894+00:00 running 603260b country code: JP.
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]Amoryovins 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント (73子コメント)
[–]xfortune 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Squints753 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]stillclub 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]rhynodegreat 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]wolfofoakley 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Soleksus 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]Effectx スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント (12子コメント)
[–]T4Ligase 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント (9子コメント)
[–]Effectx 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (8子コメント)
[–]neuhmz[S] 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (7子コメント)
[–]Effectx -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント (6子コメント)
[–]nvkylebrown 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント (3子コメント)
[+]Effectx スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]nvkylebrown 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Effectx -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]effWhat_uSay 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Effectx -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]DBDude 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (1子コメント)
[+]i_have_severe スコアが基準値未満のコメント-19ポイント-18ポイント-17ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]kurisu7885 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-16ポイント-15ポイント-14ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]Im_ur_huckleberry 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]aroc91 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-38ポイント-37ポイント-36ポイント (47子コメント)
[–]FourteenFour 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]razor_beast 33ポイント34ポイント35ポイント (21子コメント)
[+]only_response_needed[🍰] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-34ポイント-33ポイント-32ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]razor_beast 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-38ポイント-37ポイント-36ポイント (18子コメント)
[–]razor_beast 31ポイント32ポイント33ポイント (10子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-27ポイント-26ポイント-25ポイント (9子コメント)
[–]PleaseStopCalling 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]razor_beast 24ポイント25ポイント26ポイント (7子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-29ポイント-28ポイント-27ポイント (6子コメント)
[–]PaineThomas 22ポイント23ポイント24ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]hugehambone 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント (3子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]razor_beast 26ポイント27ポイント28ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Patriotkin 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント (6子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント (5子コメント)
[–]PleaseStopCalling 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Patriotkin 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]hugehambone 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]mrv3 -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]PleaseStopCalling 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]PeteTodd 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]TinyLittleTyrants 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Patriotkin 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント (14子コメント)
[+]Redsnow3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]PleaseStopCalling 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Patriotkin 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]BrownNote 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-27ポイント-26ポイント-25ポイント (9子コメント)
[–]Patriotkin 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]PaineThomas 19ポイント20ポイント21ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]TinyLittleTyrants 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]PaineThomas 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]TinyLittleTyrants 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]PleaseStopCalling 17ポイント18ポイント19ポイント (2子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]paparoush [スコア非表示] (0子コメント)
[–]of_the_brocean [スコア非表示] (0子コメント)
[–]TheGuyAboveMeEatsPoo 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント (4子コメント)
[+]mrv3 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]TheGuyAboveMeEatsPoo 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]puckslut 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント (0子コメント)