What exactly are Belgium's gun laws in a general summary? Can you own a firearm at all or is it a complete ban?

Great read by the way

Not a complete ban, no. While people can own firearms, it is a rather restrictive system. As opposed to the US, to default position is not "anyone can easily own a firearm, unless there's a good reason (prior convictions for crimes or serious mental illness) for them not to", but rather the opposite. No one can easily own a firearm unless they provide a good reason for them to have one. Good reasons include jobs (private security, for example), extraordinary circumstances, sport shooting, collecting, hunting or security purposes. In addition, all weapons and trades must be registered, public carrying of firearms is almost universally prohibited, and both firearm training, safety courses and a practical and theoretical exam are mandatory.

Flee Talks Law: Gun Control

Warning: lots of text incoming. For a tl;dr, refer to the final part.

I was originally planning on covering this subject later, but the recent events of the Oregon shooting made the topic all the more relevant right now. Discussing gun control with many people both on this website and other forums such as B.net has again revealed how varied and conflicting the opinions are that people hold on this issue. For some reason, my opinion usually seems to stand out and gets a lot of people interested in debating this. After making several different posts about this in other people's threads, I felt it was a good time to make a larger thread covering some of the things I researched. As it's clearly related to law and criminal justice, it also makes for a great first entry in my "Flee Talks Law" series.

As I already mentioned in another two posts of mine, I came into this debate and started my research being as neutral and unbiased as I possibly could. I like to think that this is still the case and that I'm capable of keeping an open mind to both sides of the argument. I have little to no prior bias, am not in any way connected to guns and have desire to keep them for my own purposes, and I am not disgusted by or afraid of others owning guns.


In my opinion and just like with many other issues, the topic of gun control basically comes down to weighing the pros and cons of certain types of gun control and the private owning, carrying and usage of firearms. As such, I will begin by evaluating what are, in my opinion, the 4 most commonly cited and most compelling “pros” or arguments in favor of easy access to guns and an armed society.

"Guns are necessary to defend our freedom and democracy. Registration leads to confiscation which, as history shows, in turn leads to tyranny. We need firearms to defend us from foreign and domestic threats and dictators."

While this argument sounds nice in theory, it really does not correspond with the evidence and research at hand. For one, the "Stalin and Hitler took the people's guns before commiting their massacres against a defenseless population" arguments that are often thrown around are mostly incorrect. They did not simply take away the people's guns to commit their attrocities more easily, and there still existed militias and many armed civilians that unsurprisingly managed to do nothing to stop the regimes.

Even more so, strong evidence suggests that especially in our more modern history, the existence of an armed population and presence of militias "overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty". As should be pretty apparent from looking at the entire developed world outside of the US, there exists no correlation between (strict) gun control and the emergence of tyranny or dictatorships, whether foreign or domestic.

Secondly, it's extremely unlikely that a tyranny will emerge in the US in this day and age. The country has a longstanding history of military tradition and engrained patriotism. The US military is the people. Until the president and chiefs of staff can rely on a completely automatic robot army without morals or doubts, there is no way that your members of the army, navy and airforce would simply turn on the people that they are sworn to protect. They are not going to imprison, enslave or kill their own friends, family and community because they are ordered to do so. There exists a big difference between fighting a foreign enemy and going door to door in your own neighborhood to kill your fellow citizens because they don't agree with what your commander thinks. Additionally, we live in an incredibly global and international society. NATO, the UN and the entire developed world is not going to sit by idly and mind their own business when Obama decides to crown himself dictator for life by somehow completely ignoring the existing system of checks and balances and openly starts shooting political dissidents in the streets or FEMA death camps.

Finally, even if such a tyranny would emerge in present day America, it is very doubtful that the second amendment and privately owned guns would be in any way able to stop this. This is no warzone in a far away land where the united and unified natives use their unmatched knowledge of the terrain and guerilla tactics to fend off an overwhelming opponent. It would not, at all, resemble the militias that fought for America's freedom a few centuries ago. Not only would a rebellion easily be crushed, but the illusion that the American people would unite to fight for freedom and liberty is really just a distant ideal. Much more likely would be that different groups with different interests would take up arms to push their own beliefs over those of anyone else. The idea that a heavily armed populace is the ultimate safeguard of a righteous and free America is not only extremely improbable, but also very dangerous. It only increases the probability that only those with the firepower will be the ones in control and that might will make right. Ultimately, it's not guns that kill or prevent dictatorships. It's the people who do.

"Guns and shooting are a form of entertainment. Target practice and collecting firearms is a good and fun hobby.
I grew up enjoying firing guns and want that to remain so."

For one, I always thought that this argument is a pretty selfish one. "Despite the fact that our loose gun control and easy access to guns directly contribute to high homicide rates, insane gun violence rates that are only rivaled by third world countries, many preventable suicides, a baffling amount of mass shootings and more gun-related accidents and injuries than any other developed country in the world, I still value my weekly session at the range above the safety, wellbeing and lives of tens of thousands of other innocent people." Sure, it's an argument like any other, but I don't see how the pros of being able to have fun during one specific activity justifies the harm and issues it causes.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason that (strict) gun control and enjoying guns as a hobby are incompatible. As a point of reference, I will be using my own country here. Belgium is part of the group of Western European countries that have a system of restrictive gun regulations in place. Yet despite this being the case, thousands of people still enjoy guns in productive ways. For example, it's perfectly legal to become part of a hunting society and use firearms to hunt. As such, conventions on hunting and both expos and shows on gun ownership and gun collecting regularly take place. Same thing goes for sport, recreational and competitive shooting, and the possibility of collecting and modifying firearms as a hobby.

Things like these exist in pretty much all countries with strict gun control regulations. They make it pretty clear that just because a country does not encourage private gun ownership and takes pretty restrictive measures to curb gun crime, gun violence and the public carrying of firearms, this does not mean that it's impossible to enjoy shooting and firearms in a recreational or competitive way, or for the purposes of hunting and collecting. They admittedly do make it harder to do so, but I'd say that a person determined to enjoy guns and shooting as a hobby will gladly go through the extra steps to do so, and will ultimately be pleased that these additional safeguards stop a lot of people who shouldn't have a gun and help give responsible gun owners a good name.

"My right to bear arms is constutionally protected by the Second Amendment. Gun ownership is a universal, fundamental and inalienable right that can't be infringed."

This argument is by far the hardest one to address, as it is mainly situated within a metaphysical and very philosophical field where statistics, data and research isn't of much use. What someone considers to be a fundamental and inalienable right is generally a very personal choice and experience.

However, there are some remarks to be made here. For one, the right to bear arms is by no means “universal”. Out of the 190+ currently existing countries, only 3 (or, arguably, 4) have a constitution that explicitly provides for a right to bear arms, while seemingly just one more (Switzerland) does so through other statutory binding means. Out of those 3, only 1 constitution does not explicitly include a restrictive condition or requirement to the ownership of guns. That one being, of course, the USA with its Second Amendment.

Furthermore, not a single practically universal treaty or agreement on human rights consider the right to bear arms in any way fundamental, inalienable or universal. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (combined often known as the International Bill of Rights), the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the more regional treaties spanning the Americas or Africa all do not make the slightest mention of any right to own a firearm.

Despite being part of the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, it is entirely possible to amend, rewrite or remove an amendment. For example, a popular suggestion is one held by an ex SCOTUS judge that implores the addition of a single sentence to the Second Amendment (“when serving in the militia”) in order to fix many of the existing problems that it creates.

Considering all of the above, I'd wager that the right to bear arms is an American peculiarity that is not recognized by academics and legal experts in virtually any other country or on an international and global scale. The current existence of many gun regulations and court rulings make it clear that “shall not be infringed” does not prevent reasonable restrictions, and it's rather clear that the Bill of Rights and US Constitution can very well be amended or altered.

The founding fathers were in no way flawless and supported practices and regulations that would now be considered proposterous, outdated and downright discriminatory. They lived in a very different day and age, and recognized that changes would probably be necessary. As your very own Jefferson once said, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

While it's hard to argue that self-defense within reason is a natural right of any man, I do not see how an extremely particular way of exercising that right deserves to be a fundamental right on its own. Going by current international and global standards, I do believe that the right to bear arms is an American anomaly that to most other academics and countries brings about feelings of disbelief and disagreement. It can be changed, is not universally recognized and is a peculiar and strange extension of an already existing human right. It must again be noted that this is very philosophical and personal, but I, for one, do not consider the right to a gun an inalienable and fundamental right of extreme importance, nor does altering or restricting this particular right would result in the slippery slope fallacy of eroding all other human rights.

"Guns are a tool of self-defense. They give people the chance to fight back and stop criminals.
Criminals don't follow laws in the first place, and the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

This again seems like a very logically sound argument. “Give people guns and no one will dare to commit any crime as an armed society will keep them in check. Guns being the ultimate equalizer allow people to defend themselves and create a safer, better society.” It's a nice idea, but one that is ultimately untrue. In order to save myself the effort, I am going to quote my own post from the other thread.

Yes, criminals don't follow laws. It's the definition of a criminal. But criminals undeniably do follow some laws some of the time, both out of fear of punishment and because of obstacles to commiting them. And it's been shown many times that making something harder to accomplish or associating negative consequences to it really does deter some people.

Making something harder to do will make it less likely that people will do it. To me, that seems like a pretty common and general truth that also applies to criminal justice. Many crimes are commited in the spur of the moment or on short notice. Sure, there's the professional criminals that spend months planning out the perfect bank robbery or hitmen stalking a target to assassinate, but they are a clear minority. Simple deterrents help in a lot of cases. It's why we have speed bumps on roads, car alarms installed on all modern cars, police patrolling around cities and cameras located at certain places. Someone who is really determined to speed down that road or steal a car won't be completely prevented from doing so, but it does deter many others. As such, it has its use.

Comparatively, making guns harder to obtain reduces gun violence and more often that not homicide rates too. This is backed up by significant amounts of research on this subject. Even though there will always be those who are so determined to commit their crime that they will find more dangerous and expensive ways of obtaining a firearm, stricter access to guns does deter many of those who are not willing to go that far. Those who would've acted in the heat of the moment or who would've only actually gone through with the crime because they had the opportunity to do so will often be deterred by having it made significantly harder to commit the crime. If you make it harder for people thinking of commiting a crime to get their hands on the best tool to do so, less and less of them will actually go through with it. "Criminals routinely respond to incentives, and policies such as background checks and permit-to-purchase requirements demonstrably save lives by reducing criminal access to firearms." All the available data shows that criminals do respond to these laws and that such disincentives undoubtedly deter many of them from going through with the crime they were intending.

That aside, the merits of defensive gun use or "good guys with a gun" are so overstated that they could almost be considered a myth. More gun owners or more guns in general do not equal less crime or violence. There exist source after source after source and then some more and more research and evidence that makes this very clear.

In the US in 2015 alone, there have been over 20 (albeit not all fatal) shootings at schools. About 10,000 gun homicides. Close to 300 mass shootings. Several tens of thousands of gun accidents and injuries. How many incidents of defensive gun use would you pitch against that? A few thousand? A few ten thousand? The answer is not even a thousand cases of defensive gun use, many of which are very often illegal on top of that. Guns, in general, do more harm than good. And the ideal of a good guy with a gun being able to rise up and stop the wrongdoers is just that. An ideal with little reality to it.

People aren't Rambo. Even trained military personnel being deployed in combat zones often choke up and lose it. Same goes for trained police officers dealing with shootings that only land a small percentage of their shots on targets. People with guns will run and hide just the same when someone starts shooting at the crowd you're in, and if they do fight back it's incredibly likely that they will be inaccurate, ineffective and cause simply more chaos or damage to others around them. For everyone but you, there suddenly isn't just one shooter but there's multiple. Another guy with a gun firing away. One that probably isn't an expert marksmen and has no experience with these situations. Even trained policy officers and soldiers struggle with this. Thinking that John Doe will be able to contribute anything good to such a situation in almost all cases does not correspond with reality.

The idea that more guns is good and will protect people from the bad guys has time and time again been shown to not be true. Having a gun on you in public or kept accessible at home for self defense is significantly more likely to result in serious accidents or negative outcomes than it is to be used in an act of self defense. As only 5% of all violent crimes commited by strangers take place at home, guns kept at home (and especially those carried in public) are considerably more likely to harm you or someone close to you than they are to fend off violent intruders. It makes suicide more likely and raises the odds of a fight or quarrel in your home to turn violent, result in injury or end fatally. In general, a gun on you both in public or at home makes you less safe than the other way around.
 

Cons and conclusions.

From the above, I can personally conclude that the 4 most commonly cited pros and positives of firearm ownership, public carrying and loose gun control tend to not hold much weight. It does not prevent or stop tyranny and will not help you keep defend your liberties. Loose gun control and easy access to firearms is not the only way for people to still enjoy hunting and recreational or competitive shooting. The right to bear arms is not universal and should not be considered a fundamental human right. The founding fathers had their flaws and “because the constitution says so” really does not suffice to protect gun rights. And finally, guns do not make you safer or help a society defend itself better.

After establishing this, it's important to have a look at the cons and negatives of high rates of gun ownership and easy access to firearms. For brevity sake, I'll keep this short. Among others, America's loose gun control is directly related to: incredibly high rates of firearm homicides, very frequent mass shootings, higher rates of gun related deaths and injuries, generally higher homicide rates as close to 70% of America's homicides are commited with firearms, large amounts of (likely) preventable suicides, many instances of illegal (defensive) gun use, more police shootings, a more active and well-fueled black or gray market of illegal arms trade, higher rates of domestic violence and murder, generally higher crime rates and so on.

Now, there is more to this debate than what this brief post can cover. There are socio-economic circumstances and a lot of details to analyse and to discuss. No one in the right mind will claim that simply instating stricter gun control measures will magically fix all of these issues and result in a complete disappearance of gun violence and crime.

But weighing the discussed rather siginificant cons against the few and almost non-existent pros, I personally have come to conclude that many privately owned, carried and easily obtained guns simply do more harm than good. Gun control undoubtedly works. And while I do not necessarily think that an immediate switch to a European system or a sudden massive tightening of gun regulations is the best course of action for the US, I do believe that stricter gun regulations are the clear and logical way to go.

I should feel honored that Flee posted walls in my thread or something.

Nah, I'm just glad I can actually put this knowledge to good use. There aren't that many day to day applications of a lot of the research I did throughout my studies, so I just enjoy being able to put it to good use once in a while and have some good discussions on it.

No idea. There's several users that have shown to be very intelligent, knowledgeable in certain fields and capable of understanding, analyzing and debating complex issues. I wouldn't be able to pick any of those as more intelligent than the others.

Being smart is also a pretty subjective concept. While I'm pretty confident in my ability to school pretty much the entire forum on matters of law and like to think that I'm pretty knowledgeable on a bunch of topics, many of the other users know a lot more about other things than I do. I might know my way around law and such, but I wouldn't even come close to Turkey on physics, Meta on economics, Psy on psychology and so forth. Different kinds of knowledge, different kinds of smart. Wouldn't be able to put one above the others.

Either way though, I think that most people in Serious are pretty intelligent for what you'd expect of a backwater forum like ours. I've been a part of many forums before and not counting the ones that are specifically dedicated to debating, politics or other particular issues, I'd say that the average sep7agon (Serious) user is far from stupid.

Quote from: Flee on October 03, 2015, 02:37:58 PM

I've always wondered what your opinion on a country like Switzerland is. Not that I'm trying to make a comparison here between them and the US because its entirely different. People actually have a mature attitude towards guns and treat them seriously in Switzerland. Just curious on what your opinion on gun ownership in their case is since its related directly to their national defense.

Switzerland is pretty unique in the developed world. The only similar country with both high rates of gun ownership and generally low crime is Israel. From an academic point of view, these anomalies are pretty interesting.

Switzerland, in my opinion, does things pretty well. It has high rates of gun ownership and a lot of guns, but also treats guns in a completely different way than the US does. As you pointed out, the country has no standing army and relies on an actual militia made up out of the people. Because of this semi-universal mandatory army service, they are very capable of determining which people make the cut and which ones don't. A brief background check is one thing, but having someone go through military training and close evaluation for extended periods of time is something else entirely and gives a way more accurate insight in whether that person is capable of being a responsible gun owner. If you are either mentally or physically unfit to responsibly own and use a firearm, you'll not make it through the military training and won't be allowed to have a gun the way those who passed do.

As such, military training and militia service is a sort of sorting mechanism to separate the incapable from the capable. Taking that into consideration, I'd go out on a limb and say that the country may have high rates of firearm ownership, but also has some particularly strict gun control regulations. In order to obtain a firearm that isn't given out as a part of the militia, the person in question must show a permit that was granted to them by the government after thorough evaluation.

For example: all guns and their owners are registered, there is a limit on how much firearms a person can own, transfer of weapons and their components are heavily regulated and must be submitted to the government within a month, the purchase of ammunition is regulated just as heavily as the ownership and acquisition of guns, public carrying of guns is only allowed for those using it as part of the militia activities or those who have a special permit which requires an extraordinary reason to carry in public (for example: private security or special circumstances) and an additional examination on weapon handling and knowledge of the law, transporting guns is equally regulated and so forth. While the military does in fact issue a gun as part of the militia, it doesn't actually come with ammunition, is normally expected to be locked away at home and is held to very high standards of proper "military conduct and proper use of service weapons".

Considering all of the above, I don't think anyone familiar with the issue would claim that this is a gun owners utopia with guns for all. I have in fact had this discussion with a vehemently pro-gun person back on B.net. He brought up Switzerland as a reason why unfethered access to guns would be ideal. I basically told him the above system and asked him if he'd ever agree to that happening in the US. He immediately objected and blasted it as being extremely limiting and strict gun control that would fail miserably and result in massive crime surges. He stopped responding when I informed him that this was in fact the situation in his Swiss gun utopia.

That being said, even the strict regulations don't combat all of the problems that come with high rates of gun ownership. While Switzerland has low (violent) crime rates, it still has very high rates of suicide, almost all of which are commited with a firearm. It also predicts greater homicide of females, murder-suicides, serious accidental injury and other side-effects of the amount of privately owned guns, even if they are treated respectfully and with great responsibility. A commonly cited study of both Switzerland and Israel ultimately concluded that: "Compared with the US, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership. Swiss and Israeli gun ownership is rare, regulated stringently such as by putting the burden of proof on permit applicants to demonstrate a specific need for a gun, and neither country encourages gun ownership. The extensive gun control in both countries do not prevent guns from being associated with violent deaths, but increased gun control in the Israeli army may have reduced gun suicide. The evidence from Switzerland and Israel seems to concur with the public health literature finding" (which basically concluded that stricter gun control is almost universally preferable to loose gun control and easy access to firearms).

I personally see nothing wrong with a system like the Swiss one, but the country is unique in that aspect. It has a longstanding tradition of collective responsiblity and is extremely isolated from the rest of the world. The country is incredibly homogeneous when it comes to its citizens and has developed a working gun culture. As mentioned above, it still has plenty of issues, but so does every other system in the world. None are perfect and I would be a complete idiot to claim that what Belgium does is a flawless and brilliant solution that is somehow better than what the Swiss have ended up with.

To conclude, I'd say that Switzerland, to me, is an example of strict gun control. While there are a lot of privately owned guns in the country, obtaining, carrying, using, selling and keeping them is heavily regulated and subject to stringent requirements and conditions. This, in combination with the importance of their collective responsibility mindset and role of the militia in everone's lives, makes for a properly functioning system where guns are an accepted part of society. If anything, Switzerland reinforces the conclusion that strict gun control is a desirable policy and is preferable over easy access to firearms for virtually everyone, and that it's not the amount of privately owned guns that matters, but rather the way in which they are privately owned, used, carried, transfered and obtained. Switzerland illustrates both that a large amount of firearms does not necessarily result in a murderous and trigger happy society of criminals, and that strict gun control measures are beneficial and can coexist with an armed society.

Quote from: Flee on October 03, 2015, 02:14:40 PM

Quote from: aDUMBgenius on October 03, 2015, 01:47:45 PM

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

>Hurrrrrrrrr mass shootings are unpreventable huRRRRR

12 reported cases. 12 whole cases in almost 20 years. The US is currently experiencing a historically low rate of mass shootings, sitting at an average of over 300 mass shootings every single year. Extrapolating this, one can assume that there have been about 6,000 mass shootings commited over the past 20 years, and this is an extremely conservative estimate.

Your gun laws help in some cases. Defensive gun use takes place, occasionally. But generally speaking and taking everything in consideration, they do more harm than good. Because for every single one of these instances where a good guy stands up and prevents a mass (school) shooting, there's dozens if not hundreds of incidents every single year where your easy and semi-unfethered access to guns both directly and indirectly leads to such a shooting taking place or in the very least facilitates it tremendously.

There's more cases, just because I linked only 12 doesn't mean that's it. There's hundreds of cases every year, as a matter of fact.

I'm well aware of there being more incidents of defensive gun use than a dozen over the course of two decades. No one in the right mind would deny that. But unless you can provide me with hard evidence showing that this happens so often and stops so many mass shootings that its net value outweighs the cons of having this many privately owned and carried guns in your country, I am going to stick with the dozens of well researched, published and often peer reviewed studies done by multiple universities, government organizations and independent researchers and conclude that the pros don't come close to outweighing the cons.

As I said before, I have nothing to win by being "anti-gun" or "pro-gun". I have no guns to protect and I have nothing personal to gain by restricting other people's access to them. I'm not a killjoy who gets off on making other people miss out on fun, nor am I someone with multiple guns in his closet who enjoys shooting and feels threatened by stricter gun control. For me, this is purely academical. So if you can provide me with evidence to the contrary, I would not hesitate to change my opinion. I'm not "anti-gun" for the sake of hating guns and just wanting them gone. The only reason I am that way is because of the conclusions I drew from the research I did as part of my education.

i think flee just single-handedly made me anti-gun

Funny thing is that I don't really consider myself anti-gun, at least not by Western European standards. I always liked guns from video games and movies when I was younger and played around with toy guns almost every day. I never really considered myself to have much of a bias and didn't think much of the (rather strict) Belgian gun laws at the time.

It's only after I started my Master's in criminal law that I began to change my mind on this. I've always prided myself on being able to consider this issue from a pretty neutral and unbiased point of view. Of course, there's always my background and the fact that I wasn't around guns growing up, but I mean it in the sense of not having a connection or any sort of feelings (whether positive or negative) towards firearms owned by the general public in the first place. Guns and gun control are not really an issue over here any more, and what happens in the US really doesn't affect me. As such, I always felt like I was in a pretty good position to analyze this issue from a purely academic point of view. I never set out to (dis)prove anything or to justify my own situation and experiences with firearms.

So yeah, I don't think I'm really that anti-gun by my own standards. I just became interested in the subject, wrote one of my Bachelor's thesises on this and poured hours of research into this. The US just so happens to be unique in the developed world, so it's what I mainly focused on when evaluating the different scenarios. My views are really just the outcome of the research that I did and the conclusions I drew from it. If there would be hard evidence that suggests or proves the opposite, I would have no issues with admitting that I was wrong and switching to the "pro-gun" side. I just haven't found any good reason to do so.

And thanks everyone else for the many wishes. Showed this thread to my girlfriend who now thinks I'm some internet celebrity. Thanks mates for making me feel popular.

How long is your penis?

7 something inches.

Quake 3?

as belgian time is five hours ahead of eastern american time your birthday technically has not happened yet from my frame of reference and therefore i am not required to wish you a happy birthday

I'll be expecting a happy birthday wish in 5 hours then. Non-compliance will be met with a 3 month ban.

Quote from: Flee on October 02, 2015, 05:59:02 PM

I also seem to have a ton of best friends all of a sudden.

We've been niggas for a long time.

That is true, we do go back quite a while.

Quote from: Flee on October 02, 2015, 05:57:48 PM

Quote from: Awoo~ on October 02, 2015, 05:55:49 PM

Here's my gift for you Flee, fries just like you like.


I got you both cheese and bacon fries and fries seasoned with spices.

The mayo is out of frame?

Sorry, I don't have mayo, I have hot sauce though.

Hm. Never actually had them with hot sauce.

Here's my gift for you Flee, fries just like you like.


I got you both cheese and bacon fries and fries seasoned with spices.

The mayo is out of frame?

can you give me your home address so i can mail you 50 pounds of mayo?

What kind of mayo? Better be some top quality shit.