• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Sins

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/05/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Gamertag
  • Date Recruited
  • Squad
  • Division
    Synthetic Reality
  • Rank/Title

Contact Methods

  • Countries

Recent Profile Visitors

671 profile views
  1. KSI ApexWolf Xbox Gamerpic Request

    Hello KSI ApexWolf! We apologize it's taken awhile to get to your request. I hope you'll be pleased to know that I'm now processing your request. Your patience and understanding's appreciated. Cheers!
  2. KSI DemonicAresXbox Gamerpic request (1080x1080)

    Hey, KSI DemonicAres! Thanks for your request. Unfortunately, I could see several issues and I'm gonna have to ask you to pick a new image. Here's why: Under Microsoft's community guidelines and code of conduct, that might not be suitable for a gamerpic. To be clear, though, I don't care one way if you 420 smoke w33d everdai. It appears to be someone else's original work. The size is too small. You provided a 736x414 image, yet request for a 1080x1080 gamerpic. This is difficult to upscale. Find me a new image, and I will help you from there. Cheers!
  3. December 77 - Signature Request

    @December 77 Hmmm, yeah looking at it a bit closer it does appear to be a bit off center. My bad. But everything else is alright though, otherwise? I'll do that when I get off from work today.
  4. December 77 - Signature Request

  5. KSI Folkstyle PFP Request

    Well, it is simple. Let me know if you'd like any changes.
  6. KSI Folkstyle PFP Request

    I'll take a crack at it. To clarify, you only want the American flag as at theme and Wicked Destruction as text? Kindly hold.
  7. KSI Forums Update Questions & Concerns

    Will we be getting a new skin with this revision? Does KSI have any plans to revamp their current skin selection? I like dark themes. Just wondering
  8. One of the biggest arguments against the 2nd Amendment (2A) is that the "founding fathers" never would have envisioned modern day weaponry. Such an interpretation is simply false and misleading. The big answer is yes, the 2A extends to "assault rifles"/automatic weapons to the citizenry. You see, people like to pick and choose which portion of the Constitution they like, and which ones they don't. Many people fail to see past the 2A as providing WAY MORE than just providing that the citizenry be armed. It is the defense from a tyrannical government. It is the defense of every other Amendment in the Constitution. It is the sole guarantor of Liberty. This simply cannot be interpreted any other way, though, I will gladly welcome any argument which begs to differ. You see, it was the Forefathers' intention that the citizenry be armed as well as the federal government. Going back to the "but clause," as I like to call it. As in, "I think law-abiding American citizens should be able to own any rifle, but only those that are used for hunting, have a 10-round magazine capacity, have a barrel more than 16 inches..." so on and so forth. This is a fallacy. Because you are in essence asserting that you don't agree with the principle, only certain aspects of it. That is essentially the same things as, oh you have the right to free speech, but only if you speak only 10 words at a time to not any more than 16 people at any given time. It just doesn't make any sense to place arbitrary rules on the Constitution which already supersedes any federal law. People want to feel safe. This is understandable. Tell me, you would not feel safe if John Doe was openly carrying an assault rifle (AR-15) slung on his shoulder, not bothering anybody, going about his daily business? He is not a police officer. He's not in the military. But you see him at a coffee shop, and you don't like the fact that he has a gun. Because you are scared of guns. Does this mean John Doe should be deprived of his right to own/carry the firearm? The answer is absolutely not. Even moreso, even if you did feel threatened by John Doe carrying his gun then guess what? You're in for great news because you have the right to carry a gun too! Just because an individual would choose not to exercise their right doesn't mean any other individual should be deprived of it. The answer is simply this. Criminals AKA as in anyone who knowingly and intentionally breaks law and commits crime do not obey laws. Period. The more regulation you impose, the more "criminals," you create. The overcrowding of our prison system and burden on the taxpayers can attest to that. We can all see how well banning marijuana, liquor, cocaine, and drunk driving has worked. lol. And you see, the ironic thing is, none of those are a Right. It is actually more your right to own a gun than it is to operate a motor vehicle. Please, show me where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to operate a car? So why would the Federal Government/anti-gunners be so dumb as to presume that they can place restrictions on a Constitutionally guaranteed right? It doesn't make any sense. All this mumbo jumbo banning guns thing is just to appease certain populations who feel victimized because of "mass shootings," and "police brutality." Mass shootings and police brutality are very terrible realities, which must be dealt with. But I prefer to try and not victimize myself as much as possible. I carry because I choose not to be a helpless victim. I would choose to help others in such a dangerous situation. I am not a hero. Just a law-abiding citizen. This isn't Nazi Germany. I don't call the police when I see people lawfully carrying weapons. I don't need the police called on me when I'm lawfully carrying a weapon. And I don't need to prove to the police, other citizens, or the government why I choose to carry a weapon. The only proof I have to show anyone is in my actions. How I act when I own the weapon. And even then, I am responsible for my own actions. Just like any one else in the entire world. And perhaps the irony on top of it all. Is all these people saying guns should be banned, blah blah blah... as soon as they come face to face with a gun -as soon as an intruder breaks into their home and threatens their life or property, 10 times out of 10 guess who they would call to solve the problem. People with guns. The tiresome stupidity in the logic that if we ban guns everything will be okay all violence will cease to exist is just make believe. Look at prisons where all weapons of any sort are banned and there is zero violence. Sike. And the real slap in the face is that almost all anti-gun legislation comes from people who know nothing about firearms. I seriously mean nothing. It's as if all these politicians were candlestick makers making laws on building codes. And a Newsflash. Politicians love to hide behind policemen. They love bringing in the media to that big old conference room, have a policeman hold ALREADY ILLEGAL weapons which they confiscated from criminals and then proceed to say some scary things about it and use that to justify their legislation. But at the end of the day, they still don't know anything about guns. I mean, it's obvious the Police don't want criminal to have guns. Just how it's obvious soldiers in the Middle East don't want terrorists to have IEDs. But to go out on the limb and preach that they should be banned outright and made unobtainable by the rest of the law abiding citizenry is utter retardation. Do you understand how frustrating it is when the people making and voting for laws are people who know nothing about a firearm? I bet you your bottom dollar, you could ask 100 people on the street at complete random, regardless of gender/race what the difference is between .223 and 5.56 and 98-100% of them wouldn't know off the top of their heads. I bet you your bottom dollar, that if I showed 100 people a bolt action rifle with a scope and a bipod and asked them what it was, 98% would say it was a sniper rifle. When sniper rifles don't even physically exist. (The real answer is it's the person BEHIND the rifle - a sniper, which makes it a "sniper rifle.")
  9. Welcome to the forums Sins :)