TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131823 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 623

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #176
    Archivist
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Museum of the Ancients
    The statistics sadly speak for themselves: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/u...ent-world.html

    Eventually it's the people of the US that should speak out against free gun posession in favour of more legislation. But I don't think change will come any time soon. The right to bear arms is just too deeply anchored in American society. Until then: Let freedom reign.

  2. #177
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2001
    Location: 0x0x0
    Good points heywood. No rational people want nuts jobs to have guns. Government's first duty is to protect its citizens. This latest nut job (I won't use his name) in FL is just another example of law enforcement dropping the ball. There was plenty of just cause for his arrest before the massacre and authorities failed to act. That I don't want to give up more of my freedoms to government that more and more fails to achieve a minimum standard of competence should not come as a surprise.

  3. #178
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    It's funny how all it takes is a decade to change some perspectives. When Katrina hit, and I saw all the people bitching over the looters vs. foragers fiasco, I assumed it was much ado over nothing. I saw it as two different newspapers running two different articles written by two different authors covering two different, albeit superficially similar stories. The fact that one group was black and the other white was merely an unfortunate coincidence. I figured that, were the roles switched, the white people would've been labeled as looters just as readily.

    People looking for racial issues where there are none, I thought. Nothing to see here.

    Recent events have changed my outlook accordingly. Now, I see these past responses as outrage for the sake of outrage, but as the water trickling between the cracks in the concrete, an unheeded warning that the dam was about to break.

  4. #179
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyFoxx View Post
    Good points heywood. No rational people want nuts jobs to have guns. Government's first duty is to protect its citizens. This latest nut job (I won't use his name) in FL is just another example of law enforcement dropping the ball. There was plenty of just cause for his arrest before the massacre and authorities failed to act. That I don't want to give up more of my freedoms to government that more and more fails to achieve a minimum standard of competence should not come as a surprise.
    I'm not gonna say that the FBI and local police don't share some of the fault in this. Nor do I think this is a perfect excuse to write out the 2nd Amendment wholesale.

    But I'm not going to say that it's solely the fault of law enforcement to act. The FBI receives roughly 1300 phone calls a day, most of them some random upstanding citizen reporting that some person, group, or other is going to shoot/blow up/sternly lecture a large group of people. Local police are in about the same boat, generally understaffed and overworked, only able to address what they consider real threats looming in the immediate future in a timely manner. Considering all the rumors, hearsay, and other bullshit that gets thrown their way on a daily basis, it's no real surprise that law enforcement, both local and federal, let something like this pass them by on occasion.

    I think the real question that lies at the heart of everything is why is it that we've become such a massive, seathing ball of aimless, reactionary hatred over the last couple of decades.

  5. #180
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea

  6. #181
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    ...and speaking of which.

  7. #182
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I think the real question that lies at the heart of everything is why is it that we've become such a massive, seathing ball of aimless, reactionary hatred over the last couple of decades.
    If one is not willing to accept an uncomfortable truth about a critical societal circumstance, they become part of the problem by supporting a misguided and ineffective solution...Ironically, this enables the continuation of the reactionary hatred that they despise.

  8. #183
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I think you need to realize that the imperatives we strive for as a true, freethinking society nests solely upon the zeitgeist we inhabit. By denying the problem we face in these degenerate times, you yourself become a part of a problem that strives to become real through the very denial of its existence. It's a vicious circle, you see. The only solution is to become part of the problem, to better enable yourself to eat away at the core of the lie that continues to assert its dominion upon us.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 27th Feb 2018 at 22:47.

  9. #184
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    That felt like Vae talking to Vae there.

  10. #185
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    I think Vae has the right idea: we should encourage more gun owners to suicide. And since gun suicide statistics don't matter (that's the point of the video, right?) no one will notice or if they do, they won't care. Problem solved.

    Seriously! Statistics don't lie, but liars can use statistics to grossly mislead you if you don't recognize that there is a difference between the data and the liar's incorrect interpretations of the data. That video had some statistics which I assume are correct, but the presentation of the data as percentages rather than raw numbers grossly misleads the viewer. The logic presented, no matter how compellingly presented, isn't actually backed up by the data.

    Look instead at States with looser concealed carry laws have more gun deaths, study says. That's a real, peer reviewed scientific study.
    Last edited by LarryG; 28th Feb 2018 at 00:05.

  11. #186
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Trance View Post
    That felt like Vae talking to Vae there.
    It's Vaes all the way down.

  12. #187
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Not only are armed vigilantes a dubious solution to the mass shootings, they are a poor solution to the larger problem of gun violence and gun deaths in general. They are not going to stop a guy murdering his family or a toddler getting killed while playing with a firearm or a depressed office worker about to blow his brains out.
    Last edited by Starker; 28th Feb 2018 at 04:22.

  13. #188
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    I've been looking over a facsimile of the second amendment.



    If you look carefully at the text, you can see the use of commas intended to make the meaning clear. From a grammatical perspective, the amendment is a single sentence in which the first clause (called “proleptic” by grammarians) serves as the premise of the second clause. The two clauses are interlocked.

    Those who added it to the constitutional text were well aware of the centrality of the militia issue in Anglo-American history. In the, then, recent English civil war (1641-49), both sides claimed command of the militia, there being no “standing” (national) army. The royal and parliamentary combatants fought each other over this unsettled issue, at least in part. The framers of the U.S. Constitution and its first ten amendments knew this history and sought to guarantee that command of any “well regulated militia” belonged to the people of the states, not to Congress or the president. Further, a careful linguistic analysis of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that when the framers intended to guarantee personal and private rights they used the word “persons,” but when speaking of a collective right they used the word “people” – as here. So the 2nd amendment can be read to mean that the people, collectively, have the right to bear arms in order to ensure the security of a free state by participating in a well regulated militia.

    Supporting this linguistic analysis is the textual evolution of the 2nd amendment as it was discussed and debated in Congress:

    James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[113]

    On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[114] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[115] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[116]

    In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[117]

    By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[118] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[119]

    The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[120] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[121]

    On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...e_Constitution)

    The progressive and evolving language of the 2nd amendment prior to passage makes it clear that the framers were concerned in this amendment about the need for a militia of the people to preserve the freedom of the state and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was intended to be in conjunction with that purpose.

  14. #189
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    I agree with you that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the militia.

    But it's important to know that the right to keep and bear arms does not originate from the Second Amendment. The Constitution and its Amendments do not grant any rights. We don't live in a totalitarian system where the source of all power lies with the government and the government grants rights to the people. We live in a system founded on concepts of natural law, where rights are innate and the government is granted powers by the people. A nice succinct explanation is in the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    All that the Bill of Rights did was take certain restrictions on government power that were already present in our body of law, and make them explicit to prevent the new government (and particularly the Federalists) from abusing Constitutional powers through creative interpretation. Here's the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    In hindsight, the fears of the anti-Federalists seem well founded. The Federalists took the commerce clause and used it to drive a truck through the Constitution. But I'm getting off topic.

    We have a common law system and the right to keep and bear arms was part of our body of law before the Constitution. It doesn't originate with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was about preventing the government from disarming the militia as George III had tried to do.

  15. #190
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by uncadonego View Post
    Schools, night clubs, movie theaters, concerts....no shortage of soft targets, and nutjobs have taken advantage of all of them.

    There are soft targets all over the world, and mentally ill all over the world. The difference could just be that there aren't 310 million guns in the hands of citizens in other parts of the world.

    Compare all other factors, and the only difference is the crazy ass availability of guns.
    Is that why Serbia, a developing country with the next-highest density of firearms after the US (at 58.1 per 100 people), has a gun murder rate of 0.6? That's just over one-sixth the firearm homicide rate of the US. Their firearm purchase laws are very similar to ours, so it's not like firearms are dramatically harder to get there either, and as far as I'm aware they haven't had the mass killing problem that we've had.

    I've said repeatedly that availability of guns exacerbates our violence problem, but we're not going to solve that problem as long as people keep pointing at guns and saying 'that's literally the only thing separating you from the rest of the world'. It ignores our demonstrable problems with mental healthcare, poverty, urban decay, the drug war, economic inequality, a news cycle that glorifies mass killers, and all the other factors that combine to make our country dramatically more violent than even a developing nation awash with guns. Serbia may not be a rich country, but compared to dirt-poor American cities like Flint, Michigan, where the homicide rate is nearly 50 per 100,000, it's practically utopia.

    I'd like to see better gun regulation in areas where it really makes an impact, but I'm really tired of the national debate about violence becoming politicized solely as a matter of guns vs no guns. That's only one facet of a much more complex situation and we're never going to really fix it as long as we keep trying to slap band-aids on a diseased society.

  16. #191
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Not only are armed vigilantes a dubious solution to the mass shootings, they are a poor solution to the larger problem of gun violence and gun deaths in general. They are not going to stop a guy murdering his family or a toddler getting killed while playing with a firearm or a depressed office worker about to blow his brains out.
    Exactly. On average, there are nearly 100 shooting deaths every day, 3-4 of them children. As terrible as mass shootings are, they represent a drop in the bucket. Our main focus should be on coming up with policies that can reduce the routine, daily death toll.

  17. #192
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    I have yet to find any evidence of a common law right to bear arms other than in the forming of a militia in defense of the state. I would welcome anyone who can offer such a documented reference to a particular law in the set of common laws.

    Please note that "common law" does not mean "undocumented laws" but instead is a reference to the body of English law started by Henry II (1133–89) who desired to
    improve the judiciary in the 1160s. He sent out judges from his own court to the counties to hear matters, so that there was one law common to all the people, reflecting the fairness principle in Leviticus and becoming the proto–quarter sessions and circuits. The common law principles came out of cases being recorded, and judges regarding each other’s decisions as binding in similar cases—the principle known as stare decices.
    (https://misesuk.org/2014/12/22/the-b...s-for-defence/)

    And it is in that body of common laws across England where there was a requirement for each man to arm himself appropriate to his social class (“suitable to his condition”), and to train in preparation for the call-out to defend England from foreign invaders (Vikings, Spanish, French, Irish, Scots, or whoever else coveted England), should it ever come. This is all, of course, before the practice of having standing armies for this purpose. Standing armies in peace times were seen as a huge potential threat to the government, as they could be used for its overthrow should the leadership of the armies so desire. And they were not wrong. There is always such a threat from a standing army. But we have judged in modern times and circumstances the risk of that happening to be much less than the risks from not having a ready armed response to back up our diplomacy when necessary.

    There is a generally accepted principle in law, not deriving from common law as far as I can determine, of the right for an individual to use reasonable, defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force. Note that this right is for self-defense, not for bearing arms. Now this right for self-defense hangs on the hook of expectation that the arm of the state will not always be present to defend us against individual offensive attacks. It is generally conceived that should there be some official present who can intervene on our behalf that we should stand down and let them get on with defending us. Also note that it is not a legal obligation that we act to defend ourselves or others, only that we have the right to do so should we so choose.

    In summary, if any natural law on this subject exists it seems only to be recognized as one of self-defense, and not to bear arms. And in common law, the right to bear arms is actually an obligation to own and train with weaponry in order to be ready to defend the state from its enemies and to respond to a "call to arms" from the government to do so. Bow and arrows would be a good, and traditional choice (ref. the Battle of Agincourt in 1415), especially for those of us who play Thief.

  18. #193
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    There was a guy who fought in WW2 with a sword and a longbow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

  19. #194
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Larry, that's bunk. The founding fathers all read and were heavily influenced by Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, in which he wrote:

    ... lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.
    Commenting on Commentaries and its application to the Federal Government and Commonwealth of Virginia, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803:

    This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

    In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the "words suitable to their condition and degree", have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
    Only by taking the amendment out of context can the 2nd amendment be read to restrict the right to keep arms.

  20. #195
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    There was a guy who fought in WW2 with a sword and a longbow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
    What a legend.

  21. #196
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Only by taking the amendment out of context can the 2nd amendment be read to restrict the right to keep arms.
    I think you misunderstood me. At no place did I posit that the 2nd amendment restricts any right to bear arms. I said that it only addresses the bearing of arms in support of a well regulated militia. It neither grants nor restricts nor speaks to the bearing of arms for any other purpose. If you are looking for a right to bear arms for any reason other than being ready to be called up as a member of a militia, you need to look elsewhere than the 2nd amendment. That's why a lot of folk try to fall back on "common law" or "natural law" as providing that justification. Unfortunately, common law doesn't appear to do that, and it is generally accepted that natural law only applies to a right of self-defense and is not specific as to means (fists, knives, blackjacks, crossbows, guns, strangling cords, grenades, acids, bazookas, knitting needles, sand, rocks, or whatever else you find lying about when you are in need of effecting self-defense). There is nothing which restricts the government from licensing any particular means of self-defense (i.e. requiring registration , prior approval, and / or taxing), or from making some of the aforementioned self-defense means to be out and out illegal to posses.

    We may have a natural right to self-defense, and I would argue that we do, but no place in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution is there an enumerated right specific to owning a gun. Sorry. It just isn't there. So it is up to our legislatures to pass laws which address this issue, which balance the reasonable needs of the individual to own a gun and the reasonable needs of the people as a whole to be protected from the irresponsible, the criminal, or the mentally impaired having guns.
    Last edited by LarryG; 28th Feb 2018 at 15:38.

  22. #197
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Maybe I wasn't clear, either. I think you're wrong in your interpretation because the founding fathers were heavily influenced by Blackstone's work, and his commentary on English common law was that it was an Englishman's right to bear arms for self-preservation, and not just preservation of the state. It was understood.

    Leave aside the interpretation of a 200+ year old document for just a moment, because for practical purposes it's wishful thinking anyway. How would you (the pro gun-control members of this forum) suggest dealing with controlling guns in this country? License, grandfather/ban, ban/ban, ban/confiscate? I don't see any of those going over well with the gun owners of this country. It was done with the assault rifle ban in the 90's with no discernible effect on crime or gun violence, and it's only real effect was to strengthen the NRA's lobbying muscle. Bans make for great enrollment.

  23. #198
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    What's wrong with a license? You need one to drive a car, after all. Wouldn't it make sense to require one to handle something at least as dangerous?

  24. #199
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    You require a license to drive a car on public land, and can drive on your own property without one. I don't think I would have an issue with a similar arrangement for guns, provided that the licensing requirements weren't intentionally restrictive.

  25. #200
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    It was done with the assault rifle ban in the 90's with no discernible effect on crime or gun violence ...
    The jury is still out on that one. Ref. https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/di...pons-ban-work/

    What now seems proven beyond most reasonable doubt is that open carry results in more gun violence, not less. ref. https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21...-carry-states/ and the paper itself at http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510.

    Our major finding is that under all four specifications (DAW, BC, LM, and MM), RTC laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law.

    Moving on,

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    How would you (the pro gun-control members of this forum) suggest dealing with controlling guns in this country?
    I would start with a voluntary buyback program coupled with licensing for guns not turned in. The licensing could pay for the buyback and all costs associated with reasonable regulation of the remaining guns.

    Some classes of guns, like assault weapons, I would advocate restriction of licensed ownership to gun clubs where people could go to shoot them and experience whatever it is that they like about shooting assault weapons in an environment which protects the rest of us from them. Heck, I don't see why we couldn't license responsible and federally inspected clubs from owning operational tanks and other heavy weapons, for a sufficiently steep licensing fee, one that pays for all the regulatory and oversight costs appropriate to the specific classes of weapons to be made available to club members. Why not have Disneylands for gun enthusiasts as long as they are ensured to be safe and sane environments and run by responsible, trained professionals who can be held accountable? Go for it I say!

    I really think that a licensing approach is the way to go. It can be used to ensure that gun owners are properly trained according to the class of weapon licensed, not just in gun mechanics and gun safety, but in the obligations to the public that you take on when owning a gun. It can screen out those whom society thinks should not own guns (criminals, say, or mental incompetents or ...). It can also be used to fund the administration of gun oversight and control, sort of in the same way that the fees from car ownership licensing fund traffic safety and other automobile related costs to the state. Like car licensing, I am talking about annual licensing of each gun owned, not the licensing of the owner. Each gun would need an annual license. Each gun operator should need an operators license like a drivers license to ensure that the people operating (shooting) guns are properly trained to do so, regardless of who owns the gun. Such shooting permits should expire regularly so that the shooter's continued qualifications to shoot can be re-verified before issuing a new permit. I also think that safety inspections of gun storage should be mandatory for gun owners every year or perhaps every other year, similar to the way that you have to get your car's emissions tested on a regular basis.

    Oh, and just like we have gas tax for cars, an ammo tax should also be enacted so that those who just own guns but don't often shoot them shouldn't have to pay the same as those who want to shoot everything up.

    So, gun control implemented in such a way could be self-financing. Those who want to won or play with guns would pay for the privilege. Those who don't would not suffer a burden to support other peoples' hobbies. Like right to free speech, where the more money you have, the more free speech you get, so it should be with guns, the more money you have, the more guns you get to play with.
    Last edited by LarryG; 28th Feb 2018 at 21:12.

Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131823 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •