Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 193

Thread: The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

  1. #121
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    There is no such right recognized anywhere.
    Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #122
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    Does it not imply separation though, for all practical purposes? Because if it doesn't, then what church would have the privilege not to be separate, to the potential detriment of all the others?



    As I have always understood it, the following three points in conjunction:

    • capable of automatic fire
    • high capacity mag
    • medium / intermediate calibre / cartridge

    Given point three, I'm not sure why the Austrians called their FN FAL the Stg 58.
    Kiwi,
    #1-No I don't. I still believe the primary intent was to prevent the establishment of any affiliation with the Curch of England, which was considered oppressive and political at the time. Also the protestant reformation was taking place whi ch was key to the new economic system that the usa was going to establish. Christian economics or rather the loss of it is part of the problem we are facing today. And is part of the reason for the growth of such a massive and intrusive Federal Government.


    #2-That is an excellant description of an assault weapon. The point abouf the calibre bullet is critical and aids in avoiding the confusion from the concept of the sub-machine gun.

  3. #123
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.
    :
    Yes....it is part of the Declaration of Independence which is part of our Holy Trinity of founding documents, the other 2 being the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
    Last edited by slapout9; 04-08-2014 at 04:30 AM. Reason: stuff

  4. #124
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    #2-That is an excellant description of an assault weapon. The point abouf the calibre bullet is critical and aids in avoiding the confusion from the concept of the sub-machine gun.
    Assault RIFLE.
    Not weapon.
    No dessert for you tonight! And wash you keyboard with water and soap. And ten Hail Marys.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  5. #125
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    A limited group of individuals. The idea was to extend things to to other individuals which we have done pretty well.
    Who is this 'we' that is responsible for the extending of those liberties beyond the master race and gender? Might it be the people that 120mm so aptly describes as the commie benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing?
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  6. #126
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.
    Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

    Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  7. #127
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    Who is this 'we' that is responsible for the extending of those liberties beyond the master race and gender? Might it be the people that 120mm so aptly describes as the commie benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing?
    That is a very interesting comment. I figured it was self evident that by "we" I was referring to us, the Americans. But you came up with something different. It is almost as of you believe something was conferred upon us by a discrete class of betters. Is that what you are trying to convey?

    Your last 5 word phrase is interesting also. Somehow you came up with something along the lines of-since freedom is group thing, it is therefore right to extend it to more individuals. I think that interesting because I believe that all individuals deserve not to be deprived of their natural rights because their status as individuals, they are therefore they have so to speak. It has nothing at all to do with a group, it has everything to do with the individual. But somehow you came up with a group. Do you mean that no differentiation should be made amongst individuals because of superficialities that are subordinate to their status as individual humans and therefore restrictions upon natural rights based upon those superficialities should be done away with? I can go with that. But I note that that derives from the individual what he is due because he is.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  8. #128
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

    Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.
    I rarely use this form of text shorthand but...LOL.

    I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

    Bad Dayuhan, bad. You are reverting to argument by suggestive questions again rather than just stating a position. Next thing you'll be using the word 'hysteria' again.

    Mr. McVeigh made no arguments to my knowledge he just murdered. His name is very useful though to those who want to discredit. At least it is a change from 'hysterical'.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  9. #129
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".
    What you actually said was:

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense
    So it sounds like you are saying that this hypothetical right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

    However, the right to self defense is qualified, and it is not based entirely on the perception of the person taking the action. If you shoot a person who is shooting at you, that will be considered self defense. If you shoot a person who is throwing popcorn at you, that will not be considered self defense, because there was no imminent threat. To justify the exercise of violence as self defense you have to show some sort of threat, and it has to be a serious one: you can't haul off at someone with a fully automatic weapon of medium caliber with a large capacity magazine simply because that person seemed about to unclog his or her nose in your general direction, and then claim self defense.

    It seems logical to me that if this presumed right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense, there has to be a similar qualifier in place: to justify taking up arms against the government, there has to be a real, imminent, and serious threat involved. What level of threat is sufficient, and who makes the determination in any given case?

    Another question generally not addressed by the proponents of a right to revolution is that no matter how much high sounding rhetoric we issue about "taking up arms against the state", or "taking up arms against tyranny", if arms are to actually be used, they will not be used against "the state" or "tyranny", but against other individuals. What level of fear, anger, or annoyance justifies depriving another individual of the right to life?

    Again, the individual quoted in the opening post of this thread wrote:

    you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)
    While that may arguably be true (or not), when you discuss such issues in the context of a claim that they justify an individual declaration of independence and the associated need to use armaments, you have to wonder who he intends to shoot and how his disagreement with government over any of those issues can possibly justify depriving another individual of the right to life, which is what happens when people start shooting over politics.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  10. #130
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.
    Rights should be explicit, not implicit, since by their nature, as you claim, they are granted by God. If it is implicit, then it is a derivation from some other explicit conditions. That said, here's a run-down of the philosophy so far:

    1) Dayuhan asked if there's a right "to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else"...

    2) To which you replied in the affirmative, "That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right."

    3) You later qualified it with "And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

    Notwithstanding that "armed revolution" and "secession" are not the same, there are some other terms that require qualification. What is meant by "self-defense"? Again, I ask if policy leads to impoverishment, starvation, or even death, does this justify "armed revolution"? Can "armed revolution" or "secession" be justified as a preventative measure? How many individuals working "in concert" does it take for an "armed revolution" or "secession" to be justified? If a majority rejects "armed revolution" or "secession", is the action still justified? What if the majority rejects the government that the "armed revolution" implements? What if a minority rejects the government that an "armed revolution" implements? Is it just to impose that government on them without their consent? Constitutionally speaking, in the United States neither armed revolution or secession are lawful. Would you be willing to argue that the United States Constitution contradicts your view of natural law?

    As for McVeigh, he targeted the Oklahoma City Federal Building as a response to the federal raids on Ruby Ridge and Waco. Not sure if race was an element of his ideology, but it typically is a fundamental issue in far-right ideology in the US. The militia and sovereign citizens movements share your sentiments about a supposed "right to revolution" derived not from the collective conditions of the public, but from the individual perception of his treatment by the state. And usually the ideal 'state of nature'sought by this ideology where all men are free and equal typically devolves, if it ever exists, into anarchy, dictatorship, and warlordism.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  11. #131
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Dayuhan,

    To go back to your question about fear of government, I think the other major trend, of which arguably desegragation was a part, is the rapid urbanization of the country since World War II. It's not so much that the rural countryside has depopulated, but that metropolitan regions, particularly on the coast, have grown so rapidly that rural America has not kept pace. Like I mentioned in the previous post, this dramatic shift in America's social structure from a rural society to an urban one has not fully translated into a proportionate shift in political power where the rural communities still retain disproportionate representation in Congress. You could probably draw the political faultline on most issues (affirmative action, civil equality, social programs, abortion, and so on) along this cultural rift. And not only are the cultures and values different, but so are the political mechanisms in the exercise of power - rural America has more "responsive" government, in one narrowly defined sense, but this often comes at the exclusion of the 'Other'; in rural America, racial and sometimes religious minorities. That's what the federal government destroyed by dismantling desegregation, the effects of which still undermine the South's economic development.

    So when we as a country finally get to the election of Barack Obama, what does he represent? He's a self-made, well-educated, internationally travelled, biracial-American from a large city, none of which earn him any favors from rural America. And it's been rural America that has determined political outcomes for centuries until Obama broke the southern strategy in his first election by focusing on youth and minority outreach. That's a significant achievement given the course of US history. Is it sustainable? My thought is that 2014 mid-terms will be the last gasp of a extinguishing political class. The last two presidential elections demonstrated just how little of America that class actually represents - they will have to find a new strategy since the southern strategy is no longer sustainable. And that means minority and youth outreach, and that also means addressing the issues and values reflected in urban communities and making compromises on rural issues in order to build a national coalition.

    Put in the context of your question, those changes represent significant threats to the dominant social norms and order, which intensified the already skeptical (fearful?) disposition of rural America towards the metropolitan 'other'. The Republican Party attempted to mobilize this agitation into favorable political results. Remember, the Tea Party emerged not as a response to Obamacare but to the bank and corporate bailouts at the end of the Bush administration as the economy collapsed, throwing rural communities into chaos. And since then, the GOP has been struggling to maintain its control over the movement's adherents who tend to be very active on the local political scene. And this culminated in shutdown of the government last year and essentially the stoppage of work in the House for the last 2 years, but also into the failure to win the last presidential election since, after all, the Tea Party only represents a narrow rural minority.
    Last edited by AmericanPride; 04-08-2014 at 04:56 PM.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  12. #132
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Contains much that might be of some interest (apoogies if already referenced)


    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/deb...its-usefulness

  13. #133
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Just My Opinion......

    The people behind the 4th generation warfare have generally got it right. The government can no longer perform it't most basic funtions for which it was created . That creates a motive for rebellion indeed armed rebellion if needed. It one case to a sucky government it is another when you have to pay for own demise in the form of taxes. Just read the preamble to the constitution?.........grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
    http://constitutionus.com/
    Last edited by slapout9; 04-08-2014 at 08:03 PM. Reason: stuff

  14. #134
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    The people behind the 4th generation warfare have generally got it right. The government can no longer perform it't most basic funtions for which it was created . That creates a motive for rebellion indeed armed rebellion if needed. It one case to a sucky government it is another when you have to pay for own demise in the form of taxes. Just read the preamble to the constitution?.........grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
    http://constitutionus.com/
    In my mind this is the crux of the problem, and what makes it more than just an academic debate. At what point does a portion of the population decide that taking arms against their own government is appropriate? Associated questions are: Can the kind of guttural ferocity that is required for people to use deadly violence against representatives of their own government be manufactured by a “lobby”? … or does the “lobby” simply tap into the guttural ferocity that already exists in the population?

    From what I have seen, at least in the associated question, it is later. A group has to have a pool of seriously disgruntled people to insight before rhetoric turns into action. Of course, this is just my opinion based on watching the conversation. It also appears that the level of emotional hatred required cannot be created around simple complaints. Something like taxes may be the rallying cry but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    I am also not sure if any of the observations, based on antidotal evidence, are transferable to another culture. I believe many of the complaints are uniquely American.

    I am not sure whether a single incident where someone shows up at a protest with a loaded weapons will turn into two, or twenty, or whether they will eventually use that weapon. My feelings are that they will. There were many acts of civil disobedience but a massacre in Boston galvanized the colonists into feeling that they were not longer under the protection of the King's Soldiers. I don’t think this will get that far, but it is early.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-08-2014 at 09:21 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  15. #135
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
    I'd give it a C average across the board, better in some areas, worse in others. Passing, but could and should do better. Maybe that's because I've lived long enough in the other world to know what a failing government actually looks like.

    Certainly there's abundant cause for dissatisfaction with the US government, but that's always been the case... is it really worse than any other time? When was it better? Do the current flaws really justify the level of fear that we see in some quarters? What happened to the traditional control system of democracy: voting the bastards out and putting the other bastards in until we get tired of them?

    Long way from perfect, of course... but that's always been the case, and anyone using the "fail" word should really think about what a true failure of governance looks like.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  16. #136
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    The people behind the 4th generation warfare have generally got it right. The government can no longer perform it't most basic funtions for which it was created . That creates a motive for rebellion indeed armed rebellion if needed. It one case to a sucky government it is another when you have to pay for own demise in the form of taxes. Just read the preamble to the constitution?.........grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
    http://constitutionus.com/
    If it were as easy as "just [reading] the Preamble to the Constitution" we wouldn't be having these problems and debates. What is a "more perfect union"? What does it mean to "insure domestic tranquility" or to "promote the general welfare"? If you were to ascribe a grade, I would say that in comparison to most other governments, the American federal government scores pretty well in some areas but fairs poorly in others.

    Establish Justice: B+
    Ensure Domestic Tranquility: D+
    Provide for the Common Defense: A+
    Promote the General Welfare: D+
    Secure the Blessings of Liberty: B+/-
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  17. #137
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Establish Justice: B+
    Ensure Domestic Tranquility: D+
    Provide for the Common Defense: A+
    Promote the General Welfare: D+
    Secure the Blessings of Liberty: B+/-
    I'd go a little higher on domestic tranquility and general welfare. Maybe C+ on tranquility... sure, there are crime issues, primarily in major urban areas, but nothing resembling insurgency or major disorder, and I'd guess the vast majority of Americans live pretty tranquil lives with little realistic fear of violence.

    General welfare maybe lower, C... despite the recent recession American general welfare remains well above world averages, if not quite where we'd want it to be.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  18. #138
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I'd go a little higher on domestic tranquility and general welfare. Maybe C+ on tranquility... sure, there are crime issues, primarily in major urban areas, but nothing resembling insurgency or major disorder, and I'd guess the vast majority of Americans live pretty tranquil lives with little realistic fear of violence.

    General welfare maybe lower, C... despite the recent recession American general welfare remains well above world averages, if not quite where we'd want it to be.
    I placed domestic tranquility very low because of the high rates of violent crime, domestic abuse, suicide. And I placed general welfare very low because of poor health outcomes, high food insecurity, and the relatively regressive tax code.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  19. #139
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    In my mind this is the crux of the problem, and what makes it more than just an academic debate. At what point does a portion of the population decide that taking arms against their own government is appropriate? Associated questions are: Can the kind of guttural ferocity that is required for people to use deadly violence against representatives of their own government be manufactured by a “lobby”? … or does the “lobby” simply tap into the guttural ferocity that already exists in the population?
    IMO the border/immigration situation has the potential to make people risk going to armed resistance. As the 4GW writers say the state is failing to provide basic protection, in fact they are signing laws (NAFTA) that actually guarantee this will happen. Just watch some of the old presidential debate between Ross Perot and Al Gore , incredible how precise Perot was on exactly what would and has happened and continues to happen!

  20. #140
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    If it were as easy as "just [reading] the Preamble to the Constitution" we wouldn't be having these problems and debates. What is a "more perfect union"? What does it mean to "insure domestic tranquility" or to "promote the general welfare"? If you were to ascribe a grade, I would say that in comparison to most other governments, the American federal government scores pretty well in some areas but fairs poorly in others.

    Establish Justice: B+
    Ensure Domestic Tranquility: D+
    Provide for the Common Defense: A+
    Promote the General Welfare: D+
    Secure the Blessings of Liberty: B+/-
    No it is not easy but hear is my point. The Preamble provides the purpose for the following constitutional process too often we overlook the purpose, which provides the necessary judgment to make the tough choices we have and will have to make now and in the future. We become to focused on the process which was only created to serve the purpose(s) of our country.

    IMO the whole purpose of the Federal Government was/is to create the greatest good for the greatest number NOT the chosen few as so often happens. There are no Gay,Afro,Latino,White,Women,Men,Green,Red,Blue Americans there are just Americans! hyphenated Americans should been sent to Gitmo! The source of all our problems and solutions lie in that sphere.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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