Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG? - Page 8 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-18-2012, 05:27 PM   #141
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
The other problem is how fast these shooters become famous due to the modern mass media. You get people becoming copy cats. Many mass shooters were found to have studied their predecessors.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

We've had guns around for centuries. Why is it only now we are seeing regular mass shootings? What has changed so drastically?

Well, the mass media!

Other than that, people've already covered the aspects of how stupid bans actually are. Something like a cooling off period makes a lot of sense, but banning them outright is a waste of everyone's time - just like the war on drugs.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 05:48 PM   #142
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,439
Total Cats: 417
Default

The war on drugs is the problem. Make drugs cheap and available, and let the crazy ones OD.
rleete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 05:52 PM   #143
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
These ******* laws DO NOTHING TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE!!!!!!! YOU CAN BAN THINGS UNTIL YOU'RE BLUE IN THE FACE BUT IT'S GOING TO STOP NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a gross oversimplification. Because one set of highly motivated and organized bank robbers used full auto weapons and body armor, a restriction or ban will do NOTHING?

Fully auto machine guns are highly regulated. They are also pretty damn uncommon. But the legislation had no affect on that, right?


This is why it's so hard to have reasonable discussions about this and why I preferred Sam's (initial) responses.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:00 PM   #144
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
This is a gross oversimplification. Because one set of highly motivated and organized bank robbers used full auto weapons and body armor, a restriction or ban will do NOTHING?

Fully auto machine guns are highly regulated. They are also pretty damn uncommon. But the legislation had no affect on that, right?


This is why it's so hard to have reasonable discussions about this and why I preferred Sam's (initial) responses.
No, Honestly, the reason that we (people) can't ever have reasonable discussions about this is because of ignorance of the "ban all 'weapons'" fruitcakes who know nothing about what they speak.

Machine guns were actually regulated by the NFA act of 1934 which require the be registered and taxed. Since 1934 according to the FBI there have only been TWO shootings with registered NFA items, both of which were murders committed by police officers.

Secondly in reference to the North Hollywood Shootout; those "weapons" were legally obtained and illegally (according to the 1934/1986 NFA acts) modified into "full auto."

Two laws on the books saying:
  • "Machine guns" have to be registered
  • Civilians can't register/own "machine guns" manufactured >1986
  • "high capacity" magazines banned
  • No rifles with detachable box magazines
  • No rifles with adjustable stocks
  • No rifles with pistol grips . . . .
  • etc...

Didn't stop the two men from obtaining through legal means and modifying firearms for the purposes they desired. Making those said firearms illegal to purchase STILL would not have stopped them from obtaining them through other activities or channels! Jesus H ******* Christ, isn't Meth illegal for example? Sure stops people from obtaining it.

Wait a second.. Isn't armed robbery illegal? How about Felony Murder? See what I mean? Making something illegal doesn't do ANYTHING to stop criminals from doing what they want.
elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:17 PM   #145
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,602
Total Cats: 432
Default

It should at least be recognized that legislation can make acquisition more inconvenient, right? Obviously, the war on drugs hasn't eradicated drug use; as it commonly pointed out, drugs are available even in prison. Nevertheless, buying illegal drugs involves some level of personal risk (not to mention an artifically boosted price level) that it would likely not if all drugs were legalized.

The question is whether the potential reduction in firearm use in crimes of passion would be offset in an increase in violence by career criminals preying on an unarmed populace, and if it did in fact reduce (overall) crime, is that reduction worth restricting liberty?
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:27 PM   #146
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
It should at least be recognized that legislation can make acquisition more inconvenient, right? Obviously, the war on drugs hasn't eradicated drug use; as it commonly pointed out, drugs are available even in prison. Nevertheless, buying illegal drugs involves some level of personal risk (not to mention an artifically boosted price level) that it would likely not if all drugs were legalized.

The question is whether the potential reduction in firearm use in crimes of passion would be offset in an increase in violence by career criminals preying on an unarmed populace, and if it did in fact reduce (overall) crime, is that reduction worth restricting liberty?
Well you tell me. Last I read Less than 1% of violent crimes with a firearm involved anything on their "assault weapon" list.

Just look at gun related crime since 1997 in UK. It's gone up every year since they banned handguns in 97.


I heard some ignorant libtard on the radio today talking about how no american needs "automatic weapons." Bypassing her ignorance of the "automatic weapons" part, I give you this in closing. Yes it took thousands of hours practicing:



Guess we should ban machine gun Jerry, too?
elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:39 PM   #147
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post

Just look at gun related crime since 1997 in UK. It's gone up every year since they banned handguns in 97.
Increasing every year from "virtually nothing" to "seriously we don't have significant gun crime" doesn't really tell you much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The number of homicides per year committed with firearms remained between 49 and 97 in the eight years to 2006. There were two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period, and 107 non-fatal shootings, an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[58] In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[58]

Up from 49 per year doesn't really tell you anything. For instance, in 2006, Indianapolis had 198 homicides committed with firearms. And that is for 800,000 vs 63 million people in the UK.

Doubling from almost zero doesn't mean anything in and of itself. If you have something else to show that this is statistically significant, I would love to hear it.
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:40 PM   #148
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,602
Total Cats: 432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
Well you tell me. Last I read Less than 1% of violent crimes with a firearm involved anything on their "assault weapon" list.
You're going to have to draw me a road map from my comment to yours.

My point was simply that restrictive legislations create barriers to ownership. During the AWB, prices on high-cap mags went up, since the new supply was cut off. That didn't mean it was impossible to obtain a high-cap magazine, only that it had gotten marginally more difficult.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:57 PM   #149
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Preface: I am not arguing for or against any position at this point. I am trying to keep an open mind and I am willing to question my own beliefs in order to "test them."

Thanks, Mark, for picking up on the fact that "reducing" and "eliminating" are not synonymous. I have multiple times acknowledged that making something illegal does not eliminate it from being or eliminate access to it. Likewise with regulating it. Heck, I have posted more than once that I am in favor of legalizing recreational use of marijuana because of the worse-than-failure of prohibition.


Scott - You pointed to England's gun related crime in an earlier post with a chart. It was unclear to me, but are those statistics raw or per capita? They looked like nominal numbers, but you referenced a rate.

Any idea on a per-capita comparison of Australia, the UK and the USA (assuming all use comparable statistical reporting, which is not always the case with inter-national healthcare stats, for example)?

I have used the car analogy before when someone asked me why anyone would "need" an AR-style rifle. Why would anyone "need" a 400 HP Corvette when the fastest legal speed on a public road (in FL) is 70 MPH? It's less about need and more about the ability to have it because a person wants it and may be able to utilize its full capacity on a private race track, for example.

However, I also can acknowledge that a car is built for transportation and, while capable of it, "killing human beings as effectively as possible" is not its original purpose.


I am in no way persuaded with the comparison of a school schooter with Jerry Mikulek or saying that having multiple 10-round magazines is no different than having a single 30-round magazine because a highly skilled and practiced (i.e. competitive shooter) can swap magazines in fractions of a second.

I am persuaded by statistical evidence, assuming it legitimately exists, that show that "assault weapons" are used so infrequently in violent crime - especially violent crime that does not involve criminal-on-criminal violence exclusively - that additional legal restrictions are unnecessary and possibly counter-productive.

I am also persuaded by the idea that you cannot make the world safe from all terrible things. That doesn't mean it's not worth asking, "Can we make it safer from some things and, if so, at what cost?"
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 07:41 PM   #150
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,050
Total Cats: 337
Default

I'm trying to keep an open mind on "shall not be infringed" so I can figure out how we should infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.

The bottom line is that people need to be able to protect themselves.

The world is a very scary place, and putting your children in buildings with no protection and the idea that "protecting yourself with a gun is a bad idea" is the reason this happens. Very simply put, you cannot eliminate people who want to kill each other, you can only control it. Even a magical law that eliminates all guns and melts them down into TSE turbo manifolds leaves the ability for would be school shooters to toss pipe-bombs into classrooms. Tell me and every other reasonable person (lol) that we have to pay more money and jump through hoops isn't going to keep the next Tim McVay from parking a truck full of crop fertilizer outside a building.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 07:42 PM   #151
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,050
Total Cats: 337
Default

I'm trying to keep an open mind on "shall not be infringed" so I can figure out how we should infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.

The bottom line is that people need to be able to protect themselves.

The world is a very scary place, and putting your children in buildings with no protection and the idea that "protecting yourself with a gun is a bad idea" is the reason this happens. Very simply put, you cannot eliminate people who want to kill each other, you can only control it. Even a magical law that eliminates all guns and melts them down into TSE turbo manifolds leaves the ability for would be school shooters to toss pipe-bombs into classrooms. Tell me and every other reasonable person (lol) that we have to pay more money and jump through hoops isn't going to keep the next Tim McVay from parking a truck full of crop fertilizer outside a building.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 07:45 PM   #152
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

When time permits I'll see if it's possible to locate the study I read about number of "assault weapons" used in crimes. A very quick google search yielded me this news article from 2004: I think this article might contain some relevant information of my point. Ban on assault weapons didn't reduce violence - Washington Times

I'll steal Scott's image about legal gun ownership from UK:



I'm having a hard time finding on the UK's website where my data came from right now and don't really have anymore time tonight to search. The numbers appear to be raw reported data and while I'm no statistician or anything, but when I see the number of murders involving a firearm increase after their ban it tells me one pretty clear simple fact. It doesn't work.


"Can we make it safer from some things and, if so, at what cost?"

Make what safer for things? If firearms weren't available to one of these shooters what's to stop them from using Google to build a big *** bomb?



At what cost? How about the cost of my freedom? No guns so he built a bomb. What now? Ban the internet since that's where he found the plans? You cited a perfect example about the Corvette. What if some ******* got hammered and hit a school bus full of children with his 500hp corvette? Would you ban Corvettes? What if said gun-man hijacked a school bus full of children using a "bomb" and drove it off a bridge? Ban buses?

I still fail to grasp why anyone would believe legislation to ban, regulate, or control things is going to stop or decrease this kind of stuff from happening.
elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 08:15 PM   #153
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,434
Total Cats: 135
Default

David Kopel: Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown - WSJ.com

Quote:
Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.

Alan Lankford of the University of Alabama analyzed data from a recent New York Police Department study of "active shooters"—criminals who attempted to murder people in a confined area, where there are lots of people, and who chose at least some victims randomly. Counting only the incidents with at least two casualties, there were 179 such crimes between 1966 and 2010. In the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87.

If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.

Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.

Nor are magazines holding more than 10 rounds something new. They were invented decades ago and have long been standard for many handguns. Police officers carry them for the same reason that civilians do: Especially if a person is attacked by multiple assailants, there is no guarantee that a 10-round magazine will end the assault.

The 1980s were much worse than today in terms of overall violent crime, including gun homicide, but they were much better than today in terms of mass random shootings. The difference wasn't that the 1980s had tougher controls on so-called "assault weapons." No assault weapons law existed in the U.S. until California passed a ban in 1989.

Connecticut followed in 1993. None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was an assault weapon under Connecticut law. This illustrates the uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function.

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. They are "semi-automatic" because they eject the empty shell case and load the next round into the firing chamber.

Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

Back in the mid-1960s, in most states, an adult could walk into a store and buy an AR-15 rifle, no questions asked. Today, firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States. If someone wants to purchase an AR-15 or any other firearm, the store must first get permission for the sale from the FBI or its state counterpart. Permission is denied if the buyer is in one of nine categories of "prohibited persons," including felons, domestic-violence misdemeanants, and persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill or alcoholic.

Since gun controls today are far stricter than at the time when "active shooters" were rare, what can account for the increase in these shootings? One plausible answer is the media. Cable TV in the 1990s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be mass killers obsessively study their predecessors.

Loren Coleman's 2004 book "The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines" shows that the copycat effect is as old as the media itself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's 1774 classic "The Sorrows of Young Werther" triggered a spate of copycat suicides all over Europe. But today the velocity and pervasiveness of the media make the problem much worse.

A second explanation is the deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill. A 2000 New York Times study of 100 rampage murderers found that 47 were mentally ill. In the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law (2008), Jason C. Matejkowski and his co-authors reported that 16% of state prisoners who had perpetrated murders were mentally ill.

In the mid-1960s, many of the killings would have been prevented because the severely mentally ill would have been confined and cared for in a state institution. But today, while government at most every level has bloated over the past half-century, mental-health treatment has been decimated. According to a study released in July by the Treatment Advocacy Center, the number of state hospital beds in America per capita has plummeted to 1850 levels, or 14.1 beds per 100,000 people.

Moreover, a 2011 paper by Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, "Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates," found that a third of the state-to-state variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civil-commitment laws.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend "gun-free zones," such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch's study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.

The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.

At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer's next shot was to kill himself.

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 01:54 PM   #154
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Manassas, Virginia
Posts: 1,247
Total Cats: 57
Default

^ This.
mx5autoxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 02:31 PM   #155
Elite Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Pen2_the_penguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 3,690
Total Cats: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post

Fully auto machine guns are highly regulated.
Come to Reno...
Pen2_the_penguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 02:40 PM   #156
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

Ryan_G - Good article. I question some of the nuances (like AR-style rifles being just as or more accessible in the 1960s as they are today) but his broad points about culture and media are well received.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
I'm trying to keep an open mind on "shall not be infringed" so I can figure out how we should infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
Trey - Can you point me to where in the Constitution is spells out to whom it does not apply?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 03:19 PM   #157
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen2_the_penguin View Post
Come to Reno...
Why? Are full-auto firearms available at the same cost and purchasing eligibility as a semi-auto? I can pick up a full-auto or select-fire Uzi, M-16, HK G3 or the like for a price comparable to a Spike's Tactical AR just by passing a Federal background check and waiting a few days or flashing my CWL?



So who is going to go fact-check the weapons used in the violence cited by the President today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Since Friday morning, a police officer was gunned down in Memphis, leaving four children without their mother. Two officers were killed outside a grocery store in Topeka. A woman was shot and killed inside a Las Vegas casino. Three people were shot inside an Alabama hospital. A four-year-old was caught in a drive-by in Missouri and taken off life support just yesterday.
I am going to think that there is a very high probability all the violence was done with weapons that do not look like "weapons of war" and would largely be unaffected by the proposals put forth in things like the "assault weapons ban."
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 08:41 PM   #158
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 13,064
Total Cats: 910
Default

Here is a quick read about the statistics with sources on the breakdown of gun violence in the US.
shuiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 08:58 PM   #159
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 210
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Increasing every year from "virtually nothing" to "seriously we don't have significant gun crime" doesn't really tell you much.




Up from 49 per year doesn't really tell you anything. For instance, in 2006, Indianapolis had 198 homicides committed with firearms. And that is for 800,000 vs 63 million people in the UK.

Doubling from almost zero doesn't mean anything in and of itself. If you have something else to show that this is statistically significant, I would love to hear it.
So 49 human lives mean absolutely nothing to you? Therein lies the problem with all these psychopaths massacring innocent people. Americans no longer value human life. I would love a world with no guns, but even then these massacres would happen. The Oklahoma bomber didn't need a gun now did he? Bombs, gasoline, alcohol, poison, swords, machetes, chemicals, gases, there are tons of ways for crazy fools to commit massacres. We need work against the apathy and ignorance that has been bred into our culture as opposed to trying to turn this into another excuse for Democrat vs Republican viewpoint debates.
MatosMiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2012, 09:21 PM   #160
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 210
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
This is quite well put. The video of the old man taking on the goons at the internet cafe is a good illustration of this.
MatosMiata is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbo 1995 Miata Low mileage Clean Tekel Cars for sale/trade 29 02-05-2016 04:16 PM
IT Pros: HELP! Al Jazeera something something Brighthouse Account sixshooter Insert BS here 11 09-01-2015 10:51 AM
Who's Idea was it to give cops taser guns RicanmiataRacer Insert BS here 10 03-04-2007 02:07 PM
Is the SMT6 comparable to the Emanage Blue/Emu/MS? Mex Prefabbed Turbo Kits 1 09-28-2006 04:15 PM
FS: Turbo XS H34 BOV BrokeEnthusiast Miata parts for sale/trade 1 09-06-2006 10:16 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 AM.