Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller



 
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old July 30th, 2009, 7:12 pm
KDOG  Male.gif KDOG is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 5077 days
Location: Boston
Posts: 555
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
Just where is that written?
Quote:
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.
It just says that a militia of the people is important to protect themselves against the government.

Comma. The right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. It doesn't say we need to have a well organized militia in order to bear arms.

The amendment is in two parts. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms", is pretty clear. Individuals have every right to own bear arms.

flimseycauldron is right. It isn't illogical either. The people may not have a great chance of success against a high powered military machine (property of an oppressive government) just with the possession of arms. However why should that make it pointless? People have resisted all throughout history even though success was slim. At least an armed population would be able to put up some fight against a corrupt, ruthless government...whenever that arrives...


Sponsored Links
  #62  
Old July 30th, 2009, 8:27 pm
Voldemorts8thHorcrux's Avatar
Voldemorts8thHorcrux  Female.gif Voldemorts8thHorcrux is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 4322 days
Location: just took over world,on throne
Age: 23
Posts: 5,710
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
It survived the repeal of the 18th amendment.
the 18th amendment was added on later. The original Constitution and Bill of Rights is there for a reason


__________________


Official Member of the Jacq Triumvirate

My Deviantart Account

Voldemort Feels Pretty, My animated music video for "I feel Pretty" Featuring LORD VOLDEMORT!

My original story: Teeter Totter (Has absolutely nothing to do with playgrounds)


  #63  
Old July 30th, 2009, 8:59 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5222 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,275
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

The bill of rights is just a series of 10 amendments, none of which is immune to being repealed.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #64  
Old July 30th, 2009, 9:05 pm
Voldemorts8thHorcrux's Avatar
Voldemorts8thHorcrux  Female.gif Voldemorts8thHorcrux is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 4322 days
Location: just took over world,on throne
Age: 23
Posts: 5,710
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

And the constitution isn't immune to being amended , but it doesn't mean that it's worthless


__________________


Official Member of the Jacq Triumvirate

My Deviantart Account

Voldemort Feels Pretty, My animated music video for "I feel Pretty" Featuring LORD VOLDEMORT!

My original story: Teeter Totter (Has absolutely nothing to do with playgrounds)


  #65  
Old July 30th, 2009, 9:10 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5222 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,275
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

I don't believe I said it was. Obviously because there are amendments means it can be amended. Stands to reason, really.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #66  
Old July 30th, 2009, 9:26 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5323 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 68
Posts: 28,470
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
flimseycauldron is right. It isn't illogical either. The people may not have a great chance of success against a high powered military machine (property of an oppressive government) just with the possession of arms. However why should that make it pointless? People have resisted all throughout history even though success was slim. At least an armed population would be able to put up some fight against a corrupt, ruthless government...whenever that arrives...
I disagree. The "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in today's world are those wonderful National Guard units up and running in all states - not Bubba and Pops and the rest of the guys chatting it up on the porch of Clarkie's Restaurant every evening.

Considering the futility of attempting a takeover of the United States government, I have to ask what's the point? Other than wreaking havoc on private citizens? I am thoroughly unimpressed with the arguments offered by pro-gun advocates. Other western nations have moved beyond backwards stuff like this, advancing fairly steadily on human rights issues. Here in the U.S. progress on social issues has been woefully sporadic and limited. The way some of us cling to our guns is just one example of that.

These are my own thoughts on the subject.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #67  
Old July 30th, 2009, 9:57 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5222 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,275
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
Considering the futility of attempting a takeover of the United States government, I have to ask what's the point? Other than wreaking havoc on private citizens? I am thoroughly unimpressed with the arguments offered by pro-gun advocates.
Any group of malcontents armed only with hand and light arms would be squashed by the US military in the twinkling of an eye making any claim for the need to bear arms against a tyrannical government farcical.

Not that many such claimants would have the courage to stand by these convictions. The last one to do so was Tim McVeigh and we know how that turned out.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #68  
Old July 30th, 2009, 11:39 pm
SybillOnWheels  Male.gif SybillOnWheels is offline
Banned
 
Joined: 3221 days
Location: United States
Age: 30
Posts: 166
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by flimseycauldron View Post
I don't understand this arguement. It seems to be implying that the entire Constitution is only logical if you're living in the past.

For me the Constitution is a framework. We can build on to it, twist it, play with it but you can not take things away. Once you do that it makes the whole frame unstable.
Please read my post again -- I never once said that the entire Constitution was illogical. I stated that the Founding Fathers' defense for the existence of the second amendment is now illogical and outdated.

And yes, you can simply "take things away." It's difficult, but it can be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk
Other western nations have moved beyond backwards stuff like this, advancing fairly steadily on human rights issues. Here in the U.S. progress on social issues has been woefully sporadic and limited. The way some of us cling to our guns is just one example of that.
Which is why I find it hilarious that so many are deluded into thinking that the US is such a "progressive" country. It is not, and it never has been. I'm sick of being part of the laughing stock of the Western World.



Last edited by SybillOnWheels; July 30th, 2009 at 11:45 pm.
  #69  
Old July 30th, 2009, 11:48 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5323 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 68
Posts: 28,470
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by SybillOnWheels View Post
I stated that the Founding Fathers' defense for the existence of the second amendment is now illogical and outdated.
Which it is and has been for the last two centuries.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #70  
Old July 30th, 2009, 11:49 pm
SybillOnWheels  Male.gif SybillOnWheels is offline
Banned
 
Joined: 3221 days
Location: United States
Age: 30
Posts: 166
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
Which it is and has been for the last two centuries.
Precisely.


  #71  
Old July 31st, 2009, 2:41 am
KDOG  Male.gif KDOG is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 5077 days
Location: Boston
Posts: 555
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
I disagree. The "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in today's world are those wonderful National Guard units up and running in all states - not Bubba and Pops and the rest of the guys chatting it up on the porch of Clarkie's Restaurant every evening.

Considering the futility of attempting a takeover of the United States government, I have to ask what's the point? Other than wreaking havoc on private citizens? I am thoroughly unimpressed with the arguments offered by pro-gun advocates. Other western nations have moved beyond backwards stuff like this, advancing fairly steadily on human rights issues. Here in the U.S. progress on social issues has been woefully sporadic and limited. The way some of us cling to our guns is just one example of that.

These are my own thoughts on the subject.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

NOT

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The whole argument about a well regulated militia is irrelevant, its clear of the right that the second amendment gives us as individuals.

And I have yet to see gun control advocates give any impressive reasoning themselves. Any gun control laws, or gun concealment laws haven't done anything. If a nutter wants to shoot up innocent civilians, he will find a way to get a gun even if there is nationwide gun control.



Last edited by KDOG; July 31st, 2009 at 2:43 am.
  #72  
Old July 31st, 2009, 3:20 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5323 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 68
Posts: 28,470
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
And I have yet to see gun control advocates give any impressive reasoning themselves. Any gun control laws, or gun concealment laws haven't done anything.
Because the legislation was so watered-down as to be negligible?

Quote:
If a nutter wants to shoot up innocent civilians, he will find a way to get a gun even if there is nationwide gun control.
They wouldn't if the ease of getting on a gun didn't empower them.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #73  
Old July 31st, 2009, 3:32 am
SybillOnWheels  Male.gif SybillOnWheels is offline
Banned
 
Joined: 3221 days
Location: United States
Age: 30
Posts: 166
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

NOT

"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The whole argument about a well regulated militia is irrelevant, its clear of the right that the second amendment gives us as individuals.
No, it is not irrelevant. The second amendment is very clear that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms because of a "need" to revolt against the establishment in the event that the government becomes out of control. If the reasoning that the Founding Fathers gave ("well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") was irrelevant, it would not have been included in the amendment at all.

But it was. This is the reasoning that they gave for the existence of this amendment: revolution. Not so that people could display automatic weapons in their living room as some sort of shrine.

If they had simply stated: "All citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms," that would be one thing. But they did not. They also gave their reasoning behind the right to bear arms. A reasoning that is simply absurd in modern America.


  #74  
Old July 31st, 2009, 3:44 am
Voldemorts8thHorcrux's Avatar
Voldemorts8thHorcrux  Female.gif Voldemorts8thHorcrux is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 4322 days
Location: just took over world,on throne
Age: 23
Posts: 5,710
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
I don't believe I said it was. Obviously because there are amendments means it can be amended. Stands to reason, really.
forgive me if i'm wrong, but i assumed that you were implying that because the amendments can be changed, it makes them less important somehow. The Constitution was meant as a framework, and it was also meant to be able to change with time if necessary to fit with the times, but it doesn't make it any less important. The second amendment holds similar amounts of importance as other parts of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Would we want to change Checks and Balances? Change the role of the president? Take away Freedom of Press? Maybe in the future we might, but it shouldn't be taken lightly, and neither just changing the second amendment

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
They wouldn't if the ease of getting on a gun didn't empower them.
I agree that it would probably deter some individuals from shooting people, but there is a ton of illegal smuggling and selling and buying going on that the government hasn't stopped that is completely illegal. Stuff like illegal drugs, full automatic machine guns, animal skins, ivory, etc. I know that people are going to say that it should still be regulated, but i would like to see the victims of the nutters having something to protect themselves


__________________


Official Member of the Jacq Triumvirate

My Deviantart Account

Voldemort Feels Pretty, My animated music video for "I feel Pretty" Featuring LORD VOLDEMORT!

My original story: Teeter Totter (Has absolutely nothing to do with playgrounds)


  #75  
Old July 31st, 2009, 4:16 am
KDOG  Male.gif KDOG is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 5077 days
Location: Boston
Posts: 555
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by SybillOnWheels View Post
No, it is not irrelevant. The second amendment is very clear that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms because of a "need" to revolt against the establishment in the event that the government becomes out of control. If the reasoning that the Founding Fathers gave ("well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") was irrelevant, it would not have been included in the amendment at all.

But it was. This is the reasoning that they gave for the existence of this amendment: revolution. Not so that people could display automatic weapons in their living room as some sort of shrine.

If they had simply stated: "All citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms," that would be one thing. But they did not. They also gave their reasoning behind the right to bear arms. A reasoning that is simply absurd in modern America.
Is it really absurd? Can you really say that the reasoning doesn't apply now? Down the road when an oppressive corrupt government takes control, is the reasoning still absurd? It doesn't matter what time period it is, revolution has and will continue to happen.

Your argument is that revolting against an oppressive and corrupt government is not worth it because the chance of success is small or as you say impossible. Take away the right to bear arms unrest is nothing, the government can do whatever they want with no real form of resistance. The government wont feel so invincible if its civilians have legitimate means of protection and resisting.

ALSO if you want to look at crime figures. The UK since implementing gun control has seen a quick rise in crime and violence whereas the US is quite good (compared to the big scare of rise in violence in the 90s). The deterrent factor is legit.



Last edited by KDOG; July 31st, 2009 at 4:20 am.
  #76  
Old July 31st, 2009, 4:31 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5323 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 68
Posts: 28,470
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Down the road when an oppressive corrupt government takes control, is the reasoning still absurd? It doesn't matter what time period it is, revolution has and will continue to happen.
We've just survived one, KDOG. Constitutional protections like the right to privacy and others have been trampled to pieces. We had a president who referred to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper."

You'll forgive me if I don't buy the revolutionary song-and-dance.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #77  
Old July 31st, 2009, 4:43 am
KDOG  Male.gif KDOG is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 5077 days
Location: Boston
Posts: 555
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
We've just survived one, KDOG. Constitutional protections like the right to privacy and others have been trampled to pieces. We had a president who referred to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper."

You'll forgive me if I don't buy the revolutionary song-and-dance.
I wont deny that the Bush administration did several things that annoyed the heck out of me. Namely the Patriot Act. However it can hardly be called oppressive when you look at other countries out there. Like ones that roll in the military to murder their own civilians because they protested.

I don't like the idea and ability of spying on people for "security" and it sure will lead to far worse later on. I am not defending Bush or Congress the past 8 years.

Our government already is riddled with corruption but oppression can and will be a lot worse down the road.



Last edited by KDOG; July 31st, 2009 at 4:46 am.
  #78  
Old July 31st, 2009, 5:12 am
SybillOnWheels  Male.gif SybillOnWheels is offline
Banned
 
Joined: 3221 days
Location: United States
Age: 30
Posts: 166
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Is it really absurd? Can you really say that the reasoning doesn't apply now?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Down the road when an oppressive corrupt government takes control, is the reasoning still absurd?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
It doesn't matter what time period it is, revolution has and will continue to happen.
Precisely. However, modern American revolutions do not happen violently, but politically and vocally. Citizens of the United States conduct a revolution each time that they go to the polls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Your argument is that revolting against an oppressive and corrupt government is not worth it because the chance of success is small or as you say impossible.
My argument is quite the opposite, actually. I'm all for revolutionary action and flushing out an overly corrupt establishment. Hell, we just did that last November.

But yes, a violent revolt by the people against the government is impossible in this day and age. Unless, of course, private citizens were legally allowed to obtain and own nuclear weapons. That'd be quite an impressive living room display to show off at dinner parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Take away the right to bear arms unrest is nothing, the government can do whatever they want with no real form of resistance. The government wont feel so invincible if its civilians have legitimate means of protection and resisting.
The United States government does not fear a physical/violent resistance from its people in any way, shape, or form -- with or without guns. Do you really think that owning a duck rifle makes the government quake in its boots? They fear us vocally; they fear the outspokenness of the people; they fear public opinion shifting out of their favor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
ALSO if you want to look at crime figures. The UK since implementing gun control has seen a quick rise in crime and violence
By this reasoning, marijuana, cocaine, and all other dangerous drugs should be legal throughout the United States. After all, banning these drugs has only served to increase the demand for them, and as long as people are using them peacefully, why should they be punished just because some others are abusing them?



Last edited by SybillOnWheels; July 31st, 2009 at 5:15 am.
  #79  
Old July 31st, 2009, 6:06 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5323 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 68
Posts: 28,470
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by SybillOnWheels View Post
Hell, we just did that last November.
We sure did. I'm glad you said that, Sybill, so I didn't have to.

I despised Bush. No point denying it. I worked my behind off to send him home early in 2004, but violent revolution never once occurred to me. I just worked harder for a Democratic president four years later. That's the beauty of the United States of America: the peaceful transfer of power every few years. It's remarkable how our founding documents provided for that.

I'm not so happy with this latest transition. Chris has called the NRA's arms race brilliant. I don't see it that way. First off, they lied. Flat-out lied to scare people into buying guns and joining their organization. George Bush, or someone in his administration, had the good sense to recognize the threat of violence upon the election of our first black president, and deployed a brigade specially trained in counter-insurgency tactics to deal with the home crowd if things get too far out of line. I respect and appreciate that decision.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #80  
Old July 31st, 2009, 7:30 am
PLIMPY's Avatar
PLIMPY  Female.gif PLIMPY is offline
Sixth Year
 
Joined: 5055 days
Location: Florida
Age: 33
Posts: 1,238
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
ALSO if you want to look at crime figures. The UK since implementing gun control has seen a quick rise in crime and violence whereas the US is quite good (compared to the big scare of rise in violence in the 90s). The deterrent factor is legit.
First, I would say that crime rates and their trends do not have one cause but are rather complex situations based on the economy, the ability for social mobility, a country's criminal justice system, societal views on crime, laws, and most importantly education. So I think that crediting crime rates to whether or not guns are legal is rather simplistic, if even completely inaccurate. A lot has changed in the UK, and the rest of the world, since the UK's current gun laws were passed, and it is possible that their struggles with crime in their country are completely unrelated.

Second, a portion of this picture that I happen to believe to be more on point is that while the UK has higher rates of violent crime, in the US death is a more likely outcome. In the US the homicide rate is 5.62 per 100,000 inhabitants, in the UK as a whole, this rate is 2.03 per 100,000 inhabitants. I would argue that this is partially because of the prevalence of guns and the fact that it is easier to kill someone by shooting them than it is by stabbing or hitting them. Both stabbing and hitting require the assailant to be closer to the victim, make physical contact where they must feel each attempt, there is a greater possibility of the victim fighting back, and the wounds are less likely to be fatal. The term "hesitation marks" are well known in criminal justice communities and that is because, thankfully, to kill someone in this manner is not easy for a person to convince themselves to do.

I think I wouldn't argue so strongly against any gun rights (my personal opinion is very similar to what I have read so far from SybillOnWheels), if reasonable requests for restrictions were treated as common sense matters. Do I think people should easily allow the restriction of their freedoms? no, but a ban on assault weapons isn't something that should be controversial. I live in a state that doesn't even have gun registration and if anyone were to even publicly discuss a desire to have one, I wouldn't be surprised to suddenly find them getting emails from the NRA.

As much as gun-right supporters argue that making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own a gun won't impact those who use guns for illegal purposes, I disagree. For the most part, these people are not making their own guns. Rather, they are manufactured and often even purchased legally and from there make their way into the hands of people who are not legally allowed to have a weapon. While the site I am about to link does seem to be pro-gun control (although it also supports allowing law abiding citizens to maintain their gun rights), it was the first source I could find that described the situation as I have heard it in regards to the Iron Pipeline (which is the east-coast highway I-95).

Quote:
Virtually every gun starts out as a legally manufactured product. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) points to three common ways guns move from legal distribution
Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers
Straw purchasing


Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are usually people hired by trafficking rings, or friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers.
Gun Shows and private gun sales

Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. According to former ATF spokesman Tom Mangan, in many cases, it’s simply a “cash and carry” transaction. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”
channels to the criminal market:
Source: Where Did the Gun Come From?


__________________


What happens to a plimpy that comes to the Breakfast Club?
Search Tutorial ~ Search Engine ~ Forum Rules ~ Ask the Staff

Last edited by PLIMPY; July 31st, 2009 at 7:32 am.
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 2:33 am.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.