E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > General Off-Topic

General Off-Topic
Everything not about BMWs. Posts must be "primetime" safe and in good taste. You must be logged in to see sub-forums.
Click here to browse all new posts.

View Poll Results: que?
<10% could do it 21 23.33%
10 - 50 % 24 26.67%
would def need to be greater than 50 % 36 40.00%
JONJON > 9 10.00%
Voters: 90. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-12-2013, 12:51 PM   #221
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
The resistance in France didn't overthrow the Vichy government. They fought against it, but Vichy France didn't fall until Nazi Germany did.

I was trying to suggest that after the Germans invaded France, it was only a handful of people within France that were responsible for it falling and surrendering. And that historically only a small percentage are active in any political or military insurrection.

Rudolph Hess, by your story, was going to utilize the government of the UK, not overthrow it.

Well, but any other definition it would be an overthrow. Yes, he was going to utilize it. The Royal Family has German ancestry. They are not 100 percent purebred English. I think Prince Albert (in the 1800's) was German. I always thought that Hess was going to try to align Britain with Germany based on their common ancestry and 'common' distaste against Soviet Russia. It would have only taken a few people to make that decision if it occurred, no matter how unpopular. They would have 'utilized' Britain like they utilized Italy and Iran and Norway.




And Cuba is a small insular island nation with limited resources and infrastructure. While Castro's methods are applicable to a larger, more robust nation, what a Second Amendment insurgency would be missing is popular support.

Like you claimed, 90% of France did nothing during the occupied time. They wanted to be left alone to go about their lives.

What you'd be fighting most in the US is sheer size. While Castro's methods could be used to gain small pockets of control, uniting these into any appreciable widespread insurgency would be nearly impossible.

True. I guess I went off on a tangent and was thinking about circumstances where it has occurred and not sticking to the likelihood of it occurring in the U.S.
An overthrow can still occur like those in a third world nations but less likely or impossible to occur in a nation like the US with cell phones, instant messaging and the internet.
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------

Last edited by Raymond42262; 01-12-2013 at 12:56 PM.
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 03:16 PM   #222
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Now, how is a law or a regulation going to hold those deviants accountable? We already do background checks. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Many states require you to take a course to get a CCW.

Why do you believe laws will stop these events?
Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own in some states, because commifornia etc... but perfectly legal to own in most states.

Newsflash everyone:
This is all smoke and mirrors to waste money and make paranoid people happy that "something" is being done, even if the eventual "something" will have little or no effect on their safety from criminals. The 1994 ban did not stop crime. The politicians aren't trying to stop crime, they're trying to calm panicked mothers and ignorant people.

453 rifles in total were used in homicides in the United States in 2011. That accounts for about 3% of the weapons used to illegally murder people. The 1994 ban had absolutely no quantitatively verifiable effect on the rate in which the "banned" weapons were used in crimes. That fact is generally attributed to the fact that these "evil" firearms and "high capacity" magazines are used in so few crimes before they are attacked by politicians.

Drug abuse, traffic collisions, alcohol, medical errors in hospitals, obesity, smoking, and drug abuse are just a few of the many, many, many preventable causes of death in the United States that kill far more people in this country every year. Washington politicians aren't trying to save people or they'd be addressing the 40k-100k deaths by errors in hospitals, or 40,000+ deaths by traffic collision, etc.

453 deaths by rifles = spend countless dollars and precious time trying to find a way to prevent murderers from committing murders. However, for things which kill tens of thousands of innocent Americans (including children as well), spend $0 and no time trying to find a way to prevent those deaths which, in most cases, are caused by nothing that is illegal in this country.

This debate isn't about stopping violence. It isn't about "how deadly" the "deadly weapon" is. It's about getting votes through fear and ignorance.
Wraisil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 03:20 PM   #223
phrozen06
Registered User
 
phrozen06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3927'33"N 7758'04"W
Posts: 7,544
My Ride: E46, E92 M3, R32 VW
Send a message via Yahoo to phrozen06
Which Branch of Government would the people be revolting against?
__________________


phrozen06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 04:24 PM   #224
Stankia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 55
My Ride: 4.2FSI S-Line
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrozen06 View Post
Which Branch of Government would the people be revolting against?
The main one.
__________________
DOGE Crew
Stankia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 06:25 PM   #225
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: I'm alive
Posts: 4,889
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrozen06 View Post
Which Branch of Government would the people be revolting against?
If I had to take a guess...the executive and the legislative.
__________________
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 06:29 PM   #226
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,490
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrozen06 View Post
Which Branch of Government would the people be revolting against?
Ask the experts

__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 06:48 PM   #227
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own in some states, because commifornia etc... but perfectly legal to own in most states.

Newsflash everyone:
This is all smoke and mirrors to waste money and make paranoid people happy that "something" is being done, even if the eventual "something" will have little or no effect on their safety from criminals. The 1994 ban did not stop crime. The politicians aren't trying to stop crime, they're trying to calm panicked mothers and ignorant people.

453 rifles in total were used in homicides in the United States in 2011. That accounts for about 3% of the weapons used to illegally murder people. The 1994 ban had absolutely no quantitatively verifiable effect on the rate in which the "banned" weapons were used in crimes. That fact is generally attributed to the fact that these "evil" firearms and "high capacity" magazines are used in so few crimes before they are attacked by politicians.

Drug abuse, traffic collisions, alcohol, medical errors in hospitals, obesity, smoking, and drug abuse are just a few of the many, many, many preventable causes of death in the United States that kill far more people in this country every year. Washington politicians aren't trying to save people or they'd be addressing the 40k-100k deaths by errors in hospitals, or 40,000+ deaths by traffic collision, etc.

453 deaths by rifles = spend countless dollars and precious time trying to find a way to prevent murderers from committing murders. However, for things which kill tens of thousands of innocent Americans (including children as well), spend $0 and no time trying to find a way to prevent those deaths which, in most cases, are caused by nothing that is illegal in this country.

This debate isn't about stopping violence. It isn't about "how deadly" the "deadly weapon" is. It's about getting votes through fear and ignorance.
Newsflash: you're not helping your side when you include like this in what is an otherwise insightful statement.

I'm guessing that you don't really think the govt and society in general spend $0 and no time trying to find a way to prevent deaths caused by drug abuse, traffic collisions, alcohol, medical errors, obesity, and smoking (btw, you said drug abuse twice, you must like drug abuse*).

I'm guessing you're fully aware of the DEA, NHTSA, ATF, FDA, CDC, OMG, WTF, LMAO and so on.

I'm guessing you're smart enough to know that if you totaled up their budgets, they'd add up to a few gazillion $s every year, which is a tiny bit more than $0.

I'm guessing you've seen a lot more non-profits oriented toward these issues than toward any gun issues.

I'm guessing you've seen a lot more anti-smoking and anti-drunk driving and drink-responsibly and drive-safely and just-say-no messages than anti-gun messages on TV and other mainstream media.

Maybe I'm wrong with all those guesses. You tell me.

But if I'm right, then I hope you can see how someone that has half a brain will read your "$0 and no time" statement and quickly dismiss everything else you say (which I think is mostly correct) just because that statement is so blatantly wrong. They'll assume you're either lying or completely stupid, neither of which will motivate them to take the rest of what you say seriously.

As an aside, I also suggest you be careful trying to portray drug users, drinkers, smokers and obese people as "innocent", especially in comparison to a bunch of elementary school shooting victims. If you had $10 and could use it to save either one elementary school student from a shooter or one lifelong smoker from death by emphysema, I think we both know who you'd pick.

Also, US traffic fatalities are closer to 30,000 than 40,000, never mind 40,000+. Again, your concept is correct that it's a staggering number of deaths (about 87 every day). But when you're off by at least 19%, it's going to call into question the other "statistics" you act like you know about (ex: the "had absolutely no quantitatively verifiable effect" on the usage rate of banned guns).

* Watch Blazing Saddles if you don't get the reference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by phrozen06 View Post
Which Branch of Government would the people be revolting against?
The DMV.

J/k, the fight would be against the executive branch since they have the guns. But it would be over the enforcement of laws created by the legislative branch, so if the executive branch lost, safe bet the legislative would be kicked down the street right after them. Judicial branch could referee the whole thing.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 07:39 PM   #228
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
I had a typo with a 4 instead of a 3, sue me. The fact remains, we have the ATF to research firearm crime, we have the NHTSA to research traffic deaths, etc etc etc. What we don't have, is congressional bills/Congressional meetings, VP/Presidential level meetings/boards/groups to address deaths above and beyond those already allocated dollars. I'll be more specific next time and state "$0 and no time ABOVE AND BEYOND the time/energy/money/resources that the government is already throwing at those problems". Have you seen this same level of hoopla and b.s. anytime a school bus carrying children is in an accident? When a child is killed in a car wreck? etc etc etc? No, you don't have focus groups meeting with the V.P. for that stuff because it doesn't buy votes.

As for you not trusting my other facts, feel free to verify for yourself that no credible study has shown that it worked. Start here if you would like:
http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-f...ns-ban-worked/

or you can just google Roth and Koper impact analysis and see that even when one type of weapon ("assault pistol") use in crimes went down, other weapons replaced those resulting in no real measurable reduction in crime. "Assault rifle" use in crime showed no clear decline (and are used so rarely in crimes that it wasn't much of a shock anyway).

"As an aside", I suggest you look past the first thing you see and recognize that the CDC doesn't only include smokers in the list of people dead from smoking, or illegal drug users in the list of dead by drug use, etc. Your inability to see that, and desire to bring up the "image of the innocent child" make it clear that you seem to be looking at this issue with your heart, not your brain.

Last edited by Wraisil; 01-12-2013 at 07:48 PM.
Wraisil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 12:00 AM   #229
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
I had a typo with a 4 instead of a 3, sue me. The fact remains, we have the ATF to research firearm crime, we have the NHTSA to research traffic deaths, etc etc etc. What we don't have, is congressional bills/Congressional meetings, VP/Presidential level meetings/boards/groups to address deaths above and beyond those already allocated dollars. I'll be more specific next time and state "$0 and no time ABOVE AND BEYOND the time/energy/money/resources that the government is already throwing at those problems". Have you seen this same level of hoopla and b.s. anytime a school bus carrying children is in an accident? When a child is killed in a car wreck? etc etc etc? No, you don't have focus groups meeting with the V.P. for that stuff because it doesn't buy votes.
Are you on crack? WTF do you think happens EVERY year when Congress and the White House have a free-for-all over the Federal budget? These govt orgs spend a lot of time every quarter and every year explaining their results, justifying their budgets and asking for more. That's all done through committee meetings, panel testimony, bazillion page reports, and it all results in loads of hooplah back and forth between Capitol Hill and the White House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
As for you not trusting my other facts, feel free to verify for yourself that no credible study has shown that it worked. Start here if you would like:
http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-f...ns-ban-worked/

or you can just google Roth and Koper impact analysis and see that even when one type of weapon ("assault pistol") use in crimes went down, other weapons replaced those resulting in no real measurable reduction in crime. "Assault rifle" use in crime showed no clear decline (and are used so rarely in crimes that it wasn't much of a shock anyway).
Reading comprehension > you. Go back and read my post. Do it slowly, or read it outloud to yourself if you need to. Then rethink this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
"As an aside", I suggest you look past the first thing you see and recognize that the CDC doesn't only include smokers in the list of people dead from smoking, or illegal drug users in the list of dead by drug use, etc. Your inability to see that, and desire to bring up the "image of the innocent child" make it clear that you seem to be looking at this issue with your heart, not your brain.
If you really believe this, then we're done. And you didn't learn a thing, apparently.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 08:49 PM   #230
pancakes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Camelot
Posts: 86
My Ride: ///M, GTI, SUPERMOTO
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
The fact that assault weapons have already been banned tells me your debate is off to a great start

wait, are assault weapons banned or not?

Quote:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban
__________________
pancakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 08:54 PM   #231
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,490
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Yes assault weapons are banned. Pre ban firearms can still be owned/transferred though
An SA AR15-AK47 is not an assault weapon

Edit: Typed post meant pre
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.

Last edited by JonJon; 01-13-2013 at 10:03 PM.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 09:12 PM   #232
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
Yes assault weapons are banned. Post ban firearms can still be owned/transferred though
An SA AR15-AK47 is not an assault weapon
Please list what laws "ban" "assault weapons". Manufacture of some types of weapons is restricted, the weapons (with very very few exceptions) are not banned. To say otherwise is misleading.

Oh year, Xcelratr, please come back to this discussion when logic and reason are no longer eluding you. It is a waste of time to engage in a debate with someone who cannot use such simple tools to comprehend what is said and I don't feel like wasting my time with someone who can't use them right now.

Last edited by Wraisil; 01-13-2013 at 09:19 PM.
Wraisil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 09:53 PM   #233
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,490
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
Please list what laws "ban" "assault weapons". Manufacture of some types of weapons is restricted, the weapons (with very very few exceptions) are not banned. To say otherwise is misleading.
.
It's only misleading to the uneducated in the subject. Tell me what I stated was incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
Yes assault weapons are banned. Pre ban firearms can still be owned/transferred though
An SA AR15-AK47 is not an assault weapon

Besides... it never passed... it was corruption at its finest
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.

Last edited by JonJon; 01-13-2013 at 10:02 PM.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:06 PM   #234
pancakes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Camelot
Posts: 86
My Ride: ///M, GTI, SUPERMOTO
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
Yes assault weapons are banned. Pre ban firearms can still be owned/transferred though An SA AR15-AK47 is not an assault weapon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
Please list what laws "ban" "assault weapons". Manufacture of some types of weapons is restricted, the weapons (with very very few exceptions) are not banned. To say otherwise is misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
It's only misleading to the uneducated in the subject. Tell me what I stated was incorrect
Christ, are you kidding me?
__________________
pancakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:08 PM   #235
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,490
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancakes View Post
Christ, are you kidding me?
No, I think He was VERY serious when he died for our sins
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:12 PM   #236
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
It's only misleading to the uneducated in the subject. Tell me what I stated was incorrect




Besides... it never passed... it was corruption at its finest
Misleading? "Assault weapons are banned" is either a falsehood or a misleading statement alluding to things that are not "assault weapons" per any common definition.

Oh, and your "youtube" link is also misleading. Amendment 774 was voice vote passed and actual vote refuted, but amendment 777 was the actual Hughes amendment that passed by a voice vote with no other vote initiated, which is allowed by house rules. It was then accepted into law per all Constitutional methods. Call it what you want, but it passed and was a legal law. The conspiracy sites saying otherwise are either using falsehoods or are ignorant.

Regardless, the Hughes amendment (and the associated bill) have been expired for almost a decade now.
Wraisil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:21 PM   #237
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,490
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Really? So where can I start buying fully automatic guns manufactured after 1986?
Put me down for an order of 100

Did you really just say that FOPA and the Hughes Amendment expired ten years ago?

You sir are confused
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.

Last edited by JonJon; 01-13-2013 at 10:26 PM.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:36 PM   #238
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
Really? So where can I start buying fully automatic guns manufactured after 1986?
Put me down for an order of 100

Did you really just say that FOPA and the Hughes Amendment expired ten years ago?

You sir are confused

I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough foryou. If you would like a list of places to buy "assault" weapons then you can start with an FFL transfer and buying from me. If you would like a list of places to buy fully automatic weapons I can provide that as well. If you would like a list of places currently selling both, I can also privide that.

If you simply meant that the sale of fully automatic weapons manufactured after a certain dat to certain classifications is prohibited, then you should have said tht instead of trying to redefine whay an assault weapon is in today's vocabulary. In that, you are being misleading, as I mentioned.
Wraisil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:49 PM   #239
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,490
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough foryou. If you would like a list of places to buy "assault" weapons then you can start with an FFL transfer and buying from me. If you would like a list of places to buy fully automatic weapons I can provide that as well. If you would like a list of places currently selling both, I can also privide that.

If you simply meant that the sale of fully automatic weapons manufactured after a certain dat to certain classifications is prohibited, then you should have said tht instead of trying to redefine whay an assault weapon is in today's vocabulary. In that, you are being misleading, as I mentioned.
A semi automatic AR or AK is not an assault rifle.

Again.... "Assault Rifles" are a very specific item. They are select burst fire or automatic fire. ONLY pre-banned "Assault Rifles" that were made/registered prior to 1986 can be owned by civilians (non-Leo,etc). Anything after that date can NOT.

"Assault Weapon" is some Bradyville, retarded term that means any gun that is colored black, has a piece of plastic to hold on to or a scary.... thing that goes up.

You could of just stated you were mistaken and we could move on.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post

Regardless, the Hughes amendment (and the associated bill) have been expired for almost a decade now.
Oh yea.... FOPA and the Hughes Amendment sunset'ed a decade ago?
Cite please
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.

Last edited by JonJon; 01-13-2013 at 10:52 PM.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 10:49 PM   #240
BMWh0r3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 4,799
My Ride: 325CIvic
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
Sh!t.... PA hunters alone would out number ALL of the US's armed forces
don't want the blue hats knocking on our doors here.
__________________
-Brandon
:eeps:
BMWh0r3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 On
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use