National CCW? - Page 5
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: National CCW?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    To MarkPA...

    Your post above is way too long to respond to point by point so I'll summarize....

    Everything you said was carefully worded to sound "reasonable" but the problem is.. the reason we have such a "reasonable" societal perspective that using laws to infringe on rights is "we the people" didn't stand up right from the beginning and resist any and all pseudo logic that says taking away rights makes sense. And taking away rights never did make any sense since laws that do that only affect people who obey the law. Those laws have absolutely NO effect on the common criminal or a criminal government. But those laws DO make it easier for a government to rule over the common man.

    And as long as people look at restrictions on rights as being "reasonable".... or find "reasonable" excuses or pseudo logic to defend those restrictions.. then the truth that rights are absolute is lost. And because people allowed themselves to be swayed by the idea that they will be "safe" if there is a law that says a convicted violent felon isn't "allowed" to have a gun while not understanding the felon became a felon because he didn't obey the law in the first place so he surely isn't going to obey some gun law either.

    The idea that people can be persuaded to allow themselves to be put in the chains of a government controlling their rights as long as the message is phrased in a way that appears "reasonable" is working very well. Case in point? When it was realized that the word "ObamaCare" was looked upon in a negative way by society the turd that is the national health care scheme underwent a name change and was scrubbed squeaky clean, polished up, and presented as the "Affordable Health Care Act"... but while it is still the same dirty stinking turd just a name change makes a national health care scheme sound........... reasonable.

    In my not so humble opinion.... the very instant we start thinking restricting or removing the rights of others is "reasonable" we have become anti rights and pro rights control.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkPA View Post
    Of course, no one wants anyone convicted of a violent felony to buy a gun, or even handle a gun unsupervised.
    You should really learn how to limit your comments to your own opinion and stop projecting them to encompass "no one" or "we all" and "of course" as though any deviation from the thought you're expressing is automatically in the realm of the extreme or unreasonable or unworthy of consideration.

    It's always been a mystery to me that so many people can acknowledge the fact that the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, yet they continue to trust the government to run a fair, unbiased and Constitution-compliant justice system. With the advent of fairly easy and quick processing of DNA evidence in the last couple of decades, it has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that mistakes in the justice system are notoriously regular, and ruinous of innocent people's lives. Knowing that, why would any fair-minded person believe it the right thing to do to deny a convict's rights after they have paid their debt to society? The initial conviction should always be suspect at this point, not only because of simple mistakes, but because government itself, including cops and prosecutors, have become widely corrupt and criminal.

    We've got convicted felons in this country who did nothing more than nurture one of God's plant creations and smoke it. We've had a government for more than 40 years that thought it "constitutional" to wage war on its own citizens over the victimless crime of altering their consciousness in one way or another for recreation, an obvious natural tendency of human beings since the first grape was fermented, the first coffee bean was roasted, the first tobacco was consumed, the first peyote was ingested, the first poppy was distilled, the first marijuana bud was smoked or eaten and on and on and on, all naturally-occurring methods of mind alteration which government thinks it is authorized to allow or disallow naturally-occurring free human beings to partake in. Most felons in this country come out of the war that our government is waging on us, yet somehow, through some inexplicable application of the ultimate pretzel logic, we should support our government's war against us by allowing and supporting its denial of rights to the prisoners of war it culls from our masses. It's utter fratricide, even suicide, as sooner or later any one of us can get caught up in the culling because government is so corrupted as to call into question the legality and/or validity of any punitive actions it dishes out.

    So listen up Mark - Please quit saying things like "we all" think one way or another. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect against tyranny. Fighting tyranny is a nasty and bloody business. It requires participation by Patriots who by their very participation become criminals in the eyes of the tyrannical government they're fighting. I support restoring the rights of felons after they've served their time. They are just as likely to have a legitimate need to defend themselves as anyone else, and if they've done their time what is gained other than government control of more people by "legally" stripping them of their rights?

    Your premises are flawed on several levels in my estimation, but when you repeatedly say how "we all" or "no one" thinks this or that, it invalidates entirely anything that follows it for me. Not all felons should be such in the first place, and not all that should are incapable of rehabilitation or repentance, and of the ones who are so-incapable, I'm willing to take the chance that I can defend myself against them after they become felons just like I'm prepared to do before.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. Quote Originally Posted by MarkPA View Post
    Of course, no one wants anyone convicted of a violent felony to buy a gun, or even handle a gun unsupervised.
    This country was founded by a group of violent felons who committed armed treason against their government at the time. If they would have failed in their overthrow of the government, do you not think there would be any chance for them to not be convicted?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    You should really learn how to limit your comments to your own opinion and stop projecting them to encompass "no one" or "we all" and "of course" as though any deviation from the thought you're expressing is automatically in the realm of the extreme or unreasonable or unworthy of consideration.

    It's always been a mystery . . . , yet they continue to trust the government to run a fair, unbiased and Constitution-compliant justice system. . . .

    We've got convicted felons in this country who did nothing more than nurture one of God's plant creations and smoke it. . . .

    So listen up Mark - Please quit saying things like "we all" think one way or another. . . .
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote "VIOLENT criminal", not all criminals. Perhaps that word escaped your notice on first reading. I humbly apologize for including you, and like-minded readers, who give unqualified support to VIOLENT criminals having their 2A rights restored, at least after they are released from prison (perhaps even before.)
    Otherwise, I whole-heartedly agree with just about everything else you wrote.
    I simply believe that the place to begin the discussion with our fellow voters is NOT with the God-given scared right to the means of a effective self-defense for VIOLENT felons. Rather, I think that the place we OUGHT to BEGIN the discussion is with respect to those you discussed; i.e., NON-violant pot smokers; or, servicemen with a diagnosis of PTSD. We will generate support from our fellow voters if we BEGIN with a discussion of our MOST sympathy-deserved fellows/sisters who have been 2A-disabled by any pretext.
    The very most sympathetic case is the poor working single mother defending her children in an inner-city home; or walking home from work at a 7-11. Most people will be willing to entertain the idea that such a sympathetic case has a natural right to the means of an effective self-defense. Don't our veterans have a right? Should that right be stripped from them merely because a VA employee has diagnosed him to have PTSD? Again, a sympathetic case. Shouldn't officers on a military base be armed to protect their uniformed subordinates and civilian employees? Our fellow voters will be able to begin to reason about these arguments.
    Then, move on to less sympathetic cases on a basis of fairness and reasonableness. Why does it make sense to dis-arm a peaceful citizen merely because he smoked pot? Why does it make sense to refuse a CCP to a green card holder who wants to protect her children simply because she is not a citizen.
    Eventually, we will get to the woman whose ex-husband has an order of protection against her? Are we really comfortable about disarming her? If we aren't altogether comfortable about disarming her, then what if the shoe is on the other foot? Should an ex-husband be deprived of his 2A right for life merely because a (possibly crazy) ex-wife got an order of protection against him decades ago?
    Many readers of this forum would like to begin the discussion with the least sympathetic victim of our gun laws. The guy convicted of armed robbery who has done his time. Well, if it was 20 years ago and he hasn't committed a subsequent violent offense, then I'm open to the idea of restoring his 2A rights. I have grave doubts that any arguments favoring his case will gain us any support. Therefore, I'd rather start with the most sympathetic examples and make lots of significant ground.
    In any discussion, the LAST argument to be raised, and then in passing, is that the right to arms is a Constitutionally protected right. So, why deprive a peaceful adult her civil right? Once you have painted the case in sympathetic practical terms, then the Constitutional argument nicely caps-off the discussion.
    ". . . shall not be infringed" is a great bumper-sticker. It is not necessarily the most tactical approach to winning hearts and minds so that their votes will follow.
    I'm somewhat disturbed that so many readers here seem to think they grasp the entirety of the legal argument after reading these 4 words; and these alone. It's hard to believe that they have read either Heller or McDonald, to say nothing of the dissents to those decisions or any of the other cases. I have nothing but contempt for the arguments in the dissents. I am appalled! Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the brutal fact that we won both Heller and McDonald by just 1 vote. We are one heartbeat away from a reversal of either or both of these decisions as long as Obama sits in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate.
    Ignorance of the way our legal system works does not advance our cause. We would be much smarter if we understand both the legal system and political system we are up against. The Constitution is solidly in our favor. For the most part, our laws are pretty liberal; and, they can be gradually rolled-back to become more in conformance with the Constitution.
    Does no one - absolutely none - of the readers of this forum understand the political aspect of our problem of defending our 2A rights? We have to hold the White House and the Senate; and that requires voters who are 2A friendly. I wonder how many readers who can recite the 2A from memory don't bother to vote. I wonder how many vote without checking the candidates' NRA or GOA ratings. I wonder how many readers' remarks to their neighbors make the neighbors more frightened than sympathetic to supporting the 2A.
    If we are to make any progress at all, it is going to be by recovering ground one square yard at at time; just as we lost it one square yard at a time. There is a lot of relatively easy ground available to be fought for; that's where we have to focus our efforts. Recognition of target and backstop are just as important in politics as they are in marksmanship.
    Mark

  6. #45
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    This country was founded by a group of violent felons who committed armed treason against their government at the time. If they would have failed in their overthrow of the government, do you not think there would be any chance for them to not be convicted?
    As I present to the forum once more.....



    Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

  7. #46
    I've read a lot of long comments on this thread, but as long as Liberal Progressives Anti-gunners control Congress and State Legislatures there will be no National CCW.
    So if everyone would get up off their laurels in 2014 and vote them out, maybe, just maybe something can start moving in a positive direction. You will need to vote for Pro-gun candidates, no matter what Party they are in. If you're going to continue to vote that old party line you've been stuck with, you will still be stuck. You can't continue to vote for the same people and expect to get different outcomes. Stop voting for the old Liberal Democrat and Liberal Republican candidates.
    We need new blood. We need to candidates to sign a Pro-Gun Pact, that says they will favor a National CCW.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837

    National CCW?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkPA View Post
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote "VIOLENT criminal", not all criminals. Perhaps that word escaped your notice on first reading. I humbly apologize for including you, and like-minded readers, who give unqualified support to VIOLENT criminals having their 2A rights restored, at least after they are released from prison (perhaps even before.)
    Otherwise, I whole-heartedly agree with just about everything else you wrote.
    I simply believe that the place to begin the discussion with our fellow voters is NOT with the God-given scared right to the means of a effective self-defense for VIOLENT felons. Rather, I think that the place we OUGHT to BEGIN the discussion is with respect to those you discussed; i.e., NON-violant pot smokers; or, servicemen with a diagnosis of PTSD. We will generate support from our fellow voters if we BEGIN with a discussion of our MOST sympathy-deserved fellows/sisters who have been 2A-disabled by any pretext.
    The very most sympathetic case is the poor working single mother defending her children in an inner-city home; or walking home from work at a 7-11. Most people will be willing to entertain the idea that such a sympathetic case has a natural right to the means of an effective self-defense. Don't our veterans have a right? Should that right be stripped from them merely because a VA employee has diagnosed him to have PTSD? Again, a sympathetic case. Shouldn't officers on a military base be armed to protect their uniformed subordinates and civilian employees? Our fellow voters will be able to begin to reason about these arguments.
    Then, move on to less sympathetic cases on a basis of fairness and reasonableness. Why does it make sense to dis-arm a peaceful citizen merely because he smoked pot? Why does it make sense to refuse a CCP to a green card holder who wants to protect her children simply because she is not a citizen.
    Eventually, we will get to the woman whose ex-husband has an order of protection against her? Are we really comfortable about disarming her? If we aren't altogether comfortable about disarming her, then what if the shoe is on the other foot? Should an ex-husband be deprived of his 2A right for life merely because a (possibly crazy) ex-wife got an order of protection against him decades ago?
    Many readers of this forum would like to begin the discussion with the least sympathetic victim of our gun laws. The guy convicted of armed robbery who has done his time. Well, if it was 20 years ago and he hasn't committed a subsequent violent offense, then I'm open to the idea of restoring his 2A rights. I have grave doubts that any arguments favoring his case will gain us any support. Therefore, I'd rather start with the most sympathetic examples and make lots of significant ground.
    In any discussion, the LAST argument to be raised, and then in passing, is that the right to arms is a Constitutionally protected right. So, why deprive a peaceful adult her civil right? Once you have painted the case in sympathetic practical terms, then the Constitutional argument nicely caps-off the discussion.
    ". . . shall not be infringed" is a great bumper-sticker. It is not necessarily the most tactical approach to winning hearts and minds so that their votes will follow.
    I'm somewhat disturbed that so many readers here seem to think they grasp the entirety of the legal argument after reading these 4 words; and these alone. It's hard to believe that they have read either Heller or McDonald, to say nothing of the dissents to those decisions or any of the other cases. I have nothing but contempt for the arguments in the dissents. I am appalled! Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the brutal fact that we won both Heller and McDonald by just 1 vote. We are one heartbeat away from a reversal of either or both of these decisions as long as Obama sits in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate.
    Ignorance of the way our legal system works does not advance our cause. We would be much smarter if we understand both the legal system and political system we are up against. The Constitution is solidly in our favor. For the most part, our laws are pretty liberal; and, they can be gradually rolled-back to become more in conformance with the Constitution.
    Does no one - absolutely none - of the readers of this forum understand the political aspect of our problem of defending our 2A rights? We have to hold the White House and the Senate; and that requires voters who are 2A friendly. I wonder how many readers who can recite the 2A from memory don't bother to vote. I wonder how many vote without checking the candidates' NRA or GOA ratings. I wonder how many readers' remarks to their neighbors make the neighbors more frightened than sympathetic to supporting the 2A.
    If we are to make any progress at all, it is going to be by recovering ground one square yard at at time; just as we lost it one square yard at a time. There is a lot of relatively easy ground available to be fought for; that's where we have to focus our efforts. Recognition of target and backstop are just as important in politics as they are in marksmanship.
    Mark
    Why gosh darn it... There you go again with "we"...

    After CONSIDERABLE thought on my part, I don't think I've ever seen such a disregard for the Second Amendment in my life.
    You sir are a disgrace.
    I refuse to crawl on my belly, and beg and plead for the rights I already own.
    I owe NOTHING to any Government least of all this POS one.
    You do not now, nor will you EVER speak on my behalf concerning MY rights, Period.
    Another clue for you....
    "We" all live in a Constitutional Republic! We do not live in a democracy.
    My rights can never be suppressed by the majority.
    So if I were you... I'd stop using all inclusive terms to discuss the Second Amendment and how "we" should proceed to restore it...
    It's clear to me that you are going about it the wrong way..


    Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Ok MarkPA... here is a real world example of where the idea of using "reasonable" methods were put to shame by using "in your face" and "controversial" methods.

    Here Michigan is a place to search all the various discussions about open carry in Michigan... including some of the court cases that have resulted... including a very recent Michigan Supreme Court decision (can be read about here: also http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-...rt-action.html )

    Open carry of firearms, both pistol and long guns, has been legal in Michigan since Michigan became a State in 1837. But that was largely unknown and very few folks openly carried .. except for some hunters during hunting season. And then about 7 or 8 years ago a few guys got together and decided to put open carry to the test.... there was hassle from the police... there were arrests... and there were lawsuits. And the police were retrained... in fact the Michigan State Police put out a bulletin "Legal Update #86

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf

    to explain to all the police depts in the State that not only was open carry legal but it was ILLEGAL to stop anyone for doing it. But best of all .. there was a multitude of media coverage.. perhaps even a frenzy.. that resulted in... the population of Michigan were educated that open carry, even open carry into schools, by ordinary everyday people was legal.

    And how was all that done? By people openly carrying pistols during everyday activities... at council meetings... holding open carry picnics... AND some folks even openly carried rifles and shotguns IN PUBLIC!... a few openly carried pistols and rifles into Michigan's capitol buildings. All of which is legal.

    Now the open carry climate in Michigan has changed to where being hassled by the police is very rare because they not only know open carry is legal but open carriers WILL record them and sue them and they WILL win. And the public rarely even blinks an eye when they see open carry now.

    So much for trying that "reasonable" approach that folks have been doing for the past few decades... talking nice to people... writing letters... kissing ass... and slowly losing ground. But 7 or 8 years of "in your face" open carry resulted in the public not only becoming aware that open carry is legal but also becoming accustomed to seeing it practiced.

    And.. I personally have learned to beware anyone who presents the argument that the best way to make progress is to be "reasonable" because what that person is presenting is an argument of small degrees of capitulation.. and we have had enough of that over those past few decades I've mentioned.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    . . . And taking away rights never did make any sense since laws that do that only affect people who obey the law. Those laws have absolutely NO effect on the common criminal or a criminal government. But those laws DO make it easier for a government to rule over the common man.

    . . . . the truth that rights are absolute is lost.
    This is fascinating! Can you cite the SCOTUS decisions or legal scholorship that explains just how it is that "rights are absolute"?

    I'll wait for you to gather all the citations you can find.

    You don't have to confine yourself to those covering the 2A; I'd be delighted to read all the citations you can find that say that "rights" are "absolute" on any other Constitutional right.

    If you seem to have some difficulty putting your finger on persuasive citations, may I suggest that the problem is not quite as simple as you have framed it?

    You are unquestionably correct that violent felons are unlikely to restrain themselves from violating another gun control law. Just about nothing our legislators could pass is likely to save more than 1 life per year; and 1 per year would be a very optimistic estimate.
    You are unquestionably correct that 99.9% of the impact of gun control laws is to burden non-violent keepers and bearers of guns. I have to undergo a background check each time I get a new consulting gig. My ability to earn a living would be instantly devastated by a conviction on a gun law. I want to roll-back every gun control law feasible for my own self-preservation.

    Most of all, I want to win the war against tyranny. I want to win that war for my children's and grandchildren's generation; not for my own.

    For example, when I patronize my favorite gun store i fill out an ATF form, wait 5 minutes, and walk out the door with any gun on the shelf. Do you know what I'm most troubled by? The fact that that ATF form will remain on-file for 20 years. If-and-WHEN the government wants to confiscate guns they will gather up the FFL's files and key-punch the records of every retail gun-buyer in the country. Then, they will break the frequent buyers on the rack. Our most important work is - in my opinion - to get this retention period rolled-back to 5 or 3 years. Just long enough to serve virtually every ATF trace. Most dealers would keep records on-file a few more years which would cover the 1-in-a-1000 traces that goes back to 4 or 6 years. This very small measure would make a massive roll-up of gun-owners very impractical. Opponents would have a hard time defending the existing 20 year retention period.
    Do I think the NICS check does any good? Just about zero good. Does it do some harm; sure it does. The place to focus is to force the ATF to clean-up their act in clearing inditments that are never cleared. Is it a "prior restraint"; absolutely, and, we should quietly make that point in debates. We should argue that a woman should be able to get a waiver from her police department in an emergency. The point is not to change the situation substantively; rather, the rational is to score a point in the argument with non-gun-owners.
    In principle, I think the NICS check is highly objectionable. In practice, I think it is mostly a minor inconvenience. There are 2 things we ought to do about NICS. First, expand the existing exception for a NICS check based upon a State-issued CCP/FOID card beyond the 20 or so States that are now exempt. (This is a State-focused effort.) Second, move away from the centralized scheme where the Feds might be keeping a record of FFL inquiries on behalf of identifiable customers. An alternate system called "BIDS" was proposed over 10 years ago which would shield customers' identities from the Feds.
    Get this: with a 5 or 3 year ATF form retention period and a dilution of the ability for NICS to accumulate a database of transactions, we get everything we really NEED for the long run. I would LIKE to get rid of the ATF form. I would LIKE to get rid of the NICS check. I DON'T NEED to get rid of them; I can live with them PROVIDED that they don't serve to support a future confiscation program. These efforts are ACHIEVABLE.
    The proposal for "Universal Background Checks" are extremely dangerous. They threaten to make every loan of any gun a convict-able offense. There is absolutely no way to structure family exemptions to make the Universal Background Check workable. Yet, the arguments posed by the gun-controllers seem pretty appealing to voters who don't think much about the problems we worry about.
    A member of the NJ2AS proposes that anyone should be able to print-out his own NICS-check form that would be good for 90 days. If I meet a guy at the range, a gun-show, etc. I could sell him a gun on his showing of his current NICS-check form. And, if I keep that form, I get a "free-pass" if he should later get into any trouble with this gun I sold him. An interesting idea.
    Complement this guy's do-it-yourself NICS-check form with another "free-pass" idea. Suppose I could sell, give, loan or leave a gun with anyone holding a current CCP/FOID card. I.e., a CCP/FOID is effectively like a driver's license. I am free to loan you my car if you have a current driver's license; so, why shouldn't I be able to sell/give/loan/leave-with-you a gun if you have a CCP/FOID?
    These two ideas combined would just about completely answer all the alleged objectives of any "Universal Background Check" system with-OUT creating a paper trail of ANY non-retail gun trading (or loaning) activities.
    Lots of readers will complain to high heaven about the intrusion of any government agency in anything having to do with guns. In principle, I agree. In practice, I want to win the war.
    This year I moved to PA. It took me many hours of effort (mostly getting my Social Security Card reissued) to get my Drivers License. It took me 15 minutes to get my CCP (LTCF in PA). (The lady in the Sheriff's office was a few minutes late to work that morning.) Basically, a CCP/FOID card is nothing more than a card that says you passed the NICS check. This is not bad; on balance, I think it's pretty good. I can show my neighbor that I have a CCP just like I have a driver's license. If that makes my neighbor feel more comfortable then he is more likely to vote for gun-rights candidates or less likely to vote for gun-control candidates.
    In PA, we are lucky in that we don't have a training requirement. Other States have a requirement for 8 or 16, maybe more hours of training. In principle, I'm dead-set against a training-requirement to exercise a right. As a POLITICAL matter, I wouldn't complain too much. I'd rather argue that a test would be fine - provided of course, that the test were written by the NRA or a State's gun-club association.
    If NJ issued a CCP upon completion of a 72-hour training program I'd ask: Where do I sign-up? Breaking down the Won't-Issue States into Shall-Issue States is far far more important than standing in the way of a training requirement. If NJ would start with a 72-hour training requirement it could be worked-down to 48-hours, then 24-hours and finally 16-hours.
    Most readers will complain that I am soft-on-regulation. Believe me, I'm as pissed-off as the rest of you about regulation; probably more so. I'm not interested in losing the war by standing for my principles. I'm interested in winning the war by playing the dirty game of politics as successfully as our opponents have played that game against us. They have taken our rights away one-chip-at-a-time. If we are to win this war, we will retake this ground by restoring our rights one-chip-at-a-time.
    The battlefield is political. It is to be fought and won/lost at the ballot box. All the pontificating about "absolute" "right" or "infringe" will get you applause and free beers, but it won't win elections, it won't win legislators, it won't win Presidents/Governors. It certainly won't impress judges.
    Mark

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Winfield, West Virginia, United States
    Posts
    267
    I don't want the Federal government involved. Leave the power with the states and reciprocity of CCW permits.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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