HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Creative solutions to gun violence in the U.S. II

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 12:23 PM
  #101
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
LOL

The "founders" were in a position to pen the constitution because they rose up and took by force the oppportunity to get out from under a system of government far older than the American experiment in a demcratic republic. The two hundred years between then and now is a blink of the eye.

The founders attempted to write into the constitution the ability of future Americans to do the exact same thing if the government tried to get bit to big for it's britches.

Those old dudes also were giving the citizens the right to carry the same weapons as the best military in the world carried. There was not as large a difference between the farmer's weapon and the soldiers weapon then as there is now.

Believing that just because a measly 200 years has passed makes the constitution or any part of it invalid is simplistic at best.

You could argue that armed citizenry doesn't stand a chance against our modern army but many would point out that if it ever came to that how much of the army is going to follow orders to kill their fellow countryman, family, friends and neighbors.
You basically implied that the 2nd Ammendment is out of date and worthless. So it should be repealed.

Bert Marshall days is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:25 PM
  #102
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Agreed. Thereby, the 2nd amendment is obsolete today.



I think a lot of the constitution is still valid and relevant today. I don't think the 2nd amendment is, at least as per how the founding fathers saw it.



Sure, you're probably right. Still, if that's the case, then the 2nd amendment is still useless, since the insurgents would have access to all the weapons of the US Army and, better still, actually have people who have been trained extensively to use them, unlike an underground movement of NRA gun nuts who would be useless to those army members who joined the movement.
Exactly.

Bert Marshall days is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 12:36 PM
  #103
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
LOL

The "founders" were in a position to pen the constitution because they rose up and took by force the oppportunity to get out from under a system of government far older than the American experiment in a demcratic republic. The two hundred years between then and now is a blink of the eye.

The founders attempted to write into the constitution the ability of future Americans to do the exact same thing if the government tried to get bit to big for it's britches.

Those old dudes also were giving the citizens the right to carry the same weapons as the best military in the world carried. There was not as large a difference between the farmer's weapon and the soldiers weapon then as there is now.

Believing that just because a measly 200 years has passed makes the constitution or any part of it invalid is simplistic at best.

You could argue that armed citizenry doesn't stand a chance against our modern army but many would point out that if it ever came to that how much of the army is going to follow orders to kill their fellow countryman, family, friends and neighbors.

Of course there is that whole being held off by insurgents with barely a pot to piss in in various places around the world you need to explain also.
There was no standing army the time that it was written. That amendment was put in to protect the rights of the 'military' of the time; which was just a collection of local militias. This has no relevance today considering militias are more or less defunct in the US.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 01:01 PM
  #104
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
There was no standing army the time that it was written. That amendment was put in to protect the rights of the 'military' of the time; which was just a collection of local militias. This has no relevance today considering militias are more or less defunct in the US.
Troof.

If the US had an organized milita program like Switzerland, with stronger training, testing, licensing, and re-qualification requirements, I'd be a lot more accepting of the "more guns" idea.

But as it stands, "more guns" without fixing our lackluster licensing requirements is just asking for trouble.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 02:59 PM
  #105
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
How well did the US forces do against a bunch of untrained insurgents with AKs and cell phones? Not very well.
How well did the Iraqi and Afghan armies do against the U.S. military at the time they were aggressively invading? Not very well. As in, the wars were over within like one month. A nation with the ability to blow up your house with an unmanned drone from several miles above the earth's surface is not going to be afraid of your semi-automatic rifle.

Quote:
But your point serves mine; so long as there is a large body of armed citizenry, the government cannot possibly hope to abuse their power in a flagrant manner. Several hundred million firearms later, along with their owners, and we're there.
And what about all those countries in western and northern Europe, and Japan, and Australia and New Zealand, where people are far less armed than Americans? Are those governments abusing their power in a flagrant manner? No, civil rights are generally more infringed in a place like America (all in the name of combating terrorism, generally). Meanwhile, what country has the second-highest rate of gun ownership? YEMEN. Oops, it's starting to look like this relationship between gun ownership and freedom from governmental tyranny may be rather tenuous.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 03:43 PM
  #106
Vtwin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
You basically implied that the 2nd Ammendment is out of date and worthless. So it should be repealed.
You cherrypick two lines and draw a conclusion?

Why don't you go play in your room until supper.

Vtwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 03:44 PM
  #107
Vtwin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
There was no standing army the time that it was written. That amendment was put in to protect the rights of the 'military' of the time; which was just a collection of local militias. This has no relevance today considering militias are more or less defunct in the US.
That is one way of misinterpreting it.

Vtwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 03:50 PM
  #108
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
That is one way of misinterpreting it.
Yeah well, who better to tell us about the intentions of scholarly men who died 200 years ago than some trigger happy hillbilly.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 04:01 PM
  #109
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin View Post
You cherrypick two lines and draw a conclusion?

Why don't you go play in your room until supper.
I see you didn't refute it. The conclusion was made about you from all your demented posts not just two lines from that one.

You never answered this question either - do you have children in school?

More likely, you're the one in school - better duck!!!!!!!!

Bert Marshall days is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 06:08 PM
  #110
Jack Donaghy
Good God Lemon
 
Jack Donaghy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somerville MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
If you use a gun to hunt or for a "sport" or "hobby" get a life. There are grocery stores and real sports and hobbies that aren't lethal to humans as a sde effect because rednecks need to get their jollies.
That's ridiculous. I thought this was supposed to be a somewhat serious conversation.

Jack Donaghy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 11:57 PM
  #111
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
You do not get to pick and choose amendments like you are ordering a happy meal. It's the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is not 'outdated', as it serves it's purpose beautifully. The founding fathers, having witnessed the tyranny of the state, ensured that citizens would have unalienable rights regarding firearm ownership. The 'militia' was intended for use against a potential dictatorship/out of control government as much as it was a defense from foreign invaders. You can re-state this in terms more favorable to your agenda, but that does not make it so in the eyes of the courts. There is a reason Americans enjoy relatively unfettered access to sporting firearms, as it is hard-coded into the very fabric of the nation. That was by design.

Me carrying a concealed weapon does not put you in danger. Any law that seeks to strip the rights of an individual to carry firearms presupposes that the individual is guilty of crime beforehand, without actually having committed one, in the name of public safety. That the main sponsor of this very bill carries with her a firearm for self-defense should show you how insane this all is. That gun she carries? Banned under her own legislation. It is absolutely not about public safety, as assault weapons are involved in a trivial amount (1%) of crime. If you look at the proposed details of the new AWB, it is a flat-out gun grab the likes of which hasn't been seen before.



Under the AWB, a bolt action rifle chambered in .50 (capable of bringing down something like a helicopter) would be fully legal. This is not about safety. I encourage you to look up the number of crimes committed with .50 caliber weapons. Considering the cost of such devices and the ammo, it just ain't worth it to shoot humans.
Well if you need your guns to protect u from the government u better get some tank, RPGs, surface to air missiles to combat the Air Force, gernades etc. The 2nd amendment means jack **** in this modern day unless u think u should be allowed to own all the other crap. U ain't gonna fight of anything with a semi-auto and surely not any sort of hostile govt.

Another thing I don't have a huge opinion one way or another on guns. I do think there needs to be better regulation but if you are sane and all that good **** have fun. What annoys me is all the gun lobby holds their head on is the 2nd amendment which any rational person can see is outdated. And this is from someone who could give to ***** if u own a gun or not.


Last edited by jarmoismyhero: 01-05-2013 at 12:06 AM.
jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:45 PM
  #112
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Well if you need your guns to protect u from the government u better get some tank, RPGs, surface to air missiles to combat the Air Force, gernades etc. The 2nd amendment means jack **** in this modern day unless u think u should be allowed to own all the other crap. U ain't gonna fight of anything with a semi-auto and surely not any sort of hostile govt.

Another thing I don't have a huge opinion one way or another on guns. I do think there needs to be better regulation but if you are sane and all that good **** have fun. What annoys me is all the gun lobby holds their head on is the 2nd amendment which any rational person can see is outdated. And this is from someone who could give to ***** if u own a gun or not.
How about the 2nd be interpreted as defense of self and others, whether against government (a stretch but in the books as law), mob or tyranny (individuals or groups attacking).

Now on thread topic, how about middle ground? Law abiding citizens and dealers operating within the law WE ALL KNOW pose little threat. Now guns being sold on the streets pose a HUGE threat, and such operations are clearly illegal.

So the law is not the problem, the lawless examples are. And the lawless operations represent a huge portion of the crime. So why address the problem by going after the lawful and not go after the unlawful?

How about a mandatory first offense charge carrying the same penalty as attempted murder for illegal weapons dealings? Same for those found with unlicensed guns?

Why concentrate on those obeying the law as Feinstein is doing yet again?

The 2nd Amendment has to grow. We all agree the strict militia and right to bear needs further explanation. I believe states should honor the 2nd and regulate within that parameter. Citizens have the right to bear arms but.....in Illinois, NY and CA, they have to jump through hoops (or be famous). Illinois does not honor the 2nd, though.....they should. So why not work on making it work and attack the problem with guns?

Large urban areas are the problem. Black market gun operations are the problem. Easy access to guns is a problem (penalize those who wrecklessly leave their guns available if the gun is used in the commission of a crime like the Sandy Hook mother).

So how about attacking the problem and respecting the liberties of law abiding citizens, not going ahead with ideas that have not worked?

OlTimeHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:48 PM
  #113
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
Easy access to guns is a problem (penalize those who wrecklessly leave their guns available if the gun is used in the commission of a crime like the Sandy Hook mother).

So how about attacking the problem and respecting the liberties of law abiding citizens, not going ahead with ideas that have not worked?
I agree Adam Lanza's mother should be charged, convicted and sentenced to death... oh wait.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:50 PM
  #114
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
Troof.

If the US had an organized milita program like Switzerland, with stronger training, testing, licensing, and re-qualification requirements, I'd be a lot more accepting of the "more guns" idea.

But as it stands, "more guns" without fixing our lackluster licensing requirements is just asking for trouble.
I'd be on board if it got people to respect guns more. It got people to keep their neighborhoods safe. If it reduced crime and increased civic responsibility. I like the Swiss model.

I just don't want a draft again, though in hindsight, we created great people back then. Better quality individuals compared to the self generations today. Compulsory gun and civic regimens in high school? That might be worth looking into. Just ensure it is APOLITICAL....not right wing or left wing but neutral.

OlTimeHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 02:56 PM
  #115
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
How about the 2nd be interpreted as defense of self and others, whether against government (a stretch but in the books as law), mob or tyranny (individuals or groups attacking).

Now on thread topic, how about middle ground? Law abiding citizens and dealers operating within the law WE ALL KNOW pose little threat. Now guns being sold on the streets pose a HUGE threat, and such operations are clearly illegal.

So the law is not the problem, the lawless examples are. And the lawless operations represent a huge portion of the crime. So why address the problem by going after the lawful and not go after the unlawful?

How about a mandatory first offense charge carrying the same penalty as attempted murder for illegal weapons dealings? Same for those found with unlicensed guns?

Why concentrate on those obeying the law as Feinstein is doing yet again?

The 2nd Amendment has to grow. We all agree the strict militia and right to bear needs further explanation. I believe states should honor the 2nd and regulate within that parameter. Citizens have the right to bear arms but.....in Illinois, NY and CA, they have to jump through hoops (or be famous). Illinois does not honor the 2nd, though.....they should. So why not work on making it work and attack the problem with guns?

Large urban areas are the problem. Black market gun operations are the problem. Easy access to guns is a problem (penalize those who wrecklessly leave their guns available if the gun is used in the commission of a crime like the Sandy Hook mother).

So how about attacking the problem and respecting the liberties of law abiding citizens, not going ahead with ideas that have not worked?
As I have said I have no issues with law abiding citizens having guns but I do think that there should be a set of criteria that must be met in order to obtain a gun of any kind and I it would be nice if it were a federal law that way all states have the same laws in place in order to get a gun in the first place. I understand some states already have stringent procedures in place to obtain a gun but others its quite easy to go and buy a gun. There has to be more criteria in place to get a gun and I think it needs to be put in place at a federal level so basically dont leave it up to the states to decide what needs to happen for you get get your gun. This will not restrict the rights of any law abiding sane people to get a gun. It may not be as easy for them to get it but they will still be allowed to buy the gun they might just have to wait a little longer. I also like the idea of having to re-register guns every so often and go through all the same checks again. It will never happen because of the gun lobby however my intention is not to eliminate the right to own a weapon for most people.

I am sure there are other creative ideas out there as it pertains to guns restrictions that wont target the normal people.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:06 PM
  #116
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
And another shooting in Aurora, Colorado not far from the theatre shooting which has left four dead, including the suspected gunman.
Four people, including the gunman, were dead following a hostage-taking incident on Saturday in Aurora, Colorado, the same town where a man shot dead 12 people and wounded 58 more in a movie theater last July, police told reporters.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...90408W20130105

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:11 PM
  #117
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I agree Adam Lanza's mother should be charged, convicted and sentenced to death... oh wait.
Black humor, but good comeback.

OlTimeHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 03:32 PM
  #118
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
And another shooting in Aurora, Colorado not far from the theatre shooting which has left four dead, including the suspected gunman.
Four people, including the gunman, were dead following a hostage-taking incident on Saturday in Aurora, Colorado, the same town where a man shot dead 12 people and wounded 58 more in a movie theater last July, police told reporters.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...90408W20130105
Another nut job...It's sad that this is so prominent that you are not surprised in the least by anything that happens related to mass killings anymore.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 06:49 PM
  #119
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
Black humor, but good comeback.
BLACK humour????

Actually I am White Anglo-Saxon (and used to be) Protestant.

I am a WAS who was a WASP.

But I do like Bill Cosby, Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock. Not quite as much as George Carlin but then he was the master.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:29 AM
  #120
Rizer
Registered User
 
Rizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Israel
Posts: 4,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
You'd rather have people choke to death on uncut vegetables. As long as people are killed, you're happy. (especially via guns)

How can they GET A LIFE when choking to death or getting blown away by guns? Some will get a life by gun bans. Make it harder for gun loons to kill others.

The lamest, weakest drivel stance of moron gun loons is when they compare cars, alcohol and food knives to guns and ignore the slowing (vs stopping) of deaths gun bans would bring. The purpose of a food knife is to cut food. The purpose of a gun is to kill. But they have nothing better to respond with. Maybe they blow away their vegetables with an assault rifle? What other purpose does it serve?

Show us how many people were killed with a butter knife as opposed to guns. Remove the lame stance like above and...........problem solved.
I have no clue what you just said. I honestly don't.

I read it three times, and it seems to disjointed and 'rant like', that I don't even know what your point is. I'm not saying this as a usual pf "attack", I just legitimately don't get anything you said.

Rizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:37 AM
  #121
mizzoublues29
Unregistered User
 
mizzoublues29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Columbia, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,942
vCash: 500
http://now.msn.com/atlanta-mom-shoot...id=vt_twmsnnow

Atlanta mother shoots intruder. That'll be the last house he ever robs, even if he does survive 5 to the face.

This is why there's a gun in my home.

mizzoublues29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:02 AM
  #122
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
How well did the Iraqi and Afghan armies do against the U.S. military at the time they were aggressively invading? Not very well. As in, the wars were over within like one month. A nation with the ability to blow up your house with an unmanned drone from several miles above the earth's surface is not going to be afraid of your semi-automatic rifle.
... is this a serious statement? It's like your ignoring the fact that the U.S. is now stuck in the longest war of its history against a bunch of glorified tribesmen with AK-47s. Do you honestly believe that U.S. forces would fire upon U.S. citizens in the first place? Kent St doesn't count. A drone isn't going to do much good against millions of armed citizenry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
And what about all those countries in western and northern Europe, and Japan, and Australia and New Zealand, where people are far less armed than Americans? Are those governments abusing their power in a flagrant manner? No, civil rights are generally more infringed in a place like America (all in the name of combating terrorism, generally). Meanwhile, what country has the second-highest rate of gun ownership? YEMEN. Oops, it's starting to look like this relationship between gun ownership and freedom from governmental tyranny may be rather tenuous.


So, by your reasoning, fewer guns means more freedom? Am I reading that right? Do you know much about the real Japan? When was the last time New Zealand was attacked by terrorists... or anyone? WW2? C'mon man. I'd do an apples-to-apples comparison, but there really isn't one out there for prosperous countries with high levels of gun ownership (the Swiss notwithstanding). I think it's high time you accept that America was founded under different circumstances which gave birth to the proud gun culture. 'Murica.

Australia has a much higher burglary rate. You guys should arm yourselves.

I don't think America has a gun violence problem. I've posted numerous times as to why, using the freely available FBI data. It's pretty clear that America has a level of violence on par with other countries when you subtract out the horrible inequality in areas like the inner city. Until such a time that the data shows something else, I will never buy gun control as a realistic solution. It's all about education and opportunities. You could pass all the gun bans you want, up to confiscation in a place like Detroit, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. It'd arguably exasperate the situation. I realize this makes it a human issue and not a 'blame the scary object' issue, but that's the reality of the situation.

XX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:18 AM
  #123
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post


So, by your reasoning, fewer guns means more freedom? Am I reading that right?
No.

Cute image though.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:20 AM
  #124
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 8,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzoublues29 View Post
http://now.msn.com/atlanta-mom-shoot...id=vt_twmsnnow

Atlanta mother shoots intruder. That'll be the last house he ever robs, even if he does survive 5 to the face.

This is why there's a gun in my home.
The odds that you'll kill an intruder with your gun are 12 times lower than that someone in your family will be killed because you have a gun in your home.

There's a gun in your home because you don't realize how dangerous that is.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:49 AM
  #125
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzoublues29 View Post
http://now.msn.com/atlanta-mom-shoot...id=vt_twmsnnow

Atlanta mother shoots intruder. That'll be the last house he ever robs, even if he does survive 5 to the face.

This is why there's a gun in my home.
Boy, you better get the jump and aim true on that intruder or you are a dead man. This woman was probably trained and knew how to use it. I'm guessing that you have, at least some, training.

This person also had some luck on her side. Fact: Most bullets never reach their intended target.

But you will never know how you will react in real life when the poo poo really starts flying.

Good luck!

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

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 -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.