homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:36 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:58 pm 
Offline
Hermione's smart friend
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:43 pm
Posts: 1851
Home Schooled: Yes
So the government also shouldn't have nukes and pre-emptive self defense is not self defense? Just clarifying our ethic parameters.

Also, have you been to inner city Chicago or Detroit? That description is very inaccurate.

_________________
"What happened to your apartment?"
"I filled it with playpen balls!"
"I...what? Why?"
"Because we're grown-ups now, and it's our turn to decide what that means."
<3


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 1267
Home Schooled: Yes
I hope you can understand my confusion considering you just posted:

Quote:
The Constitution protects and secures rights; it doesn't grant them -- God grants rights.


So either the constitution does not grant the right to own a gun or it does in fact grant rights not given by God.

_________________
I have gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:54 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2280
Home Schooled: Yes
Masked Midnight wrote:
which is why they are delineated in the Constitution

Really? Last time I checked, it simply says "arms" in general, not "firearms".

Though, since state-level militias were the primary means of defense, I assume that the amendment refers to most weapons of war available at the time: knifes, small firearms, canons, and bad breath.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:23 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2280
Home Schooled: Yes
Masked Midnight wrote:
Arms = Firearms


How on earth do you know that? Is it possible that you assume this because you've always been told to read the 2nd amendment that way?

1. The most contemporary dictionary I can find is Webster's 1828 dictionary. It seems to have a much more general take on arms:
'ARM, v.t. [L. armo; arma.]

1. To furnish or equip with weapons of offense, or defense; as, to arm the militia.
2. To cover with a plate, or with whatever will add strength, force, or security; as, to arm the hilt of a sword.
3. To furnish with means of defense; to prepare for resistance; to fortify.
[...]
'ARM, v.i. To provide with arms, weapons, or means of attack or resistance; to take arms; as, the nations arm for war.


2. According to Google nGram, the word "firearm" was indeed used at the time. I doubt that James Madison had something more specific in mind when he wrote "arms" instead of "firearms", though I don't really know in absence of further evidence

In conclusion, I don't think the 2nd amendment is merely about gun control, but federal control of weapons in general. It does seem to cover all weapons that a military might employ—including sub-machine guns, tanks, F-35s, battleships, and nuclear weapons.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:39 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2280
Home Schooled: Yes
Masked Midnight wrote:
::EDIT:: I just saw your second point. I can agree with that assessment.

I posted the wrong chart initially. The correct one is less favorable, but I think it still supports my point. You might want to look back again and see if you still agree.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:44 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2280
Home Schooled: Yes
::double post fixed::

Masked Midnight wrote:
Ehh, I'm unsure what you're trying to prove.

Sorry, I added a conclusion after you posted:
Mr Glasses wrote:
In conclusion, I don't think the 2nd amendment is merely about gun control, but federal control of weapons in general. It does seem to cover all weapons that a military might employ—including sub-machine guns, tanks, F-35s, battleships, and nuclear weapons.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:51 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2280
Home Schooled: Yes
Masked Midnight wrote:
The combat that would be addressed at the time of the Founders would have been exclusively tactical.


1. Tactical nuclear weapons are a thing...*cough* ... ... ... ... They're not as devastating as a strategic nuke, but not exactly legal for a private citizen to own. Is that prohibition unconstitutional?

2. I don't think "tactical" actually excludes the use of tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, etc. All of these are heavily regulated, and yet I hear (almost) no complaints for the 2nd amendment fans.
Edit: If I remember correctly, militia tended to be foot soldiers. I'm willing to let this second point go since the weapons I listed are vehicles. That said, tactical nuclear weapons can definitely be wielded by foot soldiers.


3. I haven't heard any vocal 2nd-amendment advocates demanding hand grenades, C-4 (explosives), and tactical nukes, even though demanding access to those weapons is logically consistent with the arguments at hand. Why don't they?

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1391
Home Schooled: Yes
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts- ... ol/207152/

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog ... -with-ban/

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
Interesting situation. I tend to be in favor of increased limits on guns, but this school's story is unique and this honestly feels like the best solution. What do you guys think?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
http://www.conventionofstates.com/one_k ... _americans

Read this. The whole thing. Then you tell me honest citizens shouldn't have guns. ;)

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2885
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
sons_of_thunder wrote:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/one_killer_vs_230_million_armed_americans

Read this. The whole thing. Then you tell me honest citizens shouldn't have guns. ;)

The only evidence they cite is from the Detroit police chief.

Lots of things affect crime in a city as big as Detroit. You can't saythat 1100 people with guns caused a 12 percent drop in crime ins city of 700000 without some major statistical analysis. (Also, I'd be interested in reading this study about how felons fear armed citizens most.)

I happen to agree with you, but the analysis has to go beyond "more guns are in a city, less crime happens."

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:14 am
Posts: 6
Home Schooled: Yes
Are cars evil?

Are knives evil?

Are guns evil?

If your answer to the first 2 questions was no, then your answer to the third question must also be no. Cars, knives and guns can all used to save lives and take lives. All three of them cannot be counted as evil or good and thus are neutral.

Q) Why implement gun control?
A) To take away the means to commit crime, lessen crime rates, and thus stop the criminal. For example: people don't own arsenic, or leave it out on the counter for their kids to randomly swallow; they take away the means (arsenic) and thus prevent the problem (death). Simple, right?
Another example. Airplanes. We use planes to transport people / mail / cargo faster, to spray crops, to fight forest fires, etc. The benefits of planes are enormous.
But what about 9/11 when 4 planes were used to kill over 3,000 people? The plane was used to commit a horrible crime! If we use the logic about arsenic (remove it), then we should outlaw planes (prevent the problem from happening again), right? Planes could be and have been used multiple times for criminal purposes and therefore (to prevent the crime) we should outlaw planes, right? But that would be ridiculous.
Let's take another example: knives. Where would the greatest chefs be if they didn't have knives to cut chicken, bread or cheese? Where would the greatest wood carvers be? Or Doctors without their scalpels? But knives are used to commit the most heinous crimes. Yet almost every home and restaurant contains knives. If such awful crimes can be committed with knives why are they not outlawed? Because they are neither good nor evil. But, if people don't want to have knife control, then why do they want to have gun control?

People have two reasons for wanting to implement gun laws:
1) They want to prevent crime. This motive is noble, but crime prevention by outlawing the particular weapon is a myth. There are two reasons for this:

a) Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
You take away guns, they'll use knives, you take away knives they'll use baseball bats, you take away baseball bats they'll use bows and arrows, etc. By taking away guns you are not removing the heart of the issue, which is: people choose to kill people. As a result you won't be preventing deaths, you will only change how people die. It sounds awful but it's true. The crime doesn't start or stop with the weapon, but with the criminal.


b) Criminals break the law.
Gun laws don't restrict law breakers. If a criminal is bent on killing someone, why would it bother them to break a "lesser" law and obtain the weapon illegally? Gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens.
Now people are worse off than before: criminals will break the law, and still obtain guns. If they can't get a gun they will find something else because they have already made the choice in their heart. Now, not only will the criminal have his weapon, but innocent people can no longer defend themselves against these violent criminals.

People will not come right out and say this at all, but the second reason for implementing gun laws is:
2) They want to disarm their subjects because they want as much power and control as possible. This is the worst reason.
America was founded by people who left abusive governments. Not only did Britain abuse their power, but their subjects had no way to retaliate because they had no weapons. Americans saw first-hand that people in government are humans and can easily become corrupt with unchecked power. They recognized that when people wield that much unaccountable power, unarmed subjects cannot stop them. George Mason once said: "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".
My question is this: what are you/we going to use against the government to protect your/our rights when they take away your guns? Use knives? How effective are knives against guns?
I think it's interesting that the first Amendment was free speech, and the second is gun rights. Americans wanted freedom, and they wanted to make sure they had a way to keep that freedom.

To quote someone else, freedom is not the power to do what we want, but the power to do what we ought. The desire for gun control stems from people who abuse their gun rights. But simply because people abuse there gun rights does not mean gun rights should be taken away. The heart of the matter is the heart of man. Fix the heart of man, and you fix most problems.

------------------------------

For example: let's say I abused my right to use a gun and killed someone. Does that mean you (as the government) can take away everyone else's right to use a gun? As the one in authority, the government still has the right to use guns; why? Not because they are evil, but because you do not abuse your right and use your guns wisely.
Let's take another example: if a government abuses it's power, does that mean there should be no governments? Absolutely not, that would be a ridiculous, and completely illogical thing to do. But people mistakenly think that by removing the weapons they remove the root of the issue and thus will make the society safer. But it is not the guns that make society unsafe, it is people that make it unsafe. Guns are not the problem and thus removing them is not the solution. The abuse of gun rights is the problem. So instead of removing guns we must learn how to use guns wisely and teach others how to use them wisely and keep them from abusing their right.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
babycakes wrote:
People will not come right out and say this at all, but the second reason for implementing gun laws is:
2) They want to disarm their subjects because they want as much power and control as possible. This is the worst reason.
America was founded by people who left abusive governments. Not only did Britain abuse their power, but their subjects had no way to retaliate because they had no weapons. Americans saw first-hand that people in government are humans and can easily become corrupt with unchecked power. They recognized that when people wield that much unaccountable power, unarmed subjects cannot stop them. George Mason once said: "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".


First, I will say, I agree with you overall. I don't support gun laws. I support gun rights. With that said:
I would be careful about directly accusing anyone of having the intention you give. If we lived in Nazi Germany, I would agree. But we don't. We live in America, and while I think some people have hidden agendas this bad, I don't think everyone who wants to get rid of gun laws has this reason. I have two refutations and an alternate cause argument under this point:

Refutation 1: Common Citizens Agree. There are plenty of common citizens, not just government officials, who believe gun control laws would be a good thing. No citizen who was confronted with this reason for supporting gun laws would agree with you. They don't want to be controlled! They just want less crime. No citizen would willingly let the government disarm them and enslave them, as you seem to be saying. Thus, not everyone has this reason.

Refutation 2: Extreme Motivation What you're presenting is a pretty extreme motivation, and I seriously doubt that most of the governmental officials who support gun control laws agree to this even subconsciously. I think a lot of them genuinely want to do what they believe is best for America as a whole. Prevent crime. Now, maybe I have an overly optimistic view of people. But before you accuse me of that, hear out my alternate cause argument:

Good Intentions lead to Bad Results Daniel Webster once said this: "It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions… There are men, in all ages… who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters… They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves… the love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts…"
My point is this: While I disagree with your second motivation initially, and I think that, by and large, gun laws are motivated by good intentions, I agree with Webster that good intentions will lead to bad results. Eventually, they officials will realize the power they have given themselves through intentions that were initially good and we will be in trouble. The bottom line is that it's not the intentions that we need to worry about. It's the results. That's what the Constitution was meant to protect us against. Good intentions that end up with bad results.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
I don't think you know what gun control means?

Nobody thinks guns should be outlawed. Seriously. There's pretty much no mainstream supporter of gun control who thinks guns should be outlawed. Those aren't the same thing.

Supporting gun control means you think guns should be harder to access, or limited to fewer people, or [insert reasonable restriction here]. You bring up examples of cars, planes, and knives, but there are reasonable restrictions on all of those. You can't drive a car without a license. You can't fly a plane without a license (and also you need to be cleared with ground control and a hole bunch of other stuff? It's complicated). You can't even fly on a plane without passing background checks and using government-issued photo ID and a whole bunch of other stuff. And there are few restrictions on knives (because those are far less dangerous than cars, planes, or guns), but it is illegal in the USA to use certain kinds of switchblades. And some states don't let you carry concealed knives without a license. Why? Because they're dangerous, and the government puts certain restrictions on them.

I'm sure you would agree that there should be some restrictions on guns. We have to ask ourselves what restrictions should be placed on guns. Someone who is in support of gun control thinks that there aren't enough restrictions on guns presently. I happen to agree with that. It's way way way too easy to acquire a gun in the USA. This doesn't mean I think nobody should have guns, and it doesn't mean I think law-abiding citizens should be prevented from having guns. But I do think we need to put more protections in place.

For example, I think people should have to pass a background check before being allowed to have a gun. People with mental illnesses or a past history of criminal activity shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and this is a restriction that makes sense. Unfortunately, it is not a restriction we have. Another reasonable restriction is to have people take a gun safety course before they are allowed to get a gun. There are far too many sad stories about people who were accidentally killed because they didn't know how to operate a gun, or because they stored their gun incorrectly and a child got his or her hands on it. These deaths are preventable (not all of them, of course, but a large proportion of them are) through safety training. The deaths caused by Dylann Roof were preventable through a better background check system. Law-abiding citizens would still be allowed to get guns under these reforms. In fact, they would be better equipped to handle guns safely. That's the ultimate goal of gun control. It's not to remove guns or steal people's rights, but to put reasonable restrictions on something that deserves reasonable restrictions.

You mention cars, comparing them to guns. Yes, people can use cars to kill people. But how often does that occur? Every year, there are about 300 car-related homicides in the USA, while there are about 11,000 gun-related homicides (source). (Cars technically cause about 10,000 more deaths overall, but 1. those are accidental deaths 2. cars are used more frequently than firearms and 3. there are about 30 million more cars than firearms in the USA). It is far harder to gain the legal right to operate a car than it is to gain a gun. That needs to change.

PS: You mention how people can use things other than guns to commit crimes. Accurate, but you forget that those things are far less dangerous than guns. I could reasonably defend myself from someone with a knife, but not from someone with a gun.
PPS: You also say that criminals would just break the law and acquire a weapon illegally. However, there are plenty of restrictions that can limit that as well (eg before people purchase a gun they have to demonstrate they can store it safely). And most criminals are only willing to expend a certain amount of effort and resources to commit a crime. A person who can't acquire a gun legally would have to turn to more expensive, dangerous, and difficult sources. This increases both the difficulty of committing a crime and the chance police officers catch the criminal before the crime is committed (if you're depending on other people to commit a crime, your crime becomes more visible).


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
I do know what gun control means. And I will definitely take a stance opposite to yours in this debate. I do not believe our gun restrictions are not enough.
Agreed that there should be some restrictions on guns. For example, someone who is mentally handicapped, or is 5 years old, should not be allowed to own a gun. But the position I take is that, absent extraordinary circumstances, a citizen should be allowed to buy and carry a normal gun, like a pistol. Why? Two reasons: 1) The government doesn't have power to regulate, and 2) Citizens need to be able to protect themselves.

1. The Government doesn't have the Power to Regulate: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "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." Every Constitutional scholar agrees: Arms means weapons. As to the extent of the government's power to regulate, I believe it has the power to regulate with the end goal of protecting everyone's rights. In other words, I could frame this in two sub points:
A. Must Protect Citizen's Lives The government must protect the lives of its citizens, so must restrict guns enough to do so optimally, however
B. Must Protect Citizen's Right to Guns it must protect the lives of its citizens without infringing on this right. Look at the first part of the 2nd Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it lays out the reason for the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: security. The reason they must have guns is for security. To protect their lives and the lives of others. So the reason the government can't regulate is inherently connected with my second point:

2. Citizens need to be able to Protect Themselves: Guns are a weapon, and just like any weapon, it can be used both for offense and defense. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for defense. The citizens have a right to keep and bear arms because they need to be able to defend themselves from threats. So the government can regulate guns, as long as it does not infringe with a citizen's right to bear arms to defend himself. Making it a felony to carry a concealed pistol? Unconstitutional. Making it a felony to carry around an M-16 and bandoleer full of bullets in the street? Constitutional. There's no reason for that guy to have that volume of weapon to defend himself. A 9-mm would work just fine. Now, on the other hand, making it illegal to own an M-16? Unconstitutional. What about riots? You need something of that volume to defend yourself at that point.

My point is this: there is a balance. That balance is where citizen's right to life and citizen's right to keep and bear arms are both equally non-infringed. The government can infringe upon someone's right to keep and bear arms, but only when they give up that right by taking away someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. I am against preventative gun safety measures, such as keeping people from carrying pistols because they might shoot someone. Turn it around: if everyone is carrying, then for every 1 psychotic or terroristic killer, there will be 10 or 20 or 100 normal citizens who are ready to defend themselves. Safety training is fine, but it's not something the Federal government has the power to regulate. Once again, the right to keep and bear Arms "shall not be infringed". It's a right that only the citizen can give up.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2885
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
sons_of_thunder wrote:
1. The Government doesn't have the Power to Regulate:

So would you say that all age restrictions, limitations on where you can carry, etc. are illegitimate? Should I be able to walk into Congress with an AR on my back? Or get blackout drunk at my local dive bar with a glock on my hip?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2016 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Sharkfin wrote:
sons_of_thunder wrote:
1. The Government doesn't have the Power to Regulate:

So would you say that all age restrictions, limitations on where you can carry, etc. are illegitimate? Should I be able to walk into Congress with an AR on my back? Or get blackout drunk at my local dive bar with a glock on my hip?

You took my general statement out of context. I did not mean the government has no power to regulate at all; I meant (as I clarified in my complete statement) that the government can regulate so far as it protects all persons' rights.

sons_of_thunder wrote:
As to the extent of the government's power to regulate, I believe it has the power to regulate with the end goal of protecting everyone's rights. In other words, I could frame this in two sub points:
A. Must Protect Citizen's Lives The government must protect the lives of its citizens, so must restrict guns enough to do so optimally, however
B. Must Protect Citizen's Right to Guns it must protect the lives of its citizens without infringing on this right. Look at the first part of the 2nd Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it lays out the reason for the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: security. The reason they must have guns is for security. To protect their lives and the lives of others.

My point is this: there is a balance. That balance is where citizen's right to life and citizen's right to keep and bear arms are both equally non-infringed.

To this I will add further clarification: the government can regulate where it is highly likely that allowing a citizen to bear arms unrestricted will cause harm to another citizen's right to life, and only up to a point of balancing the rights. Where it is only somewhat likely (because there will always be a possibility) and the right to bear arms will actually protect a citizen's right to life, the government has no power to regulate, or very little.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3985
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
babycakes wrote:
Are cars evil?

Are knives evil?

Car manufacturing and driving safety is heavily regulated. Guns are not.

As for the question about knives, this is a naive comparison that doesn't make sense if you take it to its logical conclusion. Of course knives aren't evil, but neither are tanks. That doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to own a tank. The question isn't whether guns are evil, but whether their unregulated access pose a threat to public safety. That's the only question worth considering on the issue.

I'll step out now. :P

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited