| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Drift alert.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Discussion in keepng with this topic heading is the right to bear arms.
Polemics veering into discussion of religion , are calculated I suspect
to relegate this thread into detritus. Well , those who do not remeber
the past — have a short attention span don't they , take your ritalin
and calm down. We all know the history of the world or should if you
weren't sleeping in class.
___________________________________________________
How does one explain to people who are so set in their thinking they don't want
to hear much less consider anything that may threaten their beliefs and notions.
A person who feels threatened by ideas and who responds with emotion is not
being rational. The observations and collected wisdom of witnesses to human folly
best serve by example.
Bearing foremost in mind that the actual words were written over 225 years ago
and the definitions of words then had not yet been corrupted , the law of our land
says in contemporary usage _
An armed public being necessary for the preservation of a free society,
the right of people to be armed is not open to curtailment.
" The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent
the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping
their own arms."
— Samuel Adams
" Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief
would ensue were the law abiding deprived of the use of them."
— Thomas Paine ( author of Common Sense )
" Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is
hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people
against the dangers of good intentions."
— Daniel Webster
" If you take all the guns off the street you will still have a crime problem,
whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem."
— Anonymous
Allegations of revisionist meanings of the original intent for an armed citizenry
are specious prevarications by contemporary mendacious schemers harboring
ulterior motives and designs for the subjugation of human rights.
" To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."
— George Mason
" Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends
than that good men should look on and do nothing."
— John Stuart Mill
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."
— Matthew 7:15-20 , King James Bible
( The emblem of the Council on Foreign Relations is a wolf wearing a fleece )
" All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man:
it's one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be
aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior
only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then
it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One
of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much
alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search
out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is
potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most
dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things
out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives
under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries
to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to
spread discontent among those who are.”
— H.L. Mencken
" When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show
that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence,
and both of these opinions generate hatred."
— Niccolo Machiavelli
Watch what they do — never mind what they say.
www.youtube.com/embed/k3DKuN2ey80
" In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
— George Orwell
What do pacifists say
Mahatma Gandhi on violence and using arms
www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm
Dalai Lama on violence and using arms , ( near the bottom end )
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=200...
" If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to
shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound
might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."
Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens,
www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
Below here are some excerpts with my commentary _
There exists such a surreal suspension of reason in the minds of police
officials in some jurisdictions that you have to believe not only are they
by law not responsible to you for your personal safety but that they also
mock you for good measure.
" Armed resistance to sexual assault is not considered an option by some
law enforcement agencies. Instead, the Illinois State Police advise victims
to claim they have AIDS, forcibly inducing vomiting, or fighting back with
nail files or keys. The city of Davis, California, suggests mace or whistles,
but also recommends urinating or defecating."
Personally I would like to hit the author of this strategy with a blackjack
and see how effectively he can soil his pants to make me go away , or
to see how well the other one can go for his keys with broken fingers.
No sir , you can't fix stupid , that is near criminal in malfeasance.
" After Colorado’s concealed carry law was enacted , Colorado State
University decided to allow concealed carry and observed a 60 % decline in
reported crimes. While the University of Colorado prohibited firearms and it
observed a 35 % increase in crime. It does appear then , would be robbers
are not deterred by stickers on the doors announcing that armed robbery
is severely frowned upon by the student code of etiquette and conduct."
If truth be told _
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-reali...
The alternative
Gun abolition — the Japanese model — The police state
www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
" The Japanese criminal justice system is based on the Government possessing
the inherent authority to do whatever it wishes. In a society where almost
everyone accepts nearly limitless, unchecked Government power,"
You do not have the right to object. If you object you can and will be brutalized
until you submit to your sanctioning authority. The consequences of gun control
is that all Japanese look alike , like docile cattle. The question for gun control in
America is , who are we then all going to look like , alike , and who will decide who
in this design is to be sacrificed to attain the objective , because clearly if you don't
belong , it must be mandatory that you be purged , intolerance is not tolerated in
Utopia.
How it all started , See - B. The Sword Hunt
" The Japanese paid a price for their order. Freedom was an alien concept. Interclass ,
social , and geographic mobility were extinguished. As Turnbull points out , Hidéyoshi's
hunt for swords and firearms marked the end of social freedom in Japan. The abolition
of firearms probably would not have succeeded if Japan had a free economy or a free
political system."
If power corrupts , then absolute power corrupts absolutely. See - C. The Rush to Militarism
" The 1930s degenerated into a horrible period of government by assassination ,
as military factions attempted to destroy each other , and as militarists murdered
opponents of war. Despite the strict gun laws , the frequency of assassinations far
exceeded anything seen in Europe or North America in [the 20th] century."
In the Imperial Japanese Empire prior to it's capitulation at the end of the second
world war , there existed a law enforcement organization which was referred to
as the Japanese Special Higher Police ( Tokko ) , or Japanese Thought Police or
Secret Police , also known as the Kempai Tai. They would arrest people on the
pretext that they were thinking bad thoughts. Their function was primarily political
repression and censure rather than any legitimate law enforcement function. They
tortured captured allied soldiers as well as civilians in occupied countries. ( sound
familiar ) Many of the officer staff were convicted for commission of atrocities by
the allied war crimes tribunals and later executed.
How can people be so stupid ? See - V. The Preference for Paternalism
" More than gun control , more than the lack of criminal procedure safeguards ,
more than the authority of the police , it is the pervasive social controls of Japan
that best explain the low crime rate." " Other nations , such as the former Soviet
Union , have had severe gun control , less criminal justice safeguards , and more
unconstrained police forces than Japan. But the Soviets' crime rate was high and
Japan's minuscule because Japan has the socially accepted and internalized
restraints on individual behavior which the Soviets lack."
Be careful what you hope for _
" The Japanese experience does not seem to support the hypothesis than fewer
guns means fewer suicides." " Parents bent on suicide take their children with them,
at the rate of one per day , in multiple suicides. In fact, 17 per cent of all Japanese
officially defined as homicide victims are children killed by suicidal parents." " One
reason that the official Japanese homicide rate is so low is that if a Japanese
woman slits her children's throats and then kills herself , police statistics record it
as a family suicide," " one reason Japan has a suicide problem is that people have
little sympathy for suicide victims." " the lack of sympathy ( and hence the lack of
social will to deal with a high suicide rate ) is based the Japanese' feelings of insecurity
and consequent lack of empathy. They trace the lack of empathy to a ' dread of
power '. That dread is caused in part by the awareness that a person cannot count
on others for help against violence or against authority." " firearms prohibition is
part of a culture that subordinates the individual to society. When the individual
finds himself not fitting into social expectations , self destruction may often seem
appropriate , since in a conflict between the individual and society , society is , by
definition , always right." " Japan , with its severe gun control , suffers no less
murder than Switzerland , one of the most gun intensive societies on earth."
" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin
" I repeat that all power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise;
that from the people, and for the people all springs, and all must exist."
— Benjamin Disraeli
" Things must be done by parties , not by persons using parties as tools.
— Benjamin Disraeli
.
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
The lady doth protest too much, methinks ─ way, waaay too fucking much, if truth be told . . .
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
A Einstein
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Not all gun legislation is bad. A few proposed laws are actually reasonable and
sensible.
HR 322
Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act
by Rep. Jeff Miller , R-Fla.
— HR 322 would exclude all firearm and ammunition components from the definition
of "chemical substance" under federal environmental laws , so that the lead and other
substances in ammunition couldn't be regulated or restricted.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.322:
S. 82
Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky.
— S. 82 , the companion bill to HR 410 , would invalidate any past, present or future
executive actions on gun control , like those President Obama took Jan. 16 ,
rendering them as advisory only unless Congress enacts them.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.82:
HR 410
Restore the Constitution Act of 2013
by Rep. Steve Stockman , R-Texas
— HR 410 , the companion bill to S. 82 , would invalidate any past, present or future
executive actions on gun control , like those President Obama took Jan. 16 ,
rendering them as advisory only unless Congress enacts them.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.410:
HR 575
Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
by Rep. Steve Stockman , R-Texas
— HR 575 would express the sense of Congress that the United States should not adopt
any treaty that threatens national sovereignty or abridges rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, such as the right to bear arms, and should stop providing financial support
to any entity that does so. It would bar the United States from providing any funding to
the United Nations for a fiscal year unless the president certifies to Congress that the U.N.
has not acted to infringe on individuals' rights in the United States to have a firearm or
ammunition, or abridge any other constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.575:
HR 578
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013
by Rep. Marlin Stutzman , R-Ind.
— HR 578 would guarantee that individuals who legally carry a concealed weapon
in their home state may also carry in any other state that allows concealed carry.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.578:
.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So, it's reasonable and sensible to poison wildlife with lead shot as well as to shoot it.
I guess it's consistent.
I guess you think there's a reason why the US should pay less than it's share of the cost of the UN too.
And the last one only makes sense if the local laws are consistent.
Imagine two states one of which permits concealed carrying of just about anything by anyone.
Someone resident there could go to another state with very strict laws on the matter but be exempt from those laws.
Why would you want to give out of towners more rights than the locals?
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@ unionized
You show your inclination to contention to be such a strong compulsion
that you leap to declare yourself without even knowing what you are
refering to or speaking of.
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
— Goethe
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.322:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/53/I/2602
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.575:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.578:
Most bills introduced at any given time regarding firearms are just plain evil ,
fostered by depraved demagogues. Predicated on the affront that nothing
stands or will ever remain , settled in law. They will stalk and harass people
of good will and wholesome principles forever. All the more reason to dispel
their unsavory messianic overtures.
.
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
When someone tries to assert their will and wishes on another person they are depriving that person of their free agency. When someone tries to
deprive me of MY free agency they fall into the category of evil incarnate. They become no better then Satan himself when they deprive you of your
choice.
|
|
|
froot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 347
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: refluxed
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon  | | When someone tries to assert their will and wishes on another person they are depriving that person of their free agency. When someone tries to
deprive me of MY free agency they fall into the category of evil incarnate. They become no better then Satan himself when they deprive you of your
choice. |
That's perfect in a perfect world where everybody has the same level of mental health as you do and I wish it were so, it would be so much easier. A
gun toting closet psycho in your midst would make you nervous too if you knew about it, from this point on the complications start and threads like
this become long.
We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. - www.darwinawards.com |
|
|
jock88
National Hazard
Posts: 505
Registered: 13-12-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There has to be arms control.
Otherwise we could all own bazookas, tanks, second hand battle ships, large caliber uranium firing gattling guns (I want one of those, and because of
the narrow minded fucks on the hill I cannot have)........
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon | | When someone tries to assert their will and wishes on another person they are depriving that person of their free agency. When someone tries to
deprive me of MY free agency they fall into the category of evil incarnate. They become no better then Satan himself when they deprive you of your
choice. |
You do realise that you are proposing anarchy, don't you?
Either Satan deprives you of the right to choose to murder with impunity or he deprives your victim of the right to choose to live.
The question is which "rights" ought to be curtailed.
It seems that you believe that your "right" to pollute the environment is more important than others' right to live in an unpolluted one.
Odd as it may seem, society doesn't agree with you.
BTW, the lawyers would love the concealed carry law suggestion which include the phrase " may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a
machinegun or destructive device)"
Now, since handguns (other than water pistols perhaps) are, by their nature destructive the legislation refers to handguns that are not handguns.
At the very least a handgun, if used, destroys the propellant.
And if I was ignorant it was not wilfully but because I believed what was written in the thread. It may have been remiss of me not to check the
primary source, but it was even more so for someone to précis it incorrectly.
[Edited on 14-6-13 by unionised]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | the lawyers would love the concealed carry law suggestion which include the phrase " may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun
or destructive device)"
Now, since handguns (other than water pistols perhaps) are, by their nature destructive the legislation refers to handguns that are not handguns.
|
Whatever your opinion is on the political matter, please don't be ignorant about the facts. "Destructive
device" is a term of art in US law, defined in the National Firearms Act (1934).
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by jock88 |
There has to be arms control.
Otherwise we could all own bazookas, tanks, second hand battle ships, large caliber uranium firing gattling guns (I want one of those, and because of
the narrow minded fucks on the hill I cannot have)........ |
Well, what's the point of owning an RPG when your next-door neighbor has the same thing?
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
jock88
National Hazard
Posts: 505
Registered: 13-12-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Same point as owning a hand gun (insert any weapon you like here instead of handgun) if your neighbour has one.
There HAS to be gun control. Where it starts and ends is the question.
The 'taking my rights away brigade' will not let me have a high caliber, DU firing, gattling gun.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Gatling guns are okay as long as the magazine is 10 rounds or less, and the machine is hand cranked (which, I guess, puts it in the class of
semi-automatics). So, yes, putting a motor on one (hurr durr) is a federal offense (motorized Gatling being a Vulcan Cannon).
Years ago, I recall discussion on a metalworking group debating whether magazines can be chained together to produce greater sustained fire.
On-topic comic...
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3005#c...
Tim
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
| Quote: | | Gatling guns are okay as long as the magazine is 10 rounds or less, and the machine is hand cranked (which, I guess, puts it in the class of
semi-automatics). So, yes, putting a motor on one (hurr durr) is a federal offense (motorized Gatling being a Vulcan Cannon). |
Sheeesh! What's next ─ a limit on fuel for flamethrowers?
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
A Einstein
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes | | Quote: Originally posted by unionised | the lawyers would love the concealed carry law suggestion which include the phrase " may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun
or destructive device)"
Now, since handguns (other than water pistols perhaps) are, by their nature destructive the legislation refers to handguns that are not handguns.
|
Whatever your opinion is on the political matter, please don't be ignorant about the facts. "Destructive
device" is a term of art in US law, defined in the National Firearms Act (1934). |
Indeed, and the legislation given does not say that it is using the phrase as so defined.
Now, it may just be a difference between the ways that laws are drafted in the UK and US but, in the uk they would need to say that they were using
the phrase in a particular way or it would be interpreted as its normal English meaning i.e. a device that is destructive is a destructive device.
The term is not, for example, in quote marks, italicised, capitalised or otherwise distinguished.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It doesn't need
to. It's an amendment to an existing law, which contains all the definitions. From the text of the bill: | Quote: | | Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following |
See
that word "amended"? It means that it will change an existing law, and you have to read the full text to understand the context of the bill
completely.
Go look up 18 U.S.C. to see the definitions. The one you didn't think to consider is in 18 USC § 921(a)(4).
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
OK, fair enough, I missed that. (If I was a lawyer I'd get paid a lot better)
Now all we need is fro Hyfalcon to explain how everyone can have total freedom.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
New York State Sheriffs' Association letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo
www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NYSSA Response to NY SAFE Act_021113.pdf.
Cops are citizens too , and have fanily and freinds they care about.
_______________________________________
I'm really interested in why anyone in UK would have
a care of U.S. Gun Control. This is more than bizarre.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-control
.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
OK, so on one hand, the evidence says that, for example, reducing the magazine capacity reduces harm.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380814/?page=2
but the the sheriffs say
"Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the
maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law
enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will
unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It
bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not
make New Yorkers or our communities safer."
So, the police are not following the evidence.
No great shock.
However this is a science website: shouldn't we go with the evidence rather than the gut feelings of the sheriffs?
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hard to do on a highly charged EMOTIONAL topic such as this. When the phrase, " God, family, guns and country," are your perceived most important
ideals, then logic takes a back seat to emotion MOST of the time.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's not what that letter says at all.
(It's a letter, not a peer-reviewed article, but that makes no difference here.) There's no mention of any kind of harm to human life or health in the
article. What's being measured it confiscations of contraband weapons called by the MD term of art "assault pistol", a term rare enough I had to look
it up in the MD code. There's no mention at all of how this all affected violence and harm.
And it's not like it was a particularly significant class of weapons. At its height, this class only consisted of 2.5% of all weapons confiscations.
It would quite a stretch to claim that this particular kind of weapon, regardless of its scary name, is hugely more lethal than any other. Regardless,
this letter presents no evidence about this issue at all. | Quote: Originally posted by unionised | So, the police are not following the evidence.
No great shock.
However this is a science website: shouldn't we go with the evidence rather than the gut feelings of the sheriffs? |
"Evidence"? That's quite an elevation of something it's not.
Look, I don't care if it's laziness, disregard, or bad faith, but you're letting your side down. Violence is a serious issue, and it deserves serious
arguments, made with care and good faith. And it needs those arguments on both sides.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Feel free to find better evidence, but at least I tried.
<!-- bfesser_edit_tag -->[<a href="u2u.php?action=send&username=bfesser">bfesser</a>: removed
unnecessary quoting]
[Edited on 7/8/13 by bfesser]
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
Sound of the Gun!
They don't ma . . .
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
A Einstein
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you're looking for evidence to support a
pre-existing conclusion, I'm afraid I can't help you. Indeed I have no interest in helping anybody that attitude about any subject.
The best nexus of evidence and debate I know of is around John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime. The link is to the Wikipedia page on the book and has links to both the pro and con sides of his thesis. There's nothing
facile about either data or methodology on this subject. In addition, it's completely polluted with politically-motivated arguments made in bad faith
on all sides. Good luck.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
