GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-18-2012, 19:10   #201
Hef
Stop Obammunism
 
Hef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hilton Head, SC
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonS View Post
The media can still throw the election. I have a suspicion that the media wants Romney and his supporters to feel confident and then throw in a media blitz at the last moment.
I wouldn't be surprised if the media deliberately acts to incite riots on election night should it appear Obama will lose, or does in fact lose.
__________________
Molon labe
Hef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 19:28   #202
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi View Post
Romney said "not interested in any new gun laws"
Anyone who knows Obama knows that he is not an American. His views are very extreme and he has clouded vision. I talk to lots of people in the area and they don't like either guy but Romney seems more liked than obama except to the media.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 00:15   #203
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,158
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
...
Did you ever vote for Obama?
Decoding postest the bestest!
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 18:01   #204
jp3975
Senior Member
 
jp3975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texarkana, Tx
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
No one has explained how the Supreme Court is going to magically overturn themselves in less than a decade when they are to this day hesitant to overturn rulings from a hundred fifty years ago.
I'll play.

The liberal side of the court has said that they look forward to a "wiser" future court overturning the ruling.

They overturn past rulings about twice a year.

What you're saying is true...its rare that they overturn past decisions, but what about when they really want to...AS THEY SAY.

In addition to our two new far left scotus members, Obama has appointed 125 liberal judges to lower courts.

There are other gun cases that should go before SCOTUS before 2017.

Again...THEY SAY THEY WANT TO OVERTURN IT.

I dont think it takes a genius to figure out that they arent kidding. Only a fool would blow it off as nothing.

If one of the 5 pro-gun justices who are pushing 80 retires...by choice or because of illness/death, and Obama's in. You can bet your *** that the second will be redefined and there will be no pro-gun victories until we replace a lib justice with pro-gun, God knows when, since its a life appointment.
jp3975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 19:13   #205
AK74play
Senior Member
 
AK74play's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,617
It really wont matter when right after the election Hillary signs the NATO treaty. Then Obamanation can testify live on TV that he has nothing agains our 2nd Ammendment rights and again lie through his teeth because NATO will now be in control via the treaty which will over ride our constitutional rights. This is why O has been silent on the issue throughout most his campaign and avoiding it at all cost. He didn't want you to know that Hilliary was doing his dirty work for him behind the scenes with NATO.
I know this is kinda off the wll but I for one will NEVER recognise NATO as any kind of governing power and certainly not when they do not recognise my Constitunial rights.
O may seem stupid on the surface, but his strength has always been, mis direction and just outright lieing about anything to do with ANY important issue.
I am not sideing with Romney because I beleive the Republican party could have and SHOULD have submitted a far better representative, but if the last 4 years hasn't proved what O is all about then your just not recognising the destruction of America and it's finishing if he is given 4 more years to acheive his goal.
Remember Mrs. O's comments on the American flag befor his election ?? She said it was nothing more than a symble of oppression and hatred. I still watch the recording I have of her saying that and it makes me beleive beyond a shaddow of a doubt that they fully intend to destroy America. This is only a 2 step process: 1, Break us down financially so we have nowhere to turn but the Federal Government.: 2, the you MUST dis arm said Americans so when they rebel against your demands as the now Dictatorship, known as the Federal Government they (US) will not be able to protect ourselves. NOW you have total control and folks, Step 1 is almost completed.
__________________
NRA Life Member at Patron level - NRA Golden Eagle. Be a part of the cure or you are a part of the problem.

Last edited by AK74play; 10-19-2012 at 19:17..
AK74play is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 13:43   #206
Panglоss
I am the NRA
 
Panglоss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK74play View Post
It really wont matter when right after the election Hillary signs the NATO treaty. Then Obamanation can testify live on TV that he has nothing agains our 2nd Ammendment rights and again lie through his teeth because NATO will now be in control via the treaty which will over ride our constitutional rights. This is why O has been silent on the issue throughout most his campaign and avoiding it at all cost. He didn't want you to know that Hilliary was doing his dirty work for him behind the scenes with NATO.
I know this is kinda off the wll but I for one will NEVER recognise NATO as any kind of governing power and certainly not when they do not recognise my Constitunial rights.
Contrary to all the propaganda out there about gun ban treaties, international treaties cannot usurp the constitution. This has already been decided by the supreme court. Treaties can never supersede what is constitutionally protected. And DC v Heller just affirmed that what the 2nd amendment protects is an individual right to bear arms.
Panglоss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 15:34   #207
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panglоss View Post
Contrary to all the propaganda out there about gun ban treaties, international treaties cannot usurp the constitution. This has already been decided by the supreme court. Treaties can never supersede what is constitutionally protected. And DC v Heller just affirmed that what the 2nd amendment protects is an individual right to bear arms.
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 16:14   #208
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Are you honestly saying that the criminal wouldn't have had a gun anyway?

For the record, I think it was an atrocious and misguided idea and operation. I also think it is and has been ridiculously overplayed as a political tool and that accountability has taken place.

But, if we want to be credible, we can't have it both ways. We can't use as a primary defense that "guns are tools" and the real problem is the criminal, yet in this case, rail entirely on something other than the criminal who pulled the trigger (who would have had a gun regardless).
If during a 7-11 robbery A hands B a gun and B murders a clerk with that gun, A is a murderer...even though B had another gun.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 17:00   #209
Detectorist
Senior Member
 
Detectorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Robertsville, MO
Posts: 7,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.
I guarantee you that if Obama is reelected he's not going to appoint any pro gun Justice. The next president may have the opportunity to appoint up to 3 SC judges.

So yes. If those judges are appointed by Obama, it will radically change the picture.

I don't understand why folks can't see that.
__________________
NASM-Certified Personal Trainer

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place”. George Bernard Shaw
Detectorist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 17:30   #210
Panglоss
I am the NRA
 
Panglоss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.
Well, maybe about half the court is. Heller was actually the decision that "changed everything", because before that ruling the 2nd amendment had never been held to protect an individual right to bear arms.

The thing is, Heller still leaves a lot of questions/clarifications to be decided in future cases. For one thing, how broad/narrow is the individual right to "bear arms"...e.g., what kinds of arms are protected under this right? An assault weapons ban, for instance, could very well be found constitutional if it goes to the supreme court.

Last edited by Panglоss; 10-21-2012 at 17:31..
Panglоss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 18:44   #211
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panglоss View Post
Well, maybe about half the court is. Heller was actually the decision that "changed everything", because before that ruling the 2nd amendment had never been held to protect an individual right to bear arms.

The thing is, Heller still leaves a lot of questions/clarifications to be decided in future cases. For one thing, how broad/narrow is the individual right to "bear arms"...e.g., what kinds of arms are protected under this right? An assault weapons ban, for instance, could very well be found constitutional if it goes to the supreme court.
I believe this case is going to be the "Heller"/"McDonald" case in regards to Bear (those dealt with Keep):

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...-madigan).aspx

It's actually two cases that were combined in the 7th Circuit. The attorney for the state got hammered pretty hard on why they think a ban on carrying should be allowed to stand.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 03:48   #212
jp3975
Senior Member
 
jp3975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texarkana, Tx
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.
I quoted you and answered your question with facts. Why did you ignore me and agree with a guy and continue trying to sell your disproven idea?

Because what you're saying makes 0 sense.

THEY HAVE SAID THEY WANT TO OVERTURN THAT RULING AND REDEFINE THE SECOND.

REPLACE ONE PROGUN SC JUSTICE AND IT WILL HAPPEN.

Why do we tell you the left side of the SC wants to change things?

BECAUSE THEY SAID SO.

Now then...either we can believe you...that scotus would never go back on its ruling...ignoring the fact that they reverse past rulings twice a year.

Or we can believe SCOTUS...the left of which says they want to overturn the ruling and that they got it very wrong. They only need one more vote to do just that.

SCOTUS or Warcry on a gun forum...which shall we trust?


Seriously. Ignore logic and keep spewing bs.

I proved you wrong and you refuse to address it.

Last edited by jp3975; 10-22-2012 at 04:03..
jp3975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 04:02   #213
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi View Post
Romney said "not interested in any new gun laws"
Until his second term you mean.
__________________
When we do hit it we hit it out of the park and send it over to China as quickly as possible to cheapen it and sell it.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 10:03   #214
Panglоss
I am the NRA
 
Panglоss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp3975 View Post
Because what you're saying makes 0 sense.
lol @ the irony here
Panglоss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 15:27   #215
jp3975
Senior Member
 
jp3975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texarkana, Tx
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panglоss View Post
lol @ the irony here
What irony?

I stated fact. You have evidence to the contrary?

If it doesnt make sense to you, that's your problem. Makes sense to everyone else.

It probably makes sense to you and WarCry as well because you have nothing to say about it.

Let me guess...butt hurt Paul fanatics? Obama lovers?

Scotus said it, not me. Logic isnt on your side.
jp3975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 16:48   #216
dogmower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: az
Posts: 169
obama said

Pangloss, WTF are you thinking? anyone who would even THINK of trusting BHO is in for a rude awakening. the plan to destroy the US is obvious to anyone with eyes. you don' t need an advanced degree in economics to know you can't borrow your way out of debt. and that is the first step, economic destruction. c'mon man, wake up!
dogmower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 17:17   #217
Boot Stomper
Senior Member
 
Boot Stomper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Metro East of IL
Posts: 2,232
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by GRIMLET View Post
And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?

Your statement is a legitimate concern. This is part of the reason I have not bought an AR to date. IMO, a no grandfather clause would be hard to pass. We can only wait and see. Hopefully by November 7th we will have a better idea of the future.

Last edited by Boot Stomper; 10-22-2012 at 17:18.. Reason: typo
Boot Stomper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 18:35   #218
Panglоss
I am the NRA
 
Panglоss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp3975 View Post
What irony?

I stated fact. You have evidence to the contrary?

If it doesnt make sense to you, that's your problem. Makes sense to everyone else.

It probably makes sense to you and WarCry as well because you have nothing to say about it.

Let me guess...butt hurt Paul fanatics? Obama lovers?

Scotus said it, not me. Logic isnt on your side.
Ok, please post up the full quotation, with proper citation, of all and any supreme court justices who have claimed that they support trying to overturn the Heller decision in the near future.

Once you do that, then we'll discuss your logic...or lack thereof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmower View Post
Pangloss, WTF are you thinking? anyone who would even THINK of trusting BHO is in for a rude awakening. the plan to destroy the US is obvious to anyone with eyes. you don' t need an advanced degree in economics to know you can't borrow your way out of debt. and that is the first step, economic destruction. c'mon man, wake up!
I don't trust Obama. I hope he loses this next election and gets sent packing back to Chicago.

But the reality is that with all of the legal precedents there is little that he or any other politician can do to ban gun ownership at the federal level...even at the state level.

Now, as I pointed out, there are still issues that could be decided by the supreme court that were not determined in Heller. So they could take a case on an assault weapons ban, or a high capacity magazine ban, or perhaps the concealed carry case in Illinois. And the ruling on those future cases will of course be dependent on who is on the court. And who is on the court will be dependent on who makes the appointments.

To recap my main points - UN gun ban: not something to worry about. Full on national gun ban: also not something to really worry about.
Panglоss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 01:40   #219
jp3975
Senior Member
 
jp3975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texarkana, Tx
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panglоss View Post
Ok, please post up the full quotation, with proper citation, of all and any supreme court justices who have claimed that they support trying to overturn the Heller decision in the near future.

Once you do that, then we'll discuss your logic...or lack thereof.
Sure thing Mr. Eastwood.

Quote:
For example, in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision that narrowly struck down Washington, D.C.’s unconstitutional gun ban by a 5-4 vote, Ginsburg and three of her colleagues concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our property, or our loved ones.

Ginsburg may have lost that round, but assuredly, she knows how close the anti-freedom wing of the court is to erasing our Second Amendment freedom out of existence. As Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...-november.aspx

^ quick google search.

Accujeff said it best...

Quote:
We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in Heller and McDonald confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush, often labeled not pro-2A enough, appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-Second Amendment majority and obtain that opinion.

However, the minority opinion by the other four Justices was that the Second Amendment:

- did not protect a private right of armed self-defense
- does not apply to the states
- does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context

If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

It could still happen. The composition of the Court can change and prior decisions can be overturned.

Four US Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) will be over the age of 80 by the end of Obama's second term. He could likely appoint 4 more Justices if he is re-elected - all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. An anti-2A Court would be free to re-define and dismantle the RKBA out of existence. The current anti-2A Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that.

Anti-Second Amendment Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken”, that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia” and she looks forward to the day a “future, wiser court“ overturns Heller. John Paul Stevens recently told Time magazine the one thing in particular he would change about the American judicial system “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong.”

Obama appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. Given the opportunity he will do it again. All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

There are already more RKBA cases headed to the Supreme Court involving the private right of armed self-defense outside the home and the heavy restrictions in places like Chicago and Washington DC.

In addition, since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. It’s not in gun owners best interests to give him a second term and the opportunity to appoint more anti-2A judges and justices.

Though there are a few folks revising and misrepresenting his record, Romney has a much better record and a much better choice for gun owners than Obama. He is campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. While Justices don't always vote the same way, these four Justices have consistently ruled in favor of the RKBA.

Do you think it would be better for gun owners to have Obama make a majority of anti-2A Justices or Romney make a majority of pro-2A Justices?
jp3975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 04:37   #220
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp3975 View Post
Sure thing Mr. Eastwood.



http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...-november.aspx

^ quick google search.

Accujeff said it best...

Well -- all righty then...


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:00   #221
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
No, I think he wants it introduced so that either the Senate or the House can (and will) shoot it down, but he can go back and say "Look, see, I tried!"
So you think Obama is pro-gun but would have the bill introduced for the popularity it would gain him? Even though he will never again run for a political office, is clearly an anti-gunner from an anti-gun party, state and background, and gun copntrol laws usually have the opposite effect?

That was well thought out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But as so many in this thread would have you believe, the Court is just chomping at the bit to completely change everything they've said on the issue of guns for the last couple of centuries.
Really? You feel qualified to speak on the issue and you don't even know that DC v. Heller in 2008, was the first Supreme Court decision on the issue? Heller was "everything." (prior to McDonald)

Changing everything they have said requires 1 vote in which 1 justice changes his/her mind...and they also have to write it down...but they have clerks to do that.

You are not well informed on law, the court and numerous other issues.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 10-23-2012 at 07:34..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 12:09   #222
JMag
Senior Member
 
JMag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA:Love it or leave!
Posts: 11,013


Romney made up more ground in the first debate than Obama has in the latter ones. Plus, Romney proved himself to not be the "bad" man the MSM has portrayed him as being. That is the same caricature that the Obama campaign has painted. The dem strategy has failed, Obama is tanking, Romney is winning. People have seen through the facade and Obama's house of cards should fall in two weeks barring some catastrophic event.

Oh, tell Chris "leg tingle" Matthews that Romney supporters don't hate the POTUS, as he suggests---due to race! Romney supporters hate the man's policies that run counter to what has made America the greatest nation the planet has ever known. The pulling, yet again, of the race card is simply desperation and thinking folks know it.

__________________
JMag
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Sir Winston Churchill
JMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 17:05   #223
fwm
Senior Member
 
fwm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Central US
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott3670 View Post
But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of
the direct question probably wouldn't even consider it.
His history of voting in IL, some of the few times he bothered to vote, was to continue the Chicago bans.
__________________
fwm
fwm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 18:18   #224
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwm View Post
His history of voting in IL, some of the few times he bothered to vote, was to continue the Chicago bans.
But what you're failing to recognize or acknowledge is that he was, at that time, doing what he was asked - representing the views of the people that put him in office. He doesn't represent only Chicago now (contrary to what every wants to think/accuse/etc).
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 18:48   #225
ilgunguygt
Enslaved in IL
 
ilgunguygt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Illinois
Posts: 4,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But what you're failing to recognize or acknowledge is that he was, at that time, doing what he was asked - representing the views of the people that put him in office. He doesn't represent only Chicago now (contrary to what every wants to think/accuse/etc).
arguing obama is anything other than Anti-gun is foolishness. Either you are clueless about everything or you have just drank that much kool-aid that you cant see truth anymore.
__________________
***RIP Okie, GT will never be the same without you Mr Mayor!***
ilgunguygt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
debate
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:50.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 812
190 Members
622 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42