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 02-14-2013, 21:44   #101
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,733


Quote:
Originally Posted by jknight8907 View Post
Well, if nothing else this thread has identified at least two people who help give gun owners the wingnut stereotype.
And it has identified several who obviously believe we possess guns because the government says we can.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:49   #102
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Of course it is. It's function is a power check of the legislative and executive branches by judging their actions against the Constitution.
Nope. History, read some.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:52   #103
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Can't very well cite SCOTUS as to the Constituion's impact on ordinary statute while announcing that they have no authority to rule on such.
Nope. Trust a cop to twist words. They can rule within their scope as Federal judges on cases brought before them, in this case, the Supremacy Clause. They are not supposed to be the arbiters of what constitutes Constitutionality in cases that do not have that venue. A good example is Roe vWade.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:55   #104
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
You are making the claim, show your work
Ummm, Heller v DC? How about the MacDonald case in SF?

Wow. Either you guys are woefully ignorant or really poor liars.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:56   #105
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
And, what, do you think this part means?

"the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
It means exactly what it says. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of disputes within the Federal judicial system.

Last edited by poikilotrm; 02-14-2013 at 21:57..
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 21:58   #106
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jknight8907 View Post
Well, if nothing else this thread has identified at least two people who help give gun owners the wingnut stereotype.
Is the term "wingnut" slang for a person who knows the law and history? What is the slang term for cops who are hostile and uneducated?
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:00   #107
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,085


Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
What is the slang term for cops who are hostile and uneducated?
As far as this thread goes, winning. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:01   #108
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
And it has identified several who obviously believe we possess guns because the government says we can.
In effect that is true. Say the people get fed up with violence committed by people with firearms and they vote in enough politicians to ban firearms, possibly even through an amendment to the constitution. Is that not the government telling us what we can't have?

The government is made from the people. Your problem is that you think everyone is wrong because you must be right.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:01   #109
jknight8907
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Memphis TN (roughly)
Posts: 1,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
And it has identified several who obviously believe we possess guns because the government says we can.
Mmmkay. So, in countries where guns are banned, the population does not possess guns because they don't want them? Or could it be that the government says they can't, and there isn't really anything a person desiring a gun could do about that.

Thinking rationally here, imagine tomorrow all guns were banned in the US, and a door-to-door confiscation was put in place. With so many guns, it would take a lot of time to get through every house to confiscate them all. But at some point, they will arrive at your door asking for your guns. What are your options? Give them up, or refuse.

If you give them up, you live to fight the law in a more survivable manner. Or, you can refuse to cooperate, perhaps fight back with your guns, and die. No matter how many guns you have, you will not defeat the authorities. They will call for a sufficient amount of backup to deal with your threat against them, and you will die. You will not survive to care for your wife and children. You will not survive to organize like-minded individuals to regain freedoms. You will die a pointless martyr.


The point is, the way to win against a law that you perceive to be unconstitutional is not by throwing yourself on your sword in a blaze of glory. You should do anything in your power to stop or reverse unconstitutional legislation. But having a mindset that you will dig your heels in and let them pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers is a silly notion. I've lived in countries that do not allow private firearm ownership. I survived just fine. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy the freedoms of my home, the USA. It does mean that I know that if firearms are banned tomorrow, it will not kill me. It likely will not kill many, if any, of us. Choosing to violently resist the government taking your guns will kill you dead. A living, stable, rationally communicating person will always be far more effective at changing laws than a dead corpse who would justifiably be labeled as a felon and cop killer.
jknight8907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:09   #110
*ASH*
Senior Member
 
*ASH*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: nc
Posts: 22,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by jknight8907 View Post
Mmmkay. So, in countries where guns are banned, the population does not possess guns because they don't want them? Or could it be that the government says they can't, and there isn't really anything a person desiring a gun could do about that.

Thinking rationally here, imagine tomorrow all guns were banned in the US, and a door-to-door confiscation was put in place. With so many guns, it would take a lot of time to get through every house to confiscate them all. But at some point, they will arrive at your door asking for your guns. What are your options? Give them up, or refuse.

If you give them up, you live to fight the law in a more survivable manner. Or, you can refuse to cooperate, perhaps fight back with your guns, and die. No matter how many guns you have, you will not defeat the authorities. They will call for a sufficient amount of backup to deal with your threat against them, and you will die. You will not survive to care for your wife and children. You will not survive to organize like-minded individuals to regain freedoms. You will die a pointless martyr.


The point is, the way to win against a law that you perceive to be unconstitutional is not by throwing yourself on your sword in a blaze of glory. You should do anything in your power to stop or reverse unconstitutional legislation. But having a mindset that you will dig your heels in and let them pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers is a silly notion. I've lived in countries that do not allow private firearm ownership. I survived just fine. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy the freedoms of my home, the USA. It does mean that I know that if firearms are banned tomorrow, it will not kill me. It likely will not kill many, if any, of us. Choosing to violently resist the government taking your guns will kill you dead. A living, stable, rationally communicating person will always be far more effective at changing laws than a dead corpse who would justifiably be labeled as a felon and cop killer.
i think if your scenario played out like you stated , there would be a lot of dead cops and citizens . and i mean alot
__________________
'Most people have a regulator between their mind and mouth that modulates their brutish sentiments and spikiest impulses.
*ASH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:40   #111
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by *ASH* View Post
i think if your scenario played out like you stated , there would be a lot of dead cops and citizens . and i mean alot
Hardly. With the red/blue, urban/rural split in America and demographic changes occurring over the last 120 years there will be slow purging of guns in America. A lot of it will be voluntary with no law compeling it.

In other words by the time a total ban comes there will be few guns left in private hands. In fact there may be so few that they may not even ban those left.

Remember history has a long arc.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:46   #112
98LS-WON
Senior Member
 
98LS-WON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lacey, WA
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Hardly. With the red/blue, urban/rural split in America and demographic changes occurring over the last 120 years there will be slow purging of guns in America. A lot of it will be voluntary with no law compeling it.
That is exactly why you should take your kids shooting, and invite their friends once you've talked to them and their parents about it.

Last edited by 98LS-WON; 02-14-2013 at 22:47..
98LS-WON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 22:58   #113
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by 98LS-WON View Post
That is exactly why you should take your kids shooting, and invite their friends once you've talked to them and their parents about it.
Yes, but remember in time lands where you could easily shoot become suburbia. It has happened in my lifetime.

Over 100 years ago the area around NYC was not nearly as urbanized as it is now.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 23:20   #114
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,733


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
In effect that is true. Say the people get fed up with violence committed by people with firearms and they vote in enough politicians to ban firearms, possibly even through an amendment to the constitution. Is that not the government telling us what we can't have?
Of course it is. Without legitimacy and with a complete abrogation of duty and purpose.

Quote:
The government is made from the people. Your problem is that you think everyone is wrong because you must be right.
No, it is because I am right.

You and several others here want a large, powerful state. You benefit from it. I understand that. You also work within the judicial system that you are given.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 23:24   #115
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,733


Quote:
Originally Posted by jknight8907 View Post
Mmmkay. So, in countries where guns are banned, the population does not possess guns because they don't want them? Or could it be that the government says they can't, and there isn't really anything a person desiring a gun could do about that.

Thinking rationally here, imagine tomorrow all guns were banned in the US, and a door-to-door confiscation was put in place. With so many guns, it would take a lot of time to get through every house to confiscate them all. But at some point, they will arrive at your door asking for your guns. What are your options? Give them up, or refuse.

If you give them up, you live to fight the law in a more survivable manner. Or, you can refuse to cooperate, perhaps fight back with your guns, and die. No matter how many guns you have, you will not defeat the authorities. They will call for a sufficient amount of backup to deal with your threat against them, and you will die. You will not survive to care for your wife and children. You will not survive to organize like-minded individuals to regain freedoms. You will die a pointless martyr.

Authorities? What authorities would do that to their fellow citizens? When the legislature passes unconstitutional laws that violate our natural rights -- and the courts support them -- who enforces those laws on their fellow citizens? Is the SCOTUS the final say in Constitutional matters?

No. Obviously not.

Quote:
The point is, the way to win against a law that you perceive to be unconstitutional is not by throwing yourself on your sword in a blaze of glory. You should do anything in your power to stop or reverse unconstitutional legislation. But having a mindset that you will dig your heels in and let them pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers is a silly notion. I've lived in countries that do not allow private firearm ownership. I survived just fine. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy the freedoms of my home, the USA. It does mean that I know that if firearms are banned tomorrow, it will not kill me. It likely will not kill many, if any, of us. Choosing to violently resist the government taking your guns will kill you dead. A living, stable, rationally communicating person will always be far more effective at changing laws than a dead corpse who would justifiably be labeled as a felon and cop killer.
How successful have the people in those other countries been in regaining firearm ownership?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 23:26   #116
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,733


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Hardly. With the red/blue, urban/rural split in America and demographic changes occurring over the last 120 years there will be slow purging of guns in America. A lot of it will be voluntary with no law compeling it.

In other words by the time a total ban comes there will be few guns left in private hands. In fact there may be so few that they may not even ban those left.

Remember history has a long arc.
If this happens, it will be because of people who think as you do. That's kinda, sorta the point of this thread and my objection to the folks who were scolding and ridiculing the guy making machine guns. You folks have already won.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 23:30   #117
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,871


Quote:
Originally Posted by jknight8907 View Post
Mmmkay. So, in countries where guns are banned, the population does not possess guns because they don't want them? Or could it be that the government says they can't, and there isn't really anything a person desiring a gun could do about that.

Thinking rationally here, imagine tomorrow all guns were banned in the US, and a door-to-door confiscation was put in place. With so many guns, it would take a lot of time to get through every house to confiscate them all. But at some point, they will arrive at your door asking for your guns. What are your options? Give them up, or refuse.

If you give them up, you live to fight the law in a more survivable manner. Or, you can refuse to cooperate, perhaps fight back with your guns, and die. No matter how many guns you have, you will not defeat the authorities. They will call for a sufficient amount of backup to deal with your threat against them, and you will die. You will not survive to care for your wife and children. You will not survive to organize like-minded individuals to regain freedoms. You will die a pointless martyr.


The point is, the way to win against a law that you perceive to be unconstitutional is not by throwing yourself on your sword in a blaze of glory. You should do anything in your power to stop or reverse unconstitutional legislation. But having a mindset that you will dig your heels in and let them pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers is a silly notion. I've lived in countries that do not allow private firearm ownership. I survived just fine. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy the freedoms of my home, the USA. It does mean that I know that if firearms are banned tomorrow, it will not kill me. It likely will not kill many, if any, of us. Choosing to violently resist the government taking your guns will kill you dead. A living, stable, rationally communicating person will always be far more effective at changing laws than a dead corpse who would justifiably be labeled as a felon and cop killer.
Everyone should fight unconstitutional laws in the acceptable ways (elect politicians, influence them, petition the courts etc.), even the ones you agree with how they are used now. They will eventually be used by people that will use them in ways that you don't agree with.

You seem believe that all people will wait at home for their guns to be confiscated. That is not how the revolutionary war played out. Read history, it is interesting.

There have been many people successful against their governments. Look at South America, the drug cartels operate pretty freely. They do it by bribery, getting confederates in the police and military, and by killing politicians and judges who are effectively active(not just mouthing it) and their families. And their cause no virtue, no call of freedom. Eventually no one opposes them effectively.

Me, I have a wife and young kids, if they show up at my door they will get all the guns I have. However, there are people that have nothing left to lose, or have enough guile to be the snake among them.

95% of the people will turn them in. That still leaves 15 million guns or more. That's more that all the military and the police. Your right it will be a virtually bloodless action.

Remember, every one of our founding fathers was a criminal, and so were all that fought with them. All guilty of murder and treason and conspiracy to commit murder.
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 23:56   #118
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
If this happens, it will be because of people who think as you do. That's kinda, sorta the point of this thread and my objection to the folks who were scolding and ridiculing the guy making machine guns. You folks have already won.
You totally missed my point. You and I will be long gone when the confiscation order comes in. It is likely our children will be gone too, or at least pretty old.

Remember the change from weak isolated monarchs to absolute monarchs to constitutional monrachies to constitutional republics was over 1000 years.

You almost have to think like a geologist.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 00:02   #119
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Of course it is. Without legitimacy and with a complete abrogation of duty and purpose.



No, it is because I am right.

You and several others here want a large, powerful state. You benefit from it. I understand that. You also work within the judicial system that you are given.
Large, powerful state?

You realize the ratio of LE to non LE in this coutry is around 1/50,000. Vs. say Russia where it is around 1/200.

We are able to police because most people agree with the laws. For example speed limits. Here in CA they must be within 5 mph of the 85 percentile of drivers on that street with a speed limit taking into account the design of the street. Essentially the lawmakers said "If 85% of the people are going under the safe speed then it is presumed safe."

Firearm will go away because more people are living in cities and suburbs. There are only a few places to shoot rifles and shotguns within a 1 hour drive of me. There are about 3 times that pistol only. Are people going to be into shooting when you have those kinds of restraints on them?
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 00:04   #120
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,733


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
You totally missed my point. You and I will be long gone when the confiscation order comes in. It is likely our children will be gone too, or at least pretty old.

Remember the change from weak isolated monarchs to absolute monarchs to constitutional monrachies to constitutional republics was over 1000 years.

You almost have to think like a geologist.
I don't think so because I don't think there will ever be a confiscation order.

SCOTUS, utilizing "judicial review", has granted the fedgov broad power to tax. In my estimation, they will attempt to tax them away.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 00:07   #121
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,733


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Large, powerful state?
Yes. Size and power isn't necessarily measured by cop/citizen ratio just like the size of government isn't directly measured by employees.

Every moment of our lives, every daily activity, is taxed and regulated. You're able to police because most people fear the penalty if caught. This is the reason why most people here don't own an illegal machine gun, not because of the number of BATFE thugs.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 02-15-2013 at 00:08..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 08:48   #122
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
In effect that is true. Say the people get fed up with violence committed by people with firearms and they vote in enough politicians to ban firearms, possibly even through an amendment to the constitution. Is that not the government telling us what we can't have?
If 75% of the population wanted round up all the blacks and exterminate them and they crafted laws for just that thing, it would be unenforceable because the laws would be unConstitutional ab initio. If a cop acted to enforce those laws, he would be in violation of the law, the Constitution, and his oath.

If 99% of the population decided to craft laws which infringed upon the people's right to keep and bear arms, those laws would be (and actually presently are) unenforceable because due to the 2nd, they are ab initio null and void. They are facially unConstitutional. Cops which enforce them are criminals.

Quote:
The government is made from the people. Your problem is that you think everyone is wrong because you must be right.
Aaaand the ad homnem attack. Well done.

Last edited by poikilotrm; 02-15-2013 at 08:48..
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 08:53   #123
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
You totally missed my point. You and I will be long gone when the confiscation order comes in. It is likely our children will be gone too, or at least pretty old.
Ah. You really haven't been paying attention. Cuomo floated door to door confiscation with the NYSP, who politely implied he was nuts. This wasn't my crystal ball telling me this will happen in 1000 years, this was a month ago.

There are plans now being floated to do door to door seizure in several states as we speak. regardless of what happens, it proves that they want to do what you claim they never will, and they want to do it now.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 08:56   #124
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Large, powerful state?

You realize the ratio of LE to non LE in this coutry is around 1/50,000. Vs. say Russia where it is around 1/200.
In my little rural county we have 29,000 people and roughly 200 cops all together. That is roughly 1/150.

The national average is actually about 1/330, not 1/50,000. Your number is false.

Quote:
We are able to police because most people agree with the laws. For example speed limits. Here in CA they must be within 5 mph of the 85 percentile of drivers on that street with a speed limit taking into account the design of the street. Essentially the lawmakers said "If 85% of the people are going under the safe speed then it is presumed safe."
That is NOT how speed laws are determined. Are you actually a cop?

Quote:
Firearm will go away because more people are living in cities and suburbs. There are only a few places to shoot rifles and shotguns within a 1 hour drive of me. There are about 3 times that pistol only. Are people going to be into shooting when you have those kinds of restraints on them?
The dynamic you state is real, to an extent. Urban pistol ranges are usually pretty jumping places on the weekend.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 09:02   #125
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post
In my little rural county we have 29,000 people and roughly 200 cops all together. That is roughly 1/150.

The national average is actually about 1/330, not 1/50,000. Your number is false.


That is NOT how speed laws are determined. Are you actually a cop?



The dynamic you state is real, to an extent. Urban pistol ranges are usually pretty jumping places on the weekend.
So tell me how speed limits are set in CA.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 16:36.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,183
368 Members
815 Guests

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