Illurion + 894 IG December 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, jaycee said: Did he enter the house or pose a threat? He stayed as he needed help as he was lost. Being drunk is not a crime. We could go on for ever but I know how Americans think on this, killing people is good justice, cowboy stuff fine that's your nation's culture but other far more violent cultures have worked out people carrying weapons causes more problems so have banned them. Rodent says we should move on, and i agree. But you make a good point. So this will be my last reply on this subject: Many people, non-US citizens, and even some US citizens do not understand the purpose behind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. (1) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves from GOVERNMENT. The law was written at a time that the American Citizens had just had to defend themselves, and fight for their freedom, against their own government, which had been the BRITISH. The law was set in place just in case the NEW American government also went "bad" so to speak. They were looking to the future. (2) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against foreign invaders. (3) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against a criminal of some sort. (4) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to hunt for food. It is as simple as that. Some people get killed because they "do something" that places themselves on the wrong side of one of the above categories. ie: it is my understanding that far more people are killed in hunting accidents, than are killed in "stand your ground / castle doctrine" incidents. Hunting accidents are almost NEVER prosecuted. The same with the others. 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 December 13, 2018 1 hour ago, jaycee said: So killing someone is justfied even though they have not gained entry to your property and had posed not risk? As for the hiding bit there is something not right perhaps he was round the other side of the house looking to see if there was anyone in as the time to answer the door was so long who knows. Anyway shooting somebody twice for no reason when posing no threat is hard to understand, at least in the UK you have to actually enter the house and pose a threat before justifiable homicide/self defence can be plead and we dont have guns! I have had the argument many times on American gun laws with Americans even an NRA member recently and know its pointless, Americans want to shot each other for no reason fine but understand the rest of the world are amazed at the logic that believes citizens killing citizens is a good thing and will lead to a peaceful society. "I don't know whether the shooting was justified or not" The very first words of my post. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaycee + 348 jc December 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said: "I don't know whether the shooting was justified or not" The very first words of my post. Fair point i have had this discussion so many times I just went forward. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 December 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Illurion said: As i mentioned, the videos show most of the people wearing masks. BUT, some of the more violent videos i heard "audio" with the people yelling, and it sounded like arabic, definitely not French. Sorry, I did not finish one of my sentences in my comment, but have now rectified it to include "and therefore wear masks". Thanks for pointing out the omission. I cannot judge on the audio sounding like arabic speakers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadowkin + 584 EA December 13, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rodent said: as someone earlier pointed out, American gun laws vary by state. and also as someone had pointed out, how those laws are enforced vary even more state by state. on top of that, local nuances have a profound effect on which laws are enforced to the letter and which laws are bent. you may very well find someone out in Hicksville is prosecuted to a much lesser extent when protecting life in Liberty and property then someone in a big city. those in the big city do not understand what it means when someone comes to your door late at night. likewise, Hicksville residents are unlikely to comprehend what it means when someone comes knocking on your door in the middle of the night in the big city. When in Rome.... This is an important point for tourists or foreigners to understand. Regardless of what the state law says on the castle doctrine defense a jury very may well rule in favor of the person who was minding their business in their home and felt it necessary to use deadly force. This is especially true in red states. Moving on... Edited December 13, 2018 by shadowkin 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 13, 2018 5 hours ago, Illurion said: Many people, non-US citizens, and even some US citizens do not understand the purpose behind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. I think it is equally the other way around. You say .... (1) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves from GOVERNMENT. The law was written at a time that the American Citizens had just had to defend themselves, and fight for their freedom, against their own government, which had been the BRITISH. The law was set in place just in case the NEW American government also went "bad" so to speak. They were looking to the future. (2) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against foreign invaders. (3) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against a criminal of some sort. (4) the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to hunt for food. It is as simple as that. Whereas what it actually says is very different: Its true purpose Some people get killed because they "do something" that places themselves on the wrong side of one of the above categories. But only in America! ie: it is my understanding that far more people are killed in hunting accidents, than are killed in "stand your ground / castle doctrine" incidents. Hunting accidents are almost NEVER prosecuted. The same with the others. And only in America. The poster's claims on stand your ground laws are equally deficient: Florida's statute on Justifiable use of Force. Most laws of this nature are predicated on "reasonable" belief, and are then further "conditional". A problem in America arises when its society in majority reasonably believes things which other western societies find anathema. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 13, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, mthebold said: How, then, did the haute bourgeoisie screw this up? It would require a willful ignorance for people so rich, so connected, so powerful, so intelligent, so educated and so old to not grasp what they were doing to half their citizens. They're culpable. Whether of neglect or malice doesn't matter. They accepted positions of responsibility, failed egregiously, and are culpable. That's just your opinion. Many countries continue to have much larger rallies of citizens disaffected by whatever they think can mobilise enough with similar views, and do so peacefully eg recent example. Perhaps you should ponder why that is so? Maybe we could, in this case, blame a cohort who participated with the express intention of enacting violence. There is already mounting evidence this occurred. Edited December 13, 2018 by Red to add a link to a recent example Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Epic + 390 cc December 13, 2018 @Jan van Eck @shadowkin Having been a police officer from Texas, myself, I can verify that what Jan and shadowkin have been posting are actually BOTH correct. Wherever Shadowkin got his post from is irrelevant, because what he posted was the actual penal code, word-for-word from the State's code books. In Texas, you can shoot someone to protect your property (assuming the given caveats apply). However, Jan's interpretation of the legal system is also correct. Simply because the law says you can shoot someone doesn't mean the judge will let you off the hook. Some judges in some areas might, but not all judges in all areas. This is because the reality in the US is pretty simple: obeying or breaking the law does not matter nearly as much as how well your lawyer knows the judge. In some parts of Texas, it won't matter if you obey the law or not, the judge will imprison you for shooting anyone. In fact, as a police officer, I was specifically instructed not to enforce certain laws. Yes, as a police officer, I found people breaking certain laws, and I was not allowed to arrest those criminals or else I was the one who would have ended up in jail. Yes, you read that correctly. Judges can decide to rule however they want, and as long as the voters are ok with the judge's rulings, that is just how things will be. I know certain lawyers who won't try certain cases before certain judges because it won't matter what the facts of the case are, those lawyers know they would lose. Does this mean innocent people go to jail? Yes. Does this mean criminals sometimes get away with crime. Yes. Sound messed up? Yes. But that's what we get when the average voter is more interested in Netflix than in truth and justice. Yes, there are appellate courts, but appeals cost money. And so do lawyers that 'know the judge well'. All this means is that the US legal system is for rich people. Everyone else [poor people] need to stay far away from it or they will get screwed by it. In the US, not carrying a gun in certain areas is just as dangerous as carrying a gun, though for very different reasons. 2 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 13, 2018 French Yellow Vest Protests Spread Through Europe To Belgium And The Netherlands Editor’s Note: When I watch the Yellow Vest protests in France, and now in other parts of Europe, I can’t help but wonder if this is where we, too, are headed here in the United States. Between widespread political divisiveness and an economy that is truly suffering – despite what you see on the news – people here are also fed up. Is it only a matter of time before people in the US take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands and say, “Enough?” It’s truly essential to watch what’s going on in Europe to get a glimpse at our potential future – and to prepare for it. ~ Daisy As protests continue to rage in France, discontent is festering elsewhere in Europe at the same time. What began as a routine protest deep in Paris has swelled to over a hundred thousand people and approximately five locations throughout the country. Anger over yet another eco-fascist “gas tax” seems to have been the straw that finally broke the camel’s back. This, of course, was combined with other problems too: constant foreign military adventures, falling wages, rising costs of living, rising costs of healthcare, privatization of essential services, cultural disruption as a result of heavy migration, and growing unemployment as a result of Free Trade globalist policies. ... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 13, 2018 The totally unnecessary, additional tax on hydrocarbon fuel was the final straw, that created the violent pushback from the ordinary people of France. The End of France as We Know It? Protests like this and even bigger ones like Catalonian independence are invariably betrayed by the European political establishment. They become an excuse to move towards tighter control — more cops, more surveillance, crackdowns on free speech, etc. So, sometimes it’s hard to separate the manufactured reality show from the spontaneous uprising of human frustration. But after the past two weekends of violent protests, after the French government backed down on the new diesel tax which was the inciting incident of this story, it’s safe to say this is real and there is real fear brewing among the political elite of Europe. A return of national sovereignty across Europe is no longer coming. I think it’s here. This can no longer be stage-managed as a relief valve of the massive discontent at neoliberal policies rammed down Europeans’ throats as it has in the past. Something far more significant is here. They can’t cordon off this movement in France and use it to demonize the leadership and, by extension, the people. It’s jumped borders. It’s part of the zeitgeist now. ... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 13, 2018 Interesting times. Kindly take note of the bit I bolded below: The Noose Tightens Around the EU’s Neck Macron’s handling of these protests have been nothing short of abysmal. He began November the darling of the globalist set I like to call The Davos Crowd, excoriating any sense of national pride, likening it to terrorism. He also called for the creation of a Grand Army of the EU and pushed hard for banking federalization to consolidate power under Brussels over the currency, the true Achilles’ heel of the EU itself. Then a planned tax hike on diesel fuel, which was sold to the French as a way to combat global warming, as part of the EU’s unquenchable desire to tilt at climate windmills, erupted in a nation-wide peaceful protest. At which point Macron called the protesters ‘thugs.’ And now, after two weekends of violence and having scrapped the diesel tax, Macron emerges from his bunker to reaffirm France’s commitment to cracking down on the violence. But at the same time, as reported by Zerohedge, he’s calling for significant tax cuts and welfare spending. ... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG December 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Red said: The poster's claims on stand your ground laws are equally deficient: Florida's statute on Justifiable use of Force. Most laws of this nature are predicated on "reasonable" belief, and are then further "conditional". A problem in America arises when its society in majority reasonably believes things which other western societies find anathema. I thought Rodent explained all of this very well. The law is the law. People protect themselves, and are protected by the law. There is only one case in Florida, recently in Tampa, where there was a "Stand Your Ground" claim, that is being denied. Most claims are clear cut, and routine. Other than that, there is nothing more to be said about this. Rodent is right. Move on. This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes. My thought is NO. The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff, and that will die out eventually when our police decide to actually do their job and stop it. Edited December 13, 2018 by Illurion 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 13, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Illurion said: I thought Rodent explained all of this very well. The law is the law. People protect themselves, and are protected by the law. He explained that this was false - laws are for the "rich". There is only one case in Florida, recently in Tampa, where there was a "Stand Your Ground" claim, that is being denied. Most claims are clear cut, and routine. Yes, there is no justice for the dead. Other than that, there is nothing more to be said about this. Rodent is right. Move on. So read below why this is not sound thinking.... This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes. My thought is NO. The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff, and that will die out eventually when our police decided to actually do their job and stop it. LOL Should a Paris style riot ever take place in the USA, and spread, US gun ownership laws represent a threat level that exists in few, if any, other democracies. Regarding ANTIFA, it is not obvious to you, but to people who think about things it becomes apparent that if something causes another thing to exist, if the former never existed then the causal relationship ceases. Edited December 13, 2018 by Red to remove a tautology Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 13, 2018 44 minutes ago, Illurion said: This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes. My thought is NO. The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff, and that will die out eventually when our police decide to actually do their job and stop it. ^ this. 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG December 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Epic said: @Jan van Eck @shadowkin Having been a police officer from Texas, myself, I can verify that what Jan and shadowkin have been posting are actually BOTH correct. Wherever Shadowkin got his post from is irrelevant, because what he posted was the actual penal code, word-for-word from the State's code books. In Texas, you can shoot someone to protect your property (assuming the given caveats apply). However, Jan's interpretation of the legal system is also correct. Simply because the law says you can shoot someone doesn't mean the judge will let you off the hook. Chad, thank you for chiming in. A dose of harsh realism. I would expand (and only to you, this is not for the gun crowd) that one cannot shoot to protect theft of property. The reason is simple enough: let us revisit the case of the motorboat tied up at the dock, and someone has untied it and is about to go roaring off into the night with it. the owner concludes it is being stolen, so (according to the gun posters) that means he is entitled to start shooting. Yet that boatman may be doing something entirely different. Posit that, out there way out on the waters, is yet another boat, that is sinking, and some family is facing drowning. Our intrepid boatman dashes to that boat dock to effect a rescue mission. At that point, legally he is not a "free agent," and is not committing any crime; the circumstances requiring immediate assistance grants him, as a matter of public policy, immunity from claims of theft. Thus, you are categorically not allowed to start shooting. [Just because the owner does not realize that there is a rescue operation in way, does not grant the license to start blasting up the countryside). Additionally, there is the issue of "intent." Intent is a causation element of the commission of a crime; if there is no intent, the actor is harmless from prosecution. There are certain exceptions: use of certain instruments that are inherently dangerous will not be excused on the grounds of lack of intent, simply because of the inherent dangerousness renders that use as legally reckless. Thus, if you shoot a gun between the feet of your friend, as a little joke, and you blow his foot off by accident, you can and will be arrested and prosecuted for reckless endangerment, maiming, and a ton of lesser included charges. That is also the case in driving while drunk, and running someone down in a pedestrian crossing. I assure you that doing so will send you to jail for probably four years. You may not have intended to hurt anyone, but the predicate act was sufficiently inherently dangerous that the result becomes a crime. Property is way down on the list from life, and thus the restrictions on shooting over perceived property rights. You have some criminal or perceived criminal outside, you barricade yourself inside, call the police, and let them sort it out. Not for the homeowner to go blasting away. Americans do it anyway, and behind heart attacks and cancer, now the leading cause of death, far more than auto crash deaths (which used to be the big American sport). Getting back to France, which is where this whole thread started, I again remind readers that the rural French do possess shotguns and deer rifles, and if these confrontations with the government keeps up, do not be surprised when they finally come out of the closet. 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG December 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said: ^ this. Yep. We have some real wacko's in this country as you can see from those logos.. The Democrat party is particularly affected, as the above people associate themselves with that party. There is a battle going on in the Republican party, as the grass-root, socially conservative, citizens are trying to take back the party from the establishment / entitled, class that took control of the party after Reagan left in 1988. The party used to be "socially" conservative, but the establishment calls itself "business" conservative, but most grass-roots do see them as conservative at all, as they continually side with the Democrats. Either way, i believe this coming year of 2019 will see much of this resolved, as one side or the other wins or loses. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG December 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Red said: I thought Rodent explained all of this very well. The law is the law. People protect themselves, and are protected by the law. He explained that this was false - laws are for the "rich". There is only one case in Florida, recently in Tampa, where there was a "Stand Your Ground" claim, that is being denied. Most claims are clear cut, and routine. Yes, there is no justice for the dead. Other than that, there is nothing more to be said about this. Rodent is right. Move on. So read below why this is not sound thinking.... This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes. My thought is NO. The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff, and that will die out eventually when our police decided to actually do their job and stop it. LOL .......... Should a Paris style riot ever take place in the USA, and spread, US gun ownership laws represent a threat level that exists in few, if any, other democracies. Regarding ANTIFA, it is not obvious to you, but to people who think about things it becomes apparent that if something causes another thing to exist, if the former never existed then the causal relationship ceases. Red: No, if i recall, Rodent did not say that the laws are false, he said they vary per state. No, if i recall, Rodent did not say that laws are for the rich. Yes, the families of the dead get Justice for their loved ones all the time. Our prisons contain many killers as a consequence. I do not know why you are saying that Rodent is not using "sound thinking" by advising everyone to move on. Rodent seems to be a very sound thinker to me. Red: who are you to tell me what "is not obvious to me." ? Antifa exists because the government allows it to exist by not crushing it. That may soon change. As for causal affects for Antifa, it is rather "obvious" to me that the members are misguided, and ignorant, as countless video interviews of them have shown. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 14, 2018 Just a reminder, all members on this forum have the ability to "ignore" comments from any other specific members in their own feed. All comments by the "ignored user" will then be normally hidden from view. There is an option to view individual comments from anyone in your "Ignored Users" list, if desired. Go to - Settings -Account - Ignored Users Then add the name of the User you would like to ignore and which specific ignore options you would like to activate. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, Illurion said: Red: No, if i recall, Rodent did not say that the laws are false, he said they vary per state. He said, inter alia "local nuances have a profound effect on which laws are enforced to the letter and which laws are bent. you may very well find someone out in Hicksville is prosecuted to a much lesser extent when protecting life in Liberty and property then someone in a big city." I did not say the "laws" were false, just the sense. No, if i recall, Rodent did not say that laws are for the rich. True - I added another poster's view that laws were for the rich. Yes, the families of the dead get Justice for their loved ones all the time. Our prisons contain many killers as a consequence. That's not justice for the dead! I do not know why you are saying that Rodent is not using "sound thinking" by advising everyone to move on. Rodent seems to be a very sound thinker to me. My reference was to relevance of this topic to the Paris riots. Red: who are you to tell me what "is not obvious to me." ?Antifa exists because the government allows it to exist by not crushing it. That may soon change. As for causal affects for Antifa, it is rather "obvious" to me that the members are misguided, and ignorant, as countless video interviews of them have shown. Then please explain how a relationship could exist between entities if the causal nature were removed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG December 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said: Just a reminder, all members on this forum have the ability to "ignore" comments from any other specific members in their own feed. All comments by the "ignored user" will then be normally hidden from view. There is an option to view individual comments from anyone in your "Ignored Users" list, if desired. Tom, the problem with "gun nuts" is that it becomes impossible to ignore them, as they will always continue to shrilly shout total rubbish. That crowd never stops. Here in Vermont, there are no gun laws, except three, two of which are very recent (this last summer). The one that has been around "forever" is that high schoolers have to keep their deer rifles in the principal's office during deer hunt season, not in their school lockers, so they can pick up the rifles and ammo and go right from school into the woods for the hunt. That specific regulation was recently expanded to exclude guns from school buildings, so now you leave them in the trunk of the car. So then we had this nasty episode where a rural schooler wrote his girlfriend on social media that he was planning to shoot up his school, Columbine style. Her mom called police and he was picked up, guns seized. That unnerved the governor, and the Legislature was called in and passed two "gun laws," one that allowed police to seize guns in a house where domestic violence had erupted, and another that limited gun magazines to ten rounds. As gun laws go, that is pretty mild stuff. The gun nuts went totally nuts, off the wall, and started chasing around after the Governor to social events, to threaten and abuse him. Now the Governor, who I personally know and like, is a rather tough fellow; he grew up in the construction business and cut his teeth driving a bulldozer. He drove this "dirt car" on a quarter-mile oval in competition, and for the last decade was the track year winner, so he is a bit of a wild man. The gun nuts literally ran him out of the competition with their incessant jeering, shouting and booing, long after he signed the legislation. That the nuts wrecked the competition for the thousands other spectators and competitors meant nothing to them; they were out to get back at the Governor for signing those laws. The gun nuts are still at it today. Gun nuts are not responsible gun owners, nor are they nuanced, reflective people, nor are they bright. Their lives revolve around guns: wearing them, shooting them, fantasizing about killing their "enemies" with them. The enemies list changes; sometimes blacks, now Hispanics, now Muslims, now teenagers, now people who have cats. It is a disturbed psychiatric condition, and some, probably most, gun nuts are genuinely dangerous. The society has not worked out a mechanism to keep guns out of the hands of the gun nuts, although that is a huge public-health issue. The gun nuts have killed some 594,000 people since the World Trade Center got flattened on 9/11/2001; the total dead from WWII combat, including the army on both war fronts, the navy, the marines, even the coast guard, was 407,000. The gun nuts are total crazies, and a plague. And worst, they make life miserable for the responsible gun owners, which in Vermont includes everyone else. My neighbor probably has more guns than the State has at the local police barracks; he is a totally responsible guy, you can (and I do) trust him with your life, plus he is my own personal one-man police department, watches out over me and my place out here in the country. There are a hundred thousand others like him. Some do "open carry," others are concealed, but so what? This is the most peaceful part of America, and crime is just about nowhere, outside of the drug addicts of course. So from that we see that gun ownership itself is neither corrosive nor inherently dangerous. What it does point to is that the Gun Nuts are an element for which some other formula, and I personally favor involuntary hospitalization, has to be developed and paid for. The nuts are seriously ill, and ill people cannot have access to guns. As far as Oilprice goes, the best approach to gun nuts, once they are identified, is to adopt the practice of the Amish: shun them. Cheers. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 14, 2018 (edited) I am pro gun and have some sites that may be useful to those looking at the gun issue. My advice is pray to God that you never have to shoot anyone, but be trained and prepared to do so if they attack you or break into your home. If you are trained in martial arts or a great runner you might want to try those options first. At 73 I will not trust my body for either option. My wife and I have taken concealed carry classes and the biggest takeaway is that you do not want to shoot someone unless you absolutely have to. You will go through an ordeal from moderate to miserable. Gun Defense Stories https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fs9J3t28kbL4-ragFOIDaUiAtRLqsf5VijQmxmYoZ3s/edit Second Amendment Rights https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lNfCpesT-BhEhMiL5kY2O0VvJtnoAIZiYvvTb0_6eh0/edit https://fee.org/articles/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/ https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/ Edited December 14, 2018 by ronwagn 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Epic + 390 cc December 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said: gun nuts 1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said: responsible gun owners Some people who might be less familiar with guns do sometimes have a difficult time telling these two kinds of individuals apart. So I thought I'd put together a few images to make the distinction clear. That distinction? Just watch where they put their trigger finger. (first 6 images are the nutjobs; the rest are the responsible gun users). Edited December 14, 2018 by Epic 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 14, 2018 / Note to self.... try not to start a thread that combines oil, environment, carbon tax, guns, religion and politics. Because other moderators might get annoyed : ) 1 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG December 14, 2018 Just now, Tom Kirkman said: / Note to self.... try not to start a thread that combines oil, environment, carbon tax, guns, religion and politics. Because other moderators might get annoyed : ) Bingo! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK December 14, 2018 23 minutes ago, mthebold said: @Red, I'd be curious to know what you disliked about this. I found aspects reprehensible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
