Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 11:24AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 04-20-2007 9:48PM 
Offline
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08-14-2004 11:33PM
Posts: 97

Source: Off Campus
Not to sound cynical or anything, but personally I don't believe in good or evil. I believe morality is the ability to reason right from wrong, but then again, how does one gauge that... it's a debate in and of itself. It's only a small part of Emerson's many philosophies that I take to heart.

Sea, you have a way of making me angry. You should come back and teach.

Edit: Has anyone tried analyzing any of Jefferson and company's pre/post Revolutionary documents? All I'm seeing here is speculation gone rampant. Sure you can speculate those supporting documents, but I do remember in some Early American History/Literature class that those were some of the best sources to try to get at least some idea of what the founding fathers actually meant in their wordings. Even looking back at all the text REMOVED from the original writeup of the Declaration of Independence gives some idea of what was going through people's minds at the time, whether it be the general mentality toward Britain or even the objection of slavery at such an early time.

Did I make a point? Can I have a cookie now?

_________________
=D-/-<
=D-|-<
=D-\-<


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 04-20-2007 10:26PM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
O.o wrote:
Sea, you have a way of making me angry. You should come back and teach.

I don't get this... I make you angry so I should come back and teach? I tend to be rather good at making people angry - either because I make them defend themselves, or I'm just an ass (your pick).

O.o wrote:
Did I make a point? Can I have a cookie now?


+1 bonus. But no cookie for you!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 04-20-2007 10:28PM 
Offline
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08-14-2004 11:33PM
Posts: 97

Source: Off Campus
Sea wrote:
O.o wrote:
Did I make a point? Can I have a cookie now?

+1 bonus. But no cookie for you!

=(

At least I'm increasing some attributes. Can I put that into charisma?

_________________
=D-/-<
=D-|-<
=D-\-<


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 7:22AM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
I just saw this this morning and it seem applicable:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... in_tff_top


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 2:58PM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: Fidelity
Article Sea Posted wrote:
The Virginia Tech shootings have reignited the gun-control debate, with both sides marshalling suspect numbers.

Gun violence "is costing this country over $100 billion a year," New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who is pushing tougher gun-control laws, said this week on CNBC, citing the gun-control advocacy group Brady Campaign. The Brady Campaign, in turn, cites research by Duke economist Philip J. Cook and Georgetown public-policy professor Jens Ludwig. But the 2001 estimate, based on a 1998 phone survey, isn't a direct measure of cost.

The researchers used a technique called contingent valuation, in which they surveyed respondents about how much they'd pay for a 30% reduction in gun violence. Extrapolating the survey results to the general population, they concluded that Americans are willing to pay $24.5 billion for that outcome. Extending that to a theoretical 100% reduction of gun violence, and factoring in the costs of suicide and injury by firearm, Profs. Cook and Ludwig arrive at $100 billion.


I actually laughed out loud at this... and then I had a seizure because I realized these clowns were serious....

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 4:44PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM
Posts: 2954
Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs

Source: Fidelity
Yeah, that's pretty funny.

_________________
It's still UMR to me, dammit.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 04-21-2007 11:18PM 
Offline
bertowned
bertowned
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 4:26PM
Posts: 2118

Source: Off Campus
wow. the statistics in that are amazing. real gallop results right 'thurr.

_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil.
Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04-24-2007 4:01PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST Wireless
Sorry for the ridiculously long reply, I've been working on my PhD and don't have time to read seek often, much less spend an hour typing up a reply (and three hours researching).

-|F.I.B.|-LowMan wrote:
If you're pro gun, the chances are just as likely that:
There may not have been a student with a concealed weapon in that class at that time, so saying people being allowed to carry would have prevented this is just a bit of a reach.


I didn't say it would have been prevented. But it would have given each victim a choice whether they were defenseless or not. It is about giving people the choice.

-|F.I.B.|-LowMan wrote:
A gun is a tool, and if used improperly, any tool can be made into a deadly weapon.


Agreed.

-|F.I.B.|-LowMan wrote:
I suggest we focus on preventing the crazy (to the extent possible), rather than pushing a pro or anti gun agenda which in reality, neither of which would have prevented this disgusting display of hatred. Because unless you either arm and properly train every person in America, or disarm every person in America, you can't guarantee a different outcome in these situations.


You can never guarantee anything. But you can give each person a choice to be in charge of their own safety. You can also never guarantee that nobody will slip through the cracks.

-|F.I.B.|-LowMan wrote:
And don't give me the likely change in outcome argument, because both sides can lay equal claim to the fact that :

A: heavier gun regulation would have prevented this unstable person from purchasing guns or
B:Legalization of concealed weapons would have allowed someone to kill him.

Both are of equal possibility. This was a tragedy, and there should not be a political point to make other than that.


But we have enough examples of armed normal Americans stopping a mass shooting, and enough examples of Americans who would have otherwise been armed if not for a "no gun" law who could have stopped one that did take place, that we can say that it does often enough make a difference.


Sea wrote:
No human has universal rights.


Then we differ on a fundamental plane. If humans do not have universal, fundamental rights, then the government can suppress any rights it sees fit. There is no limit to what a government may do, so long as it passes a law first.

Sea wrote:
The only rights a human has are those given to it by the government in which they willingly participate. It so happens that the government in which we willingly participate gives us certain rights.


So... you're saying that prior to the Civil Rights Act, people of african ancestry had no rights? Prior to 1776, Americans had no right of representation in their government? That in Germany prior to the second world war, Jews, blacks, and gays had no right to live? After all, what the Nazis did to the Jews, blacks, and gays was legal.

Sea wrote:
The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of our laws (like it or not), and if they strike down a law or uphold it, then it is lawful or unlawful[\b].. which is what I was arguing. Lawful does not imply correctness or morality.


Agreed. Just because it's "the law" doesn't mean it's right. And a law is wrong if it violates someones rights. Otherwise, it may be useless, but it cannot be immoral.

Sea wrote:
Our rights are granted to us by the government through the voice of the people underneath it - that's why it's called a Republic.


Our rights are not granted to us by the government - the government was merely instated in order to protect those rights which preexisted all governments. To argue that humans have no rights - life, liberty, etc... I cannot fathom someone who does not believe that anyone has the right to live, or to be free.

Sea wrote:
We could argue about what the constitution says all day. You've heard all my arguments, and I've heard all yours.


We could. But we both know that neither would be convinced, so let's not.


Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs.

Good.. then I want my M-16, 2 grenades and a flak jacket so I can go to class. The second amendment is limited just like every other "right." Just because the Federalist Paper argued a point, doesn't make it right.


But that does make the point what the author of the Second Amendment meant it to mean. And besides, taking grenades to class would be a bit extreme, and have you ever worn a flak jacket? Very heavy. The M-16 would be fine though. I personally have no use for fully automatic (just a waste of perfectly good ammunition, in my opinion) but under the intent of the author and ratifiers of the Second Amendment, you have the right to buy one and carry it to class.

Sea wrote:
You cannot assign morality to something that is instinctive. No one has a moral right to defend themselves. The do have a right to do so however morality is not the reason.


But what if the law said a woman was required to submit to a rape? That a woman has no right to resist any man who wishes to force himself on any woman, at any time. Would that be wrong, or would it be wrong for a woman to resist? If the law is the reason that people have the right to defend themselves, then when the law says you have to submit to a rape, you no longer have that right?

Sea wrote:
And women can use a blow dart or a bat or a knife or a machete or a bow - guns are not the only option. They just fit into your world nicely.


Guns fit into many peoples worlds nicely. There is a reason that police do not carry a blow dart or a bat or a knife or a machete or a bow instead of a gun. The reason is that guns are more effective, and easier to use. Could your grandmother use a bat or a knife or a machete to fend off a single attacker? A group of attackers? Good luck using a blow dart on anything larger than a squirrel, and good luck maneuvering it against an attacker who may be three feet away or on top of you. And a bow? Bows are only useful by the strong, and not useful for close-up targets like, say, a single attacker. Bows are only useful en masse as area fire - a military tactic (although some are used for hunting - it is not easy). An argument could be made to ban bows because they have no defensive use.

No, guns are the only weapon that do not depend on the strength of the user for their effectiveness. The only weapon that can let the weak, elderly, and lone fend off the strong, the young, and the group. Think up another weapon that a 90 year old granny in a wheelchair could use to fend off a group of street punks with chains and bats, and I'll be impressed. Oh yes, and pepper spray doesn't count. I got hit in the eyes with very strong stuff, and still managed to complete the police firearm training program (including shooting moving targets).

Sea wrote:
Correct, there is no moral right to protect yourself. Protecting one self is an instinct, attaching morality to it is incorrect. In that case a bunny has the moral right to protect itself when I shoot it. Morals implies selective thought process... protecting oneself is not one of those.


I don't really understand what you're saying. The human sex drive is instinctual too - is it wrong for a man to take sex whenever he wants from whoever he wants it from? Or is it incorrect to attach morality to a rape?

The human drive for self-defense is, as you say, instinctual. If a burglar breaks into another man's house and is unexpectedly confronted by the homeowner, and then kills the homeowner who attacked, is that wrong, or is it incorrect to attach morality to that?

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
You are saying that Professor Liviu Librescu was morally wrong when he sacrificed himself to try to protect his students.

Incorrect assumption. The sacrifice was morally righteous. There was a selective nature in his actions. People DO have a right to defend themselves, but there is NO morality in it. Stop attaching such a loaded word to it.


Humans are by nature moral creatures. Nothing we do is not subject to morality. If you eat breakfast, it can be morally right because you earned your food through honest means, or it can be morally wrong because you stole it. You can't separate any action from morality, because humans are by nature moral creatures.

And why do you say his sacrifice was morally righteous? By whose standard? Why do you get to say when something is morally right and when it isn't? Plenty of people at VT did not protect themselves or defend themselves, they simply waited the bullet with their name on it. They made a choice not to fight back - does the fact that they selected not to fight back add a component of morality to their actions, or to the actions of those who chose to fight back?

Sea wrote:
Causality is hard to prove here. I could easily also say that if the college had locked down the campus and placed sentries at every door then 50 people wouldn't have been shot.


Possibly. But how many armed guards would they have had to have to do that? And how long would it have taken to alert them and get them into position? In order for that to be effective, there would have to be two shifts of guards on call every day, and that doesn't come cheap. For every campus across America to do that... nobody could afford to go to college at all.

But hey, maybe you could put an armed guard in each classroom. A free armed guard, with better training and background checks, someone who won't abuse their authority, someone who is friends with everyone they are protecting. That is doable.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
If I wasn't worried about getting expelled and losing all the progress I've made on my PhD, I would be armed in the classroom. But until UMR policy changes, I'll take my chances with pens and pencils.

Good. I don't trust armed people. Makes me think they have something to hide. Maybe you're a terrorist!!!!!!!


I'm going to assume you're kidding. But remember that off campus, between 2-5% of everyone you meet is legally carrying a gun - and more are probably carrying one illegally. Of course though, I seem to remember you saying that you feel more comfortable around criminals (robbers, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers) who carry guns than around someone who has training and background checks.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you have no right to do it. Rights are not granted by the government. They are abused by it.

I disagree. Rights are those freedoms given to the people by the people. If the people make a law prohibiting a "right".. then you don't have it. Don't like it? Change it, or leave. That's how our government works.


Our government was instituted to protect rights which already existed.

US Declaration of Independence wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...


See that? All men (and in the language of the day, all humankind) are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, and government is created to protect (secure) those rights. This is the foundation upon which our government was built. Don't like it? You have the "Right to alter or abolish" the government, and institute a new government. I don't see you picking up a rifle and killing politicians like the citizens did in 1776, but you're welcome to move to another nation where they feel the same way about your rights that you feel about mine - maybe, say, China.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
And just because you don't see "state's rights people" discussing that issue doesn't mean that they aren't. They certainly are, and the "War on Drugs" is a big issue, one of the biggest. In fact, most of the modern infringements on all liberties are the result of the "War on Drugs." It is mostly ignored because most people think "drugs are bad" ...


Don't forget the War of Terrorism....


The War on Terrorism is also a crock of shit. Apparently you think so too. At least we can agree on something.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
To imply that a small, concealable handgun is the equivalent of a nuke is just stupid.

And so is saying that making campuses CCW area would have stopped this.


No. No it isn't. Every major shooting that has been stopped before its intended conclusion was stopped by a person or persons fighting back with personally owned weapons. Every major shooting that has gone to its conclusion has happened where nobody was legally allowed to CCW.

I'm not saying that allowing CCW would have stopped this incident, but the numbers say it would have been likely to reduce the death toll. Just a short drive away from VT, two students at the Appalachian School of Law used their personal guns to stop a shooting on campus - if they hadn't had to run back to their cars first, some of the three killed may not have been shot.

To say that students CCWing would have stopped this is questionable. To say that it would likely have saved some people, is a fact.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
But I'll bet that those people who lived through those anecdotes are pretty glad about it: ...


Because we all know one person's experience makes everything right. Remember that next time UMR changes their name.


It's more than one persons experience. It's the experience of every single potential victim in a mass shooting that was stopped by a normal person with a gun - the the experience of every victim who was killed by the same when they were in a place that didn't allow guns. Not one mass shooting has occurred in a place that allowed guns that wasn't stopped or mitigated by people with guns, and not one mass shooting has been stopped in a place that does not allow guns (except a few instances such as Trolley Square Mall where someone ignored the "no guns" policy and carried a gun anyway).

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
In fact, Israeli students routinely carry real assault rifles - capable of fully automatic fire - to class. And there haven't been any shootings there, not since they started that in response to terrorist attacks.

That's because they're all shooting at the Palestinians... They don't have time for school shootings. In all seriousness though, their society can handle that - ours cannot.


Why can their society handle it and ours can't? Because they have comuplsory military service? Perhaps it's because everybody has an M16 or an uzi, and any whackos who decide to shoot up a school or post office end up dead in a quick gunfight instead of a multi-hour shooting spree. You think people don't go crazy in Israel? They do, but they aren't succesful.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
So you're saying you're more comfortable with criminals illegally carrying guns than you would be with law-abiding, trained, background-checked individuals carrying guns?

I hate this argument. "The criminals do it so everyone should!" No shit - that's what makes them a criminal. And we do have law-abiding, trained, background-checked individuals carrying guns at school - they're called police.


Yeah, the police were at VT too. They waited outside while 30 more people were killed. Do you think the UMR police have different procedure? And when was the last time you saw the UMR police patrolling campus? They are not your personal bodyguards, and you can't expect them to share in your delusion that they are.

Are you suggesting that the police are somehow less likely to do something stupid with a gun? In fact, police in general (although the Rolla PD and the UMR PD are better than average, in this area) suffer from negligent discharges, leaving their guns in the bathroom, and accidentally killing each other far, far more often than non-officers with CCW. Are you suggesting that somehow the police are less likely to have some sort of a breakdown and use a gun to hurt somebody? In fact, police (having one of the most stressful and underpaid jobs in America - don't get me wrong, I respect the cops and appreciate what they do) have some of the highest rates of that kind of thing. The average CCW citizen does not have that kind of stress, and is less likely to "wig out."

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
All data have shown that legally-CCWing citizens have almost never fired shots in anything but a life-or-death self defense situation. To think that they're going to pick fights with gang bangers is just... silly.

Pick a fight? No.. engage in one, yes.


Actually, you're wrong. If a CCW holder did engage in a fight, and shot someone, that would be murder or attempted murder. And to get a CCW, we have to know that. It's on the test! If you knew anything about self-defense law, you would know that. Anyone who is carrying a concealed weapon has a responsibility to run away or de-escalate the situation. See this article in the miner: "Is it some sort of macho thing? No. When I’m carrying a gun, I have to work to defuse any potentially violent situation. If I participate in any way in an event which escalates to a shooting, I would be hung out to dry. I can’t be macho, I can’t be proud, and I have to walk away. Carrying a gun forces me to be as un-macho as possible."

Sea wrote:
And all data shows that there are almost no school shootings. To think that CCW leads to safer school is just... stupid.


There are almost no airplane hijackings, so to suggest that tighter security will lead to fewer hijackings is just stupid.

There are almost no children drowning in paint buckets, so to suggest that putting a warning sticker on paint buckets will lead to safer buckets is just stupid.

There are almost no drunk driving wrecks...

That's a specious argument.

Sea wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
Although this does seem to be on par with your arguments as a whole: grasping for straws, and becoming increasingly silly as you reach farther and farther away from reason.

Yeah.. because your arguments are rock solid. They're just as hypothetical as mine. Because anecdotal trumps the gun homicide statistics and death of children by guns.


My arguments are far from hyopthetical. There is plenty of data showing that mass shootings have been stopped by a normal person carrying a gun, and plenty of data showing what happens when nobody is allowed to carry a gun. My arguments are no more hypothetical than the predicted schedule of solar eclipse, and far less complicated.

What "gun homicide statistics" are you talking about? The FBI Uniform Crime Report that I posted? Cause you haven't posted any statistics.

And don't talk about "death of children by guns." I once had someone tell me that "eight children a day are killed by guns." I looked up the data on the CDC website. The only way you can get a number that high is if you include "children" up to age 24. I did further research on the FBI UCR website and found that 70% of those "children killed by guns" were criminals ages 17-20 who were killed in gang warfare. Half of the remainder were killed in gang-related events like drug deals. Suicides are also included (which would happen by some other method otherwise, as suicide is almost entirely cultural and not at all related to available methods) as are criminals killed by police acting in the line of duty. So what is the real number of accidental gun deaths among children? In 2002 (the same year that the “8 kids a day” figure comes from – in fact, the same data set from the CDC) there were 59 accidental gun deaths in children 14 and under. So don't tell me it's an epidemic. More kids (by a long shot!) are killed in swimming pools and yes, even in plastic buckets.



Sea wrote:
The founding fathers formed trained militia to combat the British.


They gathered a militia, not formed one. They formed an army, from the militia, to fight the current government. True, some of the bands of rebels that called themselves "states" began organizing their own militias, which were composed of civilians with their own guns but lacking uniforms or military training.

Sea wrote:
They WERE NOT your average citizen with their own guns.


HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA... breath... HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Where did you learn your history? You're the first person I've ever heard say that!

Every gun they had in the beginning was their own personal gun, with the exception of a few guns that the militias owned for those too poor to afford their own. In fact, the first shots fired were the British confiscating the guns from a colonial militia - which they took at Lexington. The citizens gathered together with little to no leadership and prevented the British from confiscating the guns at Concord. By and large, most of these men used their own guns - they had no time to get to the armory.

John Adams mentions this in "Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife" when he talks about how when the militia arrived, some groups had very few guns, and they had to "rake and scrape" to find enough guns. Guns were somewhat expensive, and not everybody could afford one. That is why the state's militias had an armory - which was far less than would be necessary to arm everyone who was in the militia.

Seriously, you need to post sources if you're going to claim something completely contrary to all of written history.

Sea wrote:
Today, people seem to construe the militias back then to be independent citizens that just happened to ban together to combat some ambiguous entity.


Not some ambiguous entity. The current government.

Sea wrote:
This is simply not true - they were regulated militias protected by the local governments (e.g. National Guard and local police).


Curiously enough, neither of which existed at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment! And the National Guard is run by the Federal government, not local. It is part of the US Armed Forces, not any militia.

Sea wrote:
You can't just pick random phrases out of the Second Amendment and ignore the rest.


You mean like pick the phrase "militia" and ignore everything about "right of the people?" Yeah, that would be totally incorrect...

Sea wrote:
Now, if the individual STATE says all of their citizens are members of their militia, then all their citizens can have weapons. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to give STATES rights through the people. The founding fathers weren't stupid enough to give every psycho citizen a right to have a gun ...


I think Agentzak summed up my response pretty well.

Sea wrote:
Besides, the founding fathers had no idea how technology would increase and affect society.


Yeah, otherwise they wouldn't have included the "right to free speech" if they had known about modern mass communication like the internet. The government will be along shortly to break your computer and throw you in jail for using high-capacity "weapons of mass information" to criticize the War on Terror. You have the right to free speech, but only if you use unamplified voice and a hand-cranked printing press.

Sea wrote:
They knew this, that's why they left ways to change the Constitution and interpret it. You want it clearer, get it changed or get the state to include every citizen in a "well regulated militia."


It's already pretty clear. Because a "well regulated militia" is necessary, the right of the people to keep and carry guns is protected.

Sea wrote:
And by your interpretation of the Second Amendment, I CAN have an atomic bomb, a cache of grenades and any other weapon I so choose to build - no matter how many people it might kill. Stopping me is infringing upon my right to bear arms. While your interpretation might sound cool, it has far reaching implications.


We already know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, and they meant all the small arms (ie. not artillery) that the army used at the time. Why? Because they needed to be effective enough to FIGHT THE ARMY OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT. Today, that would include a semiautomatic or fully automatic rifle, a pistol, a shotgun, a heavy or light machine gun, and light anti-tank rockets with armor-piercing warheads. Because those would be useful if the militia had to fight the US Army. In fact Elbridge Gerry (he refused to sign the Constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights) talked about that very thing - that a militia was supposed to fight the regular army in case of tyranny.


Agentzak wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, this little atomic bomb argument isn't working. Also in the constitution is the ability of Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper". That means that they can define and limit exactly what "arms" mean.


No they can't. The definition of "arms" was plain and simple until people started up with the stupid "atomic bomb" argument. We know from the writings of the people who wrote and signed the Second Amendment what "arms" means, and no definition is necessary, just like no definition of the bazillion other words in the Constitution is necessary.

Agentzak wrote:
Atomic bombs are not defined as "arms" but as "weapons of mass destruction" so no, citizen's do not have the right to own them.


Atomic bombs are not defined as "arms" because "arms" means the type of weapon that a soldier would carry or be issued. The government doesn't get to define it, otherwise, as Sea later noted, they could define "arms" as anything they wanted, and take away all the guns, which would defeat the whole purpose of having a Bill of Rights in the first place. Sort of like allowing the government to define "free speech" to mean only supporting the government and never criticizing the president.

Agentzak wrote:
Congress hasn't made a law outright banning small arms so yes, we (the citizens of the US) do have the right to own them.


Whether or not Congress has made a law outright banning small arms is immaterial to the question of whether we have a right to own them. Every human across the globe has the right, and few governments recognize that right. Just like China does not recognize the right to free speech, or Iran does not recognize the right to freedom of religion - that doesn't mean those people do not have that right.


Sea wrote:
Thank you. You have just proven all of my points. ... My use of the atomic bomb is to prove a point. If the term "arms" and "militia" are not defined then I can define them how I so choose.


Which is why Agentzak was wrong. The authors of the Second Amendment had already defined "arms" hundreds of years ago.

Sea wrote:
The founding fathers had no idea what types of arms we would have today, so they left it to the government to define what those arms are and how to regulate them.


No, they didn't know. But they did not leave anything to the government to define what those arms are, or how to regulate them. They left a restriction on the government that they could not infringe on the ability of anyone to own or carry any "arms." That's all the Bill of Rights is, a limit on what the government may do, to keep the government from violating the rights it was instituted to protect. The Bill of Rights does not grant any power to the government, rather, it denies certain powers to the government. The body of the Constitution grants certain limited powers to the government, and the Bill of Rights provides further restrictions on that power.


Sea wrote:
... I was responding to the notion that citizens needed firearms to hunt, so every citizen should have the right to unlimited rights to bear arms.


The "right to hunt" is listed nowhere in the Constitution. It would be more constitutionally sound to ban all hunting, and remove all restrictions on all types of firearms from the background check on a .22 derringer to the registration and near-ban on a machine gun.

Sea wrote:
The 2nd Amendment applies to all "arms" and to all "well regulated militias". What a "militia" and an "arm" are is defined by the perspective government organizations.


No, the definitions have been known since the Federalist Papers were written by the author of the Second Amendment and published in newspapers before its ratification. Any current attempts to change the definitions of "arms" are on par with any efforts to change the definition of (remove) habaeus corpus or the right to free speech.

Sea wrote:
The current definitions are broad enough to allow many citizens to carry openly, but they can change by act of the Congresses through the voice of the people - hence us being a Republic.


No, what you're describing is an unlimited democratic tyranny. A Republic is a government which is itself bound by laws - as in, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A Republic has certain laws which cannot be violated by its government. If you want to live in a country which is ruled entirely by the "voice of the people," try living in Rwanda, where the "voice of the people" is immediately enforced with machetes. The United States are ruled by laws, both restricting the actions of citizens (ie. murder, theft, etc. are illegal for a citizen to do) and restricting the actions of the government (ie. suppression of free speech, free worship, and free arms is illegal for the government to do).

That is a Republic.

Sea wrote:
And you should also note that many things in the Constitution are vague [b]on purpose. The founding fathers didn't know what the future would be like and left it flexible for a reason.


The founding fathers didn't know what the future would be like, so they restricted the powers of the government for a reason.


O.o wrote:
Has anyone tried analyzing any of Jefferson and company's pre/post Revolutionary documents? All I'm seeing here is speculation gone rampant. Sure you can speculate those supporting documents, but I do remember in some Early American History/Literature class that those were some of the best sources to try to get at least some idea of what the founding fathers actually meant in their wordings.


I am in the process of reading through "The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers," and "Common Sense." These were written by the major players, those who wrote and in the case of Paine, influenced the Constitution. Very good stuff. I think they should be required reading to graduate high school, and definitely required for any elected representative.

Agentzak did post some quotes from Jefferson and others, including personal letters and some of the Federalist Papers.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04-24-2007 4:43PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Fidelity
You think CCW citizens will start fights? See here. This illustrates the fact that citizens with CCW tend not to shoot if at all possible. Most incidents about which I read first-hand accounts (corroborated with police reports or local news stories in most cases) end up with the police saying something along the lines of "I would have shot the guy, that was some amazing restraint!"

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04-24-2007 5:51PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: HSS Building
I applaud you, prophet. Some of the comments you responded to I find incredibly absurd (I can hardly even read them), yet you handled them perfectly. I'm saving a copy of that.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04-24-2007 6:04PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: VPN
the naked prophet wrote:
Some very intelligent stuff

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 04-24-2007 9:24PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09-12-2004 3:04PM
Posts: 572

Source: Off Campus
Maybe I should argue against prophet so he writes more great posts like that.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 12:53AM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the Second Amendment relates to weapons needed for a "well regulated militia" and that it only applies to the Federal Government and not to States. Therefore, if the State wants you to have an individual liberty to own a gun then it is up to them. The Federal government does not trump the State here.

Whether you agree with the following or now is up to you:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court laid down two principles: first, the Second Amendment poses no obstacle to the regulation of firearms; and, second, it applies only to federal power, not to the states. In other words, whatever limits the Second Amendment may pose on gun regulation, these do not apply to the states.

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), when the Supreme Court upheld a state law that prohibited paramilitary organizations from drilling or parading without a license from the governor. Once again, the Court noted that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and that states were free to regulate the ownership and use of weapons by individual citizens. The right to keep and bear arms related only to the need for a militia. The Court reiterated this view in other cases challenging state firearms regulations.

In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court once upheld Congress's right to prohibit transportation of sawed-off shot guns since the Second Amendment had to be read in the context of its original intent, namely staffing the militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. "

"The wide-spread violence in schools throughout the Nation significantly interferes with the quality of education in those schools. . . . Congress obviously could have thought that guns and learning are mutually exclusive. . . . And, Congress could therefore have found a substantial educational problem — teachers unable to teach, students unable to learn — and concluded that guns near schools contribute substantially to the size and scope of that problem." -- Justice Breyer (1985)


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

On to Prophet....

the naked prophet wrote:
I didn't say it would have been prevented. But it would have given each victim a choice whether they were defenseless or not. It is about giving people the choice.


I have no problem with this argument. They can carry openly if they wish and the State allows it. I see no reason for concealed carry.


the naked prophet wrote:
But we have enough examples of armed normal Americans stopping a mass shooting, and enough examples of Americans who would have otherwise been armed if not for a "no gun" law who could have stopped one that did take place, that we can say that it does often enough make a difference.

How much is enough? Do you have a number for me? Do we get to count all the gang violence in your examples? How about civil disobedience where citizens are killed?

the naked prophet wrote:
Then we differ on a fundamental plane. If humans do not have universal, fundamental rights, then the government can suppress any rights it sees fit. There is no limit to what a government may do, so long as it passes a law first.

Yes, I believe we do disagree fundamentally here. The government can (and has and does) suppress your "fundamental rights." If the government has a "suspicion", they can break into your house, seize your property, arrest you and then forbid you a court trial (see Kevin Mitnick case and "enemy combatants"). In a Republic, the people award power to the government and thus also limit it.

The only reason we have the rights we do is because the founding fathers (as a whole) wanted them. Our rights were crafted from many years of intolerance. There was nothing universal about them. Most of them only applied to rich land-owning men.

the naked prophet wrote:
So... you're saying that prior to the Civil Rights Act, people of african ancestry had no rights? Prior to 1776, Americans had no right of representation in their government? That in Germany prior to the second world war, Jews, blacks, and gays had no right to live? After all, what the Nazis did to the Jews, blacks, and gays was legal.

African Americans: The founding fathers thought so - that's why they only counted for 3/5 a person. Women also had no rights according to the founding fathers. When the founding fathers wrote "all men are created equal," they truly meant all men. Actually, they meant all white land-owning men. I don't care what some of the founding father wrote if their actions say otherwise.

Prior to 1776: Correct. They had no such right. The British government did not grant them this right. They might not have liked it, but they didn't have it. That's why they "revolted." Revolt is very loose because without France it would have failed miserably.

Gays and Jews: This scenario twists my words. I said no human has universal rights. Are you saying that the Hitler deserved to live after killing all those people? He gets the right to live also, correct? There are exceptions, therefore it cannot be universal. Even the founding fathers knew this (hence Due Process).

If rights can be taken away under any circumstance, they are not universal. We have the death penalty, we do not allow gay people to marry, we have placed people in concentration camps. Even our government isn't gullible enough to believe in universal rights.

the naked prophet wrote:
The M-16 would be fine though. I personally have no use for fully automatic (just a waste of perfectly good ammunition, in my opinion) but under the intent of the author and ratifiers of the Second Amendment, you have the right to buy one and carry it to class.

"If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter." -- George Washington (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097048/posts)

Gun Control laws existed in the 1790's. The Supreme Court also ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that the Second Amendment does not prohibit regulation and that it ONLY applies to Federal laws - not state.

This was upheld in Presser v. Illinois where the Supreme court upheld a state law prohibiting paramilitary organizations and dictated that States "had the right to regulate ownership of weapons." And that the right to bear arms "only related to the need of a militia."

the naked prophet wrote:
But what if the law said a woman was required to submit to a rape? That a woman has no right to resist any man who wishes to force himself on any woman, at any time. Would that be wrong, or would it be wrong for a woman to resist? If the law is the reason that people have the right to defend themselves, then when the law says you have to submit to a rape, you no longer have that right?


See my prior statement about "universal" rights. There are exceptions, therefore it is not universal. If you truly think they are universal, I would be happy to come up with some really nasty people who deserved to die.

the naked prophet wrote:
The reason is that guns are more effective, and easier to use. Could your grandmother use a bat or a knife or a machete to fend off a single attacker? A group of attackers?

And the Patriot Act makes catching terrorists more effective and easier to do. And yes, my grandmother could fend off an attacker with a machete.

the naked prophet wrote:
No, guns are the only weapon that do not depend on the strength of the user for their effectiveness. The only weapon that can let the weak, elderly, and lone fend off the strong, the young, and the group. Think up another weapon that a 90 year old granny in a wheelchair could use to fend off a group of street punks with chains and bats, and I'll be impressed.

Taser, stun gun, rubber bullets. The force does not need to fatal to fend off people. Also there are non-fatal weapons being developed now. A gun might not help either. It could, but so could any weapon.

the naked prophet wrote:
I don't really understand what you're saying. The human sex drive is instinctual too - is it wrong for a man to take sex whenever he wants from whoever he wants it from? Or is it incorrect to attach morality to a rape?

Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power. Rape is not instinct. Therefore morality can be attached.

the naked prophet wrote:
The human drive for self-defense is, as you say, instinctual. If a burglar breaks into another man's house and is unexpectedly confronted by the homeowner, and then kills the homeowner who attacked, is that wrong, or is it incorrect to attach morality to that?

No. There is no morality attached to this "defense". There is morality attached to breaking into the house. This might forfeit the burglar's right to self-defense.. but then it's not really universal, is it?

the naked prophet wrote:
Humans are by nature moral creatures.

I completely disagree here. Humans are NOT moral creatures by nature. This can be shown by the changing "morals" of humans over time. I disagree with your premise on its face.

the naked prophet wrote:
And why do you say his sacrifice was morally righteous? By whose standard? Why do you get to say when something is morally right and when it isn't? Plenty of people at VT did not protect themselves or defend themselves, they simply waited the bullet with their name on it. They made a choice not to fight back - does the fact that they selected not to fight back add a component of morality to their actions, or to the actions of those who chose to fight back?

His actions were morally righteous because he chose to place himself between the students and the shooter. He was not defending himself, he was defending other people.

The students' actions had a neutral morality attached to it. They chose not to protect others, but they didn't defend themselves. There was no real morality here.

It is my standard of morality. My standard of morality is not blind to all morality. Morality depends upon decision making. Defending ones self if neither moral nor immoral. Defending others is a moral decision. Whether it is righteous or not is subjective.

the naked prophet wrote:
Our government was instituted to protect rights which already existed.

I fundamentally disagree. And I've addressed this.


the naked prophet wrote:
See that? All men (and in the language of the day, all humankind) are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, and government is created to protect (secure) those rights. This is the foundation upon which our government was built. Don't like it? You have the "Right to alter or abolish" the government, and institute a new government. I don't see you picking up a rifle and killing politicians like the citizens did in 1776, but you're welcome to move to another nation where they feel the same way about your rights that you feel about mine - maybe, say, China.


When the founding fathers wrote that they meant all white land owning men. African Americans counted at 3/5 a person, and women had zero rights in all but one state. I don't care what they wrote because their actions were very much against that line of thinking.


the naked prophet wrote:
Every major shooting that has gone to its conclusion has happened where nobody was legally allowed to CCW.

Really... the Boston Massacre had armed people in it. And they were closer to 1776 :-P Don't use "every" if it's not ALWAYS true. States have had gun regulation on their books since 1780's. Don't think it's a modern thing.


the naked prophet wrote:
To say that students CCWing would have stopped this is questionable. To say that it would likely have saved some people, is a fact.

So is saying that killing all people would likely reduce crime. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

the naked prophet wrote:
It's more than one persons experience. It's the experience of every single potential victim in a mass shooting that was stopped by a normal person with a gun - the the experience of every victim who was killed by the same when they were in a place that didn't allow guns. Not one mass shooting has occurred in a place that allowed guns that wasn't stopped or mitigated by people with guns, and not one mass shooting has been stopped in a place that does not allow guns (except a few instances such as Trolley Square Mall where someone ignored the "no guns" policy and carried a gun anyway).

Which is anecdotal evidence. Every student also gets A's on tests when they have the answers. So we should let all students have the answers.

the naked prophet wrote:
You think people don't go crazy in Israel? They do, but they aren't succesful.

Yeah, I forgot about all those bombings and border attacks.


the naked prophet wrote:
Are you suggesting that somehow the police are less likely to have some sort of a breakdown and use a gun to hurt somebody?

Nope.. but they do go through a bit more training.


the naked prophet wrote:
There are almost no airplane hijackings, so to suggest that tighter security will lead to fewer hijackings is just stupid.

There are almost no children drowning in paint buckets, so to suggest that putting a warning sticker on paint buckets will lead to safer buckets is just stupid.

Agreed. Tighter security for planes is an inconvenience and unnecessary. All it took was a change in policy for highjackings - we didn't need "tighter security." Especially tighter securities where we give up liberties.

Warnings on buckets are stupid. Children should be watched by parents and/or educated properly. If they drown in a bucket, it's their own damn fault.

the naked prophet wrote:
Where did you learn your history? You're the first person I've ever heard say that!

Every gun they had in the beginning was their own personal gun, with the exception of a few guns that the militias owned for those too poor to afford their own.

Few guns? Try again. Many weapons were confiscated from the wealthy since they were the only ones who could afford them or they were stolen from British stores. Private ownership of guns was low due to the expense.

And the states knew exact who had guns because they required "gun censuses" where they listed the owner and type of gun people had. Gun control did exist - just not on a federal level. (see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097048/posts)

the naked prophet wrote:
Seriously, you need to post sources if you're going to claim something completely contrary to all of written history.

"Each colony provided a militia for defense. Each militia was lightly trained, lightly armed and usually did not have uniforms." (http://www.answers.com/topic/american-revolutionary-war)

They were akin to our National Guard. They did have some training, they weren't just hauled out of their houses. The minutemen *were* hauled out of their houses. But the militias WERE NOT.

the naked prophet wrote:
No they can't. The definition of "arms" was plain and simple until people started up with the stupid "atomic bomb" argument. We know from the writings of the people who wrote and signed the Second Amendment what "arms" means, and no definition is necessary, just like no definition of the bazillion other words in the Constitution is necessary.


This is not agreed upon. Because in order to effectively fight the current government we would need naval ships, subs, helicopters and bombs. The definition is actually debated by the Supreme Court in many of the cases cited above.


the naked prophet wrote:
Any current attempts to change the definitions of "arms" are on par with any efforts to change the definition of (remove) habaeus corpus or the right to free speech.

Really? Because the freedom of speech has never been regulated (FIRE!) or habaeus corpus was never removed (Bush, Lincoln).


the naked prophet wrote:
No, what you're describing is an unlimited democratic tyranny. A Republic is a government which is itself bound by laws - as in, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


Absolutely not. A republic is any government that has the people elect a set of other people to create laws. That is what we have. The people can choose to change the constitution, the people can choose to change the laws. No "right" in the constitution is universal and no right is unchangeable or infallible. That's why I like the Constitution :-P

--sea


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 1:30AM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
Also:

In US v. Adams (1938):
"The second amendment . . . has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights."

A Tennessee Court held (1840):
"To hold that the Legislature could pass no law upon this subject by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to make it a social evil of infinitely greater extent to society than would result from abandoning the right itself."

"The right to bear arms is a precious one, guaranteed by the United States Constitution. But while we are a society still pioneering in the realm of space and [Page 80] spirit, we are no longer a frontier community. The great master of the law [Holmes] correctly observed that "Most rights are qualified". . ., and this right, too, is subject to regulation." Grauling (1959)

Some people might find the following an interesting read:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Rohner.htm


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 2:35AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: VPN
sea wrote:
Yes, I believe we do disagree fundamentally here

The main difference that I see between you and prophet is that he is arguing for how things ought to be while you are arguing for how things actually are. We know that there is gun control and has been gun control and regulation throughout history. What we are trying to state is that this gun control is wrong because people ought to have the right to keep and bear arms. Yes yes, we know that many guns are illegal but we don't look to current laws to determine what is right or wrong. If we only looked to laws as what is right, then we would treat black people like crap and when a black person stood up and said that treating black people like crap is wrong we would point to the laws and say, "It's the law, it must be correct." We derive our sense of right and wrong from our own thinking, not those of politicians.

sea wrote:
I have no problem with this argument. They can carry openly if they wish and the State allows it. I see no reason for concealed carry.


I assume that you are talking about Virginia here but I don't think that the state allows any type of carry on campus. Even if I am wrong and they do allow open carry on campus people would be very reluctant to openly carry. They already lost their best advantage of surprise so they have to constantly look over their shoulder because if a mass shooting were to break out they would be the first to go. Forcing people to openly carry when they could instead conceal it is a bad idea. Either way they are carrying a gun so what difference does it make if they choose to hide it and keep it out of sight and out of mind of those around them? Yes I know cops open carry but there are exactly 2 reasons why cops open carry. 1)They want to be recognized as cops which is why they wear a bright blue uniform. Hiding the gun doesn't really help them so they choose to have it outside for faster access. 2)They have a radio. They push a button, say a few words, and more people with bigger guns show up. Average people don't have that luxury.

sea wrote:
Gun Control laws existed in the 1790's. The Supreme Court also ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that the Second Amendment does not prohibit regulation and that it ONLY applies to Federal laws - not state.


Gun control laws generally have an effect of allowing one class of people to possess guns while restricting another class or group of people. At no time in history have guns ever been outlawed for every person in the US. These days gun control keeps guns away from average citizens while politicians get bodyguards that carry around fully automatic weapons with few restrictions. They eventually want to get to the point where citizens don't have any guns and will be forced to follow any and all laws they pass because they'll be the only ones in town with guns. In 1790 no one really liked the idea of black people owning guns.

sea wrote:
And the Patriot Act makes catching terrorists more effective and easier to do. And yes, my grandmother could fend off an attacker with a machete.


I don't think anyone here really believes that the Patriot Act makes catching terrorists more effective. Glad your grandmother could take on an attacker with a machete but wouldn't she have much better chances with a gun? It's really all about chances and probabilities. Guns don't stop bad events 100% just like getting a college education doesn't get you a job 100% of the time but it sure puts the odds in your favor.

sea wrote:
Taser, stun gun, rubber bullets. The force does not need to fatal to fend off people. Also there are non-fatal weapons being developed now. A gun might not help either. It could, but so could any weapon.


Guns also don't kill people 100% of the time. People survive shootings all of the time. Rubber bullets are also not 100% non-fatal. The main goal of self-defense shooting is not to kill the other person. It is to stop the threat as quickly as possible before you get hurt. Naturally the tools that are the most effective at stopping threats also have the highest fatality rate for whoever gets shot. Whenever I choose a tool to stop threats, I choose the most effective one I can. Criminals generally understand that guns are dangerous and they take a risk when they attack someone. It's their choice.

sea wrote:
Warnings on buckets are stupid. Children should be watched by parents and/or educated properly. If they drown in a bucket, it's their own damn fault.


I agree totally with you. In fact I have a similar thought but I don't think you'll agree with it

Quote:
Warnings on handguns are stupid. Children should be watched by parents and/or educated properly. If they shoot themselves, it's their own damn fault.


sea wrote:
Really? Because the freedom of speech has never been regulated (FIRE!) or habaeus corpus was never removed (Bush, Lincoln)


Just because the government did it or made a law doesn't make it right. There has been limits on freedom of speech that I think are horribly wrong all in the name of protecting someone from "libel." Just because the freedom of speech was limited by the government doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make it right to limit the next right on the list. The second amendment is there to back up the first amendment. They've taken away a good chunk of the second and now they are slowly taking away the first.

sea wrote:
The people can choose to change the constitution, the people can choose to change the laws. No "right" in the constitution is universal and no right is unchangeable or infallible. That's why I like the Constitution


You are correct. The people of the US could get together and collectively abolish or change any amendment they want. The second amendment could disappear and there would be no argument against it. Luckily the second amendment still stands. The government has been trying to chip away at it by using lawyers and fancy language but it still clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that is how it ought to be.

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group