It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Control and Freedom

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
There are those also, who argue for a different interpretation of the second ammendment, where it gives the right to arm the militia, which would be the national guard.

And also, it is legal to own machine guns on a Form 4 transfer in the US...but hard to get this in some places.




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
I am for gun control. Don't get me wrong and quote me as saying I want all guns taken away because I don't.

The term "gun control is far too vague. I think we are ALL for one form or another of "gun control". I don't want violent criminals to have easy LEGAL access to firearms. Nor do I want anyone who knows nothing about firearms to have one.

Rifles for hunting are one thing, but automatic rifles? How far will this go?

What do you mean by "automatic"?
If you mean the so called "assault weapons" you are sadly misinformed. Every weapon banned under Clinton was a semi automatic rifle or pistol. You still need to pull the trigger for each round. None of them were "assault weapons". Assault weapons are ALL capable of fully automatic fire. It's kind of fun but VERY inefficient.
Many target shooters, myself included, can not get some of the preferred long range rifles that we used to be able to. The only REAL reason for this is that they look "scary". Well, Damn it, They Should! They are guns after all.


If you mean machine guns yeah, they have been heavily regulated since the 1930's. I see no reason that a person who qualifies for a handgun permit should not be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon.

Remember that the second amendment said we have the right to bear arms, not neccessarily guns, so technically it wouldn't be illegal to own an apache or a f117 stealth.

Quite right!!

I would not feel comfortable knowing that my next door neighbor has a machine gun, I don't know why anyone would.

I would question the quality of the neighbor before worrying about the hardware they have. Do your neighbors with large trucks frighten you on the road? They could easily crush you any time they wanted to.

As far as fearing a neighbors gun goes...I would much rather they try to hit me with an AK-47 on full auto than a good old 30-06 with a scope. So, yeah, I would feel comfortable with my neighbor having a machine gun.

When the constitution was written, they didn't take into account that we would have the technology to wipe out an entire city with one weapon. Honostly, what would our dinky pistols and rifles compare to the best and most highly trained and high tech army in the world?

As far as the nukes go, I agree. I don't think the governments should have them any more than private citizens should. It's too late to not invent them so we need to regulate the hell out of them. It's our only choice right now.
Our "dinky pistols and rifles" are, honestly, more of a show of force. Eighty MILLION homes in this country contain nearly 300 Million firearms. You could be looking at a 60 Million person militia(conservatively). NO army would be able to sustain an invasion against that.
If, hypothetically, the worst were to happen and we end up with a true enemy within, our own army would have a rediculously high desertion rate within days if not hours of any Tyranical hostility towards US citizens. They know that they would have a hell of fight ahead of them (except for in Washington D.C. and NYC).
Odd how 99.99% of people in those places cannot legally own a firearm...


Screw the bat, take martial arts, you can take down someone with a bat in no time.


I'll take my Smith & Wesson to anyone with a bat, Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   


I would not feel comfortable knowing that my next door neighbor has a machine gun, I don't know why anyone would.


Would not bother me a bit as a mater of fact he does......LOL

The neighbors on both sides of me are armed and it just makes me more relaxed when I am not home knowing I have two armed people watching my house while I am gone. I guess it depends on how you feel toward your neighbors



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
There are those also, who argue for a different interpretation of the second ammendment, where it gives the right to arm the militia, which would be the national guard.

And also, it is legal to own machine guns on a Form 4 transfer in the US...but hard to get this in some places.


Uh, no, the National Guard is not the militia. Stop, duck and think about it, do you think the government has to tell the government it has the right to have weapons for the folks in uniform? Moving right along.....

In order to "legally" own an automatic weapon, it'll cost the average Joe alot of money. In the eighties it was 200 bucks, now it is alot more. Also. Once you send in you ATF form, you are on the list from there on out. The King knows you have weapons as intended by the Fore Fathers, weapons to keep the government in check.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Well, if people were responsible enough to own their own gun. It wouldn't be an issue. But since people are stupid and careless. That's why we need atleast some gun control

And the comment about needing guns to keep your government in check is an absolute joke. The amount of guns you own don't equal freedom. They just mean you have a lot of bang bang...



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



I would not feel comfortable knowing that my next door neighbor has a machine gun, I don't know why anyone would.


If you mind your own, Dont worrie about what other people are doing you will be fine.

I hate these people, there life is so dull, boring, and lame, they have to be in others life. Let people live there own life, stay out.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Flash bulletin for you, Thorn, I live in a part of the country where every house has at least one weapon. My neighborhood averages three per household. I don't know where you live, but if you feel you people are too stupid to have weapons without government control, I pity you. True enough, the interned and mentally incompetent should not have weapons, nor should those who are very young. In my neck of the woods, that would mean under ten. After ten, our children are even responsible enough to carry a weapon properly.

As far as the second amendment being a joke, would you like to explain that? Afterward, I'll be more than happy to explain your error. Ah, Hell, I'll do it now so that I can go do lawn work.

Figuring the number of citizens that own weapons, it would take a very large armed force to take away our government were we to not want them to do it. Larger than what we have in the armed forces of our own country, for sure. Especially since a good junk of that military would not turn its weapons on its own people for an arbitrary and tyrannical government. Also, since the workforce is the most important of the government's assets, it would not want to risk destroying it. It takes employees to make the wealthy people wealthy. The wealthy people pay the majority of the taxes. The government doesn't want them to become unwealthy.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Flash bulletin for you, Thorn, I live in a part of the country where every house has at least one weapon. My neighborhood averages three per household. I don't know where you live, but if you feel you people are too stupid to have weapons without government control, I pity you. True enough, the interned and mentally incompetent should not have weapons, nor should those who are very young. In my neck of the woods, that would mean under ten. After ten, our children are even responsible enough to carry a weapon properly.

As far as the second amendment being a joke, would you like to explain that? Afterward, I'll be more than happy to explain your error. Ah, Hell, I'll do it now so that I can go do lawn work.

Figuring the number of citizens that own weapons, it would take a very large armed force to take away our government were we to not want them to do it. Larger than what we have in the armed forces of our own country, for sure. Especially since a good junk of that military would not turn its weapons on its own people for an arbitrary and tyrannical government. Also, since the workforce is the most important of the government's assets, it would not want to risk destroying it. It takes employees to make the wealthy people wealthy. The wealthy people pay the majority of the taxes. The government doesn't want them to become unwealthy.


So you want 10 year olds with guns? Sorry, but most people in this country above even the age of 30 aren't compitent enough to have a gun.

You don't know what the armed forces would do when ordered. They would only need to be convinced that they are in danger. People in this country will tear eachothers hearts out in yet another brutal Civil War given the proper motivation.

As for the workforce bit. Wealthy people do not pay the majority of the taxes. I don't know where you get this nonsense from. The low and middle classes pay the taxes and do the work. The upper class is there to just remain upper.

If you don't think it's true, then why is it that America, being the richest nation in the world, also has the biggest class gaps in the world?

Flash Bulletin for you Thomas. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are...



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I think all of our gun violence has resulted from the media putting fear into our minds.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
I think all of our gun violence has resulted from the media putting fear into our minds.


Among other things, but yes I agree media is the top.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You have a low opinion of the nation. Just because you say 30 doesn't mean you are correct. To help clear your mind, around here, we are training our sons on firearms. Around here, it is not uncommon for a 10 year old to have already taken down his first buck.
No, I don't know what the entire military will do. But I know what our mindset was when I was in the military. I also know that the entire military is not in a quarantined environment and that they can watch the news. And again, a couple hundred million armed citizens against the military? Especially when it is the chattel property that does the work for the government that you'd have to fired your weapons at? No, an armed society is the best society.

The public is not as dumb as you think. If it was, you'd have to step over dead bodies in the street as weapons are commonplace.

Just because you don't see reality and make it up, just because you think I'm wrong doesn't mean I am.

Skullsplitter? I think your name should be Billy-Bob Bedwetter! I think you are negative because you are afraid. You find it easier to say the public is too stupid and weak because that way you don't have to risk actually standing up if one day it needs to happen.

Thank God our forefathers weren't Bedwetters.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You have a low opinion of the nation. Just because you say 30 doesn't mean you are correct. To help clear your mind, around here, we are training our sons on firearms. Around here, it is not uncommon for a 10 year old to have already taken down his first buck.
No, I don't know what the entire military will do. But I know what our mindset was when I was in the military. I also know that the entire military is not in a quarantined environment and that they can watch the news. And again, a couple hundred million armed citizens against the military? Especially when it is the chattel property that does the work for the government that you'd have to fired your weapons at? No, an armed society is the best society.

The public is not as dumb as you think. If it was, you'd have to step over dead bodies in the street as weapons are commonplace.

Just because you don't see reality and make it up, just because you think I'm wrong doesn't mean I am.

Skullsplitter? I think your name should be Billy-Bob Bedwetter! I think you are negative because you are afraid. You find it easier to say the public is too stupid and weak because that way you don't have to risk actually standing up if one day it needs to happen.

Thank God our forefathers weren't Bedwetters.


So to help prove your point you have to resort to insults? You are a sad little man, Thomas.

Besides. Why would a 10 year old need to be taking down a buck anyways? It's not like you need to do so for food. So it's mainly for #s and giggles. And that's basically what the desire to own a gun is. The desire to have a bang bang.

And yeah. Unfortunately the public is that dumb if not dumber. If it weren't. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in now would we?

And exactly where is the proof that an armed society is the best society? It's not like our military will be using hand guns. We're talking tanks and jets. And citizens would have NO chance against it.

Maybe one day freedom and firepower will no longer go hand in hand. Until then, things will never get better...



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Uh, no, the National Guard is not the militia. Stop, duck and think about it, do you think the government has to tell the government it has the right to have weapons for the folks in uniform? Moving right along.....


Okay, don't know where you were misled..your state militia is your national guard buddy. Look up the 1903 "Dick Act" where militias are federalized, providing for a public and private militia, the public and funded militia being the national guard.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter

Maybe one day freedom and firepower will no longer go hand in hand. Until then, things will never get better...


Best quote I've heard this month...

I also think that having guns to keep the government in check is bullcrap. If another civil war breaks out, it only takes one crazy idiot in that government to nuke living hell out of the population or pound them with the latest weapons tech that will make the "guns" the citizens own look like pea shooters.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Thorfin, my mistake for not injecting a smiley face. I figured you'd see that I was being humorous. Just like a bedwetter to need a smiley face!
(Note, the laughing face, indicating more friendly jabbing.

As far as the Dick act, it does not alter the constitution, nor does it alter the Bill of Rights. That would take an amendment. Your lack of understanding may deny you of your rights, and your lack of historical fact may allow you to believe that the National Guard is the militia, and you might think that it stands to reason that the ones paid by the government should keep check the government, but that is clearly not the intention of the Founding Fathers. Who misled me? Read the Federalist Papers. Learn.

It actually takes more than one person in the government to use a special weapon. And again, that would not happen. But hey, if you really think there is no chance of protecting yourself from the arbitrary and tyrannical government the Founding Fathers warned us about, and insured we would be able to be armed so as to keep them in check, abandon all hope and go grovel at the mighty god Government's feet. As far as many of us, we do not feel that way. Thankfully, for everyone, including you.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As far as the Dick act, it does not alter the constitution, nor does it alter the Bill of Rights. That would take an amendment. Your lack of understanding may deny you of your rights, and your lack of historical fact may allow you to believe that the National Guard is the militia, and you might think that it stands to reason that the ones paid by the government should keep check the government, but that is clearly not the intention of the Founding Fathers. Who misled me? Read the Federalist Papers. Learn.


I thought it was quite common knowledge that, yes, the national guard IS the militia...ask anyone!
You are going on about my "lack of understanding" and "lack of historical fact", yet you provide no facts for anything...I was not trying to say that the national guard is there to keep check of the government or whatever you are rambling about...I am simply saying that the national guard is the militia, and certain pro-gun control people use the wording of the 2nd ammendment to say that a state has the right to arm its militia, and that it doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms to all civilians. I disagree with this however.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Speaking of your knowledge, I figured I'd see this Dick Act that you say totally undoes what the Founding Fathers intended. Here, this is a find. And an interesting read. As you will notice, it does not, according to this, undo what the Founding Fathers intended.

It might be common knowledge among your like-minded buds that the National Guard is the militia, the same the F.F. expected would take back a tyrannical government, but that does not seem to be the common belief. A little more time, though, it will be. They rely on people to not read and think for themselves, but to consume their lies hook, line and sinker.
www.sksparts.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Understand, I am sarcastic as Heck today, and I apologize, but I'm telling you, what you think is the fact today was not the fact 200 years ago. Who would you believe, the ones trying to form a new republic for its citizens, or the ones who are trying to do to us what James Madison, Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson and the rest of them knew would eventually be tried?



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Courts have upheld over much time that citizen militias gain no protection under the constitutional definition of "militia"...it is referring to the national guard, this is how it is done these days.

Here this explains it well:

www.saf.org...

III. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE MILITIA CLAUSES FOR THE TWENTIETH-CENTURY MILITIA

Today's militia system has few common threads with the militia known to the Constitution's drafters. Modern warfare made changes necessary in order for the militia to emerge in the twentieth century as a viable military force. [143] However, most courts and commentators have failed to consider these changes when interpreting the militia clauses. [144] [p.977]

First, this Part examines the Second Amendment in light of the eighteenth-century militia. This Part demonstrates that the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear with respect to that militia system. Next, this Part examines various groups that have some claim to militia status in the twentieth century; the focus of this discussion is to determine whether or not these groups are entitled to any Second Amendment protection. This Part will show that both the organized and unorganized militia, as well as modern police forces, retain elements of the eighteenth-century militia and thus should receive Second Amendment protection to the extent that they have replaced the previous militia system.

A. Application of the Second Amendment to the Eighteenth- Century Militia

Unlike today's National Guard, the eighteenth-century militia generally consisted of all able-bodied adult male citizens. [145] Furthermore, the government not only allowed these citizens to keep their own weapons, but required them to do so. [146] The colonial governments could not have afforded to arm each militiaman even if they had so wished. [147] Therefore, this arrangement was necessary to maintain an effective fighting force. The Militia Act of 1792 [148] is entirely consistent with this view of the militia. This act defines militia as the armed citizenry, indicating that Congress still accepted this definition at the time they passed the Second Amendment. [149]

The wording of the Second Amendment becomes clear once one adopts the eighteenth-century militia definition. Since the drafters wished to avoid a federal standing army, maintenance of the militia was necessary for the country's protection. [150] Thus the Second Amendment begins, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . ." [151] Since the militia's very existence required individual ownership of arms, the [p.978] federal government could not deny the citizenry that right. [152] This was precisely the concern of the Anti-Federalists, that the Constitution left the federal government with the power to disarm the state militias at will. [153] Therefore, the Second Amendment provides that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [154] Congress did not tie this right of "the people" directly to militia membership because the militia was understood to consist of the general citizenry. [155] The collective-right view of the Second Amendment is thus essentially correct: the exercise of any Second Amendment protection is contingent upon membership in the militia. [156]

Congress's inclusion of the phrase "well regulated" within the Second Amendment has caused many gun-control proponents to conclude that the amendment protects only an organized militia, such as today's National Guard. [157] At least one state supreme court shares this view. [158] However, both historical and linguistic analyses demonstrate that the phrase is consistent with a militia composed of the general citizenry. Historically, the colonies organized their militiamen into units based on their locality; however, they used this organizational scheme for training only, not combat. [159] The colonial militia consisted of a pool of trained men that the government could call upon to fill whatever positions the situation required. [160] Therefore, an interpretation of "well regulated" to mean organized would be inconsistent with the militias existing in the colonies for two centuries. [p.979]

Furthermore, "well regulated" was eighteenth-century military jargon for government-trained, not government-controlled or organized. [161] This usage is entirely consistent with the colonial militias' structure: part of a government's duties was to train its militiamen. [162] Thus, with the adoption of the Second Amendment, Congress sought to protect the state militias as they then existed.

B. Second Amendment Protection for the Modern Militia System

The courts have struggled to analogize the militia system implemented in the eighteenth century to that existing today. [163] Yet the dramatic technological changes over the past two hundred years made the eighteenth- century militia system unfeasible and thus led to its decline. [164] However, the fact that the particular militia system known to the Constitution's drafters no longer exists does not necessarily mean that no Second Amendment claim can be made today. Supreme Court justices have often pointed out that the Constitution is a living document, which is adaptable to changes in the nation's societal and organizational structures. [165] Furthermore, federal courts have routinely adapted constitutional powers to reflect changes in technology that the Constitution's drafters could not have foreseen. [166] Therefore, any [p.980] modern organization which retains elements of the eighteenth- century militia should be entitled to some form of Second Amendment protection. [167] The breadth of Second Amendment protection an organization receives should reflect the degree to which it fulfills the purposes of the eighteenth-century militia. [168]

1. The National Guard

Most commentators have concluded that the organized militias of the states, which together comprise today's National Guard system, are the only groups that fit within the constitutional [p.981] definition of "militia." [169] Regardless, the National Guard has thus far needed no constitutional protection since Congress has explicitly excluded it from all federal firearms restrictions. [170] However, if Congress were to restrict the states' National Guard units from possessing certain weapons, the states would likely succeed in a Second Amendment challenge since the Guard's role in today's society is much like the eighteen-century militia's role in early America.

The National Guard clearly fulfills the first purpose of the eighteenth- century militia, that of protecting the nation against foreign aggression. The Constitution's drafters hoped that the militia would preclude a federal standing army; however, technological changes in the twentieth century made that hope impractical. [171] Yet today the National Guard, as a reserve force for the United States Army, [172] provides the bulk of the nation's military personnel available for service abroad. [173] The National Guard has proved itself necessary and effective as recently as the Persian Gulf War. [174] Therefore, the Second Amendment should protect the National Guard against disarmament as long as it continues to serve effectively in this role.

The National Guard has filled the second role of the eighteenth-century militia, that of providing law enforcement, in a variety of situations. [175] States have often called upon their National [p.982] Guard to provide control during times of crisis or civil unrest. [176] The National Guard has also proven effective in assisting police agencies to retard the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States. [177] Thus, the members of the National Guard have a strong claim to Second Amendment protections based on their law enforcement roles.

2. State Police Agencies

A state's police force is not commonly recognized as a branch of its militia. However, the professional police organizations so familiar in twentieth-century American society did not exist in the eighteenth-century. [178] In their place, the militia served in the role of protecting the public from criminal activity and bringing criminals to justice. [179] Since modern police forces have substantially replaced the law enforcement function of the eighteenth-century militia, the Second Amendment should provide protection against federal firearms regulations to state agencies that perform law enforcement activities. [180] Like the National Guard, police units have thus far been exempted from federal weapons restrictions. [181] However, if federal firearms regulations should become more pervasive, a state police force should be able to invoke Second Amendment protection against a federal regulation that restricts its access to weapons which have utility for law enforcement. [p.983]

3. The Unorganized Militia

The federal government has afforded the unorganized militia no protection from federal firearms regulations. [182] Since the unorganized militia's membership comprises much of the general citizenry, [183] Congress has indirectly applied all federal firearms regulations to this group. [184] While the unorganized militia may be entitled to some Second Amendment protection, the small role that states have given their unorganized militias limits the extent of this right.

The unorganized militia is wholly incapable of protecting the United States from foreign aggression, and thus cannot receive Second Amendment protection for this militia purpose. The unorganized militia has been called upon to fill this role in the past: governors have deployed their unorganized militias as recently as World War II to repel foreign invasion. [185] However, the rapid advance of weapons technology since that time has left untrained, lightly-armed individuals unable to resist any significant foreign threat. [186]

Modern police forces have generally replaced the eighteenth- century militia in the role of law enforcement. [187] However, governors [p.984] have occasionally called out their state's unorganized militia to quell civil unrest. [188] Sheriff's Departments across the country still use the common law posse comitatus concept to augment their law enforcement capabilities. [189] Additionally, individuals still use personally-owned firearms to prevent criminal activity or detain criminals until the arrival of police. [190] Thus, the Second Amendment may extend some protection to the unorganized militia in the role of law enforcement. However, the extent to which professional police provide for law enforcement today severely limits the unorganized militia's role.

4. Private "Citizen" Militias

Members of private militia organizations gain no Second Amendment rights by virtue of such membership. The debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution make clear that the drafters' definition of "militia" did not include private armies. [191] The Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed over how militia control would be divided between the federal and state governments, but no one argued that the militia should be independent of all governmental control. [192] The concerns of the Anti-Federalists pertaining to the militia all involved retaining control over the militia for the state governments. [193] Thus, the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights rose out of concerns over federalism, not the protection of individual [p.985] rights. [194] The Second Amendment should protect the individual state militiaman in the performance of his duties; however, that protection is ancillary to the protection afforded to the state militias. Thus, once a militia member steps outside of his role as a state actor, his Second Amendment protection ceases to exist. The private "citizen" militias, which generally have no state affiliation, [195] can therefore receive no special Second Amendment protection.

CONCLUSION

The definition of the term "militia" is a critical first step toward determining what protection the Second Amendment provides. This task is more complex because the eighteenth-century militia, which the drafters intended the Second Amendment to protect, no longer exists. In its place, a number of state organizations have evolved which provide comparable services in the twentieth century. Thus, the definition of the militia must involve an analysis of not only what governmental structures exist, but also what roles they play in society.

The individual-right view of the Second Amendment, that the amendment protects the right of everyone to own most any weapon for any purpose, is clearly incongruent with the intent of the Constitution's framers. However, the modern militia is not nearly so limited as recent federal court decisions have indicated. A number of organizations, including the National Guard, various law enforcement agencies, and the state unorganized militias, fulfill the eighteenth-century militia's purposes in today's society. Therefore, the Second Amendment should extend protection to members of all of these organizations while in the performance of their militia duties.



[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Understand, I am sarcastic as Heck today, and I apologize, but I'm telling you, what you think is the fact today was not the fact 200 years ago. Who would you believe, the ones trying to form a new republic for its citizens, or the ones who are trying to do to us what James Madison, Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson and the rest of them knew would eventually be tried?


I know it wasn't like this 200 years ago (the militia was formed 360 some odd years ago)...I was just trying to clarify the modern day interpretation of "militia" as defined in the constitution, and how it applies to the 2nd ammendment as such..it is just controversial because of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." line in the 2nd ammendment. I personally believe we should all be allowed the right to bear whatever arms we want (within reason).

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

--Thomas Jefferson





[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Shoktek]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join