The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A nation of victims > Comments

A nation of victims : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 24/9/2014

What we don't have is the practical ability to exercise that right to self-defence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The state, which is supposed to protect us, is in fact aiding and abetting violent crimes of all sorts by taking away our means of self-defence and leaving us exposed. Criminals must be so happy about this; so are the increasing numbers of those who get employed in the prison-industry off our tax-money.

Normally, someone who is hired to do a job and fails to do it, pays compensation. If government, which already takes the money to protect us, fails to do so, surely it should fully compensate the victims (or their survivors). Had this been the case, surely it would instead encourage people to protect themselves when they can.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 9:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Leyonhjelm is again pressing his libertarian programme - liberty for the predators and slavery for the prey - and when it's liberty to own guns it's not just slavery but death for the prey. The Slave Owners' Amendment (SOA) to the American Constitution means death for ten thousand Americans, shot dead by other Americans (and occasionally by themselves) every year.

A catch cry for the gun freaks in the USA is to proclaim that only the SOA protects the people from government (federal of course) tyranny. Yet never once has it done do, even with the endless police-state encroachments on liberty imposed after the attack on the Twin Towers.

Yes people should be entitled to the means to defend themselves - capsicum spray, tasers, baseball bats - you name it. But not guns, because it is the predators who get the drop on the prey, every time. Even in military bases where everyone is armed to the teeth, armed infiltrators kill soldiers.

Only the state can protect prey from armed predators. How? Be serious about banning guns. That means a mandatory minimum life sentence on conviction for possessing a gun and ammo. No way callous old ducks on parole boards can ever sool the offenders back on the public.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 5:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ave! Julian,

Wise words and I fully support your idea of banning all guns,
no doubt you have thought this through and will shortly tell us how we can disarm all the criminals before we start disarming the law abiding.

Go for it!!
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 6:37:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian:
Owning a gun for self protection need not be mandatory!
Why someone with your (control freak) convictions could even post signs on their property, "no guns stored or kept here," so the intending break and enter (drug maddened) merchant can pick and choose, who is to be the next victim!
Perhaps if you just took the time and trouble to actually look at the black and blue bodies of some of the badly beaten oldies, near beaten to death, protecting their few remaining if incredibly humble treasures, you would have no compunction, as a NORMAL human being, but to agree with David!
However, one suspects that most of the anti-gun brigade, are far from normal LOGICAL human being, with normal human empathy; or even basic human decency/common sense!?
Sorry, but I, and no doubt most surviving former victims, beaten into broken bone/ruptured testicle submission, will agree with David.
And one notes he is advocating non lethal means, which include bean bag ammo, tasers, pepper sprays and the like.
And so typical of the anti self defense brigade, automatically rejected as well, given they are all lumped into your incredibly illogical, anti firearms mindset?
Perhaps when it is you spending a pain racked month or so in hospital, hovering near death.
It may change your mind!?
Maybe not! Maybe there's not one in there to change?
I mean, the Jews are the ones that tried passive resistance, and look where that ended!
Maybe we should just wait until the offender has stabbed the intended victim, a few dozen times, just to be sure, that a lethal response is genuinely required!
No one is advocating known crims or nut jobs are given legal access to firearms, or any other lethal weapons, just law abiding citizens!
Don't want a gun, don't get one!
Ownership and or self defense, will never ever become mandatory!
I suspect, if the law abiding citizen is enabled by new sensible laws, as advocated by a distinctly sensible David, the break and enter crimes; and associated serious assaults, will massively reduce!
I rest my case.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 7:00:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian,
A gun would dispose of a problem human i.e. criminal for good. Capsicum spray will not !
Where is the problem ??
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 24 September 2014 7:15:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian

So the state should not be entitled to possess guns? We are going to get serious about banning guns, so no-one will have them, including the state?

Or you support a double standard in which monopoly predators can shoot their slave prey ?

Which one are you supporting?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 25 September 2014 12:58:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian,
I just read in the News that the use of a gun sorted out a violent incident for good.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 25 September 2014 6:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Posted earlier under “ FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT”)

It's not ISIS I fear, but my government !

The following words, from 'UNION AMONG THE COLONIES ' written in 1854 by John West resound more loudly today, than they did when West wrote them, & I quote :

" Badly as power has been used by the mere servants of the the Crown, it has been infinitely less oppressive than would be the slavish violence of mere servants of the people. Under the existing system of government, royalty preserves so large a share in our assemblies, & a control so perfect over the collection & distribution of revenue, that faction at present cannot wield its authority, or unsheath its sword.

Those who are dazzled by the idea of unrestricted and responsible government in little colonies have seen only one side of the medal. They have not yet seen family compacts in their full bloom; they have not yet beheld an Attorney General, armed with the power of the majority, hunting its enemies into the meshes of the law; they have not yet witnessed nepotism with greedy hand & jealous eye, seizing the public as a spoil. All this they would assuredly behold in a small community in which no voice should be heard to speak beyond its own borders.

American history is full of examples to warn & admonish us; for notwithstanding the public & private virtue concentrated there, its annals are full of both turbulence & oppression. Those in who were not in the ascendant were prostrate." Unquote.

Who now 'represents' us, we the Australian Citizens? And who exactly is George Brandis being controlled by ?
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Thursday, 25 September 2014 10:20:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who now 'represents' us, we the Australian Citizens?
Albie Manton in Darwin,
This is a hard one to answer but to put it bluntly, we don't as yet have a Department for morons hence 51% of inhabitants of this country can't be represented. Proper Australians are already represented by our Government.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 25 September 2014 10:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indi, it's that close now, 51% in the Liberal NP camp supporters, with 49% in the other camp you say? I was once a firearms owner, I was an armourer in the ADF, it was my chosen profession for many years, but then they came for my firearms and no one spoke out for me after 1996, Port Arthur took away the rights of anything vaguely resembling democracy.

I know many who have 'buried' their collections for the storm to come. Where once I voted for the Liberal Party (John Howard was my local member for many years) I too lost faith in the party. I don't believe the other major parties have anything to offer either.

The 2 party abused system of voting is the worst model I believe ever inflicted on the Australian electorate. The Constitution is anachronistic and needs a good look at, as it is out of touch in many, many respects.

If not for my partner, I would have left Australia last year, sailing way on my yacht - after Herr Abbot was elected as PM. After studying in detail the judgments of Patsy Wulfe, the evidence submitted by the Crown, and from letters written by people in the matter, I believe that Pauline Hanson was wrongly accused & gaoled by the falsehoods of Herr Abbott in his bid for power. He is not a pleasant person, very calculating and devious. I would however consider Malcolm Turnbull as a PM ...at a pinch.

I will dance in a bright green mankini in Smith St Mall when on the day, Tony Sharples rolls over and spills the bean on Abbott.

If Hanson, love her or hate her, had been given a better voice then I believe the "Immigrant Issue" would have been greatly lessened, and this current ISIS Crisis being beaten up by media and government alike would be a mere squeak here. Hanson was sadly misrepresented on many levels at the behest of Abbott and again the electronic whorehouse who infest him.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Thursday, 25 September 2014 1:23:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Albie Manton in Darwin,.
I was referring to the Lefties but since you mention nearly leaving I know quite a few decent Australians who are ready to leave, myself included. The trouble is that Rudd's criminal gang has taken away our opportunity to live overseas on our pension. Rudd & Co, you know the ones that stand for the workers (yeah right) & now this outfit won't pay us our pension if we're more than three months out of the country. On one hand they don't allow us to have a decent life here & on the other hand they don't allow us a decent live somewhere else either. Crook mongrels the bloody lot. If only the Lefties weren't so stupid we could gang up with them against those criminals in the Public Service & change things.
Perhaps we should go to Indonesia & the Philipines & return without papers, we might still get a few years of a reasonable existence side by side with the pretend refugees.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 25 September 2014 5:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There’s a sequence here. On June 06 David Leyonhjelm published a plea for Howard’s protections against the Bryant-style gunnies to be stripped away. On cue, the gun freaks set up a clamour to give mass killers open slather as they had before Howard. This time he has put up a perfectly reasonable proposition – allow decent people to defend themselves with weapons like sprays, clubs and tasers (one which I supported in Paragraph 3). But in jumps the same clown cacophony.

Is Mise starts the ball rolling by asking about disarming the law abiding. That’s easy, a simple notice to every registered gunnie to hand his weapon(s) in to the police. If he’s law-abiding he’ll so do. Every unregistered gunnie will do likewise or stand to be put in gaol FOR LIFE if caught. Likewise every criminal committing a felony in company with a gun-armed freak. Very draconic for predators, very liberating for prey. I’m biased, being more likely to be prey than predator.

Rhrosty paints a picture we all fear – helpless victim caught by vicious bullies and savagely beaten. If ONLY he’d had a gun. In his hand. Loaded. Cocked. Safety off. Ready to fire before the baseball bat landed. In his dreams! Law-abiding gunnie Oscar Pistorius was armed and ready. Heard a noise in the loo. Blam, blam, blam, blam. The Steenkamps don’t have their daughter any more. Reeva doesn’t have her life any more. TEN THOUSAND Americans don’t have their lives any more after each year of Slave Owners’ Amendment “law”. How many others maimed like the victims Rhrosty describes? Bullets do main as well as kill.

Individual has to pretend being on the wrong end of a bullet means you’re a criminal.

JKJ reckons the predators shouldn’t be deprived of their guns unless the state is also. Sure the gun-armed cop disposed of the Moslem who tried to kill him for Allah – the state needs firearms to protect the prey from the predators. With looser gun laws the Moslem might have had a gun and got in first!
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 25 September 2014 5:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual has to pretend being on the wrong end of a bullet means you’re a criminal.
Emperor Julian,
In that case in Melbourne the criminal was at the right end of the gun, in case you hadn't noticed.
If you want to find odd incidents to support an argument you can always find something. We're talking about the common good here for our future.
I have been a victim of severe theft & I know what it feels like to be let down by the likes of you. Believe me it doesn't feel good at all. You're not a Magistrate by any chance ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 25 September 2014 8:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ave! Julian.

"Is Mise starts the ball rolling by asking about disarming the law abiding...."
No, I didn't I asked how you were going to disarm the criminals,
so do tell.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 25 September 2014 10:45:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julian
So you approve of predators shooting slaves, and the stronger and more aggressive exploiting the weaker?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 26 September 2014 11:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My post of 5:33:39 PM 25/09 has brought some responses from the usual suspects.

Individual cites one case in which a criminal got what was coming to him. At the hands of the state, note. This doesn’t mean everyone at the wrong end of a bullet is a criminal as he has assumed. (Quoting: “A gun would dispose of a problem human i.e. criminal for good. Capsicum spray will not ! Where is the problem ??) It was stabbing two cops, not getting shot, that identified the Moslem as a criminal. The kids shot dead at Sandy Hook by the US Slave Owners’ Amendment weren’t criminals though Individual has implied getting shot made them such. They weren’t criminals visiting Port Arthur either. Perhaps the Port Arthur tourists were “Lefties”?

JKJ asks: “So you approve of predators shooting slaves, and the stronger and more aggressive exploiting the weaker?” No, the state should be armed to shoot predators. The cop in Melbourne did. Predators should not be armed as the gunnies would allow and as American gun laws do.

Is Mise asks how the criminals are going to be disarmed. Answer is in my Paragraph 2 5:33:39 PM.

I’ve a question in return: How does loosening gun laws avoid arming the criminals? Indeed, with Moslem supremacists on the warpath how does it stop them tooling up with AK47s?
Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 26 September 2014 1:05:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ave! Imperator,

Your method of disarming the criminals is a possible result of catching, convicting and incarcerating them.
It does not disarm them before they are caught, therefore it is not in the same category as disarming the law-abiding.

So you will have to do better than that, I want to know how you propose to disarm the criminals before they can do any harm.
I do suppose that you intend to disarm them bfore disarming the law-abiding, you wouldn't want to leave innocent people even more open to attack by armed criminals, would you?

Criminals and terrorists will always be able to get firearms, they can make their own.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 26 September 2014 2:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise, I am an innocent person and don’t want criminals armed by lax gun laws to shoot me. I would find owning a gun little comfort as the criminal, being in nature the aggressor, would have the drop on me. And on you too. Even Morgan and Virgil Earp were gunned down when the bad guys got the drop on them.

John Howard made a great inroad into the lax gun laws in Australia – the whole story with details of how the laws work is told at http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php The “usual suspects”, are busting to remove those restraints from criminals including, now, Moslem jihadists.

In answer to Is Mise’s question of how I would disarm the criminals before disarming the innocent, I wouldn’t even try. Howard disarmed all owners of many types of gun simultaneously, to the screaming fury of the trigger-fingered brigade, so first up I’d resist their increasingly shrill demands to bring back the rule of the gun. To stamp out the embers I’d implement the measures suggested in Paragraph 2 at 5:33:39 PM yesterday September 25 .
Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 26 September 2014 4:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julian,

<<Howard disarmed all owners of many types of gun simultaneously>>

He tried... but saying "Poof" doesn't make all guns vanish. No hardened criminal volunteered their weapon(s), nor would a Muslim Jihadist who is 72 times happy to die for their cause. Meanwhile, good honest people, and only those, did surrender their guns.

<<I would find owning a gun little comfort>>

And having been a victim of conscription in the past, I would refuse to touch a gun ever again even if I was offered one, even if I was ordered to have one. But hey, I can say this only because this is an anonymous forum, so no criminal/Jihadist can take advantage of my above statement. Nobody would ever be required to have a gun - all you need is that criminals BELIEVE that you may have a gun! Though I won't touch a real gun, I have no problems about spreading [false] rumours as if I have a hidden stack of machine-guns at home.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 26 September 2014 6:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imperator,

"s Mise, I am an innocent person and don’t want criminals armed by lax gun laws to shoot me. I would find owning a gun little comfort as the criminal, being in nature the aggressor, would have the drop on me. And on you too. Even Morgan and Virgil Earp were gunned down when the bad guys got the drop on them."

I rather think that you speak of things of which you know little, especially firearms and their use.
As for a criminal having the drop on me, I'm in my 81st year and I can still draw a pistol and fire before a person with a cocked gun can pull the trigger.
You are also a bit low on history, Virgil Earp died from pneumonia on 19th October 1905 when he was 62.
Morgan Earp was murdered on the 18th March 1882 by a shot through the window of a room while he was playing billiards.
No one had the drop on him.

I would suggest that you read a little history or just use Google.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 26 September 2014 6:37:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Virgil Earp was maimed in December 1881 by gunnies concealed in an upstairs window. Their Slave Owners’ Amendment guns were loaded, aimed and fired while Earp’s weapon was still holstered, useless. The bad guys had the drop on him. Always the way.

Less than a year later Morgan Earp was shot dead by unseen gunnies from outside a window as he played billiards. His gun? Forget it. They had the drop on him and the Slave Owners’ Amendment did the rest.

If gun-armed Moslems looking for their blessing from Allah burst in Is Mise as he slept he could always throw his sheets off, go get his gun, load, cock and fire it. He could count the flying pigs as he died.

Lucky the vermin who stabbed the two cops hadn’t had a gun. Thank you John Howard – the only good thing you ever did for Australia.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Saturday, 27 September 2014 2:36:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imperator,

"To get the drop" in firearm terms means to have one's gun pointed at the other fellow so that he daren't risk an attempt to get his own weapon.

The Earps were ambushed which is an entirely different thing.

Indeed if armed men broke into my home there is little that I could do because I am a law-abiding citizen and my guns are all locked away and their ammunition is locked in a separate container, bolted to the floor.

Thanks to John Howard I am not allowed anything for self defence or for the defence of my family. The same John Howard had a bullet proof vest (denied to ordinary citizens) and had armed guards to protect him, now that says something, 'coward' comes to mind.
If Howard's gun laws stopped the recent Muslim assailant in Melbourne from having a gun why do the same laws not stop Muslim criminals and other criminals in Sydney from getting illegal guns?

I await you illuminating reply.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 27 September 2014 6:07:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EmperorJulian
So you agree with predators enslaving people and shooting them to enforce obedience, it's just that you believe it's fine if the predators are the state?

You believe, don't you, that there should be no limit on their power but what they themselves decree - in other words, you support the worst kind of predation and exploitation.

You agree that it's okay for the state to threaten or attack people in its unilteral discretion, don't you?

But if not, then by what criterion do you decide the limits of statist power, if not by reference to limits decided by the state. And how do you avoid self-contradiction with your double standard?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 27 September 2014 6:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In answer to Is Mise’ repeated question about what constraint I would put on illegal possession of guns by criminals, again the answer is in my Paragraph 2 at 5:33:39 PM September 25 . The state can make things illegal without maximum effect, but to actually STOP something it must make the price totally prohibitive. Howard did well but was unable to go far enough. Having the drop on someone means being in a position to blow him away before he can defend himself , and in a community awash with guns the armed aggressor will always have the drop.

In answer to JKJ the state is constrained by laws empowering the community to constrain it. That does not apply to any other predators or potential predators. Hence standards applicable to state powers do not apply to powers of every Tom, Dick or Harry. JKJ’s “you believe” and “you agree” are invented straw men. As an infidel I have more to fear from the Moslem on the lookout for an infidel to kill than from the cops tasked with stopping him. Naturally I’m well aware that outfits like ASIO have a self-serving agenda of their own and that Moslems have been imported willy-nilly to threaten infidels and thus serve for the securocrats an original purpose of importing other enemies of liberty. We need the state but must always remember that it can go ape. The price of liberty etc.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Saturday, 27 September 2014 8:25:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imperator,

You still haven't said how you would disarm the criminals, they don't obey the laws now and didn't obey them when the penalty for murder was death.
You aren't going to frighten such people into disarming.

So, once again, how are you going to disarm the criminals?
That is, how are you going to take their guns away from them and how are you going to stop them from making their own?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 27 September 2014 9:31:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EmperorJulian

Stop trying to squirm out of it. If it's a straw man to say you believe in unlimited state power to kill its subjects as slaves, then answer the question you evaded.

By what principle do you say state power should be limited, that does not consist of the state exercising a self-granted monopoly and unilateral discretion of deciding for itself as the ultimate decision-maker whether to use aggressive violence for whatever it wants?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 27 September 2014 10:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ

By what principle? Normal people call it democracy.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Sunday, 28 September 2014 11:22:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julian
So in principle there's nothing wrong with shooting people dead or threatening to cage and rape them to force them to obey and submit to anything whatsoever so long as a majority vote for it, or rather, so long as a government voted for by a majority does the predation and enslaving? Please admit that's what you're arguing; but if not, why not?

Besides, haven't you changed your justification for predation and slavery? You were arguing it's okay if the state does it. Now you're disowning the state per se, and confining your defence to democratic states.

So at what point in Australia's history did the government acquire the right to shoot people for whatever it wants, as you maintain? If it doesn't have that right, why not, according to you?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 28 September 2014 12:22:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julian
Also, isn't "might is right" the opposite of a rule of just conduct? The opposite of ethics? Isn't the whole purpose of rules of just conduct to have some other principle of social relations than that the stronger will take from the weaker and attack them if they don't submit and obey? You do know, don't you, that Hitler and his national socialist party were democratically elected?

So how is your so-called "principle" any different from 'might is right'?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 28 September 2014 12:29:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julian

For the sake of intellectual honesty, could you please either answer my specific questions, or admit that your political and economic ideology has just been totally demolished, even according to your own terms, because it's hypocritical and wrong, because you've never thought it through properly.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 28 September 2014 11:12:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy