Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Open Carry Activists (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Open Carry Activists
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because carry restrictions help to ensure the more people who carry actually have some degree of training. If we simply required and provided training, then a large portion of the issues would be taken care of in a much more productive way.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Clackamas Mall incident blows that myth out of the water.
A single anecdote does not "blow a myth out of the water," unless you're going to say that the guy killed at Walmart last week blows the Clackamas myth out of the water.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is also interesting to note that the recent Las Vegas shooters only killed people who were armed at the time.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And it is even more interesting to note that had that armed civilian not intervened and sacrificed themselves, how many more would have died before police finally arrived and then it ended?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as likely there would have been one death fewer. There is nothing to show that his actions accomplished anything other than getting him killed. It is sad and I am sad that his family lost him.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Just as likely there would have been one death fewer. There is nothing to show that his actions accomplished anything other than getting him killed. It is sad and I am sad that his family lost him.

And how much ammo did they have in total that could have been spent on other targets? Use logic.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And how much ammo did they have in total that could have been spent on other targets?
Are you of the impression that their spree ended because they were out of ammo?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And how much ammo did they have in total that could have been spent on other targets? Use logic.
If they were saving their ammo for defense, then they would not have shot anyone who wasn't a threat. And that is apparently what they did.

Which means that if that guy didn't pull out his piece and try to stop them, he would still be alive. [Frown]

And it completely undercuts your initial question of "had that armed civilian not intervened and sacrificed themselves, how many more would have died before police finally arrived and then it ended?" Apparently, one less would have died. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
And how much ammo did they have in total that could have been spent on other targets? Use logic.
If they were saving their ammo for defense, then they would not have shot anyone who wasn't a threat. And that is apparently what they did.

Which means that if that guy didn't pull out his piece and try to stop them, he would still be alive. [Frown]

And it completely undercuts your initial question of "had that armed civilian not intervened and sacrificed themselves, how many more would have died before police finally arrived and then it ended?" Apparently, one less would have died. [Frown]

Baloney. Shootings like these usually occur with the nutjobs trying to take out as many people as possible. You have no idea what objective they were going to pursue before this guy intervened. It's very possibly they were headed to a very specific target, or had something specific in mind, or else they would have killed themselves before that.

It is highly likely this guy's sacrifice saved countless lives.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, it must be nice to seal your brain off from all possible inputs.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You have no idea what objective they were going to pursue before this guy intervened.
And neither do you. [Smile]

quote:
It's very possibly they were headed to a very specific target, or had something specific in mind, or else they would have killed themselves before that.
IMHO, they killed themselves when they knew capture was imminent. They tried to stay alive and free as long as possible.

But they still had plenty of time to kill others if they had a mind to. The fact that they didn't--the fact that they only killed armed people--indicates that unarmed people were not their targets.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Shootings like these usually occur with the nutjobs trying to take out as many people as possible. You have no idea what objective they were going to pursue before this guy intervened
And yet you apparently think you do magically know what the objectives shooters might have are.

Even if you do assume any degree of rational behavior, if your plan is to take out as many people as possible, then you take out the ones that are armed first, particularly if you see them starting to draw.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Next up in the open carry activist corner...this guy!!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joseph-houseman-police-standoff

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
IMHO, they killed themselves when they knew capture was imminent.
My understanding is that Jerad Miller was actually killed by a cop. He and his wife were had both been shot -- non-fatally -- by police and were taking cover in the automotive department when he was finally struck and killed, at which point his wife killed herself.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Shootings like these usually occur with the nutjobs trying to take out as many people as possible. You have no idea what objective they were going to pursue before this guy intervened
And yet you apparently think you do magically know what the objectives shooters might have are.

Even if you do assume any degree of rational behavior, if your plan is to take out as many people as possible, then you take out the ones that are armed first, particularly if you see them starting to draw.

That's not magic; it's called profiling. It's often wrong, but more often right.

I am appalled at your use of the word "rational" to describe the nutjob shooter's objective of maximizing casualties.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Next up in the open carry activist corner...this guy!!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joseph-houseman-police-standoff

Haha, I'd rather take that guy than Leeland Yee , your Gun Control Poster Child.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
This may be covered on another thread somewhere, but I'm curious if there are any supporters of this trend here.

As much as I'm for free speech, I'm not for people going to children's play grounds and loudly discussing their sex life. There is a time and place for everything.

However, we tolerate a lot of things that we find repugnant when they are done as a protest. Hence it's no more troubling to me that open carry advocates would do this, than it was when the Black Panthers did similar things, than it was when the Occupy crowd refused to leave for months and months.
quote:
Tom the Dancing Bug sums up the obvious problem rather well, and I haven't heard a defense of it yet (not a cogent one, at least).
I didn't click on your link till today, I had taken you at your word that it summed it up rather well. I'm disappointed.
quote:
I've heard people here argue that an armed populace would prevent tragedies like Newtown, because an armed bystander could have taken out the shooter before he unloaded on a school.
No. "Taking out" a shooter is always going to be a low probability event, when you couple that with "random bystander" it will be even less. Most the arguments have surrounded allowing non-random bystanders to be armed (like say teachers or principals) and eliminating the promise to the shooter that no one will be armed at a location.

Even still, it wouldn't take that many events to change perceptions, particularly with a crime that appears to be driven by media seekers. The best thing that you could do to stop mass killings is cut the coverage of the events.
quote:
How, then, should that same person react when they see someone carrying an assault rifle into a restaurant?
If you frequent early morning restaurants you used to see hunters with rifles quite frequently. I can't remember ever being the least concerned about safety when I did.

I also used to see pistol carriers relatively frequently, and they did make me nervous. But you know what so do police offices carrying pistols. It's not irrational to realize someone has a deadly weapon on them and take note. It is irrational to believe that everyone who is carrying a gun is trying to kill you.
quote:
Would "Stand Your Ground" laws protect someone who shot and killed an open carry activist?
Why would they? Do you mean self defense laws, cause stand your ground is just a concept thereunder and that really isn't at all helpful or applicable if you decide to kill an open carrier.
quote:
Do shootings like Newtown and Aurora make it reasonable to assume that someone taking an assault rifle into a non-gun-related public space might be about to kill a lot of people?
Not really. Depending where you lived, you can talk to the older people in your family, and some of them may have taken rifles or guns to school with them as kids. People used to recognise that they are tools, and not be so paranoid.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Statistics suggest that vigilantes in a mass shooting situation are more likely to get themselves killed than they are to take down the attacker.

"Statistics" show a lot of things. Go look at the study that Al found, the second most common way that shooting situations are resolved prior to the police arriving is for bystanders to incapacitate the shooter. Studies have also shown that the most effective way to resist someone using a gun offensively is to have a gun yourself.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
And until recent rulings by the SC, hundreds of years after the Founders wrote it, you didn't appear to have one to carry a gun anywhere you like, either.

Answer me this: How come it took over 2 centuries before anyone figured out what the Founders were trying to say?

You sound like an anti-choicer.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
And until recent rulings by the SC, hundreds of years after the Founders wrote it, you didn't appear to have one to carry a gun anywhere you like, either.

Answer me this: How come it took over 2 centuries before anyone figured out what the Founders were trying to say?

You sound like an anti-choicer.
No, I'm reading the actual words of the 2A. Abortion is not addressed in the Amendments and so falls under the 4A and 9A/10A's rights reserved "to the States respectively, or to the people".
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Penn and Teller do a great job of briefly explaining why this was so well understood for so long that it didn't need clarification.

10 seconds on youtube will find the video.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, you would expect magicians to have a good handle on Constitutional issues.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Yes, you would expect magicians to have a good handle on Constitutional issues.

I expect most people to have a good handle on Constitutional issues, which is partly why I'm frequently disappointed. Penn and Teller are long winded, but funny, but to be honest, I've often enjoyed Michael Moore as much. I'm still not sure why you think pointing out they are magicians is something you see as an "argument".
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny, yes. They made a whole movie that consisted of nothing more than the telling and retelling of the same unbelievably filthy joke. It really was damned funny. But it's not funny when they misunderstand the use of a comma in the text of the 2A. People get shot every day because of such lack of comprehension.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, and how are they misunderstanding the distinction between "Militia" and "People" as separate?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about how they don't understand the connection? Ask yourself (no, strike that -- Go do some research) what exactly it meant when they wrote it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I already did research on it Al. Your "analysis" is a fringe opinion, acting like its unreasonable for others to hold the better reasoned position that is more consistent with history is the part that's problematic.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, I was challenging our resident hyperpartisan member, not you. But I'd like to see your research on what the Founders' intent was. I also have done research, including reading all or parts of several scholarly books on the subject. I'm pretty comfortable that the conclusions of those authors are consistent with each other's and mine follow theirs. Have you ever heard of Shays' rebellion?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You'd like to "see my research" from hundreds of hours of reading during and after law school? Really.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about you pick a few sources that are available online and I'll go check them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? Do you ask your doctor to go find some sources so he can prove your diagnosis to you? Honest to god, you're not going to change your view, because you'll find support for it. It's a minority position not a non-existent one.

You could just read the incredibly long thread where the interpretation of the second amendment as a historical matter was already debated, including by me.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've participated in those threads, too. You think because you and others have put opinions out there that differ from mine that the issue is somehow settled? You've raised a different issue here, that you've conducted research, including hundreds of hours of reading on this topic. I'm just asking you to provide the names of some of your sources that I can educate myself with, since the things I've read don't support your position. How is that an unreasonable request?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

quote:
Do you ask your doctor to go find some sources so he can prove your diagnosis to you?
I definitely would (not ask for sources per say, but the reasoning that lead to the diagnosis). Doctors get diagnoses wrong frequently (fortunately most mistakes aren't life threatening).

Similarly lawyers reach opinions that are disputable (and usually are disputed). For instance on the 2A we have another ornerian who has gone to law school and invested similar amounts of time in researching its legal history and I'm pretty sure they arrived at a conclusion largely the opposite of yours.

Also when lawyers are emotionally invested in a topic, they have the same inherent biases that most people do - they discount evidence that is contrary to their preferred interpretation and give excessive weight to evidence supporting their preferred interpretation.

http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2014/01/cognitive_biasesth.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293145

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I've participated in those threads, too. You think because you and others have put opinions out there that differ from mine that the issue is somehow settled?

I didn't say it was "settled." It's a matter of history and to some extent opinion. Go read someone sources off the internet, some treatises, text books and law review articles.
quote:
How is that an unreasonable request?
It's an unreasonable request, because I've reached conlusions over years of integrating reading. I can not simply whip up an internet reference that will hand hold you to the conclusion in a direct line, unless I take the time to write one myself. It's of the nature that to me that if you're not even aware there is a debate why are you arguing, and if you are why are you asking?

If you want google sources find them yourself, I will reference you others next time I read them.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's an unreasonable request, because I've reached conlusions over years of integrating reading. I can not simply whip up an internet reference that will hand hold you to the conclusion in a direct line, unless I take the time to write one myself. It's of the nature that to me that if you're not even aware there is a debate why are you arguing, and if you are why are you asking?
Sorry, I don't have time to research your position.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You didn't research yours either, you just went with what the first friendly columnist you read said as "proof".
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh, I pointed out that I have read books by academics who specialized in this area.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I definitely would (not ask for sources per say, but the reasoning that lead to the diagnosis). Doctors get diagnoses wrong frequently (fortunately most mistakes aren't life threatening).
Caution is warranted, as although people go to FOX News for information, an over-reliance on the network is known to cause numerous iatrogenic opinions among its consumers.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, though I don't watch Fox very often I have found that when it comes to their written articles they are often well researched. They are balanced in the sense they offer both points of view and often end the article by giving the last word to the opposing point of view from what was introduced at the beginning of that article.

I've noticed msnbc does not do that at all and CNN often does not do that or just ignores certain kinds of news altogether.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Actually, though I don't watch Fox very often I have found that when it comes to their written articles they are often well researched. They are balanced in the sense they offer both points of view and often end the article by giving the last word to the opposing point of view from what was introduced at the beginning of that article.

I've noticed msnbc does not do that at all and CNN often does not do that or just ignores certain kinds of news altogether.

Do you consider that an objective assessment?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not quite open-carry, but even moreso. Looks like the Oathkeepers are opening up to their true beliefs:
quote:
A top official with New York’s Oath Keepers chapter sparred with a Fox News radio host over an individual’s right to disobey laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

The group, which is comprised mostly of retired and active-duty law enforcement personnel, claims they are not bound to enforce such laws due to their oaths to defend the constitution.

“See, the people are supposed to be the boss,” said John Wallace, vice president of the New York Oath Keepers. “We’re telling people not to comply with an unconstitutional law.”

He appeared Thursday on “The Alan Colmes Show,” where the host repeatedly challenged Wallace to explain how the U.S. Constitution granted individual rights to interpret the law.

“No right is absolute, and there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that there can’t be regulation,” Colmes said. “Just (Thursday), the Supreme Court made a decision on regulation of free speech. No right is absolute, and on what basis do you get to determine whether a law is enforceable or not?”

Wallace said that ruling, which struck down a Massachusetts law that banned protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics, expanded the right to free speech, and quickly changed the topic from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment.

The group is specifically concerned about the state’s Safe Act, which stiffens gun laws, and Wallace said four pending challenges to the law would take too long for the courts to decide.

“I don’t think it’s in the purview of the state of New York to decide – I have a Second Amendment constitutional right – the government is supposed to protect those rights, by the way,” Wallace said. “My rights come from God. It comes from the fact that you exist."

That's right, they're not defending the Constitution, they're defending their God-given rights that no man or government can take from them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1