Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Manual safety on a Glock?

  1. #1
    Regular Member REDFIVE48's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    247

    Question Manual safety on a Glock?

    Question popped into my mind as I have carried a Glock for a long time and started to wonder. If Glock made no changes to their internal safety's but also added a manual external safety, would you use the manual safety?
    If no, leads me to the next question of current guns with external safety's, do you always use it or not? If so, is it because of lack of internal safety or is it because that is what is always taught to you?

    Just the random questions that pop into my mind, and maybe I'll learn about some other guns and their safety mechanisms (or lack there of).

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    I thought Glocks had an external safety in parallel with the trigger. You want another safety?

    I use the safety on my H&K during administrative manipulation/unloading. It's a DA/SA and I keep it in Condition Two, chambered, hammer down, safety off.

    I use the safety on my SA1911A1 as it is intended, in Condition One, chambered, hammer cocked back, safety on.

    I do not use the ineffective safety on my Luger that I keep chambered, not cocked, safety off.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    I can't imagine any other safeties on a Glock other than what's already there. It would be almost sacrilegious. As far as I know, for guns other than single action, pretty much everyone teaches that the "external safety" should be used as a de-cocker only and then disengaged (and the gun carried with it disengaged).

    Personally I don't know what anybody would want with an "external safety" on a non-SA handgun. Glock's safe action trigger is almost more safety than I want as under time pressure sometimes your trigger finger may not make it in quite far enough to depress it, but plenty far in to get a clean press on the serrated trigger.

    I want the gun to go boom when I press the trigger. No mag release safeties, no levers I have to disengage, etc. If you don't want the gun to go boom, don't pull the trigger.

    So, to answer your question, no I wouldn't use an external manual safety on my Glock if it had one (other than the aforementioned safe action trigger).

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    None of my carry guns have externally settable safeties and that's for a very good reason. In the event that I need to use my sidearm, all I want to do is "pull and pull" (pull the gun and pull the trigger). I do not want to have to concern myself with an external safety in an extreme encounter. The Glock design is fine as is in my opinion.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Safeties are really great mechanisms to prevent the excessive reduction of a companies finances due unexpected lawsuit. And that's about it.

    Even the NRA warns that safeties are mechanical devices that can and do fail. They are no substitute for safe handling.

    Disclaimer on my part, I'm not saying "screw safeties!" I'm just saying that putting all your faith in a safety is likely to cause an accident either because of mechanical failure or user error in trusting that the safety is engaged while you accidentally shoot your buddy. Using a safety but not trusting it is a more prudent approach. So, you know, don't go walking around pulling the trigger on a cocked and locked 1911 to prove it's on safe. By all means, use the safeties in the way they are intended.

    Now, pure personal opinion. If Glock added an external safety it would never be engaged if I owned it. That's personal preference that I know not every one agrees with. For me, I shoot mainly striker fired so I don't practice functional operation of a safety. Putting one on would inevitably lead to an engaged safety when I don't want one.

    Fact is, with most striker fired pistols, there is no way to fire the gun without pulling the trigger. There is no spring set under tension or compression that is just waiting to be loosed so that the striker can fire. In order to put tension on the striker spring, and therefore energize it, the trigger bar has to be moved. If it's not, there is no tension on the spring. The striker block can't be moved out of the way unless the trigger bar is moved. Etc... It's just not possible to fire them without pulling the trigger back. Now sure there are ways to pull the trigger unintentionally, like maybe getting something wedge into the trigger housing. But the trigger has to be pulled.

    In hammer fired pistols, a spring is under tension or compression if the hammer is cocked. It's not at steady state. So the failure of the sear connection to the trigger could result in a released hammer without pulling the trigger. I know it's not likely, but it's physically possible because the hammer spring has stored energy as opposed to a de-energized steady state. So external safeties on hammer fired guns are there to prevent the hammer from being able to contact the firing pin in the even that it accidentally let's go. Grip safeties, firing pin blocks, etc are all there to stop that from happening. Which is why a 1911 is intended to be carried cocked and locked. The thumb safety isn't the only safety on them. There are "internal" safeties as well. That way, if for some reason the thumb safety fails, the grip safety and the pin block prevent the gun from firing.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The best safety is the one with which everyone is equipped, but most fail to use.

    The one between your ears.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Safeties are really great mechanisms to prevent the excessive reduction of a companies finances due unexpected lawsuit. And that's about it.

    Even the NRA warns that safeties are mechanical devices that can and do fail. They are no substitute for safe handling.

    Disclaimer on my part, I'm not saying "screw safeties!" I'm just saying that putting all your faith in a safety is likely to cause an accident either because of mechanical failure or user error in trusting that the safety is engaged while you accidentally shoot your buddy. Using a safety but not trusting it is a more prudent approach. So, you know, don't go walking around pulling the trigger on a cocked and locked 1911 to prove it's on safe. By all means, use the safeties in the way they are intended.

    Now, pure personal opinion. If Glock added an external safety it would never be engaged if I owned it. That's personal preference that I know not every one agrees with. For me, I shoot mainly striker fired so I don't practice functional operation of a safety. Putting one on would inevitably lead to an engaged safety when I don't want one.

    Fact is, with most striker fired pistols, there is no way to fire the gun without pulling the trigger. There is no spring set under tension or compression that is just waiting to be loosed so that the striker can fire. In order to put tension on the striker spring, and therefore energize it, the trigger bar has to be moved. If it's not, there is no tension on the spring. The striker block can't be moved out of the way unless the trigger bar is moved. Etc... It's just not possible to fire them without pulling the trigger back. Now sure there are ways to pull the trigger unintentionally, like maybe getting something wedge into the trigger housing. But the trigger has to be pulled.

    In hammer fired pistols, a spring is under tension or compression if the hammer is cocked. It's not at steady state. So the failure of the sear connection to the trigger could result in a released hammer without pulling the trigger. I know it's not likely, but it's physically possible because the hammer spring has stored energy as opposed to a de-energized steady state. So external safeties on hammer fired guns are there to prevent the hammer from being able to contact the firing pin in the even that it accidentally let's go. Grip safeties, firing pin blocks, etc are all there to stop that from happening. Which is why a 1911 is intended to be carried cocked and locked. The thumb safety isn't the only safety on them. There are "internal" safeties as well. That way, if for some reason the thumb safety fails, the grip safety and the pin block prevent the gun from firing.
    You are incorrect with this statement with some of the more popular striker fired DAO pistols. In particular, Glocks, Smith and Wesson M&Ps, and Springfield Armory XDs. With the Glock, the striker is held in a partially cocked position when the slide is pulled and released. The trigger bar completes the cocking of the striker then releases it to fire a round. With the M&P and the XD, the striker is fully cocked when the slide is worked. All the trigger does is cause the sear to release the striker.

    The Kahr line of pistols work as you mentioned. Their strikers are only cocked when the trigger is pulled.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I thought Glocks had an external safety in parallel with the trigger. You want another safety?
    I also thought this as-well.

  9. #9
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    You are incorrect with this statement with some of the more popular striker fired DAO pistols. In particular, Glocks, Smith and Wesson M&Ps, and Springfield Armory XDs. With the Glock, the striker is held in a partially cocked position when the slide is pulled and released. The trigger bar completes the cocking of the striker then releases it to fire a round. With the M&P and the XD, the striker is fully cocked when the slide is worked. All the trigger does is cause the sear to release the striker.

    The Kahr line of pistols work as you mentioned. Their strikers are only cocked when the trigger is pulled.
    Admittedly it was an oversimplification. With the Glock at least, the striker is pulled slightly less than 1/4" back. As for the XD, I'm new to the line so I honestly haven't had the time to learn it. I took mine apart after reading this and you're correct. Apologies for being misleading on the operation.

    Although, to be fair, they aren't really DAO pistols really either in the strictest sense. Which is why they are called striker fired.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    I would not be in favor of adding any complexity to a Glock, including a grip safety. It's nice having the trigger and grip safety on the XD and I would suggest that for beginning shooters.

    The progression I use is, carry unchambered for a short period while getting used to handling a new firearm platform, (during this short break-in or familiarization period my partner would be carrying chambered and would be taking the role of 'first shot' in any bad encounter). Then after going to the range a few times, getting used to it, getting a proper holster, start carrying chambered. I figure personal safety is worth a week or two of unchambered carry.

    I wouldn't want Glock to add a grip safety either, because it adds complexity to the platform, and the beauty and utility of the Glock is the simplicity.

    FWIW
    Last edited by Maverick9; 10-16-2013 at 11:19 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Condition 1: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety On is the way I carry, though the M&P doesn't have a external hammer, I guess the same reasoning can be applied. Mine comes with a thumb safety, and with training, I see nothing different with the presentation of a thumb safety, or non-thumb safety equip'ed gun. It all comes down to how you train, and time spent with your gun.

    If you want a glock with a external safety, put your hand's on a M&P.

    Just my .02.
    Last edited by mpguy; 10-16-2013 at 11:20 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I thought Glocks had an external safety in parallel with the trigger. You want another safety?
    Yes, this is why I own the XDm. The trigger-only safety has the potential of firing if something gets in there (worn-out holster, explorative kids, etc), while the setup on the XDm requires one to both have a proper grip and pull the trigger. While I would hope that I would never have such worn-out gear like that or leave my gun in such a spot that a kid would get it, that extra safety helps prevent a discharge when one doesn't have a proper grip on the gun, while not actually slowing one down or adding an extra step to screw up (outside of needing to have a proper grip on the gun) when using the gun in a high-stress situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    You are incorrect with this statement with some of the more popular striker fired DAO pistols. In particular, Glocks, Smith and Wesson M&Ps, and Springfield Armory XDs. With the Glock, the striker is held in a partially cocked position when the slide is pulled and released. The trigger bar completes the cocking of the striker then releases it to fire a round. With the M&P and the XD, the striker is fully cocked when the slide is worked. All the trigger does is cause the sear to release the striker.

    The Kahr line of pistols work as you mentioned. Their strikers are only cocked when the trigger is pulled.
    With the XD and XDm pistols pulling the trigger (or more specifically, the safety located in the center of the trigger) also moves the locking block out of the way of the striker. Without this block being moved the striker can't go forward to strike the bullet. But outside of that, it is true that the working of the slide cocks the striker (I heard somewhere that it is 95% cocked and the trigger causes the other 5% but I'm not sure how true that is).

  13. #13
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    I would add that if you carry with a thumb safety you always carry the same platform and not switch between no external safety and an external safety.

    As an emergency SD tool, I'd also say that I don't want to be required to do anything between the 'deployment' and the 'bang', except me pulling the trigger.

    To Aknazer: I thought this too about the grip safety then I realized it adds complexity to the firearm and that means something else to break.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 10-16-2013 at 11:31 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by REDFIVE48 View Post
    Question popped into my mind as I have carried a Glock for a long time and started to wonder. If Glock made no changes to their internal safety's but also added a manual external safety, would you use the manual safety?
    If no, leads me to the next question of current guns with external safety's, do you always use it or not? If so, is it because of lack of internal safety or is it because that is what is always taught to you?

    Just the random questions that pop into my mind, and maybe I'll learn about some other guns and their safety mechanisms (or lack there of).
    If a Glock had an additional external safety (besides the one in the trigger) it would not be a Glock. That's one of the reasons I own a Glock.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I would add that if you carry with a thumb safety you always carry the same platform and not switch between no external safety and an external safety.

    As an emergency SD tool, I'd also say that I don't want to be required to do anything between the 'deployment' and the 'bang', except me pulling the trigger.

    To Aknazer: I thought this too about the grip safety then I realized it adds complexity to the firearm and that means something else to break.
    I thought about that as well, but given all of the various other models I see out there (primarily various 1911s) not having a problem with the back-grip and how I don't hear about guns having problems with their locking block safety I figured chances are exceedingly small of a problem. The back-grip is like a regular external safety and the trigger portion is like a standard locking-block safety, but only connected to a specific part of the trigger instead of being connected to both the trigger and external safety.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Admittedly it was an oversimplification. With the Glock at least, the striker is pulled slightly less than 1/4" back. As for the XD, I'm new to the line so I honestly haven't had the time to learn it. I took mine apart after reading this and you're correct. Apologies for being misleading on the operation.

    Although, to be fair, they aren't really DAO pistols really either in the strictest sense. Which is why they are called striker fired.
    Actually the Glock is a true DAO pistol and is deemed so by both Glock and the ATF. I once called Glock and spoke to a tech about this very thing to settle an argument with someone. Keep in mind what the term means.

    Action types always and only describe what tasks a trigger performs. It has nothing to do with the firing mechanism; i.e. striker or hammer. With the Glock, the trigger is a two stage unit. It first completes the cocking of the striker (action #1) and then releases that striker to fire a cartridge (action #2). It does this and nothing else, hence the DAO designation.

    The M&P (and XD) is an anomaly of a kind, or hybrid in its operation. The striker is held in a fully cocked condition and all the trigger does is release the striker to fire the gun. The sear is a rocker design, kind of like a seesaw, which is moved upward on the forward end by the trigger bar cam, which in turn lowers it on the other end to free the striker. Technically this should be a SAO designation but there isn't such a term so Smith and Wesson call it a DAO pistol. Same with the XD.

    None of these three pistol designs have second strike capability. Two sample DAO pistols that do are the Ruger LCP and the Kel-Tec P11. Both are hammer fired and both do have second strike capability.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 10-17-2013 at 07:55 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Yes, this is why I own the XDm. The trigger-only safety has the potential of firing if something gets in there (worn-out holster, explorative kids, etc), while the setup on the XDm requires one to both have a proper grip and pull the trigger. While I would hope that I would never have such worn-out gear like that or leave my gun in such a spot that a kid would get it, that extra safety helps prevent a discharge when one doesn't have a proper grip on the gun, while not actually slowing one down or adding an extra step to screw up (outside of needing to have a proper grip on the gun) when using the gun in a high-stress situation.



    With the XD and XDm pistols pulling the trigger (or more specifically, the safety located in the center of the trigger) also moves the locking block out of the way of the striker. Without this block being moved the striker can't go forward to strike the bullet. But outside of that, it is true that the working of the slide cocks the striker (I heard somewhere that it is 95% cocked and the trigger causes the other 5% but I'm not sure how true that is).
    All three of these designs (Glock, M&P, XD) make use of a striker safety block and for very good reason.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I would add that if you carry with a thumb safety you always carry the same platform and not switch between no external safety and an external safety.

    As an emergency SD tool, I'd also say that I don't want to be required to do anything between the 'deployment' and the 'bang', except me pulling the trigger.

    To Aknazer: I thought this too about the grip safety then I realized it adds complexity to the firearm and that means something else to break.
    I mentioned this above, too. In the extreme conditions of an extreme violent encounter, the last thing I want to worry about is what condition my firearm is in (safety on or off, chambered or not, etc.). The only thing I want to worry about is getting that gun into action and hearing a bang when the trigger is pulled. The fewest things in between these two actions, the better in my opinion.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  19. #19
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Personally I'm not a fan of grip safeties on modern guns. I can see why the SA 1911 has one, but on a modern firearm, it seems like it's just another thing that might get you killed. In handling an unloaded 1911 I have found that you don't have to be "off" the grip safety very much to prevent the gun from being able to be fired -- I don't know about the XD. In a close quarters struggle you may not have a perfect "proper grip" on the gun but may very well have it buried in the ribs of your assailant with your finger pressing the trigger. If that happens, I want the gun to go bang.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    In a close quarters struggle you may not have a perfect "proper grip" on the gun but may very well have it buried in the ribs of your assailant with your finger pressing the trigger.
    In that particular instance, "buried in the ribs of your assailant", it is the disconnector that will prevent the M1911 firing.

    An assailant within arms reach - yours or his with a knife - is a failure.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Personally I'm not a fan of grip safeties on modern guns. I can see why the SA 1911 has one, but on a modern firearm, it seems like it's just another thing that might get you killed. In handling an unloaded 1911 I have found that you don't have to be "off" the grip safety very much to prevent the gun from being able to be fired -- I don't know about the XD. In a close quarters struggle you may not have a perfect "proper grip" on the gun but may very well have it buried in the ribs of your assailant with your finger pressing the trigger. If that happens, I want the gun to go bang.
    My GI 1911 has a grip safety which requires fairly affirmative engagement (disengagement?) to work. But then, I don't carry this gun (I get wicked hammer bite from GI grip safeties anyway).

    In contrast, my RIA Tactical 1911 with beavertail grip safety has the arm which blocks the trigger bar filed to within a few mil of the disengagement point. That is to say, the slightest depression disengages it. It's supremely difficult to have the gun in your hand and not have the grip safety disengaged. This is enhanced by it having a Wilson Combat-style "bump" at the bottom of the safety, which makes it even less dependent on grip.

    In many thousands of repetitions, I have yet to do a draw-and-fire drill where the grip safety didn't disengage.

    If anyone here has an issue with finicky grip safeties, we can talk about how to tune it to a more combat-ready fitment.
    Last edited by marshaul; 10-17-2013 at 11:18 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    The GI 1911A1 grip safety is supposed to disengage at ~2 oz. of applied pressure if my Navy training does not fail me. The proper grip of the pistol ensures that the grip safety is disengaged. The grip safety is to be repaired if the trigger can be pulled when gravity disengages the grip safety, there is a test for this in the Army TM 9-1005-211-12, I think.

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275

    Put a external safety on a Glock?

    I thought that is what the brain is for...
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The GI 1911A1 grip safety is supposed to disengage at ~2 oz. of applied pressure if my Navy training does not fail me. The proper grip of the pistol ensures that the grip safety is disengaged. The grip safety is to be repaired if the trigger can be pulled when gravity disengages the grip safety, there is a test for this in the Army TM 9-1005-211-12, I think.
    Probably most ND's that happen with a 1911 happen while the frame is being gripped. Might be the reason many semi auto makers do not use a grip safety. There is none on my Star Super, I am very comfortable with carrying the gun that it will not ND. Carried a S&W M39 for years with no ND's and no grip safety. Personally I don't need a grip safety. When the safety is on a 1911 the hammer cannot make contact with the firing pin, there is cutout in the hammer that the block for the sear rests in. Even if the sear fails the hammer will only go forward enough to bind in the cutout.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Probably most ND's that happen with a 1911 happen while the frame is being gripped. Might be the reason many semi auto makers do not use a grip safety. There is none on my Star Super, I am very comfortable with carrying the gun that it will not ND. Carried a S&W M39 for years with no ND's and no grip safety. Personally I don't need a grip safety. When the safety is on a 1911 the hammer cannot make contact with the firing pin, there is cutout in the hammer that the block for the sear rests in. Even if the sear fails the hammer will only go forward enough to bind in the cutout.
    Got a XD for the very reason that it has a grip safety. Just a bit more work for very small hands to actuate. But, the grip safety, as you correctly point out, requires extra diligence to be sure a ND does not occur.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •