Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Look what was in the paper, found it interesting

  1. #1
    Guest

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    thoughtpolice wrote:
    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10460533
    City, county gun bans defy state law, foes say

    "I've always been puzzled by the notion that the state feels the federal government should not interfere in the governance of the state, but on the other hand the state Legislature feels it is appropriate to interfere with local governmental entities' gun control," Gunn said.
    Hmmm... perhaps because the states are sovereign and not political subdivisions of the federal govt. while local governments are political subdivisions of the state and not sovereign.

    Gee, I guess Steve Gunn's strong point as an attorney isn't constitutional law.:shock:
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    thoughtpolice wrote:
    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10460533
    City, county gun bans defy state law, foes say

    "I've always been puzzled by the notion that the state feels the federal government should not interfere in the governance of the state, but on the other hand the state Legislature feels it is appropriate to interfere with local governmental entities' gun control," Gunn said.
    Hmmm... perhaps because the states are sovereign and not political subdivisions of the federal govt. while local governments are political subdivisions of the state and not sovereign.

    Gee, I guess Steve Gunn's strong point as an attorney isn't constitutional law.:shock:

    Many states have adopted the Home Rule principle for counties and cities. The same sovereign principal for subdivisions of states can be applied as for states. There is nothing in the Federal constitution that prohibits the 10th amendment from being applied to counties and cities. We could do like Canada and say that all powers not specifically granted are reserved for the Federal Government.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    ... "Most residents would have misgivings about extended use or the extended presence of guns in parks,"...
    Geeez...really? 99.98% of the time no one gives me a 2nd a glance when i OC in supermarkets, malls, walking around my block, etc...

    I bet if the majority of the people that thought guns got/get "SO much attention"; Actually tried to OC one day... They would see how big of a deal it ISN'T.

  5. #5
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    It would seem that Mr. Gunn is more interested in applying his vested emotional interests to his gun control logic than he is common sense and a rationalization that should be based more on fact and true public opinion and desire.

    Applying common sense to his logic, where does it stop with regulatory authority in his eyes? If the state entities within itself, that being the counties and cities within astate, should be given authority to enact their own gun control, then why not East and West sides of cities? Why not individual neighborhoods within those cities. Oh hell, why not each individual home? This idiot has no basis for his logic other than his emotional vendetta against guns for whatever reason of which we do not know.

    The fact that this bumbling and pathetic excuse for a human being is able to have such authority to sway the ignorant public in such a biased and factless direction on the gun issue is disturbing. Somebody needs to put this guy in his place.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    ...The fact that this bumbling and pathetic excuse for a human being is able to have such authority to sway the ignorant public in such a biased and factless direction on the gun issue is disturbing. Somebody needs to put this guy in his place.

    Kevin
    Lol, Kevin: I think you just did!
    -----------------------------------------

    +1

    It is hardly ever, that an article is written (such as this one) that does not have a heavy anti-gun tone. The problem with an advocate for our side, IMO, is: We could have Sir Anthony Hopkins writing our speeches, but as soon as these people hear the term "Gun" used in any sentence, all the old stigmas come back and the facts tend to get "tuned" out. In the same breath, however, we can't just let people get away with it. What do I know, I'm just a professional internet-rambler.




  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    As a related follow-up how many states allow individual counties or cities to set their own alcohol laws? I know NC does where a county may be dry but the first thing inside the city limits or when you cross the county line is a liquor store. Lots of traffic laws are the same way. Most cities in SC have passed a careless driving law. If you get caught for speeding you can plead guilty to careless driving and the city gets to keep all the fine and there is no points against your drivers license.



  8. #8
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    As a related follow-up how many states allow individual counties or cities to set their own alcohol laws? I know NC does where a county may be dry but the first thing inside the city limits or when you cross the county line is a liquor store. Lots of traffic laws are the same way. Most cities in SC have passed a careless driving law. If you get caught for speeding you can plead guilty to careless driving and the city gets to keep all the fine and there is no points against your drivers license.


    Although I see where youare goingwith this logic, it has no application to a protected right to bear arms under the constitution of this country. The defense of life via a sidearm is totally separate, specific and special in its own right and should not be confused with any other facets in comparison as such. I respect your idea, but it is baseless in regard to firearms in defense of life liberty and property.

    Kevin


    Edit: After reading your post more closely, I realized that it may not have been written to criticize the preemption statute of this state but rather to also point out that there are other stupid things that states allow cities to do that should also be preempted. I apoligize for the misconception on my part if that is the case and agree with you that those things you pointed out are also ridiculous.
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I really have no opinions on preemption one way or the other. However I agree with the point made by someone that a reasonable person should not be expected to have to know a myriad of laws for every county and town in a state and that is the thoughtbehind preemption or that is what was pointed out. The state laws on guns should apply to the whole state since those laws are enacted at the state level and should not be overridden by each and every local yokle town and county.

    I merely tried to point out that state preemption does not always apply and many laws are left up to the locals. For someone to claim that it is unconstitutional for a local jurisdiction to have a different set of laws than the state or that states always aqutomatically control all laws of a locality can look to these types to see that it is not always thecase. it would be up to the state legislature to grant or deny such "Home Rule" just as the 10th amendment has granted it to the states. Preemption of gun laws must be declared by the state as it is not normally in any state constitution and not in the US Constitution. As much as we want to think that there is there nothing sacred about gun laws at the state or local level other than the very few rulings by the US Supreme Court.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    Article VI, U.S. Constitution
    "...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."


    The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    RIGHT.

    But the "...or to the people..." references an Article V Convention. Which we want and qualify for but of course are denied despite 628 (or more) applications by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states and THEY won't give it to us, the people. So, now what? Lube up and bend over, right? Right. Thats what we have been doing, that what we realize we have to do, and THATS why we (I) are/am bitching about it.

    It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.


  13. #13
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

    It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.

    This is true on so many levels. +1

    Our electoral college system is a perfect example of this as well. Do our votes really count? Do we really have a true choice, even in our "democratic republic, " anymore?

    Right now, we are subjects to our govenrment. It doesn't answer to us anymore. It answers to the lobbyists and corporate giants and those with greed and power.

    Kevin

    Edit: To back up this notion with evidence, just take a look at what our powerful buddy, Bill Gates, is up to and how congress swooned over him like a celebrity while he was selling us down the river.
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    RIGHT.

    But the "...or to the people..." references an Article V Convention. Which we want and qualify for but of course are denied despite 628 (or more) applications by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states and THEY won't give it to us, the people. So, now what? Lube up and bend over, right? Right. Thats what we have been doing, that what we realize we have to do, and THATS why we (I) are/am bitching about it.

    It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.
    Time after time I read on this board references to the 10th amendment and exactly what it is means as to ...or to the people. It has been repeated many times that if something is not prohibited ny law such as open carry in many states then it is legal. That is a direct result of the 10th amendment and a perfect example of it. It means exactly what it says, if it is not prohibited then it is legal. Open Carry being legal is a direct result fo the 10th amendment and the part of it that says "Or to the people".

  15. #15
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:

    Time after time I read on this board references to the 10th amendment and exactly what it is means as to ...or to the people. It has been repeated many times that if something is not prohibited ny law such as open carry in many states then it is legal. That is a direct result of the 10th amendment and a perfect example of it. It means exactly what it says, if it is not prohibited then it is legal. Open Carry being legal is a direct result fo the 10th amendment and the part of it that says "Or to the people".
    This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    PT111 wrote:

    Time after time I read on this board references to the 10th amendment and exactly what it is means as to ...or to the people. It has been repeated many times that if something is not prohibited ny law such as open carry in many states then it is legal. That is a direct result of the 10th amendment and a perfect example of it. It means exactly what it says, if it is not prohibited then it is legal. Open Carry being legal is a direct result fo the 10th amendment and the part of it that says "Or to the people".
    This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.

    Kevin
    We tend to get so caught up in 2A and 1A that we forget about the others. To me the 10th is the most significant of all. I am not a scholar on Canadian law by any means but I understand that theirs is the reverse meaning that unless it is specificially granted then it is illegal. Think of what this would mean in the US. For instance the right to keep and bear arms would only apply to those locations spelled out and the types of arms that would be allowed. The Federal Government would control all actions of the states and people. This would basically nullify all other amendments unless we were given permission by the Feds to exercise them.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I really have no opinions on preemption one way or the other. However I agree with the point made by someone that a reasonable person should not be expected to have to know a myriad of laws for every county and town in a state and that is the thoughtbehind preemption or that is what was pointed out. The state laws on guns should apply to the whole state since those laws are enacted at the state level and should not be overridden by each and every local yokle town and county.

    I merely tried to point out that state preemption does not always apply and many laws are left up to the locals. For someone to claim that it is unconstitutional for a local jurisdiction to have a different set of laws than the state or that states always aqutomatically control all laws of a locality can look to these types to see that it is not always thecase. it would be up to the state legislature to grant or deny such "Home Rule" just as the 10th amendment has granted it to the states. Preemption of gun laws must be declared by the state as it is not normally in any state constitution and not in the US Constitution. As much as we want to think that there is there nothing sacred about gun laws at the state or local level other than the very few rulings by the US Supreme Court.
    Remember folks, we are in Utah and so we should look to the STATE constitution before even bothering with the federal constitution. It turns out that in Utah, at least, the STATE in the sovereign government entity. Cities and county derive their powers entirely from what the State delegates to them. NOTHING more.

    And while some degree of local diversity is probably a good thing, our State constitution specifically requires:

    Article I, Section 24. [Uniform operation of laws.]
    All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

    Now, certainly, in this day and age, operation of a motor vehicle, firearm laws, and the like are "laws of a general nature" and must therefor have "uniform operation" throughout the State.

    In light of this requirement, State preemption is not just a good idea, but darn near a requirement under our form of State government.

    Other States have a different power structure and may view cities or counties as sovereign and thus delegating power to the State. But in Utah our power structure is the State delegates powers to the feds AND to the cities.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    thoughtpolice wrote:
    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10460533
    City, county gun bans defy state law, foes say

    ...There is a 1979 law banning dangerous concealed weapons from buses and trains, but there is also an exemption for concealed-weapon carriers. That doesn't stop the Utah Transit Authority from publishing Rider Rule #26 limiting "dangerous weapons" to those carried by law enforcement.
    "The statute states that it is not a crime for a concealed-gun permit holder to carry a firearm on public transportation, but it does not state that UTA cannot regulate the conduct," said UTA spokeswoman Carrie Bohnsack-Ware....
    I'm confused. So the UTA feels like limiting "dangerous weapsons" to those carried by law enforcement doesn't step all over the state statue indicating that it is NOT a crime to carry a firearm on public transportation? That they are just regulating the conduct??

    On a side note... anyone that thinks that the posts here on this site are one-sided need to check out the user comments for this article on the Tribune's website. They'll give you a laugh (but also an insite to the other views held by other citizens).

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Very good point. Preemptiondoes vary greatly from state to state and within states according to what is delegated and what is not. Your point about the operation of motor vehicles is a good one and is almost uniform nationwide. The primary differences between states is the age of operation and the point system but the actual operation is almost universal.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    OH, and all, PLEASE do let me know -- pm me if needed -- if you find illegal gun bans or signs to that effect.

    We want to gather them so we can push for some action from the State following the election in November.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    Our electoral college system is a perfect example of this as well. Do our votes really count? Do we really have a true choice, even in our "democratic republic, " anymore?
    I will point out that while there are some concerns and issues with incumbent advantage, and how elections are handled, the electoral college is NOT one of the problems. It is one of the bulwarks of liberty that stands alongside the 1st and 2nd amendments, and the whole notion of a limited federal government.

    The electoral college prevents any State from artificially inflating its power in electing the president by extending the franchise. Imagine if California lowered the voting age to 14 and made it really easy for illegal aliens to vote. They could increase the number of voters in their State by 25% or more. But it would have no effect on the number of votes they get to cast for president. (Admittedly, the presence of illegal aliens can inflate the number of electoral votes a State has.)

    The electoral college mirrors the great compromise of our bicameral congress and gives greater weight to votes cast in small States.

    The electoral college requires a candidate to garner support across both a wide geographic area as well as among the population at large. Eliminate it, and the entire "fly over" zone of middle america will be even more ignored than it currently is as candidates focus on winning popular votes in high density areas along the coasts.

    The electoral college limits the extend of errors and fraud. If you think Florida in 2000 was bad, imagine a single national election with 100 million votes to case.

    The electoral college reduces the possibility and benefit of fraud. In lock States (strongly GOP or strongly Democrat) where vote fraud is most possible, there is little benefit to the presidential candidate. This relates directly to the first point I raised. In swing States, almost by definition, there should be enough sharing of power to prevent much vote fraud.

    Ideally, I'd like to see us move toward giving the Electors even more discretion in how they cast their votes just as I think we ought to repeal the 17th Amendment and return election of Senators to the State Legislators.

    Just remember, most of the arguments raised against the electoral college being "out of date" are not unlike the attacks levied against the 2nd amendment.

    And, as a resident of a small State, my own self interest is enhanced by the electoral college.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    All in all, this was a balanced, and well researched article.

    A letter of thanks to the reporter would not be out of line, IMO. We ought to thank the media when they do a fair job, just as we criticize them when they are grossly biased.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    PT111 wrote:

    Time after time I read on this board references to the 10th amendment and exactly what it is means as to ...or to the people. It has been repeated many times that if something is not prohibited ny law such as open carry in many states then it is legal. That is a direct result of the 10th amendment and a perfect example of it. It means exactly what it says, if it is not prohibited then it is legal. Open Carry being legal is a direct result fo the 10th amendment and the part of it that says "Or to the people".
    This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.

    Kevin
    "....The Federal Government would control all actions of the states and people. This would basically nullify all other amendments unless we were given permission by the Feds to exercise them.
    Its already happening..

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,700259131,00.html

    "... "Once you fashion a Supreme Court that agrees with the majority, you might as well forget about the Bill of Rights,..."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    ProtectedBy9mm wrote: I am afraid that you are correct. The Feds control the money and therefore control everything else. One of the problems with our schools is the interference by the Feds and wanting to standardize rather then tailoring the teachings to the individual students.

    People do not realize the disastorous effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the South especially which has led to the narginialization of our students rather than helping those with added abilities only serves to bring them down to the average.

    Once the power is removed from the states then we no longer promote efficiency rather we strangle all to be reduced to the lowest common denominator. No longer are drivers required to be able to read road signs but only be able to look at pictures. No longer is a person required to be able to make a decision on how to vote but allowed to sell his vote to the person who gives him a premarked ballot to follow along with a promise of a reward if he follows instructions. No longer are people in the South especially allowed to band together to form communites of like political beliefs but rather are strung together by distant geographical boundaries sometimes only linked by an Interstate Highway in order that a racial balance in the winners of elections be maintained.

    Yes the 10th amendment is fast becoming obsolete and you can bet that once it is eliminated the second will shortly follow. While we sit here behind our keyboardstyping heroic sounding quotes from those long dead, arguing about whether 2A covers hand grenades or not and vowing that a vote for our favorite third party cantidate is a sing og protest that will wake up the politicians there is a group quickly moving behind our back to perform a sneak attack that we will never see coming.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    I know this topic got onto a bit of a tangent (as they tend to :?) but here's a following editorial to the original article:
    http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_10480602

    Guns in Parks: In most cases, they don't belong
    Tribune Editorial


    Article Last Updated:09/16/2008 06:25:52 PM MDT

    Gun advocates in Utah say that cities and counties are breaking state law when they post signs banning firearms in parks. But just as there are other things and behaviors that don't belong in public parks - bows and arrows, nudity, drinking alcohol, dogs not on leashes (except for dog parks) - it makes sense for local government to tell people not to bring their guns.
    The gun rights crowd is right that state law gives people with concealed-carry permits free rein to bring their guns with them pretty much anywhere. The few exceptions include the secure areas of airports, court houses, prisons and mental health facilities. The law also is clear that the Legislature has reserved to itself the power to make gun laws unless it specifically delegates that responsibility to local governments or state agencies.
    So it may be that banning guns in city parks is illegal. As far as we know, however, the question has not been litigated.
    Maybe cities and counties should make clear that gun bans in parks don't apply to people with concealed-carry permits.
    Otherwise, we think the bans are good public policy. We can't imagine that most Utahns would think it's a good idea to let people bring rifles or pistols to a park for target practice, or for shotgunners to shoot trap there. Young people, especially, should be discouraged from any such notions.
    And we don't think it makes much sense for people to carry handguns openly, whether it's in parks or on public transportation. That just makes other people, including peace officers, nervous, and could cause accidents just as readily as it could prevent crime.
    Frankly, the Legislature should loosen its grip on gun laws enough to give local governments some leeway. A gun ban in parks is one example. There may be places in rural Utah where the folks want to welcome guns to their parks, but cities along the Wasatch Front may take a very different view. We think that local elected officials have at least as much savvy about such things as legislators do, and they certainly listen to their constituents, who have their ear. Let cities and towns decide.
    That said, we're all for obeying the law. That's easier when the law makes sense. In most cases, we think that gun bans in parks meet that test.
    My favorite part is how the writer makes the assumption that "allowing guns" means that people will act like a park is the same as a shooting range....

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
  •