Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 250

Thread: FOX News on OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano did an exellent job defending OC on Fox News today!

    He also said No Business can restrict the right to Open or concealed carry because it is a public place that serves the public. It will be on later tonight I assume.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    .
    Last edited by T Vance; 09-20-2010 at 01:09 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    ...

    Thank you Brady Campaign! ...
    I can't believe I am saying this but I agree 100% - Thanks Brady Bunch!



    However, this guy is wrong about businesses. You do not give up your property rights when you open up shop!
    United we STAND!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    ...

    Thank you Brady Campaign! ...
    I can't believe I am saying this but I agree 100% - Thanks Brady Bunch!



    However, this guy is wrong about businesses. You do not give up your property rights when you open up shop!
    No you are incorrect, you can not abrrogate someones rights because you have a business. You re looking at this the wrong way. Your business is public and you have full knowledge and invite the public thus you cannot take away a Constitutional right no more than you can bar a African American or Hispanic and claim private property rights. You are falling Prey to the liberal BS. Have we forgot the civil rights cases? How can anyone say I loose my rights because he owns a business? It is contradictory to say you can't bar a black man and violate his constitutional rights, but you can do so to me for excercising mine. It is pure idiocy and the court system we have lost to the moron liberal socialist mindset.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  6. #6
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    Oh how I agree with you bailenforcer. I'd love to see someone open shop and have a 'muslim only' sign on it. Simply speaking, it ain't happening.



    "I'd rather get spanked with a trespassing charge than be carried by 6.." I see a new slogan coming.


    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  7. #7
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    No you are incorrect, you can not abrrogate someones rights because you have a business. You re looking at this the wrong way. Your business is public and you have full knowledge and invite the public thus you cannot take away a Constitutional right no more than you can bar a African American or Hispanic and claim private property rights. You are falling Prey to the liberal BS. Have we forgot the civil rights cases? How can anyone say I loose my rights because he owns a business? It is contradictory to say you can't bar a black man and violate his constitutional rights, but you can do so to me for excercising mine. It is pure idiocy and the court system we have lost to the moron liberal socialist mindset.
    Abusiness does have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except for a very small list which being armed is not included on. That could be a task to undertake.
    United we STAND!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    No you are incorrect, you can not abrrogate someones rights because you have a business. You re looking at this the wrong way. Your business is public and you have full knowledge and invite the public thus you cannot take away a Constitutional right no more than you can bar a African American or Hispanic and claim private property rights. You are falling Prey to the liberal BS. Have we forgot the civil rights cases? How can anyone say I loose my rights because he owns a business? It is contradictory to say you can't bar a black man and violate his constitutional rights, but you can do so to me for excercising mine. It is pure idiocy and the court system we have lost to the moron liberal socialist mindset.
    Abusiness does have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except for a very small list which being armed is not included on. That could be a task to undertake.
    You miss the point again. I don't give a RATS A$$ what the courts say. They are subject to the Constitution as well as anyone, they ONLY interpret the constitution and guess what?!?! They are dead wrong. Read the founding fathers writings and you will see your rights can NEVER be abbrogated, denied, revoked for any reason this is why they are not inalienable, but in FACT UNALIENABLE, which menas NO one can revoke them for any reason even of you gave them permission to. A place of business is by legal terms "Quasi Public" and no business owner can revoke your rights PERIOD! Not for being black no more than for being a gun owner or a person who excerises their right to carry.

    Rememeber the Supreme court is not the GOD of this land, they are servants who we employ, they are NOT the final say, WE ARE! The constitutional rights can NOT ever be revoked and a Public business is NOT private, that is a contradiction. It may be privatly owned, but guess what, you need to read the Commerce Laws and find out even a private business isn't as private as you think it is.

    You need to clear your mind of this liberal trash they have deluded everyone with and use common sense here. Publis is not private and if I open it to the PUBLIC then it's not private anymore that is the Constitutional law, not some moron wearing a robes OPINION.

    I am shocked that any open carry person could fail to see the massive contradiction here.

    Imagine where this could lead? Insurance companies refusing to insure gun owners, apartments saying no, this private property issue is you and your home or land and if you read the constitution carefully you can see this.

    How idiotic is it to say I am trespassing in a public place? This stupidity is exactly how they steal our rights. A business is for the public it is NOT a members only private club. You go into business to get rich of the wealth of the PUBLIC at large...
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    So, can someone post a link to this Fox segment? The link at the beginning of thread is not about this specific segment

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    They can ask you to leave, without giving you a reason why. Problem solved.
    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  11. #11
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    ...

    Thank you Brady Campaign! ...
    I can't believe I am saying this but I agree 100% - Thanks Brady Bunch!



    However, this guy is wrong about businesses. You do not give up your property rights when you open up shop!
    No you are incorrect, you can not abrrogate someones rights because you have a business. You re looking at this the wrong way. Your business is public and you have full knowledge and invite the public thus you cannot take away a Constitutional right no more than you can bar a African American or Hispanic and claim private property rights. You are falling Prey to the liberal BS. Have we forgot the civil rights cases? How can anyone say I loose my rights because he owns a business? It is contradictory to say you can't bar a black man and violate his constitutional rights, but you can do so to me for excercising mine. It is pure idiocy and the court system we have lost to the moron liberal socialist mindset.
    If Government was to you force some one to shop at a public business (i.e. Health care, Public School, Post office) then I could see your point about abrogating someones rights. People do not have the right to shop, therefor no one in abrogating anyone's rights. If what you say were true then you would be abrogating the business owners rights. Nice try but it don't Fly. The constitution limits Government not Individuals. For every case law you post defending your argument, I can post case law for GenDetroits Point.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    ok, how about the link I asked for? I would like to hear what Neapolitano said.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    T Vance wrote:
    ...

    Thank you Brady Campaign! ...
    I can't believe I am saying this but I agree 100% - Thanks Brady Bunch!



    However, this guy is wrong about businesses. You do not give up your property rights when you open up shop!
    No you are incorrect, you can not abrrogate someones rights because you have a business. You re looking at this the wrong way. Your business is public and you have full knowledge and invite the public thus you cannot take away a Constitutional right no more than you can bar a African American or Hispanic and claim private property rights. You are falling Prey to the liberal BS. Have we forgot the civil rights cases? How can anyone say I loose my rights because he owns a business? It is contradictory to say you can't bar a black man and violate his constitutional rights, but you can do so to me for excercising mine. It is pure idiocy and the court system we have lost to the moron liberal socialist mindset.
    If Government was to you force some one to shop at a public business (i.e. Health care, Public School, Post office) then I could see your point about abrogating someones rights. People do not have the right to shop, therefor no one in abrogating anyone's rights. If what you say were true then you would be abrogating the business owners rights. Nice try but it don't Fly. The constitution limits Government not Individuals. For every case law you post defending your argument, I can post case law for GenDetroits Point.
    The Constitution is NOT case law, case law is dangerous. Case law is nothing more than Opinions which are often over turned on legal and constitutional grounds. Case law is what attorneys use to steal from others, including natural rights. When you open a business you already understnad you have to obey the constitution and you do no't have a right to use the business to removes rights from others. hence the civil rights argument. A business owner has no rights to exclude classes of people. Nor can they exclude classes of people who excercise their rights. The argument you give falls on it's face in logic alone.

    The reason you cite case law is because you know you have no that rights can not be removed by virtue of anyone being in business. You quickly go to case law which is mere opinion. Judges in this country have a long history of violating Constitutional law amd this is evidenced by the sheer mass of higher court rulings on Constitutional grounds.

    Be careful what you are wishing for, because your argument can be used to completely remove all your gun rights. The privatization of many services would also preclude your rights to carry. Your point of case law could also be used to argue you have no right to carry in an apartment managements place of business. This is a huge slippery slope greased with good intentions. Do you know Most of the TurnPikes have been sold to PRIVATE companies your argument now would impead your right have a gun in their business IE that roadway? You have NO idea what this silly case law idea opens us up to.

    The constitution limits Government but you do not have the right to violate someones rights either and can be prosecuted for it as well.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    jeremy05 wrote:
    They can ask you to leave, without giving you a reason why. Problem solved.
    that is discrimination PERIOD! What is the OC is a black then what? Why was he asked to leave? Can't you see where this goes? It opens a Pandoras Box of anti gun descrimination.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    ok, how about the link I asked for? I would like to hear what Neapolitano said.
    Ther is no link yet it was just on Fox News on television. Maybe you can look for it on www.foxnews.com

    It was with that Liberal Bill Hemmer's hour.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  16. #16
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    This is the case for other things - like being told to leave because of Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

    That doesn't mean that trespass is unenforceable.

    Besides, if your building isn't open to the public, maybe you shouldn't have hours where you're "open" and hours when you're "closed."

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    You use the Karl Marx argument from intimidation tactic well. Where did I say go anywhere and tell any to go screw himself?

    Instead of arguing MERITS you quickly retreat to attack mode. Interesting tactic. You act like the very people who wish to take our rights away with such inflamitory rhetoric but you never argue the valid point.

    Try again maybe you can accuse me of being a baby killer next time?

    Gotta love the " I have no answer so I will accuse" tactic.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    This is the case for other things - like being told to leave because of Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

    That doesn't mean that trespass is unenforceable.

    Besides, if your building isn't open to the public, maybe you shouldn't have hours where you're "open" and hours when you're "closed."
    BINGO!

    Great point the mere posting of hours of business invites the public. This you invite them with RIGHTS INTACT!

    Good post.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  20. #20
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    This is the case for other things - like being told to leave because of Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

    That doesn't mean that trespass is unenforceable.

    Besides, if your building isn't open to the public, maybe you shouldn't have hours where you're "open" and hours when you're "closed."
    His argument falls on it's face by his own example. If I have a right to go into the store, and a right to carry, and a right to buy, then short of beating or killing, I can do what ever I want in the store, I could go in and solicit my religion, I could smoke, I could read porno, hell I could argue that even if I had no money that it is discrimination against the poor to ask me to leave. Your right case law is dangerous, it is what liberals do when they cannot win at an argument based on fact, or at the ballot box. They use lawyers to twist the truth and reality of the Constitution by legislating from the bench..

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    This is the case for other things - like being told to leave because of Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

    That doesn't mean that trespass is unenforceable.

    Besides, if your building isn't open to the public, maybe you shouldn't have hours where you're "open" and hours when you're "closed."
    BINGO!

    Great point the mere posting of hours of business invites the public. This you invite them with RIGHTS INTACT!

    Good post.
    That said,

    I don't necessarily agree with you. I should have the right, as a business owner, to prevent certain kinds of speech that is normally protected by the first. I don't want someone promoting a competitor in my store, for instance.

    As a private property owner, I have the choice of making the rules, and you have the choice of patronizing. You don't like my rules, then you don't enter my premises.


    Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability - all of those are things that are supposedly not controllable (I say supposedly because people disagree on the sexual orientation one, even if I don't). You can control what you say, what you wear, what you bring with you.

  22. #22
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    You use the Karl Marx argument from intimidation tactic well. Where did I say go anywhere and tell any to go screw himself?

    Instead of arguing MERITS you quickly retreat to attack mode. Interesting tactic. You act like the very people who wish to take our rights away with such inflamitory rhetoric but you never argue the valid point.

    Try again maybe you can accuse me of being a baby killer next time?

    Gotta love the " I have no answer so I will accuse" tactic.
    what exactly is the 1) intimidation you speak of, and when did I 2) attack you, and the 3) accusation that you speak of? I expect three examples to correspond with each question i just asked. And the answers have to be things I actually typed out under my Site ID

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    You use the Karl Marx argument from intimidation tactic well. Where did I say go anywhere and tell any to go screw himself?

    Instead of arguing MERITS you quickly retreat to attack mode. Interesting tactic. You act like the very people who wish to take our rights away with such inflamitory rhetoric but you never argue the valid point.

    Try again maybe you can accuse me of being a baby killer next time?

    Gotta love the " I have no answer so I will accuse" tactic.
    what exactly is the 1) intimidation you speak of, and when did I 2) attack you, and the 3) accusation that you speak of? I expect three examples to correspond with each question i just asked. And the answers have to be things I actually typed out under my Site ID
    More falacious arguments.


    ""So your saying"" is an acusation and you know it, let's not turn this into an English lesson. Quit pretending.

    I didn't say intimidation I said "argument FROM intimidation"

    It was a Hegalian Tactic to smear someone by inference and thus make them defend themselves.

    Like if I would say in the middle of my argument ""Have you stopped beating your wife?""

    I am sure you can see how this puts people on the defense because you use the same tactic. Let's quit pretending.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    This is the case for other things - like being told to leave because of Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

    That doesn't mean that trespass is unenforceable.

    Besides, if your building isn't open to the public, maybe you shouldn't have hours where you're "open" and hours when you're "closed."
    BINGO!

    Great point the mere posting of hours of business invites the public. This you invite them with RIGHTS INTACT!

    Good post.
    That said,

    I don't necessarily agree with you. I should have the right, as a business owner, to prevent certain kinds of speech that is normally protected by the first. I don't want someone promoting a competitor in my store, for instance.

    As a private property owner, I have the choice of making the rules, and you have the choice of patronizing. You don't like my rules, then you don't enter my premises.


    Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability - all of those are things that are supposedly not controllable (I say supposedly because people disagree on the sexual orientation one, even if I don't). You can control what you say, what you wear, what you bring with you.
    The peach you speak of is a deliberate act of stealing your business, thus of course.

    My owning or carry of a gun does NOT violate your rights. Your prevention of my excercise thereof does in fact violate mine.

    Be careful you are making great points for the ANTI OC people, even if falacious.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  25. #25
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Bailenforcer wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    Bailenforcer wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    So your saying we can open carry in a store and tell the owner to go screw himself...Yeah right. If that was the case trespass would not be enforceable.
    You use the Karl Marx argument from intimidation tactic well. Where did I say go anywhere and tell any to go screw himself?

    Instead of arguing MERITS you quickly retreat to attack mode. Interesting tactic. You act like the very people who wish to take our rights away with such inflamitory rhetoric but you never argue the valid point.

    Try again maybe you can accuse me of being a baby killer next time?

    Gotta love the " I have no answer so I will accuse" tactic.
    what exactly is the 1) intimidation you speak of, and when did I 2) attack you, and the 3) accusation that you speak of? I expect three examples to correspond with each question i just asked. And the answers have to be things I actually typed out under my Site ID
    More falacious arguments.


    ""So your saying"" is an acusation and you know it, let's not turn this into an English lesson. Quit pretending.
    Now who is using rhetoric, and avoiding the Question with pointless replies. Your just like to stir the pot. Do you use a wooden spoon, or a ladle?

    :celebrate

Page 1 of 10 123 ... 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
  •