Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are over 300 million firearms in private hands in this country. In most states these weapons can be sold without background checks and zero oversight on who is buying the firearms and if they should have them. I was happy to see and contribute to an organization that sponsors gun buy back programs and wanted to share this with everybody.

 

www.gunsoffthestreets.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might actually be easier to implement to set up standards for who can own a firearm. It should be possible to thrash out minimums - some liability insurance, complete training on care & maintenance, marksmanship, a minimal psych eval.

 

The best would be to assemble the dreaded Federal register of guns/ownership/serial numbers. This should only be used to investigate alleged gun crimes. & I suspect versions of it - incomplete - already exist here & there in the state bureaucracies. We might as well face the facts - somebody out there is probably assembling this data already - if there aren't already overlapping segments in existence.

 

We might as well put powerful tools in the hands of murder/assault investigators. It might actually reduce the crime stats.

 

All guns laws should be Federal gun laws - to simplify admin & enforcement. & so that we're not constantly in a fog about what our rights are - currently, they vary from state to state, city to city.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All guns laws should be Federal gun laws - to simplify admin & enforcement. & so that we're not constantly in a fog about what our rights are - currently, they vary from state to state, city to city.

 

I must disagree with this. A rancher in Montana may need a .223 rifle to dispatch predators that may attack livestock, while an inner city thug should certainly not be allowed the same weapon since humans would undoubtedly be the intended prey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize the only purpose of a registration would be to take guns away from the people right? Because what you are talking about is already accomplished by the NICS system. But the government can't just get the information willy nilly without a warrant. If are you going to propose new laws, atleast be aware of the current ones.

No new legal firearm is ever sold to a civilian without a backgroun check. That is the law already. Only personal sales are legal without a background check. Which is the only solution to the problem of requiring people to have to have a license that is, btw, very expensive to sell guns. This way I don't have to travel to a gun store or have a special license to sell a gun to a relative or a friend.

Less than 1 in 100 firearms will ever be used in a crime, which is astronomically low. And that stat includes any gun crime. In case you don't know, any crime that is commited while the person possesses a gun is considered a gun crime. If you accidentally walk out of a store with a coke without paying and have a gun=gun crime in most states.

The third poster, made a point that I don't know if they meant to make or not. Gun laws are something that should be limited to local and state laws. What "works"(quotes because despite all of Chicago's gun laws they still have an unbelievable amount of gun crime) for Chicago will not necesarily work for more rural areas.

I have no problem with gun buyback programs though. However, states who destroy the guns are pretty stupid, they could sell them and make a tidy proffit and they would then go back in the hands of legal owners.



More to the point though. If something needs to be done about guns, then something needs to be done about cars and alchohol first. Since if you think guns kill people than you think those things kill people too, and they kill more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize the only purpose of a registration would be to take guns away from the people right? Because what you are talking about is already accomplished by the NICS system. But the government can't just get the information willy nilly without a warrant. If are you going to propose new laws, atleast be aware of the current ones.

 

No new legal firearm is ever sold to a civilian without a backgroun check. That is the law already. Only personal sales are legal without a background check. Which is the only solution to the problem of requiring people to have to have a license that is, btw, very expensive to sell guns. This way I don't have to travel to a gun store or have a special license to sell a gun to a relative or a friend.

 

Less than 1 in 100 firearms will ever be used in a crime, which is astronomically low. And that stat includes any gun crime. In case you don't know, any crime that is commited while the person possesses a gun is considered a gun crime. If you accidentally walk out of a store with a coke without paying and have a gun=gun crime in most states.

 

The third poster, made a point that I don't know if they meant to make or not. Gun laws are something that should be limited to local and state laws. What "works"(quotes because despite all of Chicago's gun laws they still have an unbelievable amount of gun crime) for Chicago will not necesarily work for more rural areas.

 

I have no problem with gun buyback programs though. However, states who destroy the guns are pretty stupid, they could sell them and make a tidy proffit and they would then go back in the hands of legal owners.

 

 

 

More to the point though. If something needs to be done about guns, then something needs to be done about cars and alchohol first. Since if you think guns kill people than you think those things kill people too, and they kill more.

 

(My emphasis)

 

Yah, if registration = the possibility of seizure, I suppose that means that cars, homes, marriage partners, major appliances (unless paid for in $), adoptions, condos, stock purchases, pensions & on & on are also subject to seizure. I'm not that worried about the possibility. Especially given the surfeit of firearms out there in the World.

 

My take on a database would be to license buyers, whether private or through dealers. If you're going to build up a registry, the whole point is to make it as inclusive as possible. Else the thing is useless are a reference, & facilitating the investigation of gun crimes is the whole point of the exercise.

 

Yup, agreed, more people probably die of easily avoided car accidents, DUI, & what have you. Point is, this particular thread is about guns, hence the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(My emphasis)

 

Yah, if registration = the possibility of seizure, I suppose that means that cars, homes, marriage partners, major appliances (unless paid for in $), adoptions, condos, stock purchases, pensions & on & on are also subject to seizure. I'm not that worried about the possibility. Especially given the surfeit of firearms out there in the World.

 

My take on a database would be to license buyers, whether private or through dealers. If you're going to build up a registry, the whole point is to make it as inclusive as possible. Else the thing is useless are a reference, & facilitating the investigation of gun crimes is the whole point of the exercise.

 

Yup, agreed, more people probably die of easily avoided car accidents, DUI, & what have you. Point is, this particular thread is about guns, hence the title.

Do you know how the NICS system works? I will explain it for you. But first, I would interject, car registration, home registration and on and on are state registrations not federal. Anyway. NICS. When you buy a gun from a store, you HAVE to get a backgroun check, same with dealers at gun shows. But before that, you have to fill out a form 4473, which contains all details of the firearm, serial number, caliber, model, make, etc. These files are maintained at the store of purchase for 20 years or until the store goes out of business. When either of these conditions are met the files are turned over to the atf. What happens when the police find a gun at a crime scene? They let the atf know, the atf calls up the manufacturer to find out where they shipped the gun with the serial number the police provided and they get a warrant for that store, they then retrieve the 4473 and go to the person who purched the firearms house and proceed from there. This does exactly what a registration would do, the only difference is that the government doesn't just actively know all of the time who does and does not have a gun. But if they need the information they can already get it. There is literally no reason for a registration of firearms except future confiscation. As has been the case nearly every time a gun registration has ever been implimented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how the NICS system works? I will explain it for you. But first, I would interject, car registration, home registration and on and on are state registrations not federal. Anyway. NICS. When you buy a gun from a store, you HAVE to get a backgroun check, same with dealers at gun shows. But before that, you have to fill out a form 4473, which contains all details of the firearm, serial number, caliber, model, make, etc. These files are maintained at the store of purchase for 20 years or until the store goes out of business. When either of these conditions are met the files are turned over to the atf. What happens when the police find a gun at a crime scene? They let the atf know, the atf calls up the manufacturer to find out where they shipped the gun with the serial number the police provided and they get a warrant for that store, they then retrieve the 4473 and go to the person who purched the firearms house and proceed from there. This does exactly what a registration would do, the only difference is that the government doesn't just actively know all of the time who does and does not have a gun. But if they need the information they can already get it. There is literally no reason for a registration of firearms except future confiscation. As has been the case nearly every time a gun registration has ever been implimented.

so how is this any different fro registering your car...and yes i know that the state registers a car, but if the state didn't do it, the feds would. so that counter argument is kinda moot.

a gun facilitates violence too easily..the basis of expanding gun registration is simply a useful "tool" to help end the days of easy gun buying...and IMO it should be put to an end.

 

no one is going to come and take your gun away....ever

but they should be much harder to purchase from now on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so how is this any different fro registering your car...and yes i know that the state registers a car, but if the state didn't do it, the feds would. so that counter argument is kinda moot.

a gun facilitates violence too easily..the basis of expanding gun registration is simply a useful "tool" to help end the days of easy gun buying...and IMO it should be put to an end.

 

no one is going to come and take your gun away....ever

but they should be much harder to purchase from now on

How is a gun registration going to benifit anything beyond what the current system already does? That is my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is a gun registration going to benifit anything beyond what the current system already does? That is my question.

The process you lay out in #6 above is too long & laborious. By the time the police do the legwork, get the warrant & show up @ the dealer's address, the suspect could have moved, ditched the weapon, etc. The point of a registry is speed - to get on scene before the suspect knows there's a problem.

 

There are also security issues - as more & more legwork is done by contracted civilians, there are more & more possibilities of compromised comms. If only sworn officers handle the investigation & track down weapons, you @ least have real sanctions to apply for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, etc.

 

Your critical data are already floating about in the net or in somebody's DB (more likely, on several DBs). Policing is tough work - I think weapons are in a category of their own, & deserve to be singled out for more rigorous treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The process you lay out in #6 above is too long & laborious. By the time the police do the legwork, get the warrant & show up @ the dealer's address, the suspect could have moved, ditched the weapon, etc. The point of a registry is speed - to get on scene before the suspect knows there's a problem.

 

There are also security issues - as more & more legwork is done by contracted civilians, there are more & more possibilities of compromised comms. If only sworn officers handle the investigation & track down weapons, you @ least have real sanctions to apply for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, etc.

 

Your critical data are already floating about in the net or in somebody's DB (more likely, on several DBs). Policing is tough work - I think weapons are in a category of their own, & deserve to be singled out for more rigorous treatment.

If the person didn't leave the gun at the crime scene then the police would not be able to use the registration anyway. The stuff they show on tv about being able to trace bullets to specific guns without the gun is fiction. It may take a day to do the work, maybe. But that is a price I am willing to pay to insure that the government doesn't have willy nilly access to information they should not have access too. They get a warrant, they can have the information.

Also, I am pretty sure the suspect will know there is a problem when they commit the crime. Unless you are suggesting people would be criminals without even knowing it. Plus, the government raiding peoples houses and stuff doesn't exactly have a pristine track record. The system the way it is now at least gives them a little time to make sure they have the correct address. You are speaking of accountability, from what it looks like, like you believe something would happen to the police or federal agents if they messed up. This has not been demonstrated before so I see no reason why it would suddenly change if they started a registration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the person didn't leave the gun at the crime scene then the police would not be able to use the registration anyway. The stuff they show on tv about being able to trace bullets to specific guns without the gun is fiction. It may take a day to do the work, maybe. But that is a price I am willing to pay to insure that the government doesn't have willy nilly access to information they should not have access too. They get a warrant, they can have the information.

Also, I am pretty sure the suspect will know there is a problem when they commit the crime. Unless you are suggesting people would be criminals without even knowing it. Plus, the government raiding peoples houses and stuff doesn't exactly have a pristine track record. The system the way it is now at least gives them a little time to make sure they have the correct address. You are speaking of accountability, from what it looks like, like you believe something would happen to the police or federal agents if they messed up. This has not been demonstrated before so I see no reason why it would suddenly change if they started a registration.

 

Wrong again, hot shot... and now you are posting as a Liberal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again, hot shot... and now you are posting as a Liberal?

What exactly am I wrong about? How do you know I am not a liberal? Because I support gun rights? Lots of liberals do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the person didn't leave the gun at the crime scene then the police would not be able to use the registration anyway. The stuff they show on tv about being able to trace bullets to specific guns without the gun is fiction. It may take a day to do the work, maybe. But that is a price I am willing to pay to insure that the government doesn't have willy nilly access to information they should not have access too. They get a warrant, they can have the information.

Also, I am pretty sure the suspect will know there is a problem when they commit the crime. Unless you are suggesting people would be criminals without even knowing it. Plus, the government raiding peoples houses and stuff doesn't exactly have a pristine track record. The system the way it is now at least gives them a little time to make sure they have the correct address. You are speaking of accountability, from what it looks like, like you believe something would happen to the police or federal agents if they messed up. This has not been demonstrated before so I see no reason why it would suddenly change if they started a registration.

 

Forensics could link a bullet to a particular gun, if that were part of the registration process. Sure, the police should get a warrant to review gun records, I don't have a problem with that. (Of course, under the Patriot Act, if you're tagged as a potential terrorist, all your rights go right out the window. If it would be an undue hardship to try to take you alive, the first you'd know would be the rising whoosh of a Hellfire missle coming in your bedroom window, or your sun/moon roof.)

 

No, I'm talking about the ease of monitoring the backtrail if any of the comms between police and dealer are compromised. With a direct DB, the comms between the inquiring agency/DB would have to be compromised, a tougher assignment. & less prone to some human cutout.

 

No, I don't much credit the police with scrupulousness about house raids - especially the glut of drug busts they do. Yah, the police & feds should be held accountable for mistakes in execution. It's all we have, other than clogging the courts with civil & criminal cases that never seem to quite get anywhere.

 

You react as if the existence of the data were a problem. Given the propensities of the FBI/NSA & all the rest of the domestic intelligence agency alphabet soup, I'm sure that bits & pieces of the national DB of gun ownership exist here & there. Better to put the thing under federal auspices, with release upon warrant of gun violence investigation to police & other law-enforcement agencies. If it's allowed to be an official semi-secret, you'll never be able to hold anyone accountable. It's v. difficult to prove a negative ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gun is used the striations it leaves on a bullet are different from when it was produced. A new firearm will leave the same striations as any other gun with the same barrel and firing pin and extractor. I.E. All glock 17's when new leave the same striations and markings. Once used it changes. Then you have the problem of the fact that people replace barrels. Which creates new patterns that will be left on the round. The only way to keep track of that would be to mandate everyone come in every few months and re-register their firearm. That sounds like a very expensive proposition to me.
Honestly, what it comes down to with me concerning registration, ignoring all of the other reasons against it, is that I simply do not trust the government. The government has never demonstrated reason to believe it has any good intent towards the people and has given many reasons to believe other wise. As the quote in my signature suggests, government is a necessary evil and should be held in check as much as possible. In a perfect world where the government was entirely, unquestionably, good I would not really have any opposition to a registration. But the risk of more innocent Americans being killed by the American government is too high for me to be willing to give them what is essentially a "target list".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly am I wrong about? How do you know I am not a liberal? Because I support gun rights? Lots of liberals do that.

You can prove it is a specific gun in either of the two meanings that "specific gun" has without the gun.

 

With your history of just saying crap that is in error I just assumed you were a Conservative leaning person. I usually don't post here, because I may be liberal leaning, but I am outside of what I considered Liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can prove it is a specific gun in either of the two meanings that "specific gun" has without the gun.

 

With your history of just saying crap that is in error I just assumed you were a Conservative leaning person. I usually don't post here, because I may be liberal leaning, but I am outside of what I considered Liberal.

Fact time. Without the gun in question, or very recent recordings of its striations, the only factor that can be determined from a bullet fired from a gun is, in a best case scenario, the type of gun. I.e. Glock 17, which is not anywhere near a definition of "specific gun". There are millions of Glock 17's out there, therefore saying it is a Glock 17 does not make it very specific. That is where the whole "specific" thing comes up. We aren't changing the meaning of the word specific to suit your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact time. Without the gun in question, or very recent recordings of its striations, the only factor that can be determined from a bullet fired from a gun is, in a best case scenario, the type of gun. I.e. Glock 17, which is not anywhere near a definition of "specific gun". There are millions of Glock 17's out there, therefore saying it is a Glock 17 does not make it very specific. That is where the whole "specific" thing comes up. We aren't changing the meaning of the word specific to suit your argument.

Matching a bullet specifically to a Glock 17 is one of the ways I meant "specific" (since you know it is not, say, a Lugar). I cited two possible meanings did I not?. The second way, and I have see it portrayed on tv more than once, is to have a second bullet that was known to have been shot from a "specific" (apparently your meaning) gun to compare. You do not have to actually have the gun to fire into ballistic gel or other medium to get a comparison bullet so long as you know that the comparison bullet actually came from a "specific" gun (second meaning). There is the actual "best case scenario" for your meaning. But then again, you already admited you were wrong by admitting that "very recent recordings of its striations" could work as well.

Edited by Billyboil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matching a bullet specifically to a Glock 17 is one of the ways I meant "specific" (since you know it is not, say, a Lugar). I cited two possible meanings did I not?. The second way, and I have see it portrayed on tv more than once, is to have a second bullet that was known to have been shot from a "specific" (apparently your meaning) gun to compare. You do not have to actually have the gun to fire into ballistic gel or other medium to get a comparison bullet so long as you know that the comparison bullet actually came from a "specific" gun (second meaning). There is the actual "best case scenario" for your meaning. But then again, you already admited you were wrong by admitting that "very recent recordings of its striations" could work as well.

Your posts are always hilarious, you know this right?

 

Specific:

 

  • precise: precise and detailed, avoiding vagueness
  • relating to identified thing: acting on or relating to something identified or particularized
  • distinctive: with individual qualities that allow a distinction to be made or make a distinction necessary

There is the real definition. And then your personal definition.

 

Me saying unless they have a recent recording does not mean I am wrong. It means I am not a fool and actually understand how science works. Even with a recent recording, unless it is in some kind of database that also records the gun (which there isn't), there is no way to determine the gun beyond "these 2 crimes were commited with the same gun" You still don't know what specific gun it is. Yes, I am still using the real defintion of "specific" not your definition of "specific".

 

Keep posting about how you are right though, it is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your posts are always hilarious, you know this right?

 

Specific:

 

  • precise: precise and detailed, avoiding vagueness
  • relating to identified thing: acting on or relating to something identified or particularized
  • distinctive: with individual qualities that allow a distinction to be made or make a distinction necessary

There is the real definition. And then your personal definition.

 

Me saying unless they have a recent recording does not mean I am wrong. It means I am not a fool and actually understand how science works. Even with a recent recording, unless it is in some kind of database that also records the gun (which there isn't), there is no way to determine the gun beyond "these 2 crimes were commited with the same gun" You still don't know what specific gun it is. Yes, I am still using the real defintion of "specific" not your definition of "specific".

 

Keep posting about how you are right though, it is funny.

Nothing distinctive about a Glock 17 then? Same as a Colt 45, .38 Special, Lugar, Akdal Ghost or a Jericho 941? Gee, why aren't gun manufacturers suing for theft of design if there is nothing distinctive? O-o-o-o-o and what about all those patents? Bogus?

 

Bullet retrieved from crime scene... suspect gun narrowed to a Glock 17... suspect person observed at firing range... bullet retrieved after suspect finishes target shooting... no other bullets from any other Glock 17... match is found... what gun was that fired from?

Edited by Billyboil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing distinctive about a Glock 17 then? Same as a Colt 45, .38 Special, Lugar, Akdal Ghost or a Jericho 941? Gee, why aren't gun manufacturers suing for theft of design if there is nothing distinctive? O-o-o-o-o and what about all those patents? Bogus?

 

Bullet retrieved from crime scene... suspect gun narrowed to a Glock 17... suspect person observed at firing range... bullet retrieved after suspect finishes target shooting... no other bullets from any other Glock 17... match is found... what gun was that fired from?

If you really want to go there and strut your ignornace go for it kid. Mauser sued Springfield over the model 1903, and won. Glock sued Smith&Wesson over the Sigma, and wins. Just because you don't hear about it does not mean it didn't happen. You should really try to atleast half way educate your self before you type about things of which you know nothing. Also, Colt 45? Are we talking about a revolver? 1911? what? .38 special is also only a caliber, not a gun. Good try though.

 

So you propose that specific enough is that it is a glock 17, so then we just arrest everyone that owns a glock 17?

 

p.s. The scenario you just described would never work. Seeing as ranges rarely clean their traps and traps are designed to destroy bullets. But you know, keep speaking with ignorance, someone may believe you eventually.

 

you can argue with me about how guns and stuff work all you want kid, I do this for a living. What is your qualification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to reply to Billyboil quote "Matching a bullet specifically to a Glock 17 is one of the ways I meant "specific" (since you know it is not, say, a Lugar)." from above, the Glock 17 can fire both the 9mm parrabellum and the 9mm luger round, i.e. the 9x19 round that was specfically designed for the Luger pistol. Also rifling techniques and tooling are very similar between manufacturors and identical between different models within the same manufacturor. I.e. it would be impossible tell the difference in rifling between a Glock 17 and a Glock 19(another 9mm pistol). Also what makes ballistic identification work is that all barrels have a slightly different rifling singniture due to tolerances in the barrel, tool wear, machine tolerances ect. this gives each barrel a unique fignerprint if you will. I believe technology has only evolved to and will only be able to sustain caliber identification and then confirming or eliminating if a round was fired from a suspected gun.

 

To add a little more as i said earlier Glock 17 fires a 9mm round, there are many many firearms that also fire 9mm including 4 models of the Glock. Berreta, HK, Sig Saur, High Point, Colt, Browning, Rossi, Smith & Wesson, Jennings, Kel-Tec, Ruger, and Taurus as just a few of the manufacturors that make a pistol chambered in 9mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to go there and strut your ignornace go for it kid. Mauser sued Springfield over the model 1903, and won. Glock sued Smith&Wesson over the Sigma, and wins. Just because you don't hear about it does not mean it didn't happen. You should really try to atleast half way educate your self before you type about things of which you know nothing. Also, Colt 45? Are we talking about a revolver? 1911? what? .38 special is also only a caliber, not a gun. Good try though.

 

So you propose that specific enough is that it is a glock 17, so then we just arrest everyone that owns a glock 17?

 

p.s. The scenario you just described would never work. Seeing as ranges rarely clean their traps and traps are designed to destroy bullets. But you know, keep speaking with ignorance, someone may believe you eventually.

 

you can argue with me about how guns and stuff work all you want kid, I do this for a living. What is your qualification?

argue respectfully in the LO

 

Wrong again, hot shot... and now you are posting as a Liberal

 

same goes for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is a gun registration going to benifit anything beyond what the current system already does? That is my question.

as I said before, it should be harder to get a gun....much harder.

If I had my way there would be 2 year waiting periods to be able to buy a gun.

 

doing nothing is not the answer...too many little kids being slaughtered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regardless of registration for new guns there are still millions of guns out there already. That is why I talked about the website www.gunsoffthestreets.com at the beginning of this post, at least they are trying to do something about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to reply to Billyboil quote "Matching a bullet specifically to a Glock 17 is one of the ways I meant "specific" (since you know it is not, say, a Lugar)." from above, the Glock 17 can fire both the 9mm parrabellum and the 9mm luger round, i.e. the 9x19 round that was specfically designed for the Luger pistol. Also rifling techniques and tooling are very similar between manufacturors and identical between different models within the same manufacturor. I.e. it would be impossible tell the difference in rifling between a Glock 17 and a Glock 19(another 9mm pistol). Also what makes ballistic identification work is that all barrels have a slightly different rifling singniture due to tolerances in the barrel, tool wear, machine tolerances ect. this gives each barrel a unique fignerprint if you will. I believe technology has only evolved to and will only be able to sustain caliber identification and then confirming or eliminating if a round was fired from a suspected gun.

 

To add a little more as i said earlier Glock 17 fires a 9mm round, there are many many firearms that also fire 9mm including 4 models of the Glock. Berreta, HK, Sig Saur, High Point, Colt, Browning, Rossi, Smith & Wesson, Jennings, Kel-Tec, Ruger, and Taurus as just a few of the manufacturors that make a pistol chambered in 9mm.

I believe that the FBI's "Drugfire" and the ATF's "Bulletproof" computer driven analysis and data base capabilities have at least something between what I said and what you have just revealed. What I have read is where I got that "specific" from.

 

In light of your information, I'll put my take, on that, on my suspected error list for additional research, but I didn't just make that up.

I am, however, very solid on the other method of proving a "specific" gun without being in possession of it and that was the "specific" Cory2 meant.

 

I am also familiar with how "land impressions" are used in the identification process. This is why I took Cory2 to task in the first place.

 

Thanks so much for the input!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...