It is currently Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:22 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breakers.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:12 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7769
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiN8N488vY

Liberals have been going state by state trying to enact laws that entirely restrict the rights and freedoms of the law abiding, laws which don't effect the criminals and law breakers at all. They are now doing it in Maine.

As I've been saying, on and on liberals in all fascets of life, "criminalize" non-criminal behaviors and actions.
We are losing our freedoms every day, and liberals are allowing it and promoting it by electing those who do these things.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
Yeah, the ballot measure would require the parties to a private sale of firearms to go to a registered gun dealer so that a background check could be performed on the buyer. With several exceptions like sales between family member. I wonder why faqs wants to make it easier for terrorists to buy guns? At the same time, I wonder if he has the same objections to depriving citizens of their 4th amendment rights by giving the government the right to stop any citizen and frisk them on the street?

ETA: I think faqs should also give us credit for advocating for legal marijuana....

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3942
Location: La Mancha
ldsfaqs wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiN8N488vY

Liberals have been going state by state trying to enact laws that entirely restrict the rights and freedoms of the law abiding, laws which don't effect the criminals and law breakers at all. They are now doing it in Maine.

As I've been saying, on and on liberals in all fascets of life, "criminalize" non-criminal behaviors and actions.
We are losing our freedoms every day, and liberals are allowing it and promoting it by electing those who do these things.


The video is an interesting piece of propaganda--throughout it implies that the people of Maine are unanimously against a ballot proposition that requires background checks for gun sales, and that the only reason this is an issue is because Michael Bloomberg is trying to somehow exercise dictatorial control from New York City.

If you'd like to turn to a local Maine newspaper for a viewpoint on this measure rather than an NRA propaganda video, consider this story from the Bangor Daily News last week:

Quote:
Maine Chiefs of Police Association endorses tightening of gun control laws

GORHAM Maine — The Maine Chiefs of Police Association on Thursday endorsed voting in favor of a ballot question that would tighten state gun control laws at an event organized by a group advocating for the initiative.

The association’s board recently voted unanimously to support the ballot measure, which would require background checks prior to the private sale or transfer of guns in most instances, Executive Director Robert Schwartz said.

The group claims membership of more than 350 active and retired chiefs and sheriffs across the state. On Wednesday seven southern Maine police chiefs stood with South Portland Chief Edward Googins as he announced the law enforcement leaders’ support for Question 3.

“[Question 3] is a common-sense proposal that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people,” Googins said. “Criminal background checks are the single most effective way to prevent felons, domestic abusers, people with severe mental illness and other dangerous people from purchasing firearms.”

Under current state law, background checks are required when buying a gun from a federally licensed firearm dealer, who must run the name of the purchaser through an FBI criminal database. But a background check is not required to purchase a gun from a private seller, including online merchants and classified shoppers like Uncle Henry’s.

Critics, including Mainers for Responsible Gun Ownership, which helped organized today’s announcement, argue that these loopholes enable people who are legally barred from purchasing firearms to buy them anyway. But opponents of the ballot initiative, such as the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, claim the measure would hinder hunting in the state and is unnecessary given Maine’s low crime rate.

“It’s too bad that an law enforcement agency has decided to get involved in that debate,” alliance Executive Director David Trahan said. “It’s going to be an enforcement nightmare … so I’m surprised that they would weigh in and support that.”
Trahan contended that the proposed law is ill designed would place undue burden on people who want to lend or borrow guns. He also claimed it was inappropriate for Googins to weigh in on the issue in his capacity as a police chief, given that he also sits on the board of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.

In endorsing Question 3, Googins said the legal change would help reduce gun trafficking, which he said is a problem “we know exists here in Maine” and that states with broad background checks see less gun violence against police and fewer women shot by their spouse or partner.

Maine has low overall rates of violent crime, but it ranked ninth in the nation for rate of women killed by men according to a recent study from a group that advocates for gun control. Four of the 10 women killed in 2013, the most recent year for which data were available, were shot, according to the report.

The South Portland chief said that passing Question 3 will make Maine safer without limiting lawful gun ownership.
“If you are legally allowed to own a gun, this law does not prevent that,” Googins said.

Following a string of prominent mass shootings, gun control has come to play a more prominent role in elections across the country. Support for Question 3 in Maine has been significantly bankrolled by billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Through the group Everytown for Gun Safety, the former New York City mayor has been pumping money into gun control initiatives across the country, including nearly $3.6 million in Maine since 2015.

Opposition in the state likewise has been bolstered by the Virginia-based National Rifle Association, which is airing an ad this week claiming that out-of-state interests are trying to “boss Mainers around.”

Schwartz said Maine police chiefs “are proud to stand together to protect the residents of our rural state,” though there were no officers from Maine’s more rural and conservative 2nd Congressional District at the event.

There is no equivalent event scheduled in northern Maine, according to David Farmer of Mainers for Responsible Gun Ownership. But the group plans to air an ad supporting Question 3 featuring the Caribou police chief in the coming weeks, he said.

http://bangordailynews.com/2016/09/15/p ... trol-laws/

On a personal note, I used to live in Maine. One of my daughter's friends had a mother that was single, and our next door neighbor was a single man. We happened to introduce the two to each other, and they later got married. It turns out that this guy was a drug dealer. He was a charismatic white guy--a successful entrepreneur--ajax would have liked him. But one day some crazy events happened and he killed his wife--maybe it was an accident or maybe it was something that happened in a rage. In either case, it wouldn't have happened if he didn't have a gun. If it were difficult to obtain guns--especially for drug dealers, he wouldn't have had a gun and Kelly would still be alive.

http://www.pressherald.com/2012/01/25/m ... 012-01-25/

If I were still in Maine, I'd follow the recommendation of the local Chiefs of Police and would vote in favor of this measure.

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:46 am 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7769
by the way...

Note how my OP is ENTIRELY within the rules, yet I'm censored yet again, my post being put in Prison instead of Paradise where I posted it.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:11 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3942
Location: La Mancha
ldsfaqs wrote:
by the way...

Note how my OP is ENTIRELY within the rules, yet I'm censored yet again, my post being put in Prison instead of Paradise where I posted it.


Your OP wasn't censored--it was published. Unlike every other message board, Shades is allowing you to post here. Why must you play the victim card?

ETA: Part of the reason your posts are downgraded is because your posts are usually spam. You say a few words, post a video, but then refuse to engage in a conversation. Spam isn't allowed. If you want to have a discussion, this board is for you. If you want to post your spam, this board is not for you.

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:00 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6746
It is big bad liberals like me that are keeping faqless alive.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:07 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 14675
ldsfaqs -

Armed agents of the government should be empowered to stop people on the street and search them based on whatever prejudices they may possess.

Sounds cool.

People should not be allowed to get around arms sales background check requirements by buying weapons from ubiquitous gun-shows where those requirements do not exist.

You're criminalizing being a normal person!!!111!1!!*!!&!&!^!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:24 am 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7769
Analytics wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:
by the way...

Note how my OP is ENTIRELY within the rules, yet I'm censored yet again, my post being put in Prison instead of Paradise where I posted it.


Your OP wasn't censored--it was published. Unlike every other message board, Shades is allowing you to post here. Why must you play the victim card?

ETA: Part of the reason your posts are downgraded is because your posts are usually spam. You say a few words, post a video, but then refuse to engage in a conversation. Spam isn't allowed. If you want to have a discussion, this board is for you. If you want to post your spam, this board is not for you.


1. My posts are NOT "spam"....

I almost always post in threads I've made.
I also almost always write some thoughts on the video/topic, often very detailed thoughts.
I'm ALWAYS responding over and over again to things you people say.
Thus, you're an utter liar for saying I don't.

Further, the ONLY REASON I don't post "more" in some threads, is because 99% of the respondents are just engaging in personal attacks, or saying absolutely nothing useful, like posting some image, making a mocking statement, etc.
So it's not ME who doesn't not engage.
I mean seriously..... are you so clueless to not see the amount of posts/responses I make on this forum, highly detailed responses, just like this one????

I mean Jesus Christ....! I'm a human being, I can only post so much, and have an interest in only responding to and about so many things people feel like saying. I'm not some "spammer" just because I don't get or have an interest in responding to every single persons post. I'm mean ____... there's a 100 of you to JUST ME..... give me a ____ BREAK....!!!

2. I Have a Question is not censored, and yet he generally writes FAR LESS than I do, and he posts links JUST AS MUCH AS ME..... on LDS News topics.
I don't see you people having a constant conniption fit about him "spamming". Why, because you LIKE mocking Mormonism and pointing out it's flaws.
You don't like your liberalism and anti-mormonism however mocked and flaws exposed, so you want to censore me.

Just be honest for a change. You don't like Conservatism, so you're happy to censor me, but not anyone else who "spams".
Thus, you're perfectly happy applying a double standard.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3942
Location: La Mancha
ldsfaqs wrote:
I'm ALWAYS responding over and over again to things you people say.
Thus, you're an utter liar for saying I don't.

It's fascinating that you think this. Just look at this very thread. You posted an NRA video, and received four on-topic replies. You replied to exactly zero of the on-topic replies in this thread. This is typical. If somebody calls you a ____ lunatic you'll probably reply. But if somebody makes a thoughtful reply to your video, you completely ignore it.

You come here to call people names, condemn other people, and get into name-calling fights. That's the pattern of behavior I see. The videos you post are just fodder so you can start the fight.

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:52 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7769
Analytics wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:
I'm ALWAYS responding over and over again to things you people say.
Thus, you're an utter liar for saying I don't.

It's fascinating that you think this. Just look at this very thread. You posted an NRA video, and received four on-topic replies. You replied to exactly zero of the on-topic replies in this thread. This is typical. If somebody calls you a **** lunatic you'll probably reply. But if somebody makes a thoughtful reply to your video, you completely ignore it.

You come here to call people names, condemn other people, and get into name-calling fights. That's the pattern of behavior I see. The videos you post are just fodder so you can start the fight.


And you're a lying ____.....

1. I respond all the time to things people say, not just personal attacks. I ignore most personal attacks, unless they get specific about something.

2. Just because I haven't responded "yet" doesn't mean I won't respond.

3. Let me clue you in, not every statement you people make DESERVES or "needs" are response from me.
Like I said, I only have so much time and interest, and you people out number me 20 to 1, so that you think I am "required" to respond to every single word you people utter is astounding to me.

4. My post was entirely within the rules.... YOU ____ are the FIRST people to "derail" and cause a fight.
So stop lying, and trying to claim I'm here "just" to have fights, trying to claim you're the victim.
I'm here to expose your evil, and I'm doing very well at it. YOU choose to create the fights, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm critical just like you all are.
I don't like YOUR tone on this forum, your liberal and anti-mormonism bigotry on this forum (using the general you here).
So, in your mind, YOU must deserve me to personally attack you all, yet I DON'T. I follow the rules.

5. This is Prison.... If the thread had remained in Paradise like it was supposed to, I would have been responding, and there could have been productive discussion. Instead, I have to deal with assholes like you, lying about me and things. Whomever moved this thread from where I posted it CHOSE to turn it into a ____ hole. This is what would happen in the original OT. I would create threads, entirely respectful, and YOU people would turn it into a ____ hole and then cry because I condemn you for it. I'm not the one who made OT crap. The Rules at the time did (aka no rules) and you people.

Conclusion, you are a corrupt liar.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:02 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7769
Res Ipsa wrote:
Yeah, the ballot measure would require the parties to a private sale of firearms to go to a registered gun dealer so that a background check could be performed on the buyer. With several exceptions like sales between family member. I wonder why faqs wants to make it easier for terrorists to buy guns? At the same time, I wonder if he has the same objections to depriving citizens of their 4th amendment rights by giving the government the right to stop any citizen and frisk them on the street?

ETA: I think faqs should also give us credit for advocating for legal marijuana....


1. The video clearly shows that there aren't that many "exceptions".

2. You do know it's already illegal to "illegally" sale guns right? Even in private party sales, we can't sale to a known criminal, can't engage in "gun sales business", etc.?

Who are all these "terrorists" who are buying guns off the average person who sales a gun to another average person?

3. What makes you think this law is going to STOP "bad people" from buying guns from OTHER "bad people" in black market gun sales, which already occurs?
All this law does is infringe on the rights of the law abiding. Bad people will STILL engage in illegal private gun sales you idiots, this law won't STOP them in ANY way shape or form.
All this law does is criminalize the non-guilty, the non-criminal.

4. Look up the definition of "stop and frisk". It specifically follows the 4th Amendment you idiot.

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:12 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 7769
Analytics wrote:
The video is an interesting piece of propaganda--throughout it implies that the people of Maine are unanimously against a ballot proposition that requires background checks for gun sales, and that the only reason this is an issue is because Michael Bloomberg is trying to somehow exercise dictatorial control from New York City.


The truth is not propaganda.
Bloombergs money, and people have directly worked to put this measure in place. He's been doing the same in many states.
He was even in Nevada doing it.

Quote:
If you'd like to turn to a local Maine newspaper for a viewpoint on this measure rather than an NRA propaganda video, consider this story from the
http://bangordailynews.com/2016/09/15/p ... trol-laws/


Yes, if you would like actual propaganda, read a liberal newspaper.

Quote:
On a personal note, I used to live in Maine. One of my daughter's friends had a mother that was single, and our next door neighbor was a single man. We happened to introduce the two to each other, and they later got married. It turns out that this guy was a drug dealer. He was a charismatic white guy--a successful entrepreneur--ajax would have liked him. But one day some crazy events happened and he killed his wife--maybe it was an accident or maybe it was something that happened in a rage. In either case, it wouldn't have happened if he didn't have a gun. If it were difficult to obtain guns--especially for drug dealers, he wouldn't have had a gun and Kelly would still be alive.

http://www.pressherald.com/2012/01/25/m ... 012-01-25/


Nice wonderful lie.... Like people don't kill people in other ways when they want to kill people.
Thus your claim, "she wouldn't be dead" if he didn't have a gun is a total and complete LIE.

Quote:
If I were still in Maine, I'd follow the recommendation of the local Chiefs of Police and would vote in favor of this measure.


Of course you would, because you're a totalitarian who doesn't actually believe in freedom and basic human rights.
You also make absolutely clear that you're anti-gun. So much for your peoples lying that you're not against banning guns.

I responded now to your ____ posts.... Are you happy now?

_________________
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
ldsfaqs wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Yeah, the ballot measure would require the parties to a private sale of firearms to go to a registered gun dealer so that a background check could be performed on the buyer. With several exceptions like sales between family member. I wonder why faqs wants to make it easier for terrorists to buy guns? At the same time, I wonder if he has the same objections to depriving citizens of their 4th amendment rights by giving the government the right to stop any citizen and frisk them on the street?

ETA: I think faqs should also give us credit for advocating for legal marijuana....


1. The video clearly shows that there aren't that many "exceptions".

2. You do know it's already illegal to "illegally" sale guns right? Even in private party sales, we can't sale to a known criminal, can't engage in "gun sales business", etc.?

Who are all these "terrorists" who are buying guns off the average person who sales a gun to another average person?

3. What makes you think this law is going to STOP "bad people" from buying guns from OTHER "bad people" in black market gun sales, which already occurs?
All this law does is infringe on the rights of the law abiding. Bad people will STILL engage in illegal private gun sales you idiots, this law won't STOP them in ANY way shape or form.
All this law does is criminalize the non-guilty, the non-criminal.

4. Look up the definition of "stop and frisk". It specifically follows the 4th Amendment you idiot.


1. Let's see... I said several exceptions. I don't need to look at a youtoob because I looked at the ____ law:

Quote:
8. Exceptions. The provisions of this section apply to the transfer or sale of a firearm between unlicensed persons except if:
A. The sale or transfer is between family members;
B. The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in 27 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 478.11 (2015), and the sale or transfer is between collectors of firearms as curios or relics, as defined by 18 United States Code, Section 921(a)(13) (2015), who both have in their possession a valid collector of curios and relics license issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
C. The sale or transfer is of an antique firearm, as defined in 18 United States Code, Section 921(a)(16) (2015);
D. The transfer is temporary and is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, and:
(1) The transfer lasts only as long as necessary to prevent such threat; and
(2) The transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is disqualified to possess firearms under state or federal law and has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime;
E. Either the transferor or the transferee is a law enforcement agency or the Department of Corrections or is, to the extent the person is acting within the course of the person's employment or official duties, a peace officer, a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard or the Reserves of the United States Armed Forces, a federal law enforcement officer or a person licensed as a security guard or employed by a contract security company or proprietary security organization under Title 32, chapter 93;
F. The transfer is temporary, the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime and the transfer and the transferee's possession of the firearm take place exclusively:
(1) At an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or, if no such authorization is required, operated consistently with local law in such jurisdiction;
(2) At a lawfully organized competition involving the use of a firearm or for participation in or practice for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(3) While the transferee is hunting or trapping if such activity is legal in all places where the transferee possesses the firearm and the transferee holds any license or permit required for such activity; or
(4) In the actual presence of the transferor.
Any transfer allowed by this paragraph is permitted only if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is disqualified to possess firearms under state or federal law or, if the transferee is under 18 years of age and is receiving the firearm under direct supervision and control of an adult, that such adult is disqualified to possess firearms under state or federal law; or
G. The transfer occurs by operation of law upon the death of a person for whom the transferee is an executor, administrator, trustee or personal representative of an estate or a trust created in a will.


That's seven exceptions. Are you really leading off your rebuttal by saying seven doesn't qualify as several?

2. Yes, I'm generally familiar with firearms transfer laws. Here's the problem -- the private sale loophole allows a gun seller to stay intentionally ignorant of the status of the buyer. So, the private seller can sell so someone who can't legally own a gun and the seller gets to wink and say "how was I supposed to know." Your response doesn't address the problem with the existing law. You describe these sales as from "average person" to "average person." But you don't really know who the buyer is. As far as you know, the "average person" could be a criminal who can't legally own a firearm.

3. The problem is your typical black and white thinking. No one has ever said that requiring universal background checks will stop all sales of guns to those who cannot legally own them. But it will make it harder. Why do you think it is a good idea to make it easier?

4. A Terry stop is constitutional. The Stop and Frisk program implemented by New York and currently promoted by Donald Trump was found to violate the 4th and 14th amendments and so is unconstitutional.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liberals are again making the law abiding as law breaker
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 5800
Faqs, where are those laws that you claim were made by liberals that supposedly forced banks to lend money to people who could not meet bank lending standards?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group