Gun Tax

Got a great idea? Tell the world about it here.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:38 am

James Holmes shot a bunch of people last night at a movie theater.

Now everybody is going to be aware of the possibilty of not making it home when they are thinking of going to see a movie.

This is just a more prominent example of the daily cost in lost lives, injuries, hospital expenses, wages for police, etc. that all American's bare for the right to carry guns.

Aside from the tragedy and pain, there is a big monetary cost.

I don't think it's fair that people who do not own guns and don't favor their presense in our society have to share in this cost.

My great idea is a monthly fee that gun owners and NRA members would pay to cover all the expenses of a previous month's shootings. (like 2 months prior, I figure, because it would take some time for expenses to be tabulated)

Naturally, there'd be a minimum, since the police and EMS have to purchase & maintain response equipment, train for possible events, etc. even if there are no shootings.

I think this would have a strong tendency to discourage gun ownership and motivate more effective gun laws.
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby robert 46 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:34 am

JO 753 wrote:James Holmes shot a bunch of people last night at a movie theater.

This is quite bizarre. There is certainly much more information to surface. There is considerable speculation already, as shown here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James ... _flag.html
Now everybody is going to be aware of the possibilty of not making it home when they are thinking of going to see a movie.

If you go to a movie in the middle of the night you might get mugged in any city trying to go home. My personal attitude ever since I was a child has been to be at home when the sun goes down, and not go out until the sun rises.
This is just a more prominent example of the daily cost in lost lives, injuries, hospital expenses, wages for police, etc. that all American's bare for the right to carry guns.

Hitler killed 6 million who had their guns confiscated; Stalin 30 million; Mao 50 million.
Aside from the tragedy and pain, there is a big monetary cost.

Compared to what? Certainly not compared to waging war in Afghanistan.
I don't think it's fair that people who do not own guns and don't favor their presense in our society have to share in this cost.

Plenty of countries who would be pleased to have you as a like-minded person. Have you thought of emigrating?
My great idea is a monthly fee that gun owners and NRA members would pay to cover all the expenses of a previous month's shootings. (like 2 months prior, I figure, because it would take some time for expenses to be tabulated)

You are the singular wannabe autocrat posting to this website.
Naturally, there'd be a minimum, since the police and EMS have to purchase & maintain response equipment, train for possible events, etc. even if there are no shootings.

What about people being armed so that they can shoot back in self-defense?
I think this would have a strong tendency to discourage gun ownership and motivate more effective gun laws.

Which is a classic prelude to dictatorship. Have you had your crown fitted yet?
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:28 pm

robert 46 wrote:What about people being armed so that they can shoot back in self-defense?


Naturally, the NRA would lobby vigorously against this new arrangement, so I have thought up an addition to even things up.

Not only will they be billed for all the expenses, they will also be payed some amount for all the lives saved, thwarted robberies, apprehended career criminals etc. rezulting from private gun ownership.

Since the main premise of the NRA and gun owners is that guns are a general benefit to our society, they will certainly be enthusiastic supporters of the new law.

Which is a classic prelude to dictatorship.


Not supported by any evidence.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, it may have been possible for a group of citizens unhappy with an increasingly oppressive government to replace or reign it in. Maybe.

Not a chance these days. Look at Libya, Egypt, Burma, etc. etc. etc. A 2 bit strongman can rule an entire country for decades with the concentrated firepower he can purchase for a bag of peanut shells.

If Obama decided to become king of America (including Canada and Mexico), as the GoPs would like you to fear, it wouldn't matter at all if every man woman and child owned guns.

The notion that your rifle will protect you from totalitarianism is complete nonsense. Like an aspiring dictator will be discouraged, thinking 'I could succeed if only nobody had guns!' :lol:
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby robert 46 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:51 am

JO 753 wrote:
robert 46 wrote:
JO 753 wrote:I think this would have a strong tendency to discourage gun ownership and motivate more effective gun laws.

Which is a classic prelude to dictatorship.


Not supported by any evidence.

Firearm registration and restriction has seldom started after a dictator has gained absolute power, rather, the dictator exploited already existing laws. On November 9th, 1938, Nazi SS troops, armed with the lists of registered gun owners created under the Weimar government, raided Jewish homes enforcing a newly signed decree by Hitler, ordering, “all Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance, they are to be shot immediately” (Halbrook, 2001, p. 2 [1]). Once the confiscation was complete, on the 10th of November 1938, Nazis began to loot, burn, and destroy Jewish property, forcing the Jews either into ghettos or concentration camps. With no resistance, the operation was completed quickly. The Jews who were relocated in the ghettos were subjected to ever increasing restrictions on the possession on weapons...

http://dprogram.net/2009/05/11/dictator ... sarmament/

You might look at the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership website:
http://jpfo.org/#

"The JPFO is probably most noted for its claim that the Gun Control Act of 1968, passed under the leadership of then-Senator Thomas J. Dodd, was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation." See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_t ... _Ownership

After the Holocaust, some Jews say "Never again".

[1] see Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/right-to-bear-arms.html
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:48 pm

As you can see from your example, gun ownership did not stop the government from confiscating the guns. There's not much of a practical difference.

The Branch Davidians (David Coresh) had machine guns. That didn't work out so well for them, even though they killed some of the ATF agents.

The real problem we have now is not government oppression, it's citizens shooting each other.
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby robert 46 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:44 pm

JO 753 wrote:As you can see from your example, gun ownership did not stop the government from confiscating the guns. There's not much of a practical difference.

You fail to understand that registration is a prelude to confiscation. If the government doesn't know who has guns they can't just round them up, but would have to search everywhere home by home and building by building. This would be seen as a deliberate attempt to impose tyranny and people would start shooting back.

If the Jews had known what Hitler planned for them, they would have fought back rather than be led off like sheep to the slaughter.

There are some 230 million guns in the U.S. The most heavily armed free citizenry in the world. Followed by Switzerland and Israel. Whether apocryphal or not, a story is that a Nazi called in the Swiss ambassador and said, "What do you think would happen if fifteen million Storm Troopers were to invade Switzerland?" The ambassador, not blinking an eye, replied, "Each of our five million citizens would fire three shots and go home." By having an armed citizenry the Swiss have stayed out of all European wars for four hundred years. No one dares attack them, and all respect their neutrality. I heard a story that the Swiss government had a novel way of disposing of surplus, obsolete cannons- they sold them to Swiss citizens who would tow it back to the farm and put it in the barn. Every household in Switzerland has one or more select-fire SIG-AMT assault rifles.
The Branch Davidians (David Coresh) had machine guns. That didn't work out so well for them, even though they killed some of the ATF agents.

The government had plenty of opportunity to detain Koresh when he was away from the compound, but chose instead to grandstand. Attorney General Janet Reno said, "We must protect the children." So the government began their assault when the winds were blowing forty mph and the resulting fire incincerated all- including the women and children. All this over a regulatory offense???
The real problem we have now is not government oppression, it's citizens shooting each other.

The real problem is that preventing decent people from carrying guns gives an unfair advantage to criminals and lunatics. It looks to me like politicians want to promote crime as an excuse to abuse the rights of the citizenry. Rarely are the police around when a crime is committed- only the victim and some bystanders. If some of them are armed they can react before the police arrive. In the Luby cafeteria massacre:

Hennard [the shooter] also approached 32-year-old Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Hupp reached for her revolver in her purse, only to remember she had left it in her car to comply with Texas law. Her father Al, 71, rushed at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was fatally shot in the chest. A short time later, as Hupp was escaping, her mother Ursula, 67, was shot in the head and killed as she cradled her wounded husband.

....In response to the massacre, the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses.

-Wikipedia
(emphasis added) [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

[1] "Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:18 pm

I first heard that line in AVP. The lojik is solid.

But in spite of that, the stats tell a different story.

Dig thru this for a few days: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandedoffensemain

Guns are an expensive hobby. But, unlike pottery, radio control planes, or tropical fish, the hobbyists are being heavily subsidized by everybody else.
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby robert 46 » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:04 am

JO 753 wrote:...the stats tell a different story.

Dig thru this...

If there is a point you want to make then state it.
Guns are an expensive hobby....

The news reports say that gun sales in Colorado are up sharply. I tend to think that the majority of these sales are in consideration of serious concerns about self-defense, not for hobby interests.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:57 pm

robert 46 wrote:If there is a point you want to make then state it.


Self defense incidents are a minority of all gun related incidents. Lots of bad guys shooting other bad guys, bad guys shooting at unarmed citizens and cops, bad guys getting shot by cops, domestic quarells, suicides, accidents.

A 4 year old found a gun in a truck yesterday and killed himself.
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby robert 46 » Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:53 pm

JO 753 wrote:Self defense incidents are a minority of all gun related incidents.

If you are referring to reported incidents this is correct. Shameful, isn't it, that criminals have the advantage? However, unreported instances where the mere presence of a gun has thwarted a crime are estimated in much greater numbers than reported incidents.
Lots of bad guys shooting other bad guys,

This seems beneficial.
bad guys shooting at unarmed citizens and cops,

You mean "unarmed citizens and armed cops". My personal opinion is that whenever a society allows a police presence it is setting itself up for the imposition of a police state. Consider the recent news about the New Orleans Police Department as being "corrupt, violent, and fractured".
bad guys getting shot by cops,

And occasionally by armed intended victims. This seems to add nicely to the danger to the criminal of being a criminal.
domestic quarells, suicides, accidents.

So what? Quarrels sometimes escalate to violence. People get depressed- Iraq/Afghanistan veterans are killing themselves at the rate of one per day; and all veterans at the rate of one every 80 minutes. Twice the rate of the general populace, it may show that being indoctrinated in boot camp to become a killer has long-term negative repercussions on the psyche. Gun accidents are consequential to inadequate familiarity with firearms- which the NRA actively tries to counter. Same is true of many boating accidents- and the U.S. Power Squadron likewise.
A 4 year old found a gun in a truck yesterday and killed himself.

Four-year-olds also fall into pools and ponds and drown. This is why parents are expected to child-proof the environs and not leave young children unattended. Yet it is impossible to protect people from their own stupidity, and it is totalitarian to try.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

from Marilyn:

Postby robert 46 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:32 pm

Marilyn's indirect input to the discussion:
ask marilyn Marilyn vos Savant August 06, 2012
Ask Marilyn: What Can We Learn From the Movie Theater Shooting?
Anonymous in Baltimore, Maryland, writes:

Recently there was a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in which at least 12 people were killed and more than 50 wounded. What do you think we as a society should learn from this incident and from other mass shootings?

Marilyn responds:

The fact that the horrific event involved one shooter and many victims doesn't teach society much. It tells us more about the shooter than anything else. And we already know that individuals can be deranged or perhaps downright evil. In rare instances, they may even be both.

Instead, the terrible deed should alert society to the ease with which an individual is able to amass an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, especially weapons that have no legitimate use outside the military, police work, etc. Why should an ordinary citizen be allowed to buy assault rifles and riot gear?

Seeing as how the militia is a citizens military intended to defend the community and nation, having military-type firearms would be expected. The modern liberal attitude that private firearms should be limited to "sporting" purposes is a red-herring drawing attention away from this fundamental issue. Actually, in the Revolutionary War the colonists were better armed with their Kentucky flintlock rifles (range 400-500 yards) than the British were with their smoothbore Brown Bess muskets (50-100 yards).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess
Yet no shooter needs an assault rifle or similar firearm to inflict a great deal of harm. So what society should realize from the incident is that it represents only the tip of a weapons iceberg. Police officers are constantly exposed to it in the line of duty. The mass of firearms in the hands of wrongdoers who are neither insane nor monstrous is enormous, and they inflict daily damage on crime victims. Every day, many more Americans are killed by guns than the number of victims in Colorado.

And if you look here:
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
...you'll see that guns prevent crimes much more often than guns are used in a crime.
In short, if one wants to argue for better gun control, one should not use the case of the movie theater shooting. It's too easy to refute. Other reasons are much more convincing.

And there are reasons which are much more convincing for the opposite conclusion. Particularly that the disarmed-society gives an advantage to the criminal whereas the armed-society gives a disadvantage to the criminal.

Considering that this is Marilyn's website, if she wants to elaborate on her opinion, here is the best place to do so.
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:23 am

I am in the same debate over at the Skeptic's Society forum, spread over several topics. Here's the one I started: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18386&hilit=2nd+amendment

Nobody has meaningfully responded to the tax/fee idea yet; they always address gun violence and gun control in general. And the gun proponents always fail to counter the undeniable evidence of the comparison to other countries.

Power is addictive. Once you have it, you can't give it up. Just like meth, or coke, one taste and you want more. Just like torque in your car, you may be content with what it has, but just add 50 foot pounds and you will feel deprived if it goes away.

I think this primal desire for power is whats at the root of the gun owner's objections to regulation. Their arguments fail to justify the terrible cost to our country.

I think that making gun owners and their organized supporters pay the full price for their hobby will be an effective way to get things going in the right direction.
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:31 am

JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Re: Gun Tax

Postby robert 46 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:51 am

JO 753 wrote:I am in the same debate over at the Skeptic's Society forum, spread over several topics. Here's the one I started: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... +amendment

Except for a few Brits you aren't getting anywhere with that. With 4642 posts there in the past 7 1/2 years, why do you even bother to post here?
Wikipedia, police state wrote:George Churchill-Coleman, who headed Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad in the United Kingdom, expressed his opinion that Britain was moving in the direction of a police state, with biometric identity cards, mass surveillance and detention without trial all having been introduced by the government.... The UK has been described as "the most surveilled country" in the world.

Particularly London, with cameras looking at everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police-enf ... _in_the_UK
"1984" coming to life a few decades late.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_Watch
Scotland and Wales may want to secede.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_independence
JO 753 wrote:Nobody has meaningfully responded to the tax/fee idea yet; they always address gun violence and gun control in general. And the gun proponents always fail to counter the undeniable evidence of the comparison to other countries.

Other countries aren't the United States, but have generally progressed farther down the road to repression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance
Power is addictive. Once you have it, you can't give it up.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Particularly politicians.
I think this primal desire for power is whats at the root of the gun owner's objections to regulation.

The United States was founded on the principle of "balance of power". The Founders mistrusted standing armies, and wanted an armed populace to counter any future would-be tyrant.
Their arguments fail to justify the terrible cost to our country.

Your hostility toward the Second Amendment is all the more ludicrous in view of your wish to impose a new alphabet on humanity.
I think that making gun owners and their organized supporters pay the full price for their hobby will be an effective way to get things going in the right direction.

I rather think that gun owners and their organizations take a dim view of would-be tyrants. Consider Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, whose idea of banning large size soft drinks is a bizarre delusion of power.

"In the fall of 2008, Bloomberg successfully campaigned for an amendment to New York City's term-limits law, in order to allow him to run for a third term in 2009. Bloomberg won the election on November 3, 2009."- Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
High time for NYC voters to toss him out of office. [1]

Why haven't you mentioned the recent Sikh temple mass-shooting in nearby Wisconsin? This should be grist for your mill. Are there too many neo-Nazis in the Chicago area whom you don't want to offend? What is most interesting about the typical "white supremacist" (including neo-Nazis, and historically the KKK and biker gangs) is that they think themselves superior but are dumb white trash, and a disgrace to all Caucasians. [2]

*****

Japan has a very different culture from the U.S. A crowded country, the people have had to learn how to live together in close proximity: they are characterized by obedience and a sense of formal propriety. They will put up with restrictions which would raise the hackles of many Americans. Interestingly, not only does Japan ban guns but also Samurai swords. Japan has not, however, been able to stop the Yakuza crime ring. England and Japan are similar in that they are islands with large populations and nowhere to expand into. Overcrowding causes friction, and realizing that people are basically impossible to control the governments take to controlling everything else as a substitute.
Wikipedia, police state wrote:United States- Deterioration of rights and disarmament

Since the attacks of 9/11 various legislation has been passed that nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11, and this legislation was framed as protection by giving the state more power by taking away individual rights. Specifically, the Act supersedes in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process). This Act has been used to stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a persons property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial. Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these practices have been used more than 110 times more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters. Additionally, legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), has been called Unconstitutional by opponents due to legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of American Citizens without trial or the killing of American Citizens without a trial.

There have been countless attempts to disarm the American populace with the most recent example being the UN Small Arms Treaty 2012. Other recent notable incidents are the "Fast and Furious" Operation by the US in which guns were sent to violent drug gangs in the US and outside of the US in Mexico resulting in the killing of many people including Police and Border Patrol. This incident was seen by many as a False Flag to demonize the Second Amendment allowing for the passage of harsh gun control. [3] Some cities such as New York and Chicago have succeeded in banning types of commonly used guns such as handguns. Groups such as the Oath Keepers, which are serving military and veterans of war, police and others who have taken an Oath to defend and protect the Constitution understand this and have vowed to uphold their Oath, and this includes protecting the rights of US Citizens to own guns and will fight to protect this right from being violated by overreaching governments.

(Emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

The United States may be coming to another revolution. In any case, many people are coming to understand that the fuzzy-thinking Liberals of the past 50+ years are characterized by unworkable utopian ideals, which makes them a menace to the nation no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

[1] Bloomberg must well have understood the two-term limit when he ran for office- then had the law changed to stoke his own ego. To have respected the law and left office after two terms would have been honorable, but as wealthy as he is one should not expect him, or anyone, to be immune to egotism.
Wikipedia, NYC mayoral elections wrote:In 2008, the New York City Council voted to extend the two-term limit to three terms (without submitting the issue to the voters). Legal challenges to the Council's action were rejected by Federal courts in January and April, 2009. However, in 2010, there was yet another referendum, reverting the limit to two terms, which passed overwhelmingly.

(Emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_C ... ce_1834.29

Rod Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois, is a notable example:
Wikipedia, Rod Blagojevich wrote:During his February 2006 "State of the State" address, Blagojevich said the state should ban semi-automatic firearms, prompting threats from several gunmakers in the state that they will take their business elsewhere.

As a state legislator, Blagojevich tried to raise the price of an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card from $5 to $500, saying that such a large increase was necessary so people would think twice about wanting to own a gun. Blagojevich vetoed three gun bills in 2005, which would have:

Deleted records in gun database after 90 days-- gun proponents argued that this was a privacy concern for law-abiding citizens.

Eliminated the waiting period for someone wanting to buy a rifle or shotgun, when trading in a previously owned weapon.

Overridden local laws regulating transport of firearms.

Blagojevich's position in regard to guns was criticized by the Illinois State Rifle Association: "Rod should spend more time catching criminals and less time controlling guns." His support for making gun laws of Illinois more restrictive earned him the ire of gun owners' groups.

(Emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_blagojevich

He was one of the criminals. Such is the methodology of corrupt officials.

Any person put into a position of public trust who violates that trust should be tried for treason, and should cautiously consider this risk before even thinking about seeking any such position of authority.

[2] To prove oneself superior requires showing that one is more intelligent and civilized- not that one is more barbaric (the "might makes right" interpretation of "superiority").

[3] The Reichstag arson, blamed on the Communists, was all too convenient for Hitler's rise to dictatorial power. Never trust anyone with a lust for power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
robert 46
Intellectual
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:21 am

Re: Gun Tax

Postby JO 753 » Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:08 pm

Hours after the bloodshed at a Connecticut school, police stopped what would have been a second mass school-shooting on Friday, arresting an Oklahoma teenager plotting to kill dozens of his classmates.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z2FFtFehmH


Another thing that would help reduce the proliferation of guns is a no questions asked full retail price buy back program. Not only would people short on cash turn in their own, but the usual varieties of theifs would steal them to get the cash.

About all your objections; I'm pretty sure you would decline to debate the subject in person in Newtown any time soon.
JO 753
Intellectual
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Location: IL NOEEZ

Next

Return to Great Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest