Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:06
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
i'd say defence and security are more important than being able to drive to the shops instead of taking the train.
I'd agree, that is why we have the police, or army.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:07
Ouchboy's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Baden
Posts: 3,289
Groaned at 48 Times in 43 Posts
Thanked 5,530 Times in 2,118 Posts
Ouchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I'd agree, that is why we have the police, or army.
An public transportation
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:22
Corbets's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DK - previously Zug
Posts: 3,323
Groaned at 168 Times in 122 Posts
Thanked 6,707 Times in 2,237 Posts
Corbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I'd agree, that is why we have the [...] army.
Who keep their guns at home, for the record. And make up a very significant percentage of the Swiss population.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Corbets for this useful post:
  #44  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:39
Lex's Avatar
Lex Lex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zug
Posts: 312
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 257 Times in 138 Posts
Lex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I think your last point about WW2 Germany is laughable to say the least; it was the Nazi death squads of the 30's that had the guns and forced the will of the party on the common man.
Umm yes, the common man was unarmed. That was my point. Had the common man been armed then history may have taken a different direction.

Quote:
View Post
Based on your reasoning would it have been advisable to arm the Hutus and the tootsies, or the Bosnians? Do you think it’s a good idea to chuck them all Kalashnikovs and close the door? What a brilliant foreign policy
No, thats based on your reasoning. My foreign policy is to keep out of other peoples business and stop influencing other countries. Besides, both those groups you listed above were forced together by external powers - now thats hardly brilliant foreign policy.

p.s is there any chance you can take some of the emotion out of your posts? - i.e like when you use the words 'morons' or the occasional insult you seem to throw around (And before you ask Im not from UK so dont vote for UKIP - though im sure some people on this forum might).

Last edited by Lex; 15.11.2011 at 16:55.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
i'd say defence and security are more important than being able to drive to the shops instead of taking the train.
An interesting question though is whether a baseball bat* (or pepper spray) could be as effective in the case of an intruder entering your home as a gun in the long term. A gun, of course, is a better deterrent if people KNOW for a fact that you have one and are willing to (capably) use it but there are very few ways to broadcast that you own a gun to everyone (which I guess is why dogs are great deterents as they are easily visible). In the case of an intruder looking for valuables a baseball bat(or even your simple awareness that they are there) may be just as effective in scaring them off while someone coming to do you or your family harm would probably be armed themselves in some shape or form.

Basically, in my own personal opinion of course, a gun is only useful if you have the time to load it(assuming you don't want to keep a loaded gun in the house), are willing(if not willing then the gun may become a liability as intruder may take it from you and be themselves willing) and properly trained to use it (once again if not properly trained you may do more harm than good).

Just as an aside, would the majority of intruders carry guns if the majority of home owners also had guns? Does one side escalating matters mean the other side would also respond in kind?

*Maybe ice hockey stick is more apt for Switzerland

Quote:
some men can kill with their bare hands e.g. boxers, MMA guys ,special forces etc, these guys are licensed and arrested if they do so because it is easier for them to kill
With training usually comes the ability to judge when the person has had enough and anymore is going to endanger them. For a boxer it is usually when your opponent falls down (you don't keep pummelling them), for special forces there are different techniques for disabling and killing etc. They must also live with the consequences of their training if they do go too far and kill or seriously injure someone.

Quote:
If someone wants to kill others we should keep it hard work.

It’s funny we don't have any opposing points of view about bombers, there are a few budding chemists and electrical engineers out there who would probably love constructing bombs for fun.

Its not alright to bomb but it is alright to shoot?]
True, guns make things simpler for the actual act but if you are planning to kill someone then chances are you don't really care about a bit of extra effort. I assume with the original topic what it is that we aren't really discussing accidental gun deaths.

There are very few defences for the keeping of bombs for personal use. Firearms can be said to be kept for defence as they are (relatively) accurate (when properly trained) and with a fairly limited area of effect while a bomb is pretty much meant for large(er) scale destruction.

Last edited by Millso; 15.11.2011 at 14:49. Reason: Grammar etc
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Umm yes, the common man was unarmed. That was my point. Had the common man been armed then history may have taken a different direction.
Or more of the common man would have been killed by the better trained and coordinated professionals who would then see the common man as a larger threat. We just don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 15.11.2011, 15:22
Lex's Avatar
Lex Lex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zug
Posts: 312
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 257 Times in 138 Posts
Lex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Or more of the common man would have been killed by the better trained and coordinated professionals who would then see the common man as a larger threat. We just don't know.
My post refers to choice rather than bodycount. Had the millions that were rounded up and perished in Germany been given a choice to defend themselves then maybe the intent of Germany's leaders would have toned down their aggression and could have never gained traction in the first place. Its all hypothetical of course, but im sure many people in the same circumstances would say 'i would like to defend myself and my family if my otherwise end result is this....'.

Using death squads against unarmed cilivians is purely one sided, hence it will always be easy to execute with little opposition if thats the intent already like it was in Germany. However when it is matched with another armed side with possibility of resistence, then what you might end up with is a stalemate. i.e. everyone lives, maybe as Im only taking prior to WW2 here. Its not a surprise that totalitarian regimes are always for the confiscation of weapons in private hands. In communist Eastern Europe if you were suspected of being even slightly anti government, you would immediately lose your strictly regulated hunting rifle for example (if you had one which was already very difficult).

Anyways.......
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 15.11.2011, 15:51
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
My post refers to choice rather than bodycount. Had the millions that were rounded up and perished in Germany been given a choice to defend themselves then maybe the intent of Germany's leaders would have toned down their aggression and could have never gained traction in the first place. Its all hypothetical of course, but im sure many people in the same circumstances would say 'i would like to defend myself and my family if my otherwise end result is this....'.

Using death squads against unarmed cilivians is purely one sided, hence it will always be easy to execute with little opposition if thats the intent already like it was in Germany. However when it is matched with another armed side with possibility of resistence, then what you might end up with is a stalemate. i.e. everyone lives, maybe as Im only taking prior to WW2 here. Its not a surprise that totalitarian regimes are always for the confiscation of weapons in private hands. In communist Eastern Europe if you were suspected of being even slightly anti government, you would immediately lose your strictly regulated hunting rifle for example (if you had one which was already very difficult).

Anyways.......
well, i guess we are still in an old model of trinitarian war with state, army and people as separate actors and the people more often than not the 'victims' or 'spoils' of war.

i guess in modern times 'state' has been weakened and may be replaced by political elites or economic elites.

i think in the next couple of decades, europe will re-learn the lessons of war and realpolitik and its people will re-learn their lowly position as victims of war and as the spoils of war (primarily as units of labour and taxation).

i like switzerland since the state, army and people are more 'unified' than many other models and i think the swiss will see the benefit of being a people that live together, govern together and fight together.
__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #49  
Old 15.11.2011, 16:52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
My post refers to choice rather than bodycount. Had the millions that were rounded up and perished in Germany been given a choice to defend themselves then maybe the intent of Germany's leaders would have toned down their aggression and could have never gained traction in the first place. Its all hypothetical of course, but im sure many people in the same circumstances would say 'i would like to defend myself and my family if my otherwise end result is this....'.
I agree with you 100% that I would prefer to defend myself and my family. I just wanted to point out that things are rarely black and white that x action would lead to y result.

As you say, we'll never know.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 15.11.2011, 17:04
tom tulpe's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Horgen
Posts: 1,182
Groaned at 21 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 1,409 Times in 646 Posts
tom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Umm yes, the common man was unarmed. That was my point. Had the common man been armed then history may have taken a different direction.
The common man was armed before 1933, and then the more militant and feckless ones organised in paramilitary organisations - that's how the Nazi (and the Communist) party armies = SA, SS, Rotfrontkämpferbund were able to undermine democratic institutions.

But of course walking around thinking that you have an enormous gun makes you feel happy you bought that rifle I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 15.11.2011, 17:17
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
It seems like a rather facetious remark to indicate that de-armament of a nation or society leads to an increase in gun related crime, I'd like to see your evidence for this, In the UK hand guns are banned and hand gun related crime is almost non-existent, the recent spate in the UK of rifle crime would be equally diminished if we banned all guns.
Or this 'spate' could be criminals seeking another venue for a weapon with which to use in the commission of a crime. If not handguns, then rifles. If not guns at all, then knives and bludgeons. A determined, violent person will find a way to maim or kill. Before guns were even invented, people were killing each other.

Quote:
View Post

We don't have a 'right to bare arms', the Americans do, that is similar to the statement that morons who vote for UKIP spout out 'no taxation without representation', we don't have a constitution or bill of rights, America is over 2000 miles away, and the war of independence was over 200 years ago, meaningless statements referencing a system that is alien is pointless and confusing.
Its not alien to an American.
Quote:
View Post

I think your last point about WW2 Germany is laughable to say the least; it was the Nazi death squads of the 30's that had the guns and forced the will of the party on the common man.
Do you think these death squads would have been anywhere near as eager to kick someone's door in, if they knew there was a possibility of someone pointing a Mauser or a Luger at them and using it in self-defense. Nazi death squads are a perfect example of a government excess that occurs when the government controls all the guns (i.e. the citizens can't arm themselves). These 'laughable' excesses are exactly why the US has the Second Amendment.
Quote:
View Post
Based on your reasoning would it have been advisable to arm the Hutus and the tootsies, or the Bosnians? Do you think it’s a good idea to chuck them all Kalashnikovs and close the door? What a brilliant foreign policy...
I don't see where this was said, nor implied. Avoid demagoguery- it always comes across as the last resort of the one who hasn't any facts to cite.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 15.11.2011, 17:25
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Hang on, hang on...

This is also a false comparison of the highest order; we do not 'need' guns. Is the ultimate price paid by the death of innocents for a toy equal to the necessity of a car? Well no, it's not, not at all
It's the mindset of a gun as a toy that leads to so many accidental gun injuries and fatalities. The first thing any responsible firearm operator/owner does is learn proper gun safety.

We don't need guns, except when an opposing country invades ours...
...And they have guns.

We don't need guns, except when a criminal has broken into our house and the police are nowhere near...
...And the hood has a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 15.11.2011, 17:45
tom tulpe's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Horgen
Posts: 1,182
Groaned at 21 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 1,409 Times in 646 Posts
tom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond reputetom tulpe has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Do you think these death squads would have been anywhere near as eager to kick someone's door in, if they knew there was a possibility of someone pointing a Mauser or a Luger at them and using it in self-defense. Nazi death squads are a perfect example of a government excess that occurs when the government controls all the guns (i.e. the citizens can't arm themselves). These 'laughable' excesses are exactly why the US has the Second Amendment.
You seem to think Nazi Germany had some sort of Rule of Law and that "Nazi death squads" were some sort of illegal thing, and that a couple folks with guns standing on their front porch would have scared them off. The reallity is that they were sent by the Nazi government, and that they were to some extend the executive arm of the government. Armed resistance against the Nazi governement = high treason in their book.

It did happen of course, and was without fail met with brutal repression (i.e. execution and/or imprisonment in concentration camps), not only against the perpetrators but also their families. This included repression related to events that pre-dated the Nazi's accession to power ("Altona Bloody Sunday" 17 Juli 1932 - 4 suspected communists were beheaded for this in 1933). Heavy stuff, innit?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 15.11.2011, 17:46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
We don't have a 'right to bare arms'
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 15.11.2011, 17:53
Lex's Avatar
Lex Lex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zug
Posts: 312
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 257 Times in 138 Posts
Lex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
The common man was armed before 1933, and then the more militant and feckless ones organised in paramilitary organisations - that's how the Nazi (and the Communist) party armies = SA, SS, Rotfrontkämpferbund were able to undermine democratic institutions.
Gun controls began in Germany in 1928. The Constitution prior had no rights to bear arms anyways and its true that Hitler came to power without armed force. After 1933 they started to take firearms out of the hands of opponents and then to solidify that action, in 1938 a new gun control law came into affect which began to disarm most of the 'non nazi' populace. I guess being so long ago some can continue to play around with the details, dates and intricacies all they want and we will probably never know whats true and whats not, but all totalitarian regimes impose strict gun controls as was the case there. So the only point referred to in my post is,, could it have been a different outcome had that not been the case? Maybe, maybe not. This is starting to shift off topic though.

Quote:
View Post
But of course walking around thinking that you have an enormous gun makes you feel happy you bought that rifle I suppose.
Probably relevant to someone else I would imagine.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 15.11.2011, 20:34
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
You seem to think Nazi Germany had some sort of Rule of Law and that "Nazi death squads" were some sort of illegal thing, and that a couple folks with guns standing on their front porch would have scared them off. The reallity is that they were sent by the Nazi government, and that they were to some extend the executive arm of the government. Armed resistance against the Nazi governement = high treason in their book....
No, the Nazis had the Rule of Man, 1 man- I believe we all agree upon that and I don't think I ever said nor implied that there existed any other scenario. Nor did I say or imply that Nazi death squads were illegal- they were perfectly legal by Hitler's rules, which is why I (correctly) described them as a government excess (Hitler was the government). And no, I don't think 'a couple folks with guns standing on their front porch would have scared them off.' I do think that the lowly Private who had the responsibility of kicking in the door and being first in would have been (much, IMHO) more likely to hesitate had he known there was a possibility of meeting armed resistance. Thuggery is very easy when you have all the guns.

If you want a more recent example of what happens to excessive regimes when the citizens arm themselves in their own defense, you should give Qadaffi a ring and ask him how an armed populace was able to check his government's excesses.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 15.11.2011, 23:02
Sky's Avatar
Sky Sky is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somewhere special far away
Posts: 4,196
Groaned at 60 Times in 43 Posts
Thanked 6,682 Times in 2,513 Posts
Sky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

We're not in a conflict, and have not been for 500 years.
Weapons of any kind have absolutely no place in today's society.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Sky for this useful post:
  #58  
Old 15.11.2011, 23:51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CH
Posts: 452
Groaned at 9 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 648 Times in 282 Posts
Laertes has a reputation beyond reputeLaertes has a reputation beyond reputeLaertes has a reputation beyond reputeLaertes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

According to the german Wikipedia article regarding the german weapens law, the Nazis, did actually arm the common man:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengesetz_(Deutschland)#Mittelalter_bis_1945
Quote:
Während Juden, Zigeuner, vorbestrafte Homosexuelle und andere als Staatsfeinde bezeichnete gesellschaftliche Gruppen komplett entwaffnet wurden,[14] rüstete der Staat das Volk und seine angeschlossenen Organisationen umfangreich mit Waffen aus. Als Einfallstor für die nationalsozialistische Ideologie erwies sich auch die Bedürfnisprüfung, die in nicht rechtsstaatlichem Sinne zu parteipolitischen Zwecken missbraucht wurde.[15]
Eine Erwerbsscheinpflicht war nur noch für Faustfeuerwaffen vorgeschrieben, während Langwaffen und Munition grundsätzlich frei erworben werden konnten.
roughly translated:

Wheras Jews, Gipsies, Homosexuals, and other enemies of the state were completely disarmed, the government equipped the people and its organisations extensively with weapons. A license was only needed for handguns, whereas long guns and ammunition could be bought freely.

(This is in contrast to the weapons laws of the Weimar Republic, which have been much more restrictive: until 1928 possession of weapons were forbidden, after 28 only with license).

As most common men proberabley do not classifie as enemies of the state, the would have had the possibility to defend themselves using weapons

Last edited by Laertes; 16.11.2011 at 00:03.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 16.11.2011, 00:15
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
We're not in a conflict, and have not been for 500 years.
Weapons of any kind have absolutely no place in today's society.
I would not jump to such a totalitarian position. But I support all moves to reduce the place of military weapons, by A) organizing things in a way that the soldiers can leave the weapons at an arsenal (of the soldier's choice) and B) by abolishing the "Obligatorische" which only is kept up to finance those Schützenvereine and C) by changing the Swiss armed forces into a fully professional army
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 16.11.2011, 00:26
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
According to the german Wikipedia article regarding the german weapens law, the Nazis, did actually arm the common man:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengesetz_(Deutschland)#Mittelalter_bis_1945
roughly translated:

Wheras Jews, Gipsies, Homosexuals, and other enemies of the state were completely disarmed,
Weren't those the exact groups the Nazis were rounding up and shipping to concentration camps? And why, in your opinion, are these people not to be considered 'the common man'?
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 20:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0