Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2013, 06:08 AM  
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107900
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb

Like I said, more police state is coming. The scared sheeple will obey too.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks....

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.
Another reason why Progressives are closet totalitarians.


http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomb...ave-to-change/
Posts: 56,214
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 06:13 AM   #76
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderhader View Post
Browsed it? Yeah, I see you are really concerned with gathering all the information you can to make an informed decision.

Everything from our founding to the framing refutes your view of the Second Amendment. But you are not really interested in facts are you?
Your view, that the Founder's idea of the Second Amendment was to prohibit both federal and state action against gun regulation, has no basis in their framing of our gov't (federalism) or their understanding of what the Bill of Rights did.

I only browsed your link because it simply restates things I've already read before. You really don't think "guncite.com" is the first source to lay out that information, do you? I've read the majority opinions of Heller and McDonald.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 06:14 AM   #77
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Could you tell me what you think the result/conclusion of the Miller case was?

Also, when I'm trying to show what the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment meant to the Court, why would I not "cling" to Miller and other cases that demonstrate the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment as meant to the Court?
Bump for AustinChief.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 07:26 AM   #78
LiveSteam LiveSteam is offline
All aboard the crazy train
 
LiveSteam's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: homeof43conferencetitles
Casino cash: $77693
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Interpreter View Post
Bump for AustinChief.
& I FYName here as well. Some help here Mods.

Little Jr lawyer going to a second tier law school knows all.

Last edited by LiveSteam; 04-24-2013 at 07:38 AM..
Posts: 16,678
LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 11:39 AM   #79
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701337
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Could you tell me what you think the result/conclusion of the Miller case was?

Also, when I'm trying to show what the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment meant to the Court, why would I not "cling" to Miller and other cases that demonstrate the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment as meant to the Court?
The result was to uphold the legality of the NFA which is funny since they uphold the NFA by pointing out that a shotgun didn't serve a military purpose. Why is that funny? Two reasons... #1 shotguns had been used in the Civil War and WWI so that basic contention was wrong and #2 by that reasoning... the NFA's limits on machine guns is invalidated by this very decision.

The fact is, Miller was a crap decision that was argued by only one side. You clinging to it is pathetic. That's like you using the "win" you get from a forfeited game to "prove" how good your team is. Nice job idiot.
Posts: 14,315
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 11:45 AM   #80
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701337
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Believe it or not, the Founders would say that it's not an issue for the US supreme court to deal with, because it wasn't a federal issue. States could, if they wanted to, even prohibit your speech and not violate the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights from the Founder's perspective was about restricting federal action, not state action. It's not until the 20th century when that changed.

So it would have been upheld at the SCOTUS, if it had gone there (which it wouldn't have for several reasons, but like I said, thought experiment)
Yes yes the incorporation doctrine. What does this have to do with your claim that the Court for most of our history only saw the 2nd amendment in terms of a militia and not personal use? Two completely unrelated things.

The site provided by Raiderhader proves that your statement is wrong. Period. No matter what revisionist bullshit you want to spew.
Posts: 14,315
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 01:46 PM   #81
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveSteam View Post
& I FYName here as well. Some help here Mods.

Little Jr lawyer going to a second tier law school knows all.
Excuse me, People's Community Law Clinic of the Upper Midwest is not a second tier law school. We may not yet be accredited by some dictatorial ruling body of elites, but that doesn't mean we aren't first tier in spirit.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 01:59 PM   #82
LiveSteam LiveSteam is offline
All aboard the crazy train
 
LiveSteam's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: homeof43conferencetitles
Casino cash: $77693
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Excuse me, People's Community Law Clinic of the Upper Midwest is not a second tier law school. We may not yet be accredited by some dictatorial ruling body of elites, but that doesn't mean we aren't first tier in spirit.
Posts: 16,678
LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.LiveSteam is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:13 PM   #83
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
The result was to uphold the legality of the NFA which is funny since they uphold the NFA by pointing out that a shotgun didn't serve a military purpose. Why is that funny? Two reasons... #1 shotguns had been used in the Civil War and WWI so that basic contention was wrong and #2 by that reasoning... the NFA's limits on machine guns is invalidated by this very decision.

The fact is, Miller was a crap decision that was argued by only one side. You clinging to it is pathetic. That's like you using the "win" you get from a forfeited game to "prove" how good your team is. Nice job idiot.
Yes, the Miler result was that Congress could regulate and even prohibit certain types of guns. Particularly, guns that didn't have a military use, because the Second Amendment was intrinsically based on the limitations of the federal government to prevent state militias from forming.

It really doesn't matter that you disagree with the ruling. I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm simply telling you what the historical view of the Second Amendment was. It's like me saying that slavery existed in the United States before the Civil War, and you saying that I'm a liar, that I'm stupid, and that I cling to some random band of black farm laborers in South Carolina who were bought and kept as property by a plantation owner as evidence.

Now that you agree with me that the case demonstrates what I've said to be true (and you've displayed your disliking of the case's holding, which is really irrelevant to this discussion), we can continue to another case which I believe demonstrates my position (and once again, I will lay that out for you lest you be confused once more and think my position is something other than my position (e.g., that I don't think people should have guns for personal safety use)): the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

Let's discuss Presser v. Illinois (1886). In this case, both sides had counsel, and Charles Hughes wasn't even on the Court. What does Presser v. Illinois say about the 2nd Amendment's relation to state militia? And what does it say about state/federal gov't issues? And what does it say about Presser's attempt to tie the 14th Amendment into his alleged right to form his own militia?
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:16 PM   #84
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701337
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Excuse me, People's Community Law Clinic of the Upper Midwest is not a second tier law school. We may not yet be accredited by some dictatorial ruling body of elites, but that doesn't mean we aren't first tier in spirit.
Ok, this was funny.

But back to your idiotic assertion that the Courts had a narrow "militia only" view of the 2nd amendment.

How about Dred Scott? Why would the Court warn that if persons of the negro race were granted full citizenship it would mean they would have a RIGHT to bear arms? If the right to bear arms only related to militias and militias can be regulated by the state... see where this is going? It proves that the Court accepted the right to bear arms as an individual right.
Posts: 14,315
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:17 PM   #85
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Yes yes the incorporation doctrine. What does this have to do with your claim that the Court for most of our history only saw the 2nd amendment in terms of a militia and not personal use? Two completely unrelated things.

The site provided by Raiderhader proves that your statement is wrong. Period. No matter what revisionist bullshit you want to spew.
It's quite important to my claim that the 2nd Amendment, for most of American history, was intrinsically tied into militia purposes.

McDonald is the first time that the Second Amendment right was incorporated to the states. Before that, if you had a problem with your state's gun law because it infringed on your personal use of a gun, who did you take it up with?
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:22 PM   #86
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Ok, this was funny.

But back to your idiotic assertion that the Courts had a narrow "militia only" view of the 2nd amendment.

How about Dred Scott? Why would the Court warn that if persons of the negro race were granted full citizenship it would mean they would have a RIGHT to bear arms? If the right to bear arms only related to militias and militias can be regulated by the state... see where this is going? It proves that the Court accepted the right to bear arms as an individual right.
Not a bad question. I can see where you might think you have made a good point. The answer is obvious, though, if you know about what rights the states granted to citizens. Not, emphatically not, what rights the Amendments granted to those citizens from laws by the states (which was essentially none until the 20th century).

Where was Dred Scot a citizen, if he was one? Missouri, I believe? Did Missouri law grant citizens the ability to own a firearm? Absolutely. I don't know that for sure, but I know it as general knowledge.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:29 PM   #87
ForeverChiefs58 ForeverChiefs58 is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Mar 2009
Casino cash: $590867
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
It's quite important to my claim that the 2nd Amendment, for most of American history, was intrinsically tied into militia purposes.

McDonald is the first time that the Second Amendment right was incorporated to the states. Before that, if you had a problem with your state's gun law because it infringed on your personal use of a gun, who did you take it up with?
Too bad you can't sue yourself for being such a ****ing idiot.
Posts: 6,789
ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.ForeverChiefs58 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:30 PM   #88
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58 View Post
Too bad you can't sue yourself for being such a ****ing idiot.
It's truly something to think about.
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:32 PM   #89
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701337
Quote:
Originally Posted by La literatura View Post
Yes, the Miler result was that Congress could regulate and even prohibit certain types of guns. Particularly, guns that didn't have a military use, because the Second Amendment was intrinsically based on the limitations of the federal government to prevent state militias from forming.

It really doesn't matter that you disagree with the ruling. I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm simply telling you what the historical view of the Second Amendment was. It's like me saying that slavery existed in the United States before the Civil War, and you saying that I'm a liar, that I'm stupid, and that I cling to some random band of black farm laborers in South Carolina who were bought and kept as property by a plantation owner as evidence.

Now that you agree with me that the case demonstrates what I've said to be true (and you've displayed your disliking of the case's holding, which is really irrelevant to this discussion), we can continue to another case which I believe demonstrates my position (and once again, I will lay that out for you lest you be confused once more and think my position is something other than my position (e.g., that I don't think people should have guns for personal safety use)): the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

Let's discuss Presser v. Illinois (1886). In this case, both sides had counsel, and Charles Hughes wasn't even on the Court. What does Presser v. Illinois say about the 2nd Amendment's relation to state militia? And what does it say about state/federal gov't issues? And what does it say about Presser's attempt to tie the 14th Amendment into his alleged right to form his own militia?
Again these are different issues that you are trying to conflate. Yes I disagree with the decision and you are correct that it doesn't matter. The decision though, does NOT prove your distorted view of historical reality. As I have stated and as Raiderhader has SHOWN your view is simple revisionist crap.

Presser v Illinois does nothing to prop up your ridiculous argument. Presser (and Cruikshank before ) served to affirm States rights in regards to militias.

What you are trying to do is obvious and logically fallacious. Yes the Court held that the 2nd Amendment (just like all of the Bill of Rights) applied to the Federal govt not States until of course we had the 14th and incorporation of those rights past the State level. This was true for roughly half of US history so far. That does not in ANY way somehow imply that the right was not an individual right.
That is as ****ing retarded as saying the the 1st Amendment was not an individual right until after the 14th Amendment. Do you see how stupid this attempt of yours is?
Posts: 14,315
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 02:39 PM   #90
La literatura La literatura is offline
MVP
 
La literatura's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Casino cash: $50809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Again these are different issues that you are trying to conflate. Yes I disagree with the decision and you are correct that it doesn't matter. The decision though, does NOT prove your distorted view of historical reality. As I have stated and as Raiderhader has SHOWN your view is simple revisionist crap.

Presser v Illinois does nothing to prop up your ridiculous argument. Presser (and Cruikshank before ) served to affirm States rights in regards to militias.

What you are trying to do is obvious and logically fallacious. Yes the Court held that the 2nd Amendment (just like all of the Bill of Rights) applied to the Federal govt not States until of course we had the 14th and incorporation of those rights past the State level. This was true for roughly half of US history so far. That does not in ANY way somehow imply that the right was not an individual right.
That is as ****ing retarded as saying the the 1st Amendment was not an individual right until after the 14th Amendment. Do you see how stupid this attempt of yours is?
Good Lord. How many times did I repeat my position? I never said the Second Amendment wasn't an "individual right." That's never been a part of my position. Here's my position, once again, and this time I will bold it. The 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

It was emphatically not, as it is now, as it is since 2008, viewed as a protection of the average citizen's personal use of a weapon. States, counties, cities, were certainly free to regulate, many weapons and not be limited by the Second Amendment. Rather, the Second Amendment was a rule that said, "state militias are important for order, and so Congress can't create a law that rips the teeth away from a state wanting to set up one."

I admire your ability to look these cases up on google and get a pro-gun right's assessment of them, but they don't disturb my historically correct view of the traditional view of the Second Amendment.

And yes, Presser v. Illinois does affirm my position. Let's discuss it as we did Miller so I can once again demonstrate the correctness of my position.

Last edited by La literatura; 04-24-2013 at 02:47 PM..
Posts: 7,171
La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.La literatura is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.