Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263508 -

You mean the vast bulk of lawyers advising the Supreme court and US judicial system for the last 100 years?

who are these lawyers you speak of? who are some of these "legal" experts? can you name a few? can you show me what reasoning they used to arrive at their decisions?

They were all in on some communist conspiracy?

huh?

Why do you think they don't agree with you?

some of them do actually (as i've repeatedly shown you). i'd like to know why some disagree with me, but no rationale is ever given for their interpretation of the militia clause, save a reference or two to the cruikshank, miller, or presser cases (so far as i'm aware. if there is a good rational explanation for their decisions, i'd like to see it. is there one? where might i find it?).

Do you really need me to find you the lawyers and judges who have served on the US supreme court for the last 100 years?

no. what i would like to see is just one who agrees with your interpretation of the militia clause and can explain why.

Then why are the NRA still trying to overturn their ruling?

the NRA is not trying to overturn the rulings in the 3 cases i'm referring to.

Where did you study law mush? Clearly the judge doesn't agree with you.

sigh. you needn't have studied law to understand the meaning of...

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed"

US v. Cruikshank (1876)


"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

US. v. Miller (1939)


"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

Presser v. The People of Illinois (1886)

You mean apart from the 68 pages..

please alex. if it was 68 pages of a case of why the militia clause means that the second amendment doesn't guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms, i'd be busy working on it, or perhaps maybe even reconsidering my position. if you actually read the document though, it is nothing of the sort. it is 68 pages of legalese, little of which has to do with the judges interpretation of the second amendment and his justification for the interpretation. in fact, the only justifaction (as i said before) is a citation of the cruikshank, presser, and miller cases, cases which we have seen in no way support his assertion about the militia clause.


You can find that out as easily as me mush. Email the NRA and ask them why they can't win.

As I said mush, I'm no lawyer. And neither are you. Clearly the vast bulk of lawyers disagree with you on this issue. If you think you have a case, take it to the Supreme court. I'm sure the NRA will fund you if they think you are a good enough cause.

so what you mean to say is that you don't know what arguments they would use, and you don't know what responses they would have for mine... you don't know why your "experts" are right, just that you agree with them, and that's good enough...

come on alex. let's talk about the militia clause. let's talk about the second amendment. you seem so sure of what it means, but you don't seem to have any reason for your beliefs than the testimony of a bunch of "experts"... this would be fine i suppose if they had some arguments in support of their assertions, and you could point us in the direction of some of those arguments, but alas, you cannot. with so many legal experts agreeing with you on such a simple issue, shouldn't it be quite easy for you to find an actual argument in support of your assertions? i'd really love to see it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263525 -

So the US judicial system and supreme court is a hotbed of communists all determind to keep the NRA down?

i'll have to check, but i don't think i said anything of the sort. hey everyone, did i say that, or is alex being a deceitful strawman builder?

and alex... why the continued references to the supreme court? some of the opinions to have come out of the supreme court are pretty damning to your assertion about how "countless legal experts" agree with you.

Must admit I've never considered the US supreme court to contain too many anarchists. If it was long-haired drug-using commie anarchists disagreeing with you then maybe I'd think "Old mush might have a point". But when it's lawyers and judges throwing your case out time and time again I've got grave doubts.

what the hell are you talking about?

Well I'm definately gonna continue to have more faith in the countless lawyers and judges who have considered this in courtrooms for decades than some kid on a shroom board who has never proved anything to a court in his life. Do you blame me?

of course not. you agree with them.

(questions for alex... how many is "countless"? how many judges and lawyers have expressed support for your view of the militia clause? how many for mine? what reasoning has been offered by either side?)

if you want to talk about "experts" on the second amendment, here's an opinion from the ultimate expert on the subject:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

- Federalist #46, James Madison (the guy that wrote the bill of rights).

i think that pretty much clarifies who the militia is, what role they may play, and whether or not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really does mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263544 -

by what reasoning do you think your "legal experts" come to their conclusions about the militia clause and what it means in the second amendment? if their conclusions are valid, they must be based on sound logical reasoning. are their conclusions based on reason? what are the logical arguments for arriving at their conclusions?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263788 -

This thread is going nowhere. The same questions are being asked and dodged over and over again. This is about the tenth time I have seen this issue covered in this forum in the last year, by the same people.

Mushmaster, you've been here long enough to know you'll get no more "answers" to your questions than have appeared here already. It's probably best to let it go.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Phred]
    #2263811 -

i want to see what the response is to my last post. if it looks as though there might be some honest debate about the militia clause, then it might be worth continuing. if there is only more talk of "legal experts", without arguments in support of their conclusions, it probably won't be.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263843 -

Let's be kind people, english may not be alex's native language.. might not understand all the words we're saying.


I'm still waiting for an explanation why many judges in the south chose to uphold 'Equal but Seperate' as a valid practice. Were the judges correct? Aren't judges infalliable? You've made the argument that they are, essentially. And if judges are infalliable, were they right in regards to 'Equal but Seperate'?
What about abortion, eh? It was illegal, and then it wasn't! And drugs, boy howdy, those are sure illegal, I'm sure the Supreme Court would agree, and they must be right in everything they do, because they're infalliable and blacks and mexicans should use seperate facilities?

I'm bating a bit. I certainly hope I made it thick enough you could tell. It is a valid question in that mire, though, that does deserve an answer.. i so hope it includes anarchists and hippie communists


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265512 -

can you name a few? can you show me what reasoning they used to arrive at their decisions?

You can find those as easy as me mush.

huh?

The US judicial system has rejected your position unanimously for at least the last 60 years, why have they done this?

some of them do actually

You have a Supreme court judgement supporting your position?

(as i've repeatedly shown you).

No, you've repeatedly picked single lines out of context.

the NRA is not trying to overturn the rulings in the 3 cases i'm referring to.

So the NRA are happy that the Supreme Court utterly and unanimously rejects the theory that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own guns?

Fair enough. So what's the problem?

sigh. you needn't have studied law to understand the meaning of...

This is where we differ mush. I think you DO need to have studied law to understand the 200 years of history and reasoning behind these cases.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." US vs Miller

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

See how easy it is to pick lines out of court cases to support your position mush?

Here's an interesting read:

Exploding the NRA second amendment mythology

so what you mean to say is that you don't know what arguments they would use, and you don't know what responses they would have for mine... you don't know why your "experts" are right, just that you agree with them, and that's good enough...

No mush, if you can find me convincing legal reasoning from experts to support your position I'd been a little more open to your position. But at the moment you're like a guy in the pub saying "Dude, I can PROVE the special theory of relativity is wrong man, even tho all those scientists for the last 100 years disagree with me man..Look..". I'm not a physicist and wouldn't claim to know enough about the special theory of relativity to "prove" him wrong, but I know damn sure it's pretty unlikely he's right.

but you don't seem to have any reason for your beliefs than the testimony of a bunch of "experts"

Isn't the testimony of experts a pretty good way of reaching conclusions?

come on alex. let's talk about the militia clause.

Why? I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. We're two guys on a shroom board. If your position held any water you'd be taking it through the courts right now and making yourself a multi-millionaire.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265539 -

i'll have to check, but i don't think i said anything of the sort.

Then explain to us why they keep rejecting your position?

what the hell are you talking about?

You keep referring to "politically charged groups of men" as a reason for why the courts don't agree with you. What the hell are YOU on about?

I guessed you meant they were all "communists" or "leftists" because they reject your position. I'm pointing out that you don't get too many communists sitting on the Supreme Court.

i think that pretty much clarifies who the militia is, what role they may play, and whether or not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really does mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Nope, it doesn't even begin to. If it did the courts would have accepted your position decades ago. Here's another viewpoint that shatters your "clarified position":

NRA MYTH 2:
Since the "Militia" in the Second Amendment consists of "the whole people," the Amendment guarantees everyone the right to keep and bear arms.

RESPONSE:
The original colonial militia did not include everyone. Rather, it included able-bodied adult males between the ages of 18 and 45. The militia was always an organized state-sponsored military force, not simply an ad hoc collection of armed citizens.

EXPLANATION:
When the NRA is forced to address the militia language in the Amendment, it seriously distorts the nature of the "well regulated Militia." In the NRA's view, the term "militia" is synonymous with the general citizenry. The NRA relies on quotations from colonial leaders like George Mason indicating that the "militia" consists of "the whole people."

Membership in the 18th century militia generally consisted of able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45. Thus, the militia was never composed of the entire population, as the NRA sometimes suggests. Moreover, to say that the "militia" is simply a collection of armed citizens is to misrepresent the original militia concept.

The colonial militia was an organized military force whose members were subject to various legal requirements imposed by the colonies and then by the states. For instance, militiamen were required by law to muster for training several days a year and to supply their own equipment for militia use, including guns and horses. (The personal arms of the militiamen were supplemented by militia arms from government armories.) The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment reinforces the idea of an organized military force subject to state governmental control. In sum, the militia in 18th century America was a form of compulsory military service imposed upon much of the male population or, to borrow a phase from the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, a "state army." (See Appendix B, Article by Justice Burger.)

The Second Amendment was a product of the colonists' deep distrust of "standing armies" ? permanent military forces composed of professional soldiers. The use of troops by George III to compel obedience to the Crown's burdensome taxes and laws reinforced this distrust. These colonists saw the state militia ? a part-time military force composed of ordinary citizens ? as an effective counterpoint to the power of the federal standing army. Thus, the concern of the Second Amendment was the distribution of military power between the states and the federal government. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to preclude the federal government from enacting laws which would disarm the state militia.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265590 -

You can find those as easy as me mush.

you're the one making the claim, so you're the one who must provide the proof. that's how burden of proof works in an argument. plus, i've never seen them before, and you presumably have, so it will probably be easier for you to find them anyway.


The US judicial system has rejected your position unanimously for at least the last 60 years, why have they done this?

that's what i'm asking you...


You have a Supreme court judgement supporting your position?

yes. i've cited them at least 3 times now. see the cruikshank, miller, and presser cases.

So the NRA are happy that the Supreme Court utterly and unanimously rejects the theory that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own guns?

that isn't what the supreme court did in those rulings. see the cruikshank, miller, and presser cases.

This is where we differ mush. I think you DO need to have studied law to understand the 200 years of history and reasoning behind these cases.

please read the texts i cited. the meaning is clear as day.

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

yes, but the miller case also affirmed that: the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.". so if the miller case said that the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the vitality of the miltia, that's fine, because it also said that the militia is comprised of ALL males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. thus, ANY reference to the "militia" in the miller decision is referring to ALL able-bodies males capable of acting in concert for the common defense. it does NOT mean solely the national guard.

No mush, if you can find me convincing legal reasoning from experts to support your position I'd been a little more open to your position. But at the moment you're like a guy in the pub saying "Dude, I can PROVE the special theory of relativity is wrong man, even tho all those scientists for the last 100 years disagree with me man..Look..".

i see. so it is indeed a blind appeal to authority. you don't know why they're right... you don't understand (or can even give an example of) the actual arguments they use, but you just know they're right on this one because they're judges and i am not...

What problem do you have with the testimony of experts mush? Isn't the testimony of experts a pretty good way of reaching conclusions?

not if :

1. all the experts don't agree.
2. the testimony is not backed up with some sort of reasoning.

Why? I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. We're two guys on a shroom board. If your position held any water you'd be taking it through the courts right now and making yourself a multi-millionaire.

and if your position held any water, you wouldn't be so reluctant to discuss it openly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265619 -

you're the one making the claim, so you're the one who must provide the proof.

Start with the article I posted and research from there. There are at least 30 court cases that have rejected your position. Have you read any of them?

that's what i'm asking you...

Because you're wrong.

That's why I think all the judgements go against you mush. Because you're wrong.

Now why do YOU think it is?

yes. i've cited them at least 3 times now. see the cruikshank, miller, and presser cases.

Come again? What exactly are you saying the judgement of these court cases was?

they're right on this one because they're judges and i am not...

Sorry mush, but on a question of law I'm gonna trust 60 years of judges and lawyers than an NRA kid on a shroom board.

and if your position held any water, you wouldn't be so reluctant to discuss it openly.

What do you want me to discuss? I believe the second amendment refers to a militia, not individuals. The only reason I'm reluctant to spend weeks debating the fine points of this is because I'm not a lawyer and havn't spent years studying the legal history behind it. You seem to have more confidence in your own opinion than lawyers and judges who have spent their lives studying this. I don't.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265669 -

ok... now we're talking about the militia. this is good. most of what is written in the description you found is actually pretty good.

the militia was, and was intended to be, a locally controlled (but still controlled) military force. the purpose was to provide an additional fighting force in the event of an invasion, or an opposing force in the event of the rise of federal tyranny. miltias were not just ragtag posses of men with guns, but state-controlled forces of citizen soldiers.

but in order for the militia system to work, the people must be armed. they must have their own weapons if they were to present themselves for military service as citizen soldiers. this was one important reason for preserving the right of the people to keep arms. it would not be correct to say that this wasn't one of the strongest reasons for prohibiting the federal government from disarming the populace. the second amendment (as we are all aware) even mentions this reason explicitly. however, this isn't the only reason, and what's more, even if it was, it would still not mean that the second amendment did not preserve the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. a person needn't have been currently serving in a militia in order to keep and bear arms, but only "able-bodied male" who could potentially be called to serve in the militia. the second amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... one important reason being to provide a body of potential citizen soldiers to fight against foreign invaders or federal tyranny.

(as a side note, i find it interesting that the original draft of the second amendment specified that there could be no compulsory military service. it was removed in the final draft).

i've never been one to found my belief in my right to keep arms on the second amendment alone. the second amendment does not exist to grant citizens with any rights. it exists only to prohibit the government from trampling on them. the right of people to keep arms for defensive purposes pre-exists the second amendment, or any other body of law. had the second amendment never been drafted, we would still have the same right to arms that we have always had.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265688 -

Alex, since you don't seem to be able to think for yourself and always appeal to a higher authority, I'm sure you will agree with U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant when he fined Brett Bursey for carrying a protest sign at a Bush rally....

Check out the story here.

You see Alex, your slavish appeal to authority can also work against the First Amendment. Dictators and potential dictators LOVE your attitude.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2265704 -

Well, I'll break the habit and deign you with a reply evol..if there was any evidence of the last 60 years of second amendment judgements being politically motivated you might have a point. But as I've pointed out to mush, you don't tend to get many communist anarchists on the Supreme Court. My guess is you get fairly establishment figures who, if anything, would have sympathy with the NRA. The fact that even they reject the NRA's position is very telling.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2265715 -

i recall a time from my youth, when i was speaking with a man about the heavans. his belief was that the earth was not the center of the planetary system, but the sun was! and after everything the priests were telling us... i couldn't believe it. now, he showed me his calculations and everything, but i being no wise man in these matters, and him certainly being no authority, i could not believe what he was saying. i mean... the authorities... the priests had been saying for ages that the earth was the center of the universe... what do i know? who was this guy with his telescope and calculations? who knows.. but i wasn't going to just believe him over what the priests were saying. to hell with his calculations and reasons. if he was indeed right, he would take it up with the priests, right?

:wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265720 -

Quote:
Alex123 said:
..if there was any evidence of the last 60 years of second amendment judgements being politically motivated you might have a point.


Oh there is evidence, the rulings in the last 60 years are different than those that preceeded them. Why do you limit yourself to the last 60 years? Why don't you look at rulings closer to the beggining of the republic?

Quote:
But as I've pointed out to mush, you don't tend to get many communist anarchists on the Supreme Court.


So you made an silly statement. This does not advance your argument, nor have you rationally addressed mushmaster's arguments. Try again.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265723 -

And you're the one insisting the sun goes round the earth and everyone else must be wrong... :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2265732 -

hah!

touche.

you know alex.. you can actually be quite clever when you aren't disagreeing with me....  :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2265753 -

I'm exhausted with this one anyway mush. You've got some fair points, maybe in 20 years time the judges will be on your side :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266445 -

Quote:
I'm exhausted with this one anyway mush.


Good. Watching you here was like watching a lousy fighter get his ass kicked long after he should have fallen down and cried uncle.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 dee_N_ae 14,309 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* The 2nd Amendment Anonymous 675 2 08/02/03 10:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Sen. Santorum Defends Remarks in Gay Court Case I_Fart_Blue 772 1 04/23/03 02:19 PM
by wingnutx
* Which amendment to the bill of rights is your favorite?
( 1 2 all )		 Senor_Doobie 2,602 34 01/30/03 10:52 AM
by Sinistar
* Supreme court and Cross Burning
( 1 2 all )		 JohnnyRespect 2,249 31 04/21/03 02:41 PM
by JohnnyRespect
* Flag Burning Amendment ToTheSummit 2,197 19 08/02/01 01:21 PM
by Beery
* Congrats Luvdemshrroms and Alex123 Innvertigo 649 7 02/19/03 11:14 PM
by Innvertigo
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,203 31 06/08/02 02:59 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,596 topic views. 0 members, 46 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.