Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 25, 2013, 04:06 PM   #51
tshrimp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet View Post
This is simply factually incorrect and goes to show why you shouldn't get your political talking points from friends.
He is right. You should come to a computer message board for your political facts.
tshrimp is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 05:59 PM   #52
glocke12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
Really?
yup..took about 5 years to get all the dirt I needed for it, but i now essentially have my own private shooting range...
glocke12 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 08:20 PM   #53
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
but you do so at the expense of other people

hence the problem
What is the expense and who are the people?
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 10:17 PM   #54
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
What is the expense and who are the people?
loss of right/privilege

gun owners/would be gun owners
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 11:26 PM   #55
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
loss of right/privilege

gun owners/would be gun owners
Yes.

A more liberal Supreme Court would likely support such a move.

citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 10:44 AM   #56
MuddyPaws1
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
Define "trained". Going to a 10-hour course does not (to me) equal someone trained to carry a gun into a school. Think about it: that's ONE DAY of training. My class for electrical formulas was longer than that. Now, you say that teachers who want to carry are given much more thorough training and testing.

OK, so...would anyone actually suggest that?
Well, for comparison, the New York State Police firearm training is 90 hours total.

Basic Firearms Training covers not only qualification with pistol and shotgun, but also tactical firearms training, the use of deadly force, which includes training on FATS (Firearms Training System), chemical agent training and practical "demonstrations" of the effects of oleoresin capsicum (OC or "pepper spray").

So drop off the shotgun training because teachers aren't going to be carrying a shotgun in school, drop off the OC training because we are talking about and guns, and drop off the tactical firearms training because teachers wouldn't be carrying a semi-automatic tactical rifle in school and how many hours of training do the State Police have?

Much of that time is simply range time. Time shooting.

It amazes me at the number of people that think police have a million hours of specialized training and there is no way a private citizen could match that.

And they require ongoing semi-annual qualification with pistol and shotgun. Semi-annual. Not even every year.



So I ask you this, given the facts....how many hours would you require for a teacher for a handgun? Would the same training that the State Police get, minus the unneeded parts I indicated, be sufficient? If not, then I would suggest that you lobby to keep police out of our schools because they have not received an acceptable amount of training.
MuddyPaws1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 11:18 AM   #57
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Yes.

A more liberal Supreme Court would likely support such a move.

Well, it wouldn't be more liberal so much as it would be more activist. Just because you're a liberal (like myself) doesn't mean you're for restricting firearms.
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 11:45 AM   #58
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1 View Post
Well, for comparison, the New York State Police firearm training is 90 hours total.

Basic Firearms Training covers not only qualification with pistol and shotgun, but also tactical firearms training, the use of deadly force, which includes training on FATS (Firearms Training System), chemical agent training and practical "demonstrations" of the effects of oleoresin capsicum (OC or "pepper spray").

So drop off the shotgun training because teachers aren't going to be carrying a shotgun in school, drop off the OC training because we are talking about and guns, and drop off the tactical firearms training because teachers wouldn't be carrying a semi-automatic tactical rifle in school and how many hours of training do the State Police have?

Much of that time is simply range time. Time shooting.

It amazes me at the number of people that think police have a million hours of specialized training and there is no way a private citizen could match that.

And they require ongoing semi-annual qualification with pistol and shotgun. Semi-annual. Not even every year.



So I ask you this, given the facts....how many hours would you require for a teacher for a handgun? Would the same training that the State Police get, minus the unneeded parts I indicated, be sufficient? If not, then I would suggest that you lobby to keep police out of our schools because they have not received an acceptable amount of training.
I see that you skipped over the main point of my post, maybe because it didn't jive with your opinion. My response didn't even have much to do with teachers. You suggested that no one would suggest sending untrained people into schools. You even repeated it twice with a bold "NO". And then I posted a link to one of our own forum posters who stated that anyone with a CCW permit should be able to carry into schools as much as they wanted to, and I don't see a 10-hour class as being "trained". Do I support anyone with a CCW to meander into schools, or work in schools? NO. No. And no again.

If a teacher has equivalent training to a police officer, like maybe seven full days of intense work, and has been tested on that training (i.e., actual scenarios to see how they react), and is re-certified every few months, then I am a little more okay with it. I would still require that under no circumstances does someone bring a gun into a classroom without parental notification. I don't ever want my son in a room with a gun if I can help it.

If you want me to be scared and think that I or my child is unsafe at school without a gun in every room, then you're barking up the wrong tree. I went to school in the middle of a city (and a city ranked high in crime, mind you) which had no security, no locked doors, and certainly no guns. There was never a single threat, and still to this day, twenty years later, I haven't heard of any threat, although I think access is a little more limited (as in, don't look like a criminal and you can come right in).

I think this rush to guns is just as insane as the rush to remove all shoes at airplane security after the shoe bomber, or that I'm still not allowed to bring a bottle of water through with me.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 02:02 PM   #59
MuddyPaws1
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
I see that you skipped over the main point of my post, maybe because it didn't jive with your opinion. My response didn't even have much to do with teachers. You suggested that no one would suggest sending untrained people into schools. You even repeated it twice with a bold "NO". And then I posted a link to one of our own forum posters who stated that anyone with a CCW permit should be able to carry into schools as much as they wanted to, and I don't see a 10-hour class as being "trained". Do I support anyone with a CCW to meander into schools, or work in schools? NO. No. And no again.
I guess you and I have different views on what was the main point of your post but i'll respond. I was talking about the lobbyists including the NRA and the politicians. None of them have said to just give untrained people guns and send them to school.

But I can see his argument. CPL is legal with the proper training and licenses in most states. Let's say a woman has a CPL and is all legal. She has to drop her child off at school in the morning before she heads to work. She is carrying a weapon then. What's the big deal? I can tell you for sure that this scenario happens every day at schools across the country. It's not the legal CPL people we should be worried about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
If a teacher has equivalent training to a police officer, like maybe seven full days of intense work, and has been tested on that training (i.e., actual scenarios to see how they react), and is re-certified every few months, then I am a little more okay with it.
Well then you would require teachers to have more training and more re-certification than any police force in this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
I would still require that under no circumstances does someone bring a gun into a classroom without parental notification. I don't ever want my son in a room with a gun if I can help it.
I can see your point. Parental choice is something I fully support. But even in the states that allow teachers to carry in school, none of them publish WHO is actually carrying. Not all teachers are armed. Knowing that information makes it less safe. Think about marshals on an airplane. Someone may armed, you as the bad guy just don't know who. The districts that do allow teachers to carry, do announce that there are armed teachers. You as a parent now have the choice to send you child to a different school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
If you want me to be scared and think that I or my child is unsafe at school without a gun in every room, then you're barking up the wrong tree. I went to school in the middle of a city (and a city ranked high in crime, mind you) which had no security, no locked doors, and certainly no guns. There was never a single threat, and still to this day, twenty years later, I haven't heard of any threat, although I think access is a little more limited (as in, don't look like a criminal and you can come right in).
I am in no way trying to convince you of that. I am sure that the parents at Sandy Hook never thought there was going to be a mental case come in and kill all those children. I grew up the same way. I went to school in Detroit....not the suburbs, in Detroit. Never had a problem, all doors unlocked. Times have changed. No school leaves their all their doors open anymore. All schools have some type of lockdown procedure and a code word to activate the lockdown and practice it the same as a fire drill.

On the same note, you will never convince me that one of these scary guns with the flash light on it that shoots .223 rounds is any more dangerous than a 30-06 hunting rifle in the hands of a nut case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
I think this rush to guns is just as insane as the rush to remove all shoes at airplane security after the shoe bomber, or that I'm still not allowed to bring a bottle of water through with me.
Totally agree, the water thing bugs the hell out of me all the time, but why stop there? Why is the rush to guns insane but the rush to ban guns is not? You could ban all guns in the country and it won't stop another one of these shootings. There are many facets of this problem. Mental issues, crooked gun dealers, gun owners not securing their weapons so kids can't get to them. I don't have a solution but a lot of it will rest on education and enforcing laws that are already on the books.

One other thing, it's enjoyable to have a intelligent conversation with someone rather than just bashing someone else based on their beliefs.
MuddyPaws1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 05:57 PM   #60
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1 View Post
But I can see his argument. CPL is legal with the proper training and licenses in most states. Let's say a woman has a CPL and is all legal. She has to drop her child off at school in the morning before she heads to work. She is carrying a weapon then. What's the big deal? I can tell you for sure that this scenario happens every day at schools across the country. It's not the legal CPL people we should be worried about.
If someone is there to spend 30 seconds dropping someone off, then that could be one thing. A gun staying in a classroom all day, every day...not for me.

Quote:
Well then you would require teachers to have more training and more re-certification than any police force in this country.
That's really kind of scary, don't you think? But there's also a thing to consider that police are in these situations day in and day out and learn through repetition. I'm not talking about gun battles, but stressful/crisis situations as a whole. Most teachers never deal with an actual threat, so, in my mind, they do require more attention than police officers who see it every day.

Quote:
I can see your point. Parental choice is something I fully support. But even in the states that allow teachers to carry in school, none of them publish WHO is actually carrying. Not all teachers are armed. Knowing that information makes it less safe. Think about marshals on an airplane. Someone may armed, you as the bad guy just don't know who. The districts that do allow teachers to carry, do announce that there are armed teachers. You as a parent now have the choice to send you child to a different school.
I understand the point of knowing which teachers are carrying making it "less safe", as in "the wacko will research the school and figure out which isn't carrying and go that classroom". Possible, but just such a minuscule chance that I don't even think it's a consideration. And it's one thing to have a gun in a room full of teenagers or adults. It's another thing altogether to have a gun in a room full of 6-year-olds. I know that doing so could have changed the outcome of Sandy Hook, but I'm just not sure the risk it worth it.

Quote:
On the same note, you will never convince me that one of these scary guns with the flash light on it that shoots .223 rounds is any more dangerous than a 30-06 hunting rifle in the hands of a nut case.
You'll note that I pretty much never compare guns. I don't have any technical knowledge about guns, so I have no room to speak on that. I haven't held a gun in over 25 years (and that was only because my step father tried to get me into hunting...extremely futile attempt), and don't have any real desire to, especially as a carry-for-protection piece. I could see going to a range to shoot some paper or some cans, but that's about it. Other than that, guns have absolutely zero interest to me.

Quote:
Totally agree, the water thing bugs the hell out of me all the time, but why stop there? Why is the rush to guns insane but the rush to ban guns is not?
Again, I never said anything about banning guns (at least not all of them). I am pretty anti-gun. I have no use for them. I don't see any real need to have one around me at all times (and I live 250' from a near-ghetto). And I do truly believe that a lot of the gun enthusiasm is about macho bravado stuff. That's my opinion. But, I have never called for a ban of guns. I would be fine with a ban of large magazines and a limit to how fast they can fire, but my main concern lies with training and testing.

Quote:
One other thing, it's enjoyable to have a intelligent conversation with someone rather than just bashing someone else based on their beliefs.
Agreed. I actually mostly enjoy reading the opposing viewpoints, even if I think they're wrong. But some people drive me crazy with their unsubstantiated talking points and inability to admit when they might be wrong. I won't name names/.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 06:54 AM   #61
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Watching polticians (mostly liberal) talk about firearms regulation is about as good as listening to them talk about regulating the Internet. Meanwhile their 5 year old has to show them how to get logged into "teh facebook".

Total ignorance of the subject matter.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 12:03 PM   #62
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Rambo is firing an M60, they can be shoulder fired and are weapons to "spray a large area and cause the most death"

Now the weapons she's talking about not so much.
Yeah, with one of those I bet you could kill *a hundred* 6-year-olds, instead of just 20!
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 12:28 PM   #63
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Yeah, with one of those I bet you could kill *a hundred* 6-year-olds, instead of just 20!
Whats your point exactly?
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 01:41 PM   #64
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Whats your point exactly?
That the "weapons she's talking about not so much" can indeed spray plenty of death, as we saw at Sandy Hook.
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 01:45 PM   #65
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
That the "weapons she's talking about not so much" can indeed spray plenty of death, as we saw at Sandy Hook.
The weapons at Sandy Hook were not Rambo's M60
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 01:53 PM   #66
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
The weapons at Sandy Hook were not Rambo's M60
That's my point. You can mow people down with hundreds of rounds of ammo in the space of a couple minutes with a totally legal gun.

It's like saying "hey, this grenade does hardly any damage compared to this air-dropped bomb!" Yes, get that, but the grenade still does plenty of damage and is nothing to minimize.
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 02:06 PM   #67
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
That's my point. You can mow people down with hundreds of rounds of ammo in the space of a couple minutes with a totally legal gun.

It's like saying "hey, this grenade does hardly any damage compared to this air-dropped bomb!" Yes, get that, but the grenade still does plenty of damage and is nothing to minimize.
How many minutes and how many rounds are we talking here.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 02:15 PM   #68
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
How many minutes and how many rounds are we talking here.
Enough to kill 26 people (all of whom were shot multiple times, and one of whom was shot 11 times) in less than 10 minutes...

I.e. too many
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 02:26 PM   #69
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Enough to kill 26 people (all of whom were shot multiple times, and one of whom was shot 11 times) in less than 10 minutes...

I.e. too many
So you don't have numbers...

So It goes "you can kill a bunch of folk with that evil black gun so I don't think you should have it"

Got it.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 02:45 PM   #70
aerok
macrumors 65816
 
aerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1 View Post
You really think that if some teachers were armed, they would just shoot a kid for not bringing in their homework?

Incredible.
Yes... When I was younger, my elementary school teacher snapped and threw desks and chairs at the students, injuring a few. If she had a gun with her...
__________________
Kangmlee Photography Blog
Macbook Pro 13 - iPhone 5S - iPad Air - Samsung Note 8
aerok is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 07:55 PM   #71
MuddyPaws1
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Enough to kill 26 people (all of whom were shot multiple times, and one of whom was shot 11 times) in less than 10 minutes...

I.e. too many
So you want to take my shotgun too? It has the same capability. With buck shot, in close range, it would be arguably more effective than the super scary black gun.


But that's not what this post was about. It was about Biden's moronic comments.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerok View Post
Yes... When I was younger, my elementary school teacher snapped and threw desks and chairs at the students, injuring a few. If she had a gun with her...
Wow, now here is a person that lives in a land I am glad I do not live in. You do realize that there is nothing stopping that teacher from bringing a gun to school right? When was the last time a teacher committed a mass shooting in a school?

Here, a few days ago a police officer shot his wife and his kid and then himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2535153.html

We should take their guns away also because they are all going to snap when the kid spills his milk and then they will kill their whole family.
MuddyPaws1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 10:14 PM   #72
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1 View Post
So you want to take my shotgun too? It has the same capability. With buck shot, in close range, it would be arguably more effective than the super scary black gun.
I'm glad you brought up shotguns because It will help illustrate a point.

You can own a shotgun, but if you want to own a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18" you'll have to jump through a lot more hoops than the average citizen wants to deal with.

A fraction of an inch of barrel length can be the difference between a legal and an illegal shotgun.

Likewise your "super scary black gun" can be restricted in ways that allows you to own a super scary black gun while at the same time enhancing public safety. Restricting magazine size and fixing the magazine are just two ways to accomplish that.

It's really far less about how super scary your weapon looks, and more about what it's capable of doing. Past gun restrictions would indicate that the government is well within its right to restrict aspects of firearms in an effort to enhance public safety and still not infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 10:27 PM   #73
IBradMac
macrumors 68000
 
IBradMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ohio
Send a message via AIM to IBradMac
Funny you should bring up capability. Tom knapp with a pump shotgun ten clay shoot.

http://youtu.be/jpv0yZC3iMM

Face it. You won't be satisfied until all guns are banned.



Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I'm glad you brought up shotguns because It will help illustrate a point.

You can own a shotgun, but if you want to own a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18" you'll have to jump through a lot more hoops than the average citizen wants to deal with.

A fraction of an inch of barrel length can be the difference between a legal and an illegal shotgun.

Likewise your "super scary black gun" can be restricted in ways that allows you to own a super scary black gun while at the same time enhancing public safety. Restricting magazine size and fixing the magazine are just two ways to accomplish that.

It's really far less about how super scary your weapon looks, and more about what it's capable of doing. Past gun restrictions would indicate that the government is well within its right to restrict aspects of firearms in an effort to enhance public safety and still not infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights.
IBradMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 10:42 PM   #74
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBradMac View Post
Funny you should bring up capability. Tom knapp with a pump shotgun ten clay shoot.

http://youtu.be/jpv0yZC3iMM

Face it. You won't be satisfied until all guns are banned.
I'd say that I won't be satisfied until all beings live in peace.

With or without firearms ... I really could not care less.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 05:04 AM   #75
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Right, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Again what is the best why to suppress enemy fire? To kill the person shooting. Machine guns are surprisingly accurate if you don't close you eyes and hold the trigger which is why carry extra barrels and "talk your guns".. the express intent of company level crew served weapons is to provide small unit fire support. M240B and the M60 are accurate enough to have IR laser sights you hide them off the objective and they kill anything that moves within their sector of fire.

You want to keep heads down while taking a bunker there are mortars, AT4's and the suppressive fire each team lays down for the other while moving..The guns are most likely scanning the back of the objective taking out the target you don't see.

I'll bring yesterdays wiggling when you really weren't clear about what you were talking about. Like today you know what suppressive fire is but not what it means or how it's employed.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1530861
It's hard for anyone who hasn't served to understand how weapons are actually employed. Most get their opinions molded by movies.

Truth told, most civilians have no clue whatsoever. Most cops aren't much better. You're right about one thing, a well fed 240B with spare barrels can go all day. It's an awe inspiring thing.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Joe Biden's suggestion about women using shotguns. PracticalMac Politics, Religion, Social Issues 84 Mar 5, 2013 06:19 AM
Bidenís Gun Violence Event Interrupted By News Of Another School Shooting rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 113 Jan 13, 2013 12:38 PM
2012 Presidential Debates: Second Debate (Biden/Ryan) Blue Velvet Politics, Religion, Social Issues 275 Oct 15, 2012 06:13 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC