Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 3:01:31 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterREB
why should we ban any gun or mags the swiss all have automatic wepons they are the standing army of swiss do they have any gun violance i dout it if every one 18-65 has an automatic wepon noone will be that stupid and beside the gun ban is just the tail wagging the Dog it isnt the guns it is all the people that have been released from the mental hospitals not taking their meds but we can make them take them can we


Those folks also have their guns...REGISTERED. Otherwise, how would they know if a citizen of the correct age didnt have a gun (and thus, breaking the law)?

Not only that, but the gun is used for a specific purpose, in ways, much like the original 13 state's views on "A well regulated militia...". In addition, people can and do check on the status of the firearms. More so, the swiss are not dumb, and have been watching the gun culture across the pond and making adjustments as needed.

(in reply to MasterREB)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 3:09:02 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Actually, '...shall not be infringed.' doesnt mean you or I have an unlimited right to a firearm. That part of the amendment was in reference to how the '...well regulated militia....' would handle recieving an order from the goverment to surrender their arms as a prelude to a tyrannical goverment taking over. This doesnt apply to you if your NOT in a '...well regulated militia...'.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.
    As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

    That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 31 l(a).

    The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Source: Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/19/2013 3:12:08 AM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 3:53:51 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterREB
why should we ban any gun or mags the swiss all have automatic wepons they are the standing army of swiss do they have any gun violance i dout it if every one 18-65 has an automatic wepon noone will be that stupid and beside the gun ban is just the tail wagging the Dog it isnt the guns it is all the people that have been released from the mental hospitals not taking their meds but we can make them take them can we

Uh, the american anti-gun peoples do not want to hear that. Or that isreal has some of the laxest gun laws and low gun crime rate.

There are a lot of theories about why the US has such a high gun crime rate, but not all of them point to the ease of getting a gun. Besides most criminals do not legally buy their guns.


Is James Holmes and Adam Lanza criminals? They both are on trial for killing scores of adults/children with guns they purchased legally. In the legal viewpoint right now, until proved guilty, both young men are considered 'honest and law-abiding citizens' with lawful rights to firearms. No one is going to give either one a firearm while they are still in their individual trials. Even since Newton Ct. shooting, there have been hundreds of firearm related deaths. How many of the shooters obtained their firearms legally? Hard to say as its a case by case basis. Then of course, there's the wannabe police officer down in Florida that tailed a 17 year old black kid and killed him, claiming the state's 'Stand Your Ground' self defense. Until he's been cleared of all charges he can not hold possession of a firearm. But, until he is also found guity in a court of law, he's still considered a 'honest and law abiding citizen' whom obtain his firearm legally.

The point I'm trying to make here is that until one is found guilty of a crime, they are not a criminal. They might behave unethically, immorally, anti-PC and even with a criminalistic bent. But in the eyes of the law, they are considered 'honest and law abiding citizens'. An that means, they can obtain a firearm.

Where does the individual get a gun when they dont want to attract the attention of the police? By buying one illegally. Where did the supplier get the gun? Probably from someone else that stole the gun. And where did that guy steal the gun? From an 'honest and law abiding citizen' with guns. Given the amount of firearms within the country, it should not be surprising how easily guns are to obtain in the black market. The thought process (whether you agree or not) is that by placing limits, regulations and situational moments into law, makes it tougher for those guns to be in circulation in the first place. The supplier will raise their prices due to the shortage of guns in the open. Last I checked, if you remove the 'instant gratification' most Americans seem to suffer from in the capitalistic model, waiting a week or two to obtain a firearm should not be a problem (after background checks, drug tests, mental health screening, etc).

On the issue of Israel's gun ownership and violence, I was honestly not well versed on the information. So I went looking. Here's something curious I found....

"First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer. Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household."

SOURCE

I bolded the part that even I, would find annoying if applied in the USA. Likewise, Isreal is *NOT* a peaceful country; to say otherwise means you live in fantasy land! Oh, and I wasnt looking up information for the Swiss, but apartly that was in this document too. Which brings up a rather curious question: Why do gun owners, cite concepts of both the Swiss and the Isrealis that are not 100%, factually true? If your going to throw out an arguement, shouldnt the information be true and correct?

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 4:58:20 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Actually, '...shall not be infringed.' doesnt mean you or I have an unlimited right to a firearm. That part of the amendment was in reference to how the '...well regulated militia....' would handle recieving an order from the goverment to surrender their arms as a prelude to a tyrannical goverment taking over. This doesnt apply to you if your NOT in a '...well regulated militia...'.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.
    As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

    That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 31 l(a).

    The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Source: Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution

K.



151 pages? I'll have to read through it. Your quoted part comes from page 18. Question is, did you actually read the whole document?

If my understanding of things is incorrect, that's one thing. I'm taking my accounting from the dusty old books found in Boston Public Library. Well become the 1920's if the writing style is any indication. The information discussed in this piece your presenting talks about a revised understanding of the Title 10 USC published in 1956. So could what I know and this revised information be different? Sure. I could agree to that. Is the new information more correct? Debatable. Is it set in stone for all of eternity? Not really. Could Constitutional scholars and lawyers redifine the concepts expressed given history since 1956? Very much so. And I do believe such individuals are giving a much closer look at the amendment in light of events from 2012.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 5:09:58 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

cmon Nos, you know foood is MUCH less important than guns



Give a man a fish he has food for a day.
Teach a man to fish he has food for a lifetime.

Teach him??? how by cutting off his only real chance at a decent diet, by weakening the rod, cotton as line, no hook and destroy all the fish???
high unemployment, minimum wage unless he has skills? no jobs, 1 chance in a thousand of getting into retraining? spit on him, de humanize him???
oh its sooo simple ....huh?


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 5:29:37 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

If you need to pass a drug test to receive a benefit like food stamps, shouldn't you have to pass a drug test to receive a benefit which could be used to kill someone?

If you need to pass a background check to obtain something you have a Constitutional right to have, shouldn't you have to pass a background check to obtain the authority to order the former and/or, moreover, turn the planet into a nuclear wasteland?

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 6:16:07 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/19/2013 6:19:02 AM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 9:01:53 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
Preamble of the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


"Promote the general welfare" means "handouts" but "shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed".

Thanks for clearing that up.


Actually, '...shall not be infringed.' doesnt mean you or I have an unlimited right to a firearm. That part of the amendment was in reference to how the '...well regulated militia....' would handle recieving an order from the goverment to surrender their arms as a prelude to a tyrannical goverment taking over. This doesnt apply to you if your NOT in a '...well regulated militia...'. Even if you were in a '...well regulated militia...' you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that your claim is correct. Good luck with that one! Educated guess places your arguement as being 'thrown out of court' long before a decision is rendered.

Promote the general welfare could be reasonable argued on several fronts (ie. health care, foodstamps, heating oil, disaster relief, etc).



as in "inhabitant" or a "citizen" or both or either?

oh yeh and the same question to you, with regard to the general welfare, what does it mean in substance. In other words how does it visibly manifest itself, or how can we tell if something is derived from the general welfare clause as opposed to "something else".

What is general welfare, what can government create under general welfare, what does it derive from?

I can have can have all sorts of fun with constitutional arguments. Can the government claim you are a "its" citizen? Does that have any standing? If so which law or basis?




< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/19/2013 9:18:00 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 9:09:28 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Actually, '...shall not be infringed.' doesnt mean you or I have an unlimited right to a firearm. That part of the amendment was in reference to how the '...well regulated militia....' would handle recieving an order from the goverment to surrender their arms as a prelude to a tyrannical goverment taking over. This doesnt apply to you if your NOT in a '...well regulated militia...'.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about.
    As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

    That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 31 l(a).

    The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Source: Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution

K.



Perhaps you should consider reading this...

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/guardandreserve/a/anghistory_3.htm

http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 1/19/2013 9:33:21 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 9:24:12 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
That's very true. Citizens who are all alone with no radio communications or bulletproof vests have the option of allowing themselves to be assaulted, raped, or killed. After all, things are so much more civilized that way. I've always said, "Why can't we be more like the British?"

You can cite a few home invasions where helpless unarmed Brits have been assaulted raped or killed by tooled up home invaders then, can you?

Where do you see anything in my post about home invasions? But since you ask, it appears to be an ongoing issue...

As gun ownership declines, home invasions increase (2004) (reprint)
An Englishman's home is his dungeon (2004)
Britain polls highest in EU survey of burglary rates (2007)
Burglary victims attacked in their own home once every 30 minutes (2010)

Maybe if you spent less time telling Americans how to live you'd know more about what's going on in your own country.

K.



And the British Home office show a 6% decrease in crime, including home break-ins

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-june-2012/stb-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-june-2012.html

Oh the link you provided "Burglary victims attacked in their home once every 30 minutes."

"Home Office figures showed 64,200 house break-ins were carried out between July and September last year - down from 69,500 in the middle of 2008. "

very interesting.....

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 1/19/2013 9:31:07 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/19/2013 9:37:39 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro



My persona name is Gautier De La Roche and I and the rest of the Archduchy don't "YARRRRRRRRRRRR" which just goes to show how much you know.....ZERO!

So, you're Ken this weekend. He wasn't anatomically correct either.


Can't read can you Gautier...not Ken....

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 12:03:22 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Perhaps you should consider reading this...

Why? Can't you read it for yourself? Or don't you understand it? I only ask because you don't seem to understand what you're replying to. Maybe if you drew the connections your point would be clearer.

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 12:18:24 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


Can't read

I know

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 12:28:20 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

So, you're Ken this weekend. He wasn't anatomically correct either.


Can't read can you Gautier...not Ken....

Punctuation is your friend. And you're wrong. He can read just fine...




K.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kirata -- 1/20/2013 12:39:36 AM >

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 5:49:02 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		K, I am not going to violate the TOS to say why you are both right and wrong.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 6:43:55 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

cmon Nos, you know foood is MUCH less important than guns



Give a man a fish he has food for a day.
Teach a man to fish he has food for a lifetime.

Teach him??? how by cutting off his only real chance at a decent diet, by weakening the rod, cotton as line, no hook and destroy all the fish???
high unemployment, minimum wage unless he has skills? no jobs, 1 chance in a thousand of getting into retraining? spit on him, de humanize him???
oh its sooo simple ....huh?



That saying has been around a long time but I never thought it was to be taken literaly. I always thought it meant you should teach someone to take care of themself instead of taking care of him. Things like training him for a job or sending him to school to learn a trade.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 7:25:38 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		And I took Lucy's post to mean that while the saying is as you say, boi, the reality is no one wants to see him pull himself up from the bottom if it means they have to put something out to do so.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 7:49:27 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Perhaps you should consider reading this...

Why? Can't you read it for yourself? Or don't you understand it? I only ask because you don't seem to understand what you're replying to. Maybe if you drew the connections your point would be clearer.

K.


Considering you complained about a post on Lott that although I provided the link, you stated I failed to show a certain section of the link, so I would say turn about is fair play.


< Message edited by Nosathro -- 1/20/2013 7:52:05 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 7:53:33 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

So, you're Ken this weekend. He wasn't anatomically correct either.


Can't read can you Gautier...not Ken....

Punctuation is your friend. And you're wrong. He can read just fine...




K.




Oh you play with dolls, well...I do understand that some of them are real collectors items....

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? - 1/20/2013 8:37:42 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro



My persona name is Gautier De La Roche and I and the rest of the Archduchy don't "YARRRRRRRRRRRR" which just goes to show how much you know.....ZERO!

So, you're Ken this weekend. He wasn't anatomically correct either.


No..Gautier...and you as well as Kirata are NOT getting passes to Comic-Con...

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How about Mandatory Drug Testing for Gun Licenses? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109