joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
All I have to do is convince enough people and it becomes law. A poll tax has nothing to do with this discussion.
Taxing a right makes it a privilege and not a right. If you support taxing the right to bear arms then surely the same holds true for all other rights, thus you support a poll tax.
Do you have a right to breath?
Do you have a right to eat food? Drink Water?
One could argue they fall under the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but are you actually going to waste everyone's time by saying "right to breathe"?
And yet your political ideology thought it was 'OK' to deny Enemy Combatants each of these during the George W. Bush administration. Did you have a problem with it? Of course not. Blind obedience to the GOP/TP requires you to NEVER question what they do or do it to.
So there....is.....a reason to ask those three simple questions. Its based on history. US History! If there is a right to eat food and drink water, why do Republicans and Tea Partiers try to undermine any and all programs meant to help the poor, homeless, and truly needy? Because you or I saving $0.38-$0.89 on our next tax statement is considered more important to the GOP/TP, then helping the most vulnerable in society. Ironically many of those people in the GOP/TP declaring over and over they are Christian. A Christian would actually side with me, and fight the 'psuedo christians' in the GOP/TP.
How can one enjoy the 'right' to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", when they cant get a healthcare plan to aid them in their medical problems? Notice which political party was against helping 30 million Americans out? And whom has tried each to undermine the ACA? The Republican/Tea Party.
Before you go slam me and others on the whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" gig; make your your political party isn't....MORE...guilty! That way you dont look like to much of a clueless fucking moron!
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
A 'right' and a 'privilege' are the same thing. Its how each are defined that might make them different.
Clearly you misunderstand "rights" versus "privileges".
Is it a right or a privilege to have firearms under federal law? If the 2nd amendment was revoked, does that mean all guns are now outlawed? You still have a right/privilege to a firearm until other laws state otherwise. A 'right' applies across the board to all persons found under the government's sphere of control/domain. Just because a person committes a murder after getting out of prison from a previous manslaughter charge; does not mean they are revoked their 4th-6th amendment rights.
Yet in most cases, if you murder someone, and get released from prison for good behavior (or not enough funding thanks to Tea Party cuts), could you own a firearm? No. Therefore, owning a firearm is a privilege. Furthermore, laws can be created to explain how one carries, uses, stores, and yes, even buys/sells firearms. If you had a right to a firearm, none of those things could come about.
A child is afforded a lawyer if they can not provide one when charged with a serious crime. And there are plenty of children that have been so charged. Under the 5th amendment (or is that the 6th...), the court would appoint a public defender to the child for all steps for legal council. Does that child have a right to a firearm? No. Therefore, its a privilege once someone has reached the age of 18.
Don't bitch at me about this stuff! I'm not the one that wrote it or maintains it. You have a problem with it, I suggest you contact your Representative/Senator to Congress. Given our current US President, I doubt he'll go lax on firearm controls. Call it a 'hunch'...
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
If I have a right to a firearm, that means I can do.....ANYTHING....and you can not take it away. If this was true, explain how ex-cons in many situations can not legally obtain a firearm? If its a 'right', then they should be entitled to one. If its a 'privilege', then they can not obtain one. It comes down to how we define words in legal code.
Until I become a felon, I have all of my civil rights, including the right to bear arms. You have repeatedly suggested putting restrictions and burdens on that right even though I am not a felon.
If you have the right to ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment, then the government has the right to ignore those parts of the 8th amendment that are inconvenient to it. Fair is fair! The 8th amendment is as easy to corrupt and the 2nd. Which means when your caught traveling 2 m.p.h. over the speed limit, the government drags you into court. If your found guilty, they sentence you to 30 years to 'think about it'. That you do not understand how badly the 2nd amendment is corrupted is your fault, not mine!
Before you get all 'high and mighty' on rights for one amendment, consider there are twenty-six other amendments. Can you say anything you want, to anyone you want, at any time? No, there are....LIMITS...to the 1st amendment. Can the US Government place US Navy SEALS in your house so they can save on barracks? While having a team of SEALS would make our houses the most well protected on the block; this would be a violation of the 3rd amendment. There are also exceptions to the law. For example there are quite a few exceptions under the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizure.
You do not get an unlimited right to a firearm. The US Supreme Court is ....NOT....allowed to set or reset the definition or 'spirit of a law' how it chooses. Its only allowed to interpret the law. Which means the Heller Vs DC case was a political decision and NOT a Constitutional decision. But being as corrupted as you are, will never be able to objectively understand why that is a problem. Nor how dangerous it is to a free society.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Furthermore, certain felons can regain their civil rights.
Yes, a Christian philosophy: forgiveness. A concept many conservative christians (read: pseudo christians) seem to forget. That some ex-cons after being released do try to be good upstanding citizens in our society. Matt Damon, the actor, can not obtain a firearm because of a past criminal sentence. He has done quite a bit of good things for society since his release. Should the felon be removed? That is up to lawyers, in a court of law, making arguments (pro & con) to a judge whom then decides on the merits. A very long and lengthy process.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You can try attaching a tax to a poll and see how far you get. An that would be different from placing a tax on a firearm. One is abstract and one is real. Much easier to tax things that exist in reality than concepts.
Taxing one right right is no different than taxing another right. Imagine one wishes to protest against their local government yet cannot obtain a permit due to the government demanding $10,000. Would you agree this situation is unconstitutional per the First Amendment? Can you apply the ideas behind that situation to the 2nd Amendment and your suggestion of taxing firearms and/or ammunition?
Taxing one right is very different from taxing another right. If your brought before a court and charged, in most cases, you are charged by the court for any defense you make. If the court has to hire a lawyer to defend you; in most states, you end up paying the cost. Many Americans simply plead guilty rather then challenge claims in courts due to a lack of money. Even though the US Constitution forbids such practices; they continue. Why? The Republican/Tea Party have been syphoning funds from areas of government for twenty years now. The funding that allows public defenders to be paid for their time, has been hugely undermined. Is this a tax on your legal ability to be defended? Yes.
Now then...
That you can not understand the reasoning of artificially raising firearms is a benefit to society is your problem. Never stated taking guns away from people. Now they are a true investment. When giving a gun to one's son; its worth more than just sentimental value; there is now some real financial value attached to it. This also has the added effect in that guns do not fall into the wrong hands quite like they used to. For a criminal to obtain $5,000+, requires some heavy thief's or a day job.
If they have a day job, why risk everything, after purchasing the gun to rob a convenience store for $128? Likewise, since ordinary Americans can obtain guns all the same; those people breaking in are less likely to do so when someone is at home. Legal people still have access to firearms; those that have a criminal background/record, are less likely to obtain them. Places the advantage in the hands of the 'honest and law abiding' citizens.
But your understanding is to keep laws lax so that law breakers, criminals and terrorists have as easy access as possible. Yeah, your 'side' is losing support for that notion each year and with each mass shooting.
The 2nd amendment does not cover commerce. Therefore, it does not protect you against such a tax to firearms. Or ammunition. Frankly as it concerns ammunition, I say 'keep as is" for tax structure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
How I view the firearm debate is much more than just a plain football match. That you have not been following my understanding on these boards is due to your ignorance. My understanding of things is much more complex involving many more actors than the two that you think exist.
Your repeated boasts of intelligence sound like someone compensating for insecurities.
Any yet, I'm the only one suggesting better ways for this society to have firearms without the problems we are currently experiencing. And there exist....many....problems as it concerns firearms right now in the nation. I do not see any of you proposing good ideas. That would take intelligence and intellect. Not to mention advance studies and critical thinking skills. All I hear from you is mindless crap. Fed to you by political machines whom do your thinking for you. Kind of like your elected officials whom sponsor bills from an organization called 'A.L.E.C.'. Why bother creating a bill, when some conservative, politically shadowy organization can do it for them? Your just the same way. Why should you have to figure out solutions when someone else provides an easy way to do it? All you have to do is regurgitate it and sound like a 'yes man'.
The problem you have in actually considering an idea for discussion is the problem of trust. You lack any of it towards others. Well, trust, as I have mentioned is a two way street. More people are joining the 'regulate 'em/ban 'em' side each day; and more after each mass shooting. It would surprise you to know there are many firearm owners whom want tighter firearm controls. They understand the political shift is going away from firearm ownership. In some cases, they understand that Americans do not trust them with firearms. So they have to rebuild trust. Something you can not do!
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I asked the gun nuts on here, which one would do something this fucking stupid? Not a single one supported this guy. This guy killed an old man. Someone's father. Someone's grandfather. All because 'moron with a gun' needed to prove himself a man or some other bullshit. Those people I suspect are even less in-favor of people with firearms now.
So you wish to abolish a fundamental right because you cite a single example of its misuse. By the same token, one could say the same of the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause: I'd very much like for the Westboro Baptist Church to quit speaking, thus removing (or placing a financial burden on) the right to free speech for everyone is clearly the only solution.
I cited the issue as an example. I asked how many gun nuts on here whom think their tactical geniuses would support the tactic. This was after 20 pages of them defending this guy. Not a single one of them could defend this guy's tactical assessment of the situation. When in a very stressful situation, one has to assess things objectively and tactically. Just because you have a firearm does not instantly translate you into having abilities to think clearly and objectively on the situation(s) presented. That guy, in the example, should have stayed inside and let the police handle the issue. But because he did not think things through, he engaged the target with awful results soon following.
Take a guess how often situations like this one take place in the nation? More than any of us like to admit.
How about the case of a man named Mr. Short. He had guns in his house for protection of his family. Yet, all the three daughters, the wife and himself, were killed by the shotgun Mr. Short had. How? Well, Mr. Short killed his daughters, then his wife before turning the gun on himself. His business had been suffering many financial problems and he was worried about losing everything. Fear and playing 'what if' games in his head were probably what set him off.
In another case, a local chapter president of the NRA was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide. She had her pistol on her hip, still in the holster.
These two and many others show one thing in common: Just because you have a firearm does not mean your a tactical genius. Nor does it convey some magical power to a heighten awareness of potential threats.
Each of these present different problems to figure out by society. None of them are easy ones.
The 1st and 2nd amendments are very different in scale and scope. If the WBC wishes to speak, they can speak. But there speaking is not due to 'Freedom of Speech' but 'Right to Peaceful Assembly". You really should read those amendments from start to finish. But then you'd have to confront the whole issue of "A well regulated militia..." in your 2nd amendment arguments. I guess that's really politically inconvenient to you?
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
So, would you have confronted the individual? Or stayed put?
Are you asking for anecdotal evidence based on some random event you (emotionally) provided yet did not cite? I, like a majority of firearm owners, more than likely would have stayed put, firearm readily available, until someone entered my home because I was, seemingly, not under a lethal threat. However, as neither of us were at the uncited event as it occurred, and you have not provided any sources that may have a different report on the event, I cannot answer with certainty.
As I stated....the source is listed on the forums. Go look it up!
Further, you could use a web search tool like 'Google', to plug in the details and arrive at the news stories.
But, because your lazy when it comes to research, you could not perform either of these functions. It is easier for people to do your thinking then for you to tax your brain, right?
Before I asked that question, the gun nuts on here were trying to justify this guy's reasons for moving outside of secured location to confront the individual. After I asked that question, not a single one of them could defend the position. Its when people do stupid stuff, in the heat of the moment, letting loose due to fear and ignorance; do good people end up getting killed.
Or how about that Zimmerman character down in Florida whom shot and killed some black kid? The police told him not to follow, and yet he did. If he had followed the police 911's advice, that kid would still be alive today (barring future events). But because Mr. Zimmerman needed to show everyone he's God's Gift to Gun Nuts, he stalked the kid. What if the kid had a gun; would he be within his right to defend himself from the stalker? FUCK YEAH! He might go to jail after for possession of a firearm....
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
How would you handle this situation, Joe? Or this situation? Or this situation?
Cherry picking the evidence to find an argument? There are plenty of example of people whom had firearms and they still got killed. Those stories outweigh the ones you show here. A person was murdered in their own apartment. Their gun was in one room, and they were killed in another.
Funny how these situations come up so rarely given the number of people with guns. There was one guy with a CCW at the community college shooting in Oregon. The reason he did not draw and go after the attacker was because he was afraid (justifiably) of being mistaken as the active shooter and engaged by law enforcement. Stuff like this happens. But I see right through your argument as being nothing more than "I'm against the wall and need something....ANYTHING....to use as ammunition against joether's solid arguments".
I understand your political tactics. They are no different from BamaD, Kirata, and many others on here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Its stuff like this, that undermine good people with firearms. An people that behave in a belligerent, aggressive, 'wife-beating' attitude towards society. Its people that suffer from 'poor anger management skills' that motivate US Citizens to find more restrictive firearm laws. Do these people have a right to ask their government for more restrictive laws as they concern firearms?
Yes, they do.
Again, just to be clear: you wish to hold over 90M people responsible for the actions of a few thousand, if that, and you only indirectly cite a single example.
Care to cite that source of 90 million people with guns?
Right now, the whole of the conservative and libertarian thought process is to blame Syrian refugees as being potential domestic terrorists. Even though since 9/11/01, the USA has allowed over 750,000 refugees from all over the world and not one of them has committed an act of domestic terrorism.
Right now, the whole of the conservative and libertarian thought process blames all Muslims as being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Even though more Americans have been killed by a factor of '10' due to firearm deaths than Muslim terrorist actions.
You blame the many for what the few do; then demand everyone do not do the same when its applied you to.
HYPOCRITE!
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
With roughly 1,076,398 firearm NICS checks in October of 2015 alone (PDF source), a vast majority of firearms are never used for criminal purposes yet you demand more restrictive laws to punish/burden law abiding people, again in the hopes that part of the Bill of Rights you take offense to will eventually wither away.
Your political party (and I suspect you individually) are very afraid of a bunch of Syrian refugees whom have...NOTHING....
Kind of makes your argument a bit laughable!
When people use cars incorrectly or irresponsibility, we create laws forcing people to drive in a particular way. Why did we create laws that force motorists to stop when someone is in a crosswalk? Because people got killed on crosswalks due to asshole or un-observing motorists.
Realize that laws are created to either promote a good behavior or mitigate/remove a bad behavior. Just because someone beats their wife once a month, should they be handle the same as someone that beats their wife every night? Yes. Because assault and battery exist for a reason. Should either of those beaters of wives, be allowed a firearm? No. When conservatives behave in a belligerent, threatening, hateful, or ignorant manner; should they have access to firearms? That's a broad question that attacks one political thought process (therefore being illegal). What if the question was formed: Remove firearms from those that have a history of threatening others with violence? That is something that has to be taken to court and decided upon.
BTW, a person convicted of murder with a firearm just seconds before the jury made their announcement in court; were legally defined as 'honest and law abiding citizen' with a gun. All those convicted of firearm laws broken, were all once considered "honest and law abiding citizens' with guns. Yeah, its a buzz phrase gun nuts use; an poorly used when trying to make a defense in a discussion forum. Particularly to people you do not trust (and likewise, do not trust you). In other words, it doesn't build trust.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
What keeps a person from breaking a law, Joe: Is it the fear of the law or the fear of punishment from breaking the law? The context of this forum seems to be especially appropriate.
Why does ISIS exist in parts of Syria and Iraq? Yet, extremist Christians (and we have many examples of them in the USA) not doing the same in America?
Law Enforcement and the Court system.
Thanks to that 'big government' we have; individuals are not as free to break laws as they would in the relatively lawless areas of Syria and Iraq in which ISIS controls totally or partially. Yet here in America, if one of those extremist groups gets out of line, the FBI, state troopers and local cops usually take them down.
Counter question: Why are the number of people committing fraud at the polls so amazingly low? Because the payout does not justify (in the minds of the soon to be criminal) the punishment. Why do people speed? Because they reason the grand majority of the time they can get away with it (payout > punishment). Why do people not go on massive killing sprees with a gun (payout < punishment).
So why do the mass shootings take place, if the payout is not equal or exceeding the punishment? The payout is defined differently; which in turn makes the punishment less painful (if your dead, they cant charge you in court).
Yet many of these people have bad plans and never consider the end game (the punishment). Most people think things through even to the end game; finding the potential action not worth their lives or livelihood.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
This goes deeper than that. Many gun nuts distrust the government. Yes, the founding fathers stated to always hold some distrust towards the government. Yet, gun nuts hold a paranoid schizophrenic view towards government. And other US citizens. Yet, demand, unconditional trust from the government and other US Citizens. Remember that the whole of the US Government is composed of US Citizens as well. Why should all these US Citizens give trust to a group of individuals that do not trust them?
You do not have a right that forces me to trust you.
You want me to trust you, the gun nut? Then give me reasons. Anything that is threatening, stupid or hostile, are not going to help you build trust. Even though that is what you think are the best ways to build trust. I would think on a BDSM site, that people would understand the concept of trust in a way vanillas do not. Trust is hard to earn and easy to burn through. Once it is gone, its very hard to rebuild.
That's the joy of rights, Joe: I don't have to give you reasons, nor do I need you personally to trust me with a firearm, speech, religion, etc. To suggest otherwise further illuminates your authoritarian leanings.
Actually you do. With the Federal Government. Laws are usually enacted soon after someone breaks the trust of society. Or have you not noticed how gun laws keep coming into Legislatures across the country after each mass shooting? That people figure out how the person did what they did, and ban the practice. Which is why we have not seen a single action with a Light Machine Gun. We classify them as a military weapon. How many people have been killed by a private owner of an M-249? None. Seems to work pretty good! When guns hold restrictions, the owners tend to be VERY careful on how they are used. Down in one Southern State each year, they have a 'full auto' convention. They pick a field and fire all assortment of guns into that area. An there are plenty of federal agents on hand to check everything. So everyone has a good time! Do we allow anyone to have a fully automatic weapon? No. The ones that are allowed are very careful how they are stored, used, transported, and bought/sold.
Yet we see many semi-automatics used in single target and mass shootings. That is because they are easy to acquire, transport, sell/buy, and use. When people are trusted with said arms, no one has a problem. When someone does something; society does have a right to question whether that arm should be allowed in the hands of a private owner so freely.
You forget that society is made up of US Citizens. The number of US Citizens not trusting gun nuts with guns grows every day. In fact, several studies have shown a person's political outlooks being 'Tea Party' are very likely to have guns. And be belligerent, threatening, and hold 'anger management issues'. The sort of things that do nothing to breed trust from others towards those individuals.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
More and more I am convinced you are an authoritarian in disguise.
Yes, your simpleton understanding of reality is what it is. You need to define me as 'enemy' rather than 'US Citizen'. Easier to attack a demon than a friend, eh? You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mind.
I need not demonize you or define you as an enemy to see you have demonstrated authoritarian viewpoints.
An your viewpoints allow criminals and terrorists easy access to firearms; doesn't exactly put you in a positive light with society.
In order for me to hold authoritative viewpoints I would have to be stating that I'm supreme and your views should not be considered. If that was true, why bother engaging you in a discussion?
I engage in the discussion to see your views. To understand your views. Perhaps I am thinking on one view of you that is not true. So by asking questions and/or making statements, I can better determine if you fall within the stereo type; or, your suggesting something not considered. You approach this as a 'you verse me' contest of wills.
I suggested an artificial increase to firearms. You do not show a good counter argument to the idea. Usually if the gun nuts do not have a half decent counter argument (and they do come up, believe it or not); it might be a good way of solving a problem in society. Heck, stop and think about it. If you have seven guns worth on average $900; and the price for them is artificially raised by five times; that's $4,500/gun. I just raised your net worth by a $25,200. All of it tax free! You want to bitch and moan about getting free money?
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
We both want less firearms falling into the hands of law breakers, criminals, and terrorists.
However, nothing you've suggested accomplishes that goal. Instead, you would tax fundamental rights in the hopes that they disappear.
How am I taxing a right? The 2nd amendment does not talk about (even remotely) the cost to buy a firearm. It talks about other things, but not commerce as it relates to the acquisition of a firearm and any applied taxes.\
I stated how it would accomplish many goals. Would allow citizens to keep getting firearms and make sure they do not fall into the wrong hands. Places the price tag for would-be criminals well outside their likely ability to acquire. Raises funds that could apply in different ways (I suggested one of them being to pay firearm instructors). I kind of left the 'money raised' a bit vague on purpose in the hopes all sides could create ideas.
Your problem is that you can not accept the arguments because you do not have a single decent argument in return. You demand unconditional trust from everyone. Why should be give it? Because you think you have a right? Fine, we remove the 2nd amendment. What to keep being a belligerent asshole? We can remove guns all together. Frankly I don not wish to see the 2nd removed; but hey, if your able to be reasonable, that might have to be done to 'jog' some sense into you. You get to decide how things proceed forward. Can you handle that sort of responsibility?
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I feel your viewpoints have to many holes. Your not well informed of my thoughts, so assume a huge amount of knowledge based upon very little information.
Are you scared I might have a better outlook, if I was given time to explain it in its entirety? That I answer your questions fairly and honestly? Help you understand that the 'zero sum' view does not help this nation out in the long run?
You have any amount of time you need to explain your outlook in its entirety. If you have not done so, why not?
Seeing if your willing to listen? Or if you are a 'fanatic' to the cause. You really do not care what is stated; you'll fight against it. Even if it is pretty reasonable to most people. Right now, this country has one mass shooting every few weeks. When it happens, none of are even phased by it. Ten years ago, this nation would have stopped and been upset to have three mass shootings within six weeks! Twenty years ago, people would be calling for tight firearm laws. Thirty years ago, you and the whole of the NRA would be completely silenced by the majority of Americas. Strict and tough firearm laws would be put into place; no one would give a shit at your arguments.
If there comes a moment in which some mass shooting makes Sandy Hook look pale by comparison; you will have much less in the degree of political power to fight against tough firearm laws. Do you want to be at that point when we discuss firearm laws? Or right now, while things are quiet and sane?
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
You believe you answer questions "fairly" and "honestly" yet your comments are riddled with name-calling, paranoid fantasies about right wing conspiracies, insults to people's intelligence, and boasting of your own intelligence.
Well, I'm on this forum. And at current, there are no moderates to 'keep the peace'. Many of the gun nuts have always attacked me with insults when they didn't have even a half decent argument to defend their point. If its 'OK' to attack me with insults, then its equally 'OK' to be attacked with insults. Don't want to police your language and the language used by those on your side of the political divide? Why should I?
If you want a discussion without insults, negative remarks, etc.; all you have to do is state the rules you'll follow. Further means you would have to attack those on your side of the political divide when they attack me and others. I can easily do it on my side. Between tweak, Lucy and a few others; we can keep the peace. Notice the other side (your side) is always at odds with the dropping of attacks and insults? That's because your side when it runs out of intellectual ammunition resorts to petty attacks. I'll deal with you honorably if you do the same. You break the trust, I'll inform you of it, and give you a chance to apologize. If you do, we can move forward. Repeating to break the informal rules, will make me less likely to keep to the same rules.
A good discussion can always be had, if all sides agree to the rules. If someone from a side starts insulting, its up to those whom side with them politically to attack and demand they apologize. It should not be the responsibility of the other side(s) is correcting this person's attacks. Good lucking getting many of the conservatives and libertarians on here to follow such rules. I recall one individual whom went after BamaD. Yeah, I agree with their point, but they didnt need to attack BamaD in the way the person did.
|
RE: Vetting and guns. - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
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