Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
A tale of two men and a tragic event

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Thu, Jul 26, 12 at 7:43

The reaction of two leaders to a tragic event:

Mitt Romney rejected calls for new gun laws in the aftermath of last week's movie theater shooting in Colorado, insisting new legislation would not have prevented the tragedy.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, the presumptive Republican nominee pointed to the fact that James E. Holmes, the suspect in last Friday's shooting, was "building bombs" - even though it was illegal.

"A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law," Romney told NBC. "But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Asked if he had a "problem" with individuals being able to purchase large amounts of ammunition via the internet, Romney said he didn't think it was possible to "prevent people who want to provide harm from being able to purchase things to carry out that harm."

"What I wanna do is find the people who represent a danger to America and find them and keep them from having the capacity to use or buy things that could hurt other people," Romney said.

The GOP candidate argued that "changing the heart of the American people" may be the only key to cracking down on gun violence. He described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but acknowledged he had differences with the National Rifle Association - though he didn't name a specific issue where he disagreed with the gun rights group.

And the other one:

In his broadest remarks on gun control yet in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, President Barack Obama called late Wednesday for tougher background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.

"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," he said. "These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense."

But Obama also offered a nod to the difficult politics of gun control, portraying himself as a believer in the individual right to bear arms, and acknowledging that calls to action after an incident like the one in Aurora often fade.

"When there is an extraordinarily heartbreaking tragedy like the one we saw, there's always an outcry immediately after for action. And there's talk of new reforms, and there's talk of new legislation," Obama said in his speech. "And too often, those efforts are defeated by politics and by lobbying and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere."

The president also singled out youth violence, and warned that government can only do so much. "It's up to us, as parents and as neighbors and as teachers and as mentors, to make sure our young people don't have that void inside them," he said.

Which one do you want? One that says nothing can be done or one that says perhaps we need better controls?

When Reagan was shot, something was done.

The gun used to shoot President Reagan, Jim Brady, Agent McCarthy, and Officer Delahanty was purchased at a pawnshop in Dallas, Texas. The gun was a Roehm Model RG14, a six-shot, double-action revolver designed to fire .22-caliber, rimfire ammunition. The shooter, John Hinckley, lied about his address when he purchased the gun and used an old Texas driver's license as "proof" that he lived there. A background check would have caught that lie.

On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the "Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act", also known as the "Brady Bill," into law. The enactment of the Brady law (effective February 28, 1994) changed this "lie-and-buy" system to a "background check-then-buy" system by requiring that every sale of a gun by a licensed dealer be referred to law enforcement for a background check.

The Brady law requires that individuals seeking to buy a gun at a licensed dealer pass a background check. Because guns are especially lethal weapons, it makes sense that before someone can own one, he or she meet the legal requirements for ownership. This simple step protects everyone - gun owners and non-gun owners alike - from the danger of high-risk people gaining access to lethal weapons.

The Brady Law was implemented in two stages. The purpose of the two-stage implementation was to provide time to organize and computerize criminal history and other relevant records and for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to develop the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

I believe there is still room for improvement in how people obtain guys, specifically guns like AK-47s. Why not take every opportunity to explore how we can control abuses of the system? In my mind, eliminating abuses actually strengthens support for the right to bear REASONABLE arms.

If the Aurora suspect had not had an automatic weapon, there is no doubt that fewer people would have died or been hurt.

Here is a link that might be useful: brady law


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Romney: "A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law," Romney told NBC. "But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Well, no. He bought the guns legally, the ammunition legally, the bullet proof vest legally, and the tear gas legally.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

"A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law," Romney told NBC. "But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Romney needs every vote of the GOP base.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Well, doncha know that if one licensed concealed weapon carrier had been on the scene, the perp would have been dead before getting off more than one hundred rounds in a crowded theater in the dark with the perp fully clothed in black and fully armored.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

"Why not take every opportunity to explore how we can control abuses of the system? In my mind, eliminating abuses actually strengthens support for the right to bear REASONABLE arms."

Why haven't Obama and Eric Holder brought this up? If libs here are representative of the American electorate, it seems logical that Obama and Holder would be using Aurora to do what you suggest. Why aren't they?


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

If libs here are representative of the American electorate...

That's why they aren't.

If I was representative of the American electorate, this country would be a whole lot different. We wouldn't have had a Great Recession to begin with.

-Ron-


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

I would have to agree with President Obama... gun laws are all over the place within these 50 states, and I've said before that they should match. One shouldn't be able to purchase on a whim with no checks and balances in place, and there are simply certain types of weapons that the public doesn't need. There's no reason to. Why would I ever need a fully automatic machine gun? I want my venison intact... not so shot up that nothing is salvageable!

We'll never know if someone within that theater could have stopped some of the harm... we weren't there. It went down as it went down, and nothing can change it now.

I see this thread digressing just as all the others have... with the pros on one side and cons on the other. Have at it... I've said my piece.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Why would I ever need a fully automatic machine gun? I want my venison intact... not so shot up that nothing is salvageable!

Ah, but if you DON'T have a fully automatic machine gun, then how could you stand a chance in case you need to take out a tyranical government?

Your right to bear arms does not exist to ensure you put meat on the table.

Your right to bear arms exists to ensure you keep a free state.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

"If libs here are representative of the American electorate..."

"That's why they aren't."

It appears you are right. Gun control isn't the burning issue with the electorate that it is with the far left.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 27, 12 at 8:42

The reason I will disagree with you Nik, is the support (on HT) of the drone killings sanctioned by our government, if the left was truly opposed, as you claim, to gun violence than they would not support the collateral damage (human beings)that result from drone killings.

1/2 penny


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

The handful of posters on the forum who get all heated up about gun control (both pro and con) are NOT representative of the American electorate--though they make so much noise they honestly believe "everybody" is arguing vociferously on the subject (pro and con). As usual, the noisy ones mainly represent only the noisy ones.

The rest of America may have opinions and positions on the subject, but they are not rabid about the subject (like the noisy ones). And lot of them have mixed feelings, which makes it hard to take a clear-cut (and noisy) position--as in, no one wants to violate the constitution, but somehow the current pro-gun position seems really out of whack with most of what the founding fathers had in mind, but most hunters are not being unreasonable, but violence and crazies are out of control, but who needs a large arsenal, but the constitution, but, but, but, etc. And on it goes.

In other words, the unnoisy middle (the majority) aren't going to go out and lobby for gun control but they wouldn't oppose some kind of "compromise" position in between while supporting the Constitution. Unfortunately, the rabid NRA types (who control the noisy "dialogue" or is that catfight?) won't even consider any compromises. And here we go in circles again.

So that is where America is, as far as I can see--between the rock (the NRA) and the hard place (gun abolishment).

Wish the noisy ones would shut up so the rest of us could work out some commonsense inbetween measures.

Kate


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Two of Obama's comments--
President Barack Obama called late Wednesday for tougher background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

and

"It's up to us, as parents and as neighbors and as teachers and as mentors, to make sure our young people don't have that void inside them," he said.

is EXACTLY what I've been saying on every thread that's come up on this subject. I'll be curious to see how many of those who've argued me to the bone, now agree with his majesty.

Well, no. He bought the guns legally, the ammunition legally, the bullet proof vest legally, and the tear gas legally.

The bombs are a different story. But lets not bring them up, or it'll knock down our effort to de-nut the lawful population.

Well, doncha know that if one licensed concealed weapon carrier had been on the scene, the perp would have been dead before getting off more than one hundred rounds in a crowded theater in the dark with the perp fully clothed in black and fully armored.

Ask any cop who's been hit by a bullet while wearing body armor-- It's not going to kill you, but it can still break bones, and it will at the very least, knock you down from the force of the bullet. Anyone remember the two guys that turned Los Angeles into "Dodge City" a few years ago? Remember all the cops saying the guy HAD to be high, that there's no other way he could've stayed on his feet for so long, after being hit by ONE bullet, nevermind so many rounds? This guy was lucid. He had one set of body armor, with no body padding underneath. If he'd been shot, he would've gone down, even if only long enough to be subdued. Dead? no. Stopped? yes.

If the Aurora suspect had not had an automatic weapon, there is no doubt that fewer people would have died or been hurt.

Right from the start, esh, your argument is flawed. The gunman did NOT have an automatic weapon. Now, to get away from semantics, if you outlaw semi autos, now you've effectively wiped out many of the hunting rifles and shotguns on the market. If you'd be interested in outlawing hi-cap magazines, that I would listen to. There's absolutely no civilian use for a 100 round drum mag.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Well, no. He bought the guns legally, the ammunition legally, the bullet proof vest legally, and the tear gas legally.

The bombs are a different story. But lets not bring them up, or it'll knock down our effort to de-nut the lawful population.

I didn't think it relevant because he didn't use the bombs in the slaughter, they were in the apartment rigged to go off when the door opened, and he told the police about it.

For that matter, playing really loud music at 1:00 am is probably illegal as well.

Bill, at the link is an article by Bloomberg on reigning in the power of the NRA lobby. He's talking mainly about having a background check on all gun sales, including gun shows and person-to-person sales. My own opinion is that the latter is practically impossible.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

"Wish the noisy ones would shut up so the rest of us could work out some commonsense inbetween measures."

Not me. The Oregon ACLU taught years ago that the cure for speech you don't like is more speech. On that, I agree with the ACLU.

Everybody gets to share ideas, and nobody has to accept them. What's not to like?


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

I didn't think it relevant because he didn't use the bombs in the slaughter

Granted. My point is, though, that not only were the materials available to him, but he had the knowhow to put them together, and if the guns weren't available to him, the bombs would've been.

As for listening to ANYTHING Bloomberg has to say about this subject, it would be like you sitting down and listening to bill O'Reilly's thoughts on anything, and both have about as much intelligence and credibility. Here's Bloomberg, the mayor of a city with so many restrictions on firearms, that it's next to impossible to legally own or possess a firearm, and yet, there's all this gun violence in the city. Sooner or later, you'd think the light would go off in his head that his way doesn't work!! You disarm law abiding people, and it only gives the green light to those who would misuse them.

Photobucket


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 27, 12 at 11:24

Really none of this matters in the scheme of things, gun sales are up and no one will take them from you until that hand is "cold".

But it makes for lots of political noise in another political season.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Bloomberg's point is that a politician can't really be 'tough on crime' unless he/she is willing to address the issue of background checks at gun shows and personal sales, a position supported by law enforcement as well as a the majority of NRA membership.

As for all the illegal guns out there and guns in the hands of criminals, surely there must be a way to better control straw purchases. The ATF has identified a few rogue sellers who account for the vast majority of straw purchases - but the laws are such that it is almost impossible to shut them down - and legislation to make it easier to put them out of business is fought, tooth and nail, by the NRA.

I think we discussed before, I don't see the need for 30 clip magazines, or in this guys case, a 100 clip magazine. I was with my neighbor yesterday shooting prairie dogs with a .17, the clip held 5 bullets, and we somehow managed.

But beyond all that, its interesting that this country can track some guy with a Muslim name - who also lived in Aurora - who was 'acting suspicious' and did exactly what this shooter did - buying up half a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo and so on, and arrest him before he slaughtered people, but not this guy.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

My only point is that you have one man saying perhaps we need to look at our controls and see if we can improve them (like a civilian being about to buy 100-round clips) and another man saying that laws don't help, people will find a way to do it regardless.

If improved controls would save some lives, why not do it? Or tell that to the next mother who loses her child because you decided to do nothing.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Putting the Genie back in the bottle is a hard one for America. We must be about as armed as some third world counties in the midst of civil war. How to get to the point of countries like Canada and Australia-countries with populations very similar to our own who do not have massively armed populations 'taking each other down'. Why arent we asking why we are so different? Apparently it can be done because it has been-there has to be a way back. There has to be a common sense way to keep guns out of the hands of most crazy people-it has been done elsewhere.

I cant agree with Bill that the answer is more armed people ready to shoot. We had 4 gun tragedies earlier this year-in a 3 week period 4 children either shot themselves or their sibling with their parent's hand guns-3 died and the one who lived will be disabled. If those people hadn't been going about armed we would have 4 whole healthy children to subtract from the list of gun related deaths.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Agree with patriciae, there is a story almost every day where some child was killed because he/she got a gun or someone else got one and accidentally shot him/her. The frequency is increasing.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

There's a list of new/revised laws that, I think, a lot of people would agree with. Like having to pass a reasonably stiff test in order to get a concealed carry permit.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

I agree too with patriciae. Way too many little kids blowing themselves or others up with guns.

But the loon , Ted Nugent..working for Romney and a close supporter is screaming today about taking away our guns. That psycho.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

The ATF has identified a few rogue sellers....

yeah-- THEIR BOSS!!

there is a story almost every day where some child was killed because he/she got a gun or someone else got one and accidentally shot him/her. The frequency is increasing.

The frequency is also increasing of people STOPPING armed criminals with their own weapons, and if you need proof of that, as I said in the last thread, I can post literally dozens of links just since the beginning of this year, including one about North Carolina State Senator R.C. Soles, and STAUNCH supporter for eliminating ALL civilian gun ownership, but who himself, carries a concealed weapon, and USED said weapon last sunday to shoot an intruder in his home. Now, normally, I don't have a problem with this. but if you're going to tell the rest of the country it's wrong to own weapons for protection, WTF???

There's a list of new/revised laws that, I think, a lot of people would agree with. Like having to pass a reasonably stiff test in order to get a concealed carry permit.

That would have my support, but I have to tell you, it'll definitely meet stiff opposition. Many 2nd amendment "purists" will tell you that CCP's are unconstitutional, easy or tough, and there are actually many who are looking to get rid of them. I believe that as of right now, there are 4 states where you can legally carry a concealed weapon without a permit-- Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, and I forget the 4th.

I cant agree with Bill that the answer is more armed people ready to shoot.

The answer certainly isn't LESS guns!! Look at the graph up above! That's not just Chicago and DC! That's ANYWHERE that has stiff gun control!! The tougher it is to legally own a gun, you can bet the more the gun violence is prevalent.

I was with my neighbor yesterday shooting prairie dogs with a .17

David, are you telling me you went prairie dog hunting with a BB gun? because that's the only thing that shoots a projectile that small (.177 cal), and I don't know about you, but I can fill up my BB gun's well with about 50 BB's, and mine's nothing special-- just a run of the mill Crosman pump.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

i'm sorry-- I have a correction to make. That story about Soles was POSTED this week. It actually occurred 2 years ago. Much as everyone checks up on me, I want to keep things right.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

.17 HMR.

Actually, living as I do out in the midst of prairie dog central, everybody and his cousin blasting away at them, this is one instance where a more powerful gun is a blessing. These things disintegrate on contact, so no ricochets. I've had more than enough .22 rounds/ricochets go right over my head, hit the house, roof, window, etc.

Here is a link that might be useful: info at the link


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Funny thing is this is one of the examples I gave in another forum about a valid reason for buying 5.56 ammo (the rounds from an AR-15) in bulk. I know a couple of people out west who use bolt action rifles chambered for .223 Swift rounds, but can actually fire 5.56mm rounds, and they'll go thru several hundred rounds in a single day getting rid of those pests. Both the guys I know buy their ammo in lots of 1000 rounds, thereby getting it at less than 1/2 price.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Even our forefathers utilized guns to bring meat to table. But that's not the argument. It was just an example. It's only logical to use the right tool for the job. One wouldn't use a can opener to change a flat tire... and it makes no sense to use the wrong gun and load to bring down dinner.

Even those nations that HAVE tried to put the genie back in the bottle, or never had it out to begin with, still experience violence in the form of guns and shootings, not to mention bombings, stabbings, beatings, etc. It's a genie that will never go away, so that's kind of a moot point. There's too much profit in the sale of guns and ammunition, and other forms of weaponry... whether legal or illegal.

Quite honestly, I don't know what the argument is about... since guns will never be eradicated completely from any population. Whether legal or illegal, they will still exist. When the total population of the world is taken into account, or even the total population of the US, alone... we're still not doing that badly statistically speaking.

And then there's the fact that media hypes the incidences that bring in the highest ratings, or create the most reactionary outrage and division of the people. If it bleeds, it leads. Shootings happen every day in every major city, but we actually hear about very few of them. Why is that?

Each and every thread on guns or gun violence ends the same way. Very little is brought out that resembles working solutions. No one acknowledges the reality of the situations brought up. And it all seems like a waste.

Again... we cannot, nor will we ever, adequately legislate and stop the violence within our society. We could begin, however, by making the weaponry laws in all 50 states match. That might just be a halfway decent starting point.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

So just sitting around and letting the opposite happen is the way to go?

The NRA and what I would call the 'extreme' gun rights crowd is pushing all kinds of legislation that makes no sense. As Bill pointed out above, there is a concerted effort to do away with any qualifications for concealed carry.

There is an effort to create a cross-state concealed carry law - so that if you pass a test in one state, you're qualified to carry in all the others - no matter how lax the test might be. So much for 'states rights'

The laws that make it nearly impossible to shut down the stores where the majority of straw purchases occur. The laws that make it nearly impossible to arrest straw purchasers.

And look at the idiots who leave their guns around so children get them. Some states have laws against this, some don't.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

Don't belong to the NRA... never have. Don't follow them or their doctrine... never have. Never will.

Always have had guns... taught the kids very young and very well. No accidents or even close accidents to report.

The fact that respect for life, the finality of death, and the destruction that guns can cause was taught early and well is, I believe, what has kept us safe. We all know. We all follow safety precautions to the letter.

I think it's kinda like not talking to your kids about sex or protecting themselves with condoms and spermicidal foam, out of embarrassment or because of religious beliefs, or whatever... it becomes a curiosity that begs exploration. A taboo that needs to be explored. It's Pandora's box, beckoning every child, or teen, to check it out... to wait until no one is looking, and check it out.

That's when accidents happen... when the knowledge is not there.

When we don't arm our children with the knowledge and safety lessons, when we don't spend the quality time with them teaching them what can happen, how to handle certain situations in life, etc... that's exactly when accidents happen.

If you're dumb enough to leave a gun and ammo around accessible to anyone, yet never bother to instill the proper knowledge and safety precautions, accidents are the end result.

It's like putting rat poison in a candy bowl on the coffee table... and not saying anything.

That's the dumb part of gun ownership while children reside in the household.

There are a lot of dangers open to children. This is why we, as responsible parents, ensure that we spend the time to teach, to show kids what can happen, to explain, to take them through safety courses, and to take them hunting. This is why we teach that hunting is a serious business... once you shoot that squirrel, it's gone. It's dead. It's not getting up again. And we teach that shooting game serves a purpose. It ensures that we will not go hungry. And so, we take game reverently, with respect, and with thanks for what it provides. We don't just turn them loose in the woods and let them figure it out for themselves.

I think there's a very large gap between city or suburban living... and rural living. And I think that a lot of folks who have never lived rurally can't imagine the differences.

Just as a small example... we once had some people out to look at a few of our dogs, housed in the barn. Upon turning on the barn lights, the barn swallows were disturbed and made a beeline for the open door. The visitors hit the dirt, thinking they were being attacked by vampire bats. That should give a small view into the minds of some who are completely unfamiliar with rural living. It was actually very funny to us... they were so scared I believe one may have soiled himself.

My point is, if you've never lived or spent time in a rural setting, a lot of what's said about it won't make sense to you. It will be unimaginable. While to us, it's just life... just part of everyday life.

Of course we keep guns accessible... what good are they if they're trigger-locked, locked in a vault, and the ammunition is locked someplace else? Should we ask a would-be intruder to wait while we locate the keys and get everything together?

Truthfully, the dogs were more dangerous than the guns. And here, again... the children were all instructed on how to use the dogs as defense tools. They were knowledgeable, plenty of quality time spent working and training with the dogs.

What good is a dog if you have to lock it up or put it behind a closed door every time someone knocks, or when company comes over? It becomes worthless as a watch dog or a defensive tool.

But this, again, is a rural thing... and people who live in different circumstances simply won't understand, or can't understand.

To summarize, if every family member is on the same page, accidents are so much less likely to happen. If everyone remains aware, uses safety and common sense, and the knowledge they were taught, there is no curiosity, no Pandora's box, no taboo or fear, and everything is good.

I think if we grow up without the knowledge, we grow up with a certain amount of fear... fear of the unknown.

What to do about national statistics? I gave that answer... that's the best thing I can think of. Enact a federal group of laws regarding weaponry... and then hope people follow those laws.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

But this, again, is a rural thing... and people who live in different circumstances simply won't understand, or can't understand.

There are also a whole lot of people who live in rural areas who have guns and keep them safe with a trigger lock, in a gun safe, dismantled, or what ever, so that these accidents don't happen.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

There are also a whole lot of people who live in rural areas who have guns and keep them safe with a trigger lock, in a gun safe, dismantled, or what ever, so that these accidents don't happen.

There are also a whole lot of rural people who don't have guns and have no need for hunting their meals.

In fact, having grown up rural myself, I'd say that's the majority of them.


 o
RE: A tale of two men and a tragic event

There is an effort to create a cross-state concealed carry law - so that if you pass a test in one state, you're qualified to carry in all the others - no matter how lax the test might be. So much for 'states rights'

I believe that part of the bill you're talking about (HR 822) calls for uniform requirements across the board for all states if it, or any of the other similar bills, does go through. Personally, I'd like to see it happen, but as has already been brought up, I'd like to see more than just taking a day long course and shooting a few rounds downrange and then signing on the dotted line for someone to get their permit. It should be atleast as tough as what I went through for my original permit, but if possible make it more objective, as opposed to the chief of the issuing authority being able to deny the permit because he doesn't like the way the person ties their shoes. There should be undeniable objectives for the chief to demand of any candidate. If they meet those objectives, they get the permit.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here