|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2013 02:56:43 PM · #326 |
Who can I expect to protect me and my family when the bad guys come around?
|
|
|
|
01/08/2013 02:57:05 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people. |
Or drunk people. Or ill-informed people. Or righteous citizens caught up in the adrenaline rush of the moment of confrontation. Etc etc etc...
GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! It's undeniable. I'm not even saying this as a justification for "getting rid of guns" (I've never suggested or supported that, in this thread) but just as a matter of fact. It absolutely stuns me that you guys are trying to say they're not, when the whole PURPOSE of guns as defensive weaponry is that they ARE dangerous! |
You know, I can agree that guns are dangerous, and have done so, twice in fact, in this very thread.
But to be fair - they are only dangerous when used in a dangerous way - the same can absolutely be said of any object, including a NERF gun.
And, the fact is that my home defense weapon actually IS a hammer. Walk in my door threatening me and you'll get a claw hammer stuck in your brain.
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 20:01:35. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 02:57:46 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Who can I expect to protect me and my family when the bad guys come around? |
Don't worry about that! They clearly won't have guns if guns aren't legal, so you'll still be on level ground.
Besides, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. Just call 911 and they'll keep you talking so that you are safe.
And, most importantly - you're more likely to just shoot yourself, or your kids, so it's actually better to just let the intruders rape your wife and steal your things. It's much safer that way since no-one will get shot..
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 20:00:34. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:03:00 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people. |
Or drunk people. Or ill-informed people. Or righteous citizens caught up in the adrenaline rush of the moment of confrontation. Etc etc etc...
GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! It's undeniable. I'm not even saying this as a justification for "getting rid of guns" (I've never suggested or supported that, in this thread) but just as a matter of fact. It absolutely stuns me that you guys are trying to say they're not, when the whole PURPOSE of guns as defensive weaponry is that they ARE dangerous! |
All of those people are dangerous and more so when armed, be it with a gun, knife, sword, broken chair leg, hammer, rock or any weapon.
When the state legislature here voted to allow concealed carry of pistols, the anti-gun people predicted a never ending spree of wild west shootouts across the state. Guess what? 10 years later and nearly 300k issued permits, even those who opposed the measure will concede there have been a negligible number of problems with licensed permit holders. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:07:14 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Let's see, who would you rather take a bullet to the face? Guys like this, who need deadly weapons to play with like toys, and who are responsible for this country's inability to make sensible gun laws, or 5- and 6-year-olds in their kindergarten class?
Logic indeed.
Oh, and the feeling (re: your ignorance and attitude) is mutual. |
Well, I suppose if I had to choose, I would say that the user of the gun should be more likely to be injured, given that the risk is chosen by that person.
Of course, I don't see any reason that we have to shoot either one in the face, and unlike you, I'd simply prefer that no-one is shot, AND we're still allowed to have firearms.
Your logic here is effectively "guns=people shot in face", which is about as sensable as knives="people stabbed in groin"
.. |
"Guns=people shot in face" is certainly the case sometimes, as in Newtown, etc. |
And "Knives=people stabbed in groin" is also certainly the case sometimes, as in any one of these 21,000 or so results from Google.
Still, I only hear you folks complaining about the guns. Seems to me that you have an unhealthy fixation on guns.
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 20:08:12. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:22:35 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom . Which will you choose. |
|
See, this is EXACTLY what I see happening. You consider freedom non-relevant. The only thing that matters to you is the show. |
Maybe that's due to your argument style (ie just-take-my-word-on-it, followed by bouts of fallacy diarrhea) not being all that convincing. But you're right, your show does bring me back every so often. Might I suggest selling tickets?
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 20:36:17. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:33:38 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Besides, I damned well stated, directly, that I think they are dangerous. I was just attempting to bridge communications between you two who apparently aren't understanding each other. Of course, at first I thought it was Cowboy being thick - now I suspect it may be both of you. |
Sorry, the way that all quoted out it seemed like I was lumping you with Adam, and I didn't mean to. Should have said "some people live in". |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:36:15 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom . Which will you choose. |
|
See, this is EXACTLY what I see happening. You consider freedom non-relevant. The only thing that matters to you is the show. |
Maybe that's due to your argument style (ie just-take-my-word-on-it, followed by bouts of fallacy diarrhea) hasn't been all that convincing. But you're right, your show does bring me back every so often. Might I suggest selling tickets? |
Compared to your style? I'll take mine any day. And I don't know that I've ever asked you to "Just take my word on it", I have a strong tendency to attempt to support my conclusions.
As for fallacies, apparently your definition differs from my own.
Honestly, help me out here, what exactly is your position? I'm confused, as you have progressed through calling freedom irrelavent, suggesting that someone will go to mounting lasers on cats, referencing movies, calling anyone who owns guns children, randomly flipping back and forth on the "Guns/Ban" side of this, and accusing me of having "fallacy diaheria".. So, help me to understand what your position is on this, you know, what purpose, exactly, are you trying to serve here?
Seems to me that you're treading very close to Sporkland.
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 20:38:18. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:37:25 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Besides, I damned well stated, directly, that I think they are dangerous. I was just attempting to bridge communications between you two who apparently aren't understanding each other. Of course, at first I thought it was Cowboy being thick - now I suspect it may be both of you. |
Sorry, the way that all quoted out it seemed like I was lumping you with Adam, and I didn't mean to. Should have said "some people live in". |
No problem! Just relieved that I'm only being accused of the appropriate madness, and that you haven't lost your darn mind. ;) |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:41:59 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people. |
Or drunk people. Or ill-informed people. Or righteous citizens caught up in the adrenaline rush of the moment of confrontation. Etc etc etc...
GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! It's undeniable. I'm not even saying this as a justification for "getting rid of guns" (I've never suggested or supported that, in this thread) but just as a matter of fact. It absolutely stuns me that you guys are trying to say they're not, when the whole PURPOSE of guns as defensive weaponry is that they ARE dangerous! |
All of those people are dangerous and more so when armed, be it with a gun, knife, sword, broken chair leg, hammer, rock or any weapon.
When the state legislature here voted to allow concealed carry of pistols, the anti-gun people predicted a never ending spree of wild west shootouts across the state. Guess what? 10 years later and nearly 300k issued permits, even those who opposed the measure will concede there have been a negligible number of problems with licensed permit holders. |
let me TRY to make something perfectly clear here: the ONLY point I'm belaboring is that Adam, and to an extent you, seem to be insisting that guns are not dangerous, only people are. And I think this is absurd. Of COURSE guns are dangerous; they're meant to be. They have to be used soberly, with great caution, or terrible things happen. If inquisitive children get ahold of them, terrible things happen. If lunatics get ahold of them, terrible things happen.
Spaghetti's not dangerous in the same way; the consequences of mishandling spaghetti are, so to speak, inconsequential.
You understand what I'm saying? On a continuum of what we have to deal with in our lives, guns, cars, and other things are very dangerous and need to be respected, while spaghetti and nerf balls are much less so.
I'm NOT in favor of banning all guns. I'm NOT in favor of disarming the American people. But I think we're a little too far in the other direction. OK? It's a defensible stance. Just don't try to tell me guns are harmless, worry about the people. It's not sensible. We license cars and drivers, we require prescriptions for drugs, we regulate this that and the other thing all around us, what's so BAD about my believing that maybe, just maybe, we haven't perfected our regulation of guns yet?
Sheesh...
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 20:42:47. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:51:45 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people. |
Or drunk people. Or ill-informed people. Or righteous citizens caught up in the adrenaline rush of the moment of confrontation. Etc etc etc...
GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! It's undeniable. I'm not even saying this as a justification for "getting rid of guns" (I've never suggested or supported that, in this thread) but just as a matter of fact. It absolutely stuns me that you guys are trying to say they're not, when the whole PURPOSE of guns as defensive weaponry is that they ARE dangerous! |
All of those people are dangerous and more so when armed, be it with a gun, knife, sword, broken chair leg, hammer, rock or any weapon.
When the state legislature here voted to allow concealed carry of pistols, the anti-gun people predicted a never ending spree of wild west shootouts across the state. Guess what? 10 years later and nearly 300k issued permits, even those who opposed the measure will concede there have been a negligible number of problems with licensed permit holders. |
let me TRY to make something perfectly clear here: the ONLY point I'm belaboring is that Adam, and to an extent you, seem to be insisting that guns are not dangerous, only people are. And I think this is absurd. Of COURSE guns are dangerous; they're meant to be. They have to be used soberly, with great caution, or terrible things happen. If inquisitive children get ahold of them, terrible things happen. If lunatics get ahold of them, terrible things happen.
Spaghetti's not dangerous in the same way; the consequences of mishandling spaghetti are, so to speak, inconsequential.
You understand what I'm saying? On a continuum of what we have to deal with in our lives, guns, cars, and other things are very dangerous and need to be respected, while spaghetti and nerf balls are much less so.
I'm NOT in favor of banning all guns. I'm NOT in favor of disarming the American people. But I think we're a little too far in the other direction. OK? It's a defensible stance. Just don't try to tell me guns are harmless, worry about the people. It's not sensible. We license cars and drivers, we require prescriptions for drugs, we regulate this that and the other thing all around us, what's so BAD about my believing that maybe, just maybe, we haven't perfected our regulation of guns yet?
Sheesh... |
I agree, at least mostly.
I will say that there is something that you may have missed in your analysis that is important - the fact that danger is what's so darn attractive about many things. Guns, Fast Cars, Drugs, Wild Lifestyles, Sky Diving, Base Jumping, Wingsuits, Warfare and Romance - they are all VERY dangerous things, and that's what makes each one of them so attractive to so many people.
Perhaps we fail to realize just how much value there is in danger itself. I think that this is pretty much a part of our very instinct - danger is exhilarating. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 03:55:52 PM · #337 |
| I prefer my danger in the form of a roller coaster. But mainly, I agree with Robt. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 04:14:04 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom . Which will you choose. |
|
See, this is EXACTLY what I see happening. You consider freedom non-relevant. The only thing that matters to you is the show. |
Maybe that's due to your argument style (ie just-take-my-word-on-it, followed by bouts of fallacy diarrhea) hasn't been all that convincing. But you're right, your show does bring me back every so often. Might I suggest selling tickets? |
Compared to your style? I'll take mine any day. And I don't know that I've ever asked you to "Just take my word on it", I have a strong tendency to attempt to support my conclusions.
As for fallacies, apparently your definition differs from my own.
Honestly, help me out here, what exactly is your position? I'm confused, as you have progressed through calling freedom irrelavent, suggesting that someone will go to mounting lasers on cats, referencing movies, calling anyone who owns guns children, randomly flipping back and forth on the "Guns/Ban" side of this, and accusing me of having "fallacy diaheria".. So, help me to understand what your position is on this, you know, what purpose, exactly, are you trying to serve here?
Seems to me that you're treading very close to Sporkland. |
For starters, I didn't say freedom was irrelevant, but it is irrelevant to the subject of gun control. Its ridiculous how often that word gets thrown around, as if owning a device somehow grants you freedom. yet here we are 200+ years under the same constitution and you're still able to own these freedom producing devices you believe in so much. The sick irony in all of this is only the regulation aspect is protected by the constitution, not gun ownership, unless you're a member of a militia. So yes, I'm for reducing the number of guns. They are not needed for freedom or safety. The rest of society shouldn't have to pay in blood and tears just to appease the insecure among us. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 05:21:48 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by Cory:
You know, I can agree that guns are dangerous, and have done so, twice in fact, in this very thread.
But to be fair - they are only dangerous when used in a dangerous way - the same can absolutely be said of any object, including a NERF gun. |
And that's why you're also in favor of training in the proper use of NERF guns, and knives, and chairs?
Never heard of mass murder being committed with any of those objects. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 05:23:17 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've been reading about a prohibition on the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition that's in effect in some places, like Australia, where those who like to "play" with these weapons can still go to a state-sanctioned controlled environment and use them, like a little "gun playground." Given that these weapons aren't necessary for hunting or self-defense, would there be any objection by the gun lovers to such a restriction in this country? If so, why? |
As long as they're willing to bring the gun to me? No problem at all. Otherwise, this is equivalent to saying that "You're free to say whatever you'd like, as long as you make sure no-one hears you say it"... |
I don't understand your response. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:24:33 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
You know, I can agree that guns are dangerous, and have done so, twice in fact, in this very thread.
But to be fair - they are only dangerous when used in a dangerous way - the same can absolutely be said of any object, including a NERF gun. |
And that's why you're also in favor of training in the proper use of NERF guns, and knives, and chairs?
Never heard of mass murder being committed with any of those objects. |
Heck no.. I do not support those silly measures either! I suppose you might now support them since I've pointed out the reasons to ban basically anything the TSA won't let through in your carry-on. (and even some of those items are pretty dangerous in the right hands..)
There have been plenty of examples of mass stabbings, some of which clearly qualify as mass murder.
Hell, a loose friend and and acquaintance in high school were nearly beheaded with a sword in one of the most unusual crimes Farmington NM has ever seen.. The murderer was known to me as well, and I would have absolutely picked this guy as a "winner" in the psychofuck lottery. So you can see that I'm not full of shit - to the point that I KNEW the victims of one of these crimes. Matthew wasn't a small guy really, but he wasn't a huge guy either, the guy who killed him was a big guy, who was strong and liked to hurt people. I do wonder if things would have been different if they were fighting over a gun instead of a sword. (the sword was an item in the store)... My guess is that I might have gotten to be good friends with Matt. I'd only gotten to know him a few weeks before this happened, and was in the store visiting with him and Joseph his co-worker/buddy... So yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm not just making this crap up, and that knives really do work if used correctly.
And all of these guys really lacked imagination - all the knife incidents have been very simple knife attacks - get someone who really puts a tactical knife plan into action, and you're gonna see some serious carnage. A long blade, especially with a trained, or at least well practiced, person behind it is an extremely scary thought to me. To discount blades as extremely effective killing machines is to discount centuries of human history. The only reason they fell out of favor was the appearance of good guns. There is a reason many military units have a sword as part of their uniform, and it's not just because they're pretty.
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 23:29:39. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:26:49 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people. |
Or drunk people. Or ill-informed people. Or righteous citizens caught up in the adrenaline rush of the moment of confrontation. Etc etc etc...
GUNS ARE DANGEROUS! It's undeniable. I'm not even saying this as a justification for "getting rid of guns" (I've never suggested or supported that, in this thread) but just as a matter of fact. It absolutely stuns me that you guys are trying to say they're not, when the whole PURPOSE of guns as defensive weaponry is that they ARE dangerous! |
All of those people are dangerous and more so when armed, be it with a gun, knife, sword, broken chair leg, hammer, rock or any weapon.
When the state legislature here voted to allow concealed carry of pistols, the anti-gun people predicted a never ending spree of wild west shootouts across the state. Guess what? 10 years later and nearly 300k issued permits, even those who opposed the measure will concede there have been a negligible number of problems with licensed permit holders. |
let me TRY to make something perfectly clear here: the ONLY point I'm belaboring is that Adam, and to an extent you, seem to be insisting that guns are not dangerous, only people are. And I think this is absurd. Of COURSE guns are dangerous; they're meant to be. They have to be used soberly, with great caution, or terrible things happen. If inquisitive children get ahold of them, terrible things happen. If lunatics get ahold of them, terrible things happen.
Spaghetti's not dangerous in the same way; the consequences of mishandling spaghetti are, so to speak, inconsequential.
You understand what I'm saying? On a continuum of what we have to deal with in our lives, guns, cars, and other things are very dangerous and need to be respected, while spaghetti and nerf balls are much less so.
I'm NOT in favor of banning all guns. I'm NOT in favor of disarming the American people. But I think we're a little too far in the other direction. OK? It's a defensible stance. Just don't try to tell me guns are harmless, worry about the people. It's not sensible. We license cars and drivers, we require prescriptions for drugs, we regulate this that and the other thing all around us, what's so BAD about my believing that maybe, just maybe, we haven't perfected our regulation of guns yet?
Sheesh... |
No. Guns by themselves are no more dangerous than any other inanimate object. When used irresponsibly, they make the irresponsible person more dangerous.
Take this example. My best friend was killed by a drunk driver. The car did not kill my friend. The drunk driver killed my friend using his car. The gun or the car both require human interaction, their effect makes that person more dangerous, but in and of themselves, they are not dangerous.
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 23:29:12. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:29:03 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've been reading about a prohibition on the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition that's in effect in some places, like Australia, where those who like to "play" with these weapons can still go to a state-sanctioned controlled environment and use them, like a little "gun playground." Given that these weapons aren't necessary for hunting or self-defense, would there be any objection by the gun lovers to such a restriction in this country? If so, why? |
As long as they're willing to bring the gun to me? No problem at all. Otherwise, this is equivalent to saying that "You're free to say whatever you'd like, as long as you make sure no-one hears you say it"... |
I don't understand your response. |
If you make me shoot in a room, (like they do with machine gun shoots today in most places), then I'm not really able to enjoy the usage of the gun. Now, if you want to go varmint hunting, then you'll likely want either a really accurate rifle, or a semi-automatic rifle. The question is do you want to shoot them standing, or running. Running is a hell of a lot of fun, but standing is the only choice without a semiautomatic rifle.
Now, I'm sure I can give you more reasons, but in effect, if I can't own it, and take it with me wherever I please, for whatever harmless (to humans) purpose, then you should have no reason or right to impinge upon my abilities to do so.
If you'd like there to be a rental-only system, then I might be ok with that, but it would have to be sorted out such that the above scenario was still totally reasonable. (and remember that I might travel many miles during the hunt, or just to get to the hunting area.)...
Hopefully that's more illuminating, I really do want you to understand. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:32:16 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The gun or the car both require human interaction, their effect makes that person more dangerous, but in and of themselves, they are not dangerous. |
What about when a car catches on fire due to short circuts? Or what about a car that isn't quite in park left on a hill?
Cars can be dangerous without humans anywhere near them... I don't know that even a gun can meet this level of danger! |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:44:48 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by Cory:
What about when a car catches on fire due to short circuts? Or what about a car that isn't quite in park left on a hill? |
Well, that's why they have federally-mandated recalls when deficiencies are found. And that's why you can't take the key out of a modern car unless it's in "park"... |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:47:56 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Now, I'm sure I can give you more reasons, but in effect, if I can't own it, and take it with me wherever I please, for whatever harmless (to humans) purpose, then you should have no reason or right to impinge upon my abilities to do so. |
That is no argument. Your enjoyment of an activity that may put people at risk does not effect the ability to limit that activity. You have fun running around shooting things that you have trouble killing standing still. If the toys you use to have that fun risk the lives of others then you might just have to have a bit less fun.
Lots of fun things are illegal or limited in their use and distribution. Some really fun drugs, some very fun vehicles, talking on a cell phone while driving, or smoking in a restaurant. They took my fun away.
I doubt the parents of those children at Sandy Hook would feel terribly sorry for you if they take your fun away. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:48:35 PM · #347 |
I was talking about driving, but since you insist.
Short circuit? Unless some human idiot decides to connect the two terminals of the battery with a wrench, or so poorly maintains the vehicle that the ignition system runs, but still causes flammables under the hood to ignite, I dunno. Otherwise it's a malfunction, a defect. A product of poor design.
I had a gun like that once, a Davis .380. After I put 100 or so rounds through it, something broke and it would only fire if you tilted it about 45 deg to the right and gave it a shake.
As for parking on the hill...did the car park itself? Did the car not quite put its shifter into the correct position? Did the car not turn its wheels the correct way? Maybe the Google robot car, but there are what, maybe 2 or 3 of those at most in the world?
Message edited by author 2013-01-08 23:52:53. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 06:58:55 PM · #348 |
Cars. Guns. Nuclear weapons.
Which one is primarily designed not to kill people? |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 07:26:23 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The weapons are not a dangerous product. |
Folks, this says it all. This is the very picture of a state of denial.
I'm willing to acknowledge that the "NRA People" have a constitutional argument to be made against the restriction of firearms, but when they flat-out deny that firearms are dangerous products, they lose me. Big time. |
Bear - The NRA clearly focuses on SAFE gun handling practices and makes it a paramount factor in any firearm training. Thus the NRA understands the inherant "danger" in the potential mis-use of firearms.
eta: The NRA's Eddie the Eagle program is specifically designed to teach children about the risks of guns and is further evidence of their committment to promoting the SAFE use of firearms. It is offered free to any school willing to receive it and it is specificlly void of any NRA promotional material or mentions. The sole focus is on safety.
Message edited by author 2013-01-09 00:42:48. |
|
|
|
01/08/2013 07:30:23 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Now, I'm sure I can give you more reasons, but in effect, if I can't own it, and take it with me wherever I please, for whatever harmless (to humans) purpose, then you should have no reason or right to impinge upon my abilities to do so. |
That is no argument. Your enjoyment of an activity that may put people at risk does not effect the ability to limit that activity. You have fun running around shooting things that you have trouble killing standing still. If the toys you use to have that fun risk the lives of others then you might just have to have a bit less fun.
Lots of fun things are illegal or limited in their use and distribution. Some really fun drugs, some very fun vehicles, talking on a cell phone while driving, or smoking in a restaurant. They took my fun away.
I doubt the parents of those children at Sandy Hook would feel terribly sorry for you if they take your fun away. |
However, I do feel sorry for them. And, I really would give up the guns if I actually thought it would stop the violence.
Message edited by author 2013-01-09 00:42:50. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 10:22:19 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 10:22:19 PM EDT.
|
