Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

A laugh-a-minute take on guns from the other side. Here's an excerpt:

 

 

Gee whiz, lady, maybe the reason gun owners don't want to deal with you is because you treat them like insubordinate children and their rights like that trip to Disney World you promised them if they'd be good.

 

Another thing I find funny about this is that "Design Mom" (I'm sure she knows a lot about crime and firearms regulations!) claims that the "majority of Americans want better gun regulations" - by which she later explicitly outlines as "gun control". To which I respond: Really? Where? I could buy that most people in the Bay Area and in the Devil's Triangle will blindly support anything their corrupt oligarchs want them to, but in the rest of the country - you know, the part of the country that would be subject to these "better gun regulations" that the bluest areas already have - do they support these measures? An honest take suggests the answer is not "no" but "hell no".

 

But of course "Design Mom" doesn't know any of these tens of millions of people, because, as she says, "My social feeds were absolutely overflowing with calls for outright gun bans." I wonder if she ever thinks why that might be. Why is it that all of her friends think exactly the same way she does? I wonder if she's ever unfriended someone because they didn't have the "right views".

 

 

Wait, how can someone be a lifelong gun rights supporter and, currently, while they are alive, call for a total gun ban? You know, I've worked in the firearms industry my whole life - I've met THOUSANDS of true blue lifelong gun rights supporters, I've walked the halls of the SHOT Show, the wastelands of Wyoming, the streets of Dallas, and the swamps of Southern Maryland, and I've likewise had thousands of conversations with these people, and I have never, ever, not once in my whole life met one of these mythical people that anti-gunners describe. Nobody, who has spent their whole life supporting the NRA, buying, owning, and using guns, and proselytizing about the Second Amendment, has ever told me they thought it was time for a total gun ban. I have, however, met loads of people who grew up hillbilly, fired a shotgun once when they were fourteen, and then converted to being anti-gun when subjected to Leftist Conversion Therapy in college. Maybe those are the people she means. In support of this theory, I want to point out this particular bit:

 

 

So in other words, this guy isn't really pro-gun, he just lives in rural Pennsylvania or wherever. See what I mean?

 

 

I don't think she really groks what we mean when we say it's impossible, because I doubt she's familiar with the numbers: There are over 300 million guns in the US - that number comes from a 2009 study. Since then, at least 100 million guns have been added, according to ATF records. Both of those numbers are likely highly conservative. So, this total ban on guns, it would need to confiscate, what? 400-600 million firearms from US citizens, many - if not most - of whom are willing to fight the government to protect their rights. Even if most lie down and show their bellies, what about those that don't? Will the massive, unprecedented civil unrest that will almost certainly result in the deaths of hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of people (in the worst case) - including children - be worth it?

 

The problem with the comparison to gay rights is that it hardly affected anyone. Nobody really had skin in the game. Only the religious far right thought it was unacceptable, and, frankly, they didn't care very much either. The reason a gun ban will never happen is because it would beget the biggest period of civil unrest in the US since the Civil War. 

 

 

I just wanted to emphasize those last two sentences. The answer is "yes, fully automatic weapons can be made in a closet with a drill press and some scrap metal." This answer would not have taken Design Mom very long to find had she bothered to google that very question.

 

 

Here is a homemade silenced machine gun that was confiscated in Australia:

 

4111614-4x3-940x705.jpg

 

Perhaps the reason this woman does not think these arguments are logical is because she has no bloody idea what she's talking about.

 

 

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that countries with fewer guns experience fewer shootings. That's well-supported by data. But these countries aren't necessarily less violent, and this logical pathway between "fewer guns" and "fewer deaths" distracts from the real question: If there are 600,000,000 guns in the United States, what happens to them after they get banned? Because at best, the Australian government was only able to confiscate a fifth of their subjects' guns, and the country has more guns now than they did before the ban. Australia has at least 600,000 illegal guns - almost 15 guns per incarcerated criminal, and more than 1.3 guns per crime committed per year. Demonstrably, those who want guns in Australia can get them. They will be sold to criminals and become part of a gigantic black market. The availability of guns won't go down, the availability of legal guns will. There are lots of countries with a high ratio of illegal guns to legal guns. I tell you what, I don't want to live in any of them.

To get all the guns, to stop all crime, to really deliver on your promises of a safer world, you'd need a central government that knows just about everything about everyone at all times. You'd need a gigantic bureaucracy whose job is to spy on, track, and attack if necessary all of its citizens. To the extent that we don't already have that, few Americans want it realized fully. Is Design Mom ready for her country to go full police state? What exact number of children saved would make it worth what comes next?
 

 

wyuaZK3.gif

 

I can't seriously address this. Her head isn't in the real world it's in some other place, where smuggling doesn't exist and criminals will willingly surrender their guns within "5-10 years" or so. Remember Australia? That country now has more illegal guns than it ever did. How could Design Mom's plan stand a chance in a country with 150-200 times as many guns?

 

 

The power of "Design Mom Logic", ladies and gentlemen. So because gun owners disagree with you on policy, they are culpable in the death of children? I doubt this woman has ever in her miserable life reflected on how her own actions may have made people unwilling to deal with her. Why would any gun owner want to change their mind to a new view, when the person who holds it considers them culpable in crimes of murder which they had nothing to do with, just because of their opinion.

 

There's also a little bit of doublethink going on here. Design Mom says that loads of pro-gun people, she promises, are ready for a total gun ban - yet all gun owners refuse to allow for more regulations. So... Is this an admission that none of the "pro-gun" people she's talking about, y'know, actually own guns?

 

 

She may be surprised to find that the largest gun safety education program in the United States is run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which holds the SHOT Show every year in Las Vegas. Other gun safety programs are run by the NRA (which has one of the nation's largest), the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and Project Appleseed.

Meanwhile, it's likely that neither Design Mom nor any 5 of her closest friends have any idea what "Four Rules" means without googling it.

 

 

Catch that? While she was getting the reader riled up about how victory is inevitable, she avoided actually answering the question. Because it's a great question, and there is no answer except "it wouldn't".

 

Also, do note she repeats that bit of idiocy about gun owners wanting to pass laws to "force teachers to be armed." @Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect.

 

 

Oh boy, I can't wait to see what tired and failed ideas she trots out! Let's get into it!

 

 

Actually, most gun owners do advocate for reform of the background check system, which desperately needs it (as both Sutherland Springs and Parkland prove). Few want private sales to require a background check, but the vast majority want the ability to access NICS (does Design Mom know what NICS is? I've got money on "not") to run background checks for private sales if they so desire. The problem most have is that private sales to prohibited persons, as well as straw purchases (someone who is not prohibited who buys a gun for someone who is) are already illegal, so making private sales illegal would do exactly diddly squat.

 

 

Maybe you should actually ask the big bad NRA about that? But you won't, because you've already sorted everyone into "Good People", and "Bad People", and anyone who actually knows anything about safe gun use is Bad by default.

 

 

I agree, so long as that is extended to every other item in existence. It'll have a one year sunset. I bet you $10,000,000 it won't get renewed!

 

 

We tried that from 1994-2004, it did nothing. Here's a hint: On what date did the Columbine massacre occur?

 

 

Wouldn't have stopped Parkland, Sutherland, Las Vegas, Columbine, nor any other premeditated mass shooting.

 

 

Wow, firearms insurance will save the children. That is a new one.

Design Mom seems to be unaware that this is required already in most rental agreements, anyway.

 

 

Here it is! Finally, the only real regulation that we can meaningfully discuss with any more than a zippy one-liner. But since Andrew Tuohy already pretty much covered it, I'll direct us to him.

 

Andrew points out that the purpose of registration is confiscation, which most gun control people pinkie swear isn't the point, but at least Design Mom is pretty honest about it.

 


So that if their girlfriend breaks up with them, we can take their guns!

 

This is probably a new concept to Design Mom, but that's not how we treat Constitutional Rights in this country. Does she want it to become how?

 

 

Lots of gun owners are open to this - so how are you going to incentivize them to come to the table? Would you, say, offer them something in exchange that both you and they can agree is a sensible reform (such as a law enforcement reform bill)? Or would you even offer them something you don't quite agree with but that they really want (such as removing SBRs from the NFA registry)?

No? Then who's really unwilling to compromise here?

 

 

See this is why gun owners get a bit frustrated with gun control advocates. Even a second of googling would have revealed to her that not only are domestic abusers already banned from owning guns. The problem with the second bit is that it compromises due process - and since the US judicial system is based on precedent, do we really want to go there?

 

 

No law is preventing the CDC from doing so - it's just been defunded in that regard and it's scared to. Having said that, I am quite sure that you could come to an amicable compromise with the vast majority of gun owners on this issue. Gun owners aren't really worried about studying firearms, most welcome it. But when it comes to gun control, "compromises" never involve any real bargain - it's just "give us what we want, or else". No wonder gun owners won't deal with you on even the simplest things.

 

 

Gee maybe the reason gun owners don't want to talk to you is because you treat them like spoiled children instead of fellow citizens, say they are culpable for the deaths of children, imply they are irresponsible with their guns, say they should be subject to yearly mental health evaluations, are unwilling to trade for anything, and, perhaps worst of all, know absofuckinglutely nothing about the subject at hand.

 

 

Design Mom Logic™

 


Actually, the state of the NICS system is all on the government. Specifically in these last few cases, the Broward Country PD, the FBI, and the US Air Force.

 

 

Yeah, why do you think that is? See it turns out, in the NRA has a long history of working with gun control advocates, but then the Democrats threw all that goodwill away by giving nothing back, pushing the attack, and using underhanded tactics to get regulations passed. And consistently, every time the issue arises again, that side never tries to find common ground or make any kind of deal - they just trot out the same old regulations that don't work. Like you did. So now, gun control is radioactive to the NRA. Pat yourself on the back.

 

 

Incorrect. They love it every time a Democrat gets elected. Nobody loves these shootings.

 

 

 

 

 

I bet you can guess what the next word will be!

 

 

I want to stop right here and do some critical reading. Look at the language she's using. The blame she's trying to paint on her own friends who hunt. Look at how imperious she's being. It's clear that she's not confident, she's sad, she's angry, she's tired of death and seeing terrible tragedies happen on the news. And she has no other outlet but to get on her little blog and pound out about how we are strong and we're coming for your guns - but it's all puff. It's all exhausted desperation. She wants to do something, anything, that will let her feel like she helped make it stop. She expresses it with the tyrannical fits of an angry toddler. But what she really needs to stare into the eyes of the beast and realize there is nothing, at least not in this way, that she can do.

 

 

I appreciate that the footmen of the Left have fully absorbed the narrative that "armed guards don't work!" Yeah, OK. Keep telling yourself that.

 

 

"Kneel or die". Yet she wields a rattle, not a sword.

 

 

I'm glad she brought this point up. I wonder, though, what would kill people if not guns? Nah, I'm sure it'll be fine.

 

 

That's... That's not what circular reasoning is. People are trying to establish how big of a problem these high profile rampage killings really are by measuring them against a different scale. You may not agree with it (I don't - not 100% anyway), but it really doesn't fit the definition of circular reasoning or even a fallacy. And, frankly, the last people to just shrug and say "shit happens" are the ones who carry a gun on their hip.

 

 

ReflectionSocialArt.jpg

 

 

 

thompson-pub.jpg

 

It's really, really not.

 

 

If "assault weapons" are the reason we have higher levels of "gun violence" (no word on actual violence violence), then why are rifles (of all types) used in so few murders, despite being so much more lethal?

 

 

Lots of professional criminals exist. I would say, most criminals are professional criminals or will become professional criminals in the future. Ask your local police officer whether he recognizes the faces of the criminals he interacts with, or if it's a fresh face every time.

 

 

This sort of babbling is definitely a sign that she's emotionally reaching out for any comfort. And I do understand, empathize, and feel the same way, I just wish her methods didn't involve word vomiting all over the Internet.

 

 

100 years of compromises never got the anti-gun side to back off, so why should we expect it will now?

 

 

Again, no actual nuts and bolts here. Just "I feel that this will happen and it will totally work out". Nothing about how to get support for a Constitutional Amendment, nothing about how to claim the judicial branch, nothing about how to confiscate 400-600 million guns. Just feels.

 

 

I can't off the top of my head think of a clearer example of scapegoating than what she's doing here. She doesn't even really know any gun owners (indeed she has probably curated her circle to that end), so she doesn't have a clue what gun owners will or will not take responsibility for. But she's right that gun owners are unwilling to take the responsibility that she wants them to - considering she wants to hold them culpable for literally all gun crime in the US.

 

 

Well, you're growing from "politically insignificant" to "temporarily loud". The NRA, meanwhile has maintained millions of members for decades now. So I doubt it's time for gun owners to break ranks, exactly.

 

After this very emotional, and not terribly well thought out or researched, diatribe, she ends on a classy note:

 

 

 

 

Does this bitch know by openly calling for the civil rights of millions of Americans to be trampled on actually puts a real and I dare say legitimate target on her back? People who try and take others civil rights away are evil,  and she now stands with the likes of people who feel blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote.  If the government goes for peoples guns and the shit hits the fan, does she realize she will be one of the first to die, and it will be Karma because the blood will be on their hands for starting shit with millions of formerly law-abiding citizens? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Does this bitch know by openly calling for the civil rights of millions of Americans to be trampled on actually puts a real and I dare say legitimate target on her back? People who try and take others civil rights away are evil,  and she now stands with the likes of people who feel blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote.  If the government goes for peoples guns and the shit hits the fan, does she realize she will be one of the first to die, and it will be Karma because the blood will be on their hands for starting shit with millions of formerly law-abiding citizens? 

 

Let's not get melodramatic. I think it's clear that she's in a bit of an emotional state and looking for something to make herself feel better. That's not a crime, certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's a stupid cunt openly calling for a gun ban, based on gross ignorance, and she's a lawyer, she is indefensible. 

 

This is why allowing women to vote was such a bad idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28577798_398640677214784_2249043901062596067_n.jpg?oh=718dcdb9de8ed5b10cecd0f493b470fd&oe=5B05B941
 
This has been making the rounds. This woman is running for Congress. In an attempt to garner publicity, she takes the "One Less Gun" challenge, buys an AR-15 style rifle and then saws the barrel off of it.
 
Effectively violating the 1934 NFA act by creating a short-barreled rifle (SBR). This is a federal offense. She is also breaking the federal law for possessing an unregistered SBR (Because there are avenues a civilian can go down to own an SBR legally).
 
There is video footage of this woman creating an unregistered SBR. This is ample proof for the ATF to have her charged.
 
But will the ATF charge her for the production and possession of an SBR, an illegal firearm? I'm going to think no. Now, if I had done the same to one of my rifles and posted them online, I would certainly get a knock on my door.
 
When individuals wonder why there can be no "conversation" or "compromise" with the gun owning public, I want to bring up two reasons why we may not feel like talking.
 
1) It is impossible to have a conversation when only one individual is knowledgeable. If this woman had done literally 3 seconds of Googling, she would have an entire list of current firearm regulation. An overwhelming majority of gun owners know the 1934 NFA regulations, as the entire industry is built around them for the most part. Why should we, as gun owners, respect or even listen to the opinions of people like this, who haven't the faintest clue on the policies that they wish to control?
 
2) Compromise require both parties to give up something to gain footing somewhere else. This definition has been lose to one side of this debate. Gun owners have been giving up rights for the past 100 years. And as this instance clearly states, the ATF will be far more willing to ignore this blatant federal offense based on this person's status and political affiliations. Ask yourself, what if a young man in a poor neighborhood had posted a video doing the exact same? We would never know the outcome, because that person would be hauled off to jail. "Paranoid" is a word that gets tossed towards gun owners oftentimes. And I'd agree it was an apt term, since it appears as though both a loud political movement and state departments are fully biased in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wtsp.com/article/news/atf-investigating-after-congressional-candidate-cut-apart-ar-15/291-526898428

 

Looks like that video finally got the attention of the ATF.

 

VIRGINIA-BEACH

 

ATF investigating after congressional candidate cut apart AR-15

Karen Mallard of Virginia Beach posted a video on social media that shows her sawing an AR-15 rifle into pieces.
 
Author: Staff
Published: 6:21 PM EST March 8, 2018
Updated: 6:21 PM EST March 8, 2018

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WVEC) -- The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is investigating congressional candidate Karen Mallard after she posted a video on Facebook that shows her cutting apart an AR-15 rifle.

The school teacher and Democrat is running for Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, hoping to oust Republican Congressman Scott Taylor.

 

In the video, as Mallard introduces herself, she says, "I grew up in Wise County, surrounded by guns. Our family had guns my whole life. We use them for hunting, for protection, and recreation."

She goes on to explain that she wasn't happy when her husband bought the AR-15 "a while back." Mallard adds that after the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida on February 14, and the renewed outcries for stricter gun control that followed, she and her husband agreed they didn't want the AR-15 in their home.

The couple later decided they didn't want it it anyone else's house, either.

"So, today, we're going to destroy it," states Mallard before taking a handheld power saw to it.

In a matter of hours, the video drew hundreds of thousands of views and thousands of comments.

Many of those comments were negative. Some people accused Mallard of political grandstanding.

Several others said Mallard broke federal law by taking a legal firearm and altering it, making it into an illegal one. Many of them referred to details contained within the Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act which, in part, prohibits people (except for those permitted by the act) from having a rifle that has been "modified to an overall length of less than 26 inches."

Virginia Firearms Statutes and Codes by 13News Now on Scribd

Mallard said she followed legal procedure, writing in her Facebook post:

And yes for all the NRA trolls out there, I finished the job according to regulation and turned it over to the police. Why are you more outraged about me taking a gun out of circulation than about our children being murdered in our schools?

 

Master Police Officer Tonya Pierce, spokeswoman for the Virginia Beach Police Department, confirmed that the rifle was in the department's possession. Pierce told 13News Now the ATF was looking into the situation.

Mallard concludes her video with the promise she will fight for comprehensive gun control and states:

And to those students in Florida and across our country, keep standing up and speaking truth to power. These gun owners heard you, and we're gonna stand by you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Department files regulation to ban 'bump stocks'

 

This bit had me in stitches:

 

Quote

The move does not require congressional approval, allowing the administration to side-step what could have been insurmountable pressure from pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association that have worked to erode changes in firearm laws in the wake of mass shootings in Florida and Nevada.

 

Wow that's some twisted language there. Erode changes? How the fuck does that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Justice Department files regulation to ban 'bump stocks'

 

This bit had me in stitches:

 

 

Wow that's some twisted language there. Erode changes? How the fuck does that work?

But thinking there's an anti-gun narrative being spun by media? Nope, just a bunch of paranoid lunatics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Justice Department files regulation to ban 'bump stocks'

 

This bit had me in stitches:

 

 

Wow that's some twisted language there. Erode changes? How the fuck does that work?

 

You mean the same NRA that supports regulating/banning bumpstocks and has been pressuring Republican lawmakers at the state and federal level to do just that?

 

Like the NRA did here in Washington state, pressuring GOP lawmakers to ban them?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Das Wikipedia, citing the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the murder rate of the continent of Europe, made up of 50 sovereign states and a land mass of 3.9 million square miles is 3.0 per 100,000 people.

 

The United States, made up of 50 separate semi-independent states and a land mass of 3.7 million square miles has a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.

 

Given that Europe has twice the population as the United States, that means there are twice the murders per square mile in Europe as compared to the United States, making it a more dangerous place to live per the square mile.

 

Because that's how statistics work!

 

Amirite guys?

 

High five!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Donward said:

Per Das Wikipedia, citing the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the murder rate of the continent of Europe, made up of 50 sovereign states and a land mass of 3.9 million square miles is 3.0 per 100,000 people.

 

The United States, made up of 50 separate semi-independent states and a land mass of 3.7 million square miles has a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.

 

Given that Europe has twice the population as the United States, that means there are twice the murders per square mile in Europe as compared to the United States, making it a more dangerous place to live per the square mile.

 

Because that's how statistics work!

 

Amirite guys?

 

High five!

 

 

Huh, just calculated Norway's murder-rate per 100 000, and it is at 0,57 per 100 000 people in 2012.  (SSB)

 

Russia's murder-rate is 11,31 per 100 000 people, the highest in the Europe. (Wikipedia)
Austria has the lowest at 0,51 per 100 000 people. (Wikipedia)

 

I guess the variation is pretty big in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Huh, just calculated Norway's murder-rate per 100 000, and it is at 0,57 per 100 000 people in 2012.  (SSB)

 

Russia's murder-rate is 11,31 per 100 000 people, the highest in the Europe. (Wikipedia)
Austria has the lowest at 0,51 per 100 000 people. (Wikipedia)

 

I guess the variation is pretty big in Europe.

 

Another thing that annoys gun owners is the constant push for single variable analysis when it comes to crime and even murder. 

 

The push has always been, "If we remove guns, we can remove crime."

 

Which is doing a disservice to every criminal psychologist out there. Crime (Including murder) is not a single variable function. And anyone that tries to tell you otherwise is just selling you something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we outlaw guns, then we won't have any gun crime!

 

Except that gun crime will skyrocket for a number of reasons. The definition of gun crimes becomes much more broad. Things that were perfectly legal no longer are, do those get counted as gun crimes? Even if it's only violent crimes involving guns, is every case of legitime self defense going to be counted as a gun crime? There are plenty of reasons why the numbers could wildly fluctuate, even if human behavior stays relatively unchanged. Getting accurate measurements is a bitch if you are constantly moving your point of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xoon said:

Huh, just calculated Norway's murder-rate per 100 000, and it is at 0,57 per 100 000 people in 2012.  (SSB)

 

Russia's murder-rate is 11,31 per 100 000 people, the highest in the Europe. (Wikipedia)
Austria has the lowest at 0,51 per 100 000 people. (Wikipedia)

 

I guess the variation is pretty big in Europe.

And one more quip (Because I'm sure you're not tired of them at all),

 

People tend to toss around statistics for the entire US. Which is doing a disservice. The US is HUGE with many many sections. The crime rates of one state oftentimes are totally different from the crime rate of another. Even per capita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that's always fascinated me is how so many people treat gun violence like it's a completely separate thing from violent crimes.  Lowering gun crime is great and all, but doesn't mean jack diddly squat if the overall violent crime rate stays the same or increases.  I'm not sure that it'll matter much at the end of the day whether someone died by getting shot 10 times in the chest or by getting their skull caved in with a hammer.  Instead of focusing on violent crime that's committed with one of the many possible weapons out there, I feel as though it's be more productive to tackle violent crime as a whole.

 

Of course the issue is as stated earlier that it's not about making people safer, it's about making themselves feel safer (or just getting rid of guns).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

And one more quip (Because I'm sure you're not tired of them at all),

 

People tend to toss around statistics for the entire US. Which is doing a disservice. The US is HUGE with many many sections. The crime rates of one state oftentimes are totally different from the crime rate of another. Even per capita.

I agree, the US is almost like Europe. 

 

Not sure how banning guns would lower gun violence,  if it is for exampled caused by gang wars in a few major cities.  
People in the entire country losing their guns, because a few gangs had a war and the media caught wind of recent statistics. 

 

Does not really make sense, unless you are motivated by different agendas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×