Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    37,830
    Quote Originally Posted by tyke1doe View Post
    Is this a serious question?
    I know what you mean. I just think Bridge wants to pound home his 'choice validation' theory. He has a point, to an extent, but it doesn't tread water with the analogy of a child drowning comparable to a child with a gun shooting another. At least not for me.
    Gang Way!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    17,541
    With all due respect RA, there are a lot more accidental drownings and accidental house fires that kill children than accidental shootings. By a large margin.

    No threads are ever created to discuss parents who have an in-ground pool put in and their kid wanders into it and drowns.

    Leaving a kid unattended who can't swim with a pool in the backyard is just as irresponsible as leaving a kid unattended and an unsecured gun in the home.

    Either object can cause death. Both objects are known to cause deaths.

    When you shift it to the lake/river/ocean drowning scenario, you are dodging the issue. You are sidestepping the point I was trying to make- that accidents happen and parents do PLENTY of things that endanger their children.

    Some of them leave the cleaning supplies drawer accessible. Some of them leave a knife on the counter. Some of them let their kid wander out onto a 2nd-floor balcony because they don't lock the door.

    People do irresponsible crap all the time, but only one type of "accidental death" gets threads started around here and gets attention on MSNBC/CNN/etc and it just so happens to be gun deaths. It's arbitrary (because far more drowning/fire deaths happen than gun deaths) and it's agenda-driven because anytime there's a "Child is shot in home" thread, it's a liberal starting it.

    Maybe some of us accept that accidents happen and I'm pretty sure that no one wants their kid to shoot themselves with the parent's gun.

    But no one wants their kid to swallow a bunch of their parents' sleeping pills, or the Clorox in the cabinet, or to stab their brother with the knife that was on the counter either.

    People are getting caught up with the OBJECT or the METHOD and think that "gun control" would save more lives than say, requiring an automatic pool cover for backyard pools.

    If people want the government to get involved in forcing people to behave responsibly (however relative that may be), they could save a lot more lives if they would stop being so arbitrary and perking their ears up when someone blows the dog whistle by saying "GUN."
    “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” -Gandhi

    Rational skepticism is not the same thing as being a conspiracy theorist.

    Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream. -Muggeridge

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    I don't think I can add anything to what Walsh said above.
    Μολὼν λαβέ
    Η ζωή ενός σκλάβου είναι όλοι καταλαβαίνετε, δεν ξέρεις τίποτα από την ελευθερία. Γιατί αν το κάνατε, θα μας ενθάρρυνε να πολεμήσουν, όχι μόνο με το δόρυ μας, αλλά και με ό, τι έχουμε.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Barbecue Heaven
    Posts
    21,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Rear Admiral View Post
    I already did.
    Actually, no, you didn't.

    So again, show me where I said people should be precluded from owning guns, for whatever reason. You got all outraged when you apparently thought I said it, so it must be easy enough to quote the line that got your knickers in a knot.

    C'mon. You can do it. Or can you?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Barbecue Heaven
    Posts
    21,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Rear Admiral View Post
    A case? Everybody should be precluded from owning a gun because of THIS ONE CASE? I'm on record around here for stricter gun control (which I think should be called gun access) laws and enforcement - but you make the actual argument that the VICTIM here should have had a gun of his own.

    You're not always the wettest drop in the bucket, Ice - but in this thread you've been a CUBE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ice-9 View Post
    1. Bridge asked me a specific question about the likelihood of his shooting non-criminals. I offered an example of how that could happen. Nothing more.

    2. Nobody in this thread, least of all me, has suggested that all people should be precluded from owning a gun. You're raving against a point that nobody here has made.

    3. Take your meds. You'll feel better.
    Quote Originally Posted by tyke1doe View Post
    Where did Ice say everyone should be precluded from owning a gun because ...?
    I even bolded it for you. C'mon. You can do it.
    Last edited by Ice-9; 08-10-2014 at 04:23 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    37,830
    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    With all due respect RA, there are a lot more accidental drownings and accidental house fires that kill children than accidental shootings. By a large margin.
    I don't see what that has to do with anything. Water and fire have been with us since before we emerged as homo-erectus. It's everywhere around us and often uncontrollable. Starting a grease fire that gets out of hand and not knowing how to retard it or having a proper fire extinguisher at the ready is perhaps negligent, but it is FAR DIFFERENT than purchasing a gun and leaving it around a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    No threads are ever created to discuss parents who have an in-ground pool put in and their kid wanders into it and drowns.
    You keep pounding that point - but KFFL is not a good sample for that conclusion overall. No threads? Ever? Anywhere? We know that KFFL has people who fall on different sides of the spectrum with respect to their views on things. Some have 'agendas' on certain subjects. That's not really relevant in the comparison of drowning to gun accidents.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post

    Leaving a kid unattended who can't swim with a pool in the backyard is just as irresponsible as leaving a kid unattended and an unsecured gun in the home.
    I won't argue that point - but to substantiate yours you need to break down the statistics on drowning deaths and show us how many fit that criterion. We know that EVERY CASE of a gun around a child involves negligence. We don't know that about either accidental drownings or accidental fires.


    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    Either object can cause death. Both objects are known to cause deaths.
    That's obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    When you shift it to the lake/river/ocean drowning scenario, you are dodging the issue. You are sidestepping the point I was trying to make- that accidents happen and parents do PLENTY of things that endanger their children.
    No I'm not - the size of the area of this lake was no larger than a large pool. My parents were right there. The point is there are INHERENT DANGERS in ANYBODY getting into a swimming situation ANYWHERE. There should NEVER be an inherent danger with a gun around a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    Some of them leave the cleaning supplies drawer accessible. Some of them leave a knife on the counter. Some of them let their kid wander out onto a 2nd-floor balcony because they don't lock the door.
    Giminy Christmas, Walsh - you can choke on your tooth brush or drown in your spit. Not having saftey clasps near potentially lethal cleaning products is negligent, yes. The result could be the same. It's a level of negligence, however, surpassed by leaving a gun around a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    People do irresponsible crap all the time, but only one type of "accidental death" gets threads started around here and gets attention on MSNBC/CNN/etc and it just so happens to be gun deaths. It's arbitrary (because far more drowning/fire deaths happen than gun deaths) and it's agenda-driven because anytime there's a "Child is shot in home" thread, it's a liberal starting it.

    Maybe some of us accept that accidents happen and I'm pretty sure that no one wants their kid to shoot themselves with the parent's gun.

    But no one wants their kid to swallow a bunch of their parents' sleeping pills, or the Clorox in the cabinet, or to stab their brother with the knife that was on the counter either.

    People are getting caught up with the OBJECT or the METHOD and think that "gun control" would save more lives than say, requiring an automatic pool cover for backyard pools.

    If people want the government to get involved in forcing people to behave responsibly (however relative that may be), they could save a lot more lives if they would stop being so arbitrary and perking their ears up when someone blows the dog whistle by saying "GUN."
    So that is your 'agenda' right there. You would rather argue about 'having to argue the issue here on KFFL' than fixing these problems ONE BY ONE. Do pools need better technology to prevent drownings, I'm for it. Do homes needed better technology to prevent fires, I'm all for it. Do guns need both better technology and stricter safety rules to prevent guns falling into the hands of children which leads to a death - you bet.

    You want to argue that it's the result that matters, it seems. But so do I. The result is a death of a child (or another) at the hands of a gun falling into the hands of a child. Let's fix it. The result is a death of a child being left unattended at a pool. Let's fix it. Fires. Let's fix it. The objective is the safety of the child in the midst of either immature, inexperienced, or plain irresponsible parents. Let's fix it.

    It's like with cars - we cannot prevent all traffic fatalaties or even DWI's, but we certainly must try to improve the technology and the rules to try. Same thing with guns.

    Normally we agree on many issues, Walshie. On this one we differ, that's all. I believe the objective: saving the lives of children and preventing tragedies with what should be a very heavy responsibility, over-rides a laissez-faire approach to gun safety.
    Last edited by Rear Admiral; 08-10-2014 at 04:10 AM.
    Gang Way!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    37,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Ice-9 View Post
    Hell, you might shoot some random stranger because you have a gun.

    There was a case in the news a few weeks ago where some Tennessee guy pulled into a rest stop in Kentucky, where there was some drunk guy sitting on a bench. The guy on the bench apparently decided that this random dude was looking at him funny, approached the car window, and shot and killed the driver before turning the gun on himself.

    My point is that humans are messy. We get drunk. We get depressed and angry when laid off from work. We get angry at spouses who we believe are having an affair. We make bad decisions, like leaving guns unsecured, if even for a tiny period of time. And given all that messiness of the human condition, the odds of killing a bad guy with your gun are far less than killing somebody else, including those you love.

    But that's just my take.
    Once again, IceFoot - I believe it's rather EASILY INFERRED RIGHT HERE. Especially in your FIRST TWO LINES which you then go on to lament all the foibles of mankind in the light of guns.

    I'm just saying you made the case for the OTHER GUY to have the gun, and you got all bent by how your own verbiage comes off to me.

    If you get so easily misconstrued maybe you should quit trying to be the world's biggest smart ass and learn to write better, like in your original thread title.

    I do like some of your zingers. That's why I razz you - that's when the better ones come out.
    Last edited by Rear Admiral; 08-10-2014 at 05:23 AM.
    Gang Way!

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    17,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Rear Admiral View Post
    I don't see what that has to do with anything. Water and fire have been with us since before we emerged as homo-erectus. It's everywhere around us and often uncontrollable. Starting a grease fire that gets out of hand and not knowing how to retard it or having a proper fire extinguisher at the ready is perhaps negligent, but it is FAR DIFFERENT than purchasing a gun and leaving it around a child.
    I'm not arguing that parents shouldn't lock up their guns or put them in places their kids can't get to, and leave them unloaded.

    You keep pounding that point - but KFFL is not a good sample for that conclusion overall. No threads? Ever? Anywhere? We know that KFFL has people who fall on different sides of the spectrum with respect to their views on things. Some have 'agendas' on certain subjects. That's not really relevant in the comparison of drowning to gun accidents.
    Fair point. But we're posting on KFFL. :)

    I won't argue that point - but to substantiate yours you need to break down the statistics on drowning deaths and show us how many fit that criterion. We know that EVERY CASE of a gun around a child involves negligence. We don't know that about either accidental drownings or accidental fires.
    Breed posted some stats earlier. About 700 kids age 1-14 drown per year, and among kids age 1-4, the main source of drowning is a backyard swimming pool. It's on the CDC website (for what that's worth). But here's some more-

    The CDC reports that for 2010 (the latest year available), one single six-year old died from a gunshot. For all children younger than 10, there were 36 accidental gun deaths, and that is out of 41 million children. Perhaps most important, about two-thirds of these accidental gun deaths involving young children are not shots fired by other little kids but rather by adult males with criminal backgrounds. In other words, unless you send your child to play at a criminal’s home, she is exceedingly unlikely to get shot.

    Indeed, if you are going to worry about your child’s safety you should check into other, perhaps less obvious dangers lurking in the playmate’s house: swimming pools, bathtubs, water buckets, bicycles, and chemicals and medications that can cause fatal poisoning. Drownings alone claimed 609 deaths; fires, 262 lives; poisonings, 54 lives. And don’t forget to ask about the playmate’s parents’ car and their driving records if your child will ride with them: After all, motor-vehicle accidents killed 923 children younger than 10.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ar-and-reality

    It can be tracked down to a skeptic's satisfaction. There are far more drowning deaths in backyard pools than accidental gun deaths among children and I don't think it's that difficult to dig up.

    No I'm not - the size of the area of this lake was no larger than a large pool. My parents were right there. The point is there are INHERENT DANGERS in ANYBODY getting into a swimming situation ANYWHERE. There should NEVER be an inherent danger with a gun around a child.
    If the gun is not loaded, if the gun is trigger locked, if the gun is put in a place the kids can't reach, if the gun is put in a safe, is it an inherent danger?

    Giminy Christmas, Walsh - you can choke on your tooth brush or drown in your spit. Not having saftey clasps near potentially lethal cleaning products is negligent, yes. The result could be the same. It's a level of negligence, however, surpassed by leaving a gun around a child.
    I disagree. If you leave a gun around a child who's been shown how to use it properly, you can feel relatively safe. See American history for examples of kids learning to shoot in school and not having accidents in the home. Toddlers? I can understand that angle, but you can't force every parent to be responsible, nor is it the job of society to MAKE a parent behave contrary to their free will, no matter how much we might not like it or disagree with it. It's THEIR kid, not YOUR kid. That kid accidentally shoots himself, it's THE PARENTS that lose their child, that feel that guilt and shame, that have to live with it forever. You can turn the page in your newspaper or change the channel.

    So that is your 'agenda' right there. You would rather argue about 'having to argue the issue here on KFFL' than fixing these problems ONE BY ONE. Do pools need better technology to prevent drownings, I'm for it. Do homes needed better technology to prevent fires, I'm all for it. Do guns need both better technology and stricter safety rules to prevent guns falling into the hands of children which leads to a death - you bet.
    If there existed a natural demand for such precautionary measures, rest assured they would be offered by businesses on every infomercial you could find. But the demand does not exist because people want to be able to jump right in the pool, people want to live in a house free of sprinklers and fire alarms, and people want to be able to get to their gun easily.

    Your only hope is to appeal to government to coerce people into behaving a certain way, a way that YOU see as optimal or proper, and I'm not a fan of someone being able to appeal the government to force another person to behave according to person A's desires. Are they committing a crime by owning a gun, having a pool, living in a house? Or are they just behaving irresponsibly? You cannot legislate the human heart, and you cannot coerce people into behaving according to YOUR standard in a free country. If you do, they aren't free and we don't live in a free country. So these are the costs of freedom, the costs of allowing people some volition to their lives without being battered about between coercion and punishments.

    You want to argue that it's the result that matters, it seems. But so do I. The result is a death of a child (or another) at the hands of a gun falling into the hands of a child. Let's fix it. The result is a death of a child being left unattended at a pool. Let's fix it. Fires. Let's fix it. The objective is the safety of the child in the midst of either immature, inexperienced, or plain irresponsible parents. Let's fix it.
    You can't fix it. You restrict guns in any way, you restrict the freedom of an individual to live his life as he sees fit. He's not breaking a law today. You make more laws, maybe he breaks them 10 years from now after "leaving a gun around a 3-year old" is a crime punishable by years in jail. Then the kid grows up without a dad for a while, then the dad was unable to exercise his own volition and free will, he was unable to raise his kid and live in his home as he chose. What have you accomplished?

    This is why it's on us all to accept that people are going to be irresponsible. They are going to make bad choices. They are going to be crappy parents. They are going to be negligent. It's bound to happen- we are human. And if we coerce everyone to act a certain way, and punish them if they don't act a certain way, then how much free volition do they have left? How free is the country? They get to pick a blue or purple shirt to go to work? Whoopity doo.

    Seeking laws or looking to government to solve these problems is an absolutely horrible idea, and all these laws restrict people, they are not fit for a free country and do not promote liberty.

    What you may want to do is get involved with making social changes, not push the government to make legal changes. Come up with a better trigger lock. Come up with a pool cover which is cheap and retracts quickly. These are ways to change things for the better without robbing individuals of their RIGHT to be stupid, act stupid, and screw up. Because if they are coerced into it, or punished for not doing it, they aren't free to choose how to live their life, how to raise their kids, how to be.

    It's like with cars - we cannot prevent all traffic fatalaties or even DWI's, but we certainly must try to improve the technology and the rules to try. Same thing with guns.

    Normally we agree on many issues, Walshie. On this one we differ, that's all. I believe the objective: saving the lives of children and preventing tragedies with what should be a very heavy responsibility, over-rides a laissez-faire approach to gun safety.
    And I believe that you can't legislate stupidity and irresponsibility out of existence. I can think of quite a few places you should start before you even think about preventing 12 deaths per year.

    Start with the 1.21 million babies who don't get to take their first breath before they are chemically poisoned, impaled, ripped apart, and sucked into a vacuum cleaner and dropped into a trash can.
    “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” -Gandhi

    Rational skepticism is not the same thing as being a conspiracy theorist.

    Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream. -Muggeridge

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    37,830
    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    If the gun is not loaded, if the gun is trigger locked, if the gun is put in a place the kids can't reach, if the gun is put in a safe, is it an inherent danger?
    But there is no law requiring that. So when that it is not required it creates an inherent danger when 'simple common sense' is not adhered to. And we have no lack of common sense in this world/country.


    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    I disagree. If you leave a gun around a child who's been shown how to use it properly, you can feel relatively safe. See American history for examples of kids learning to shoot in school and not having accidents in the home. Toddlers? I can understand that angle, but you can't force every parent to be responsible, nor is it the job of society to MAKE a parent behave contrary to their free will, no matter how much we might not like it or disagree with it. It's THEIR kid, not YOUR kid. That kid accidentally shoots himself, it's THE PARENTS that lose their child, that feel that guilt and shame, that have to live with it forever. You can turn the page in your newspaper or change the channel.
    No, it's not THEIR KID. It's a child/life they brought into the world thru their own choosing and thru no choosing of the child - for whom they are responsible till the age of 18 (I really feel a parent has a responsibility to be a good parent to a child until the parent dies, but obviously the role changes as they mature). The child's life who was lost must not be dismissed as an 'accident' because of the parent's negligence. You seem to fall perilously close the category who look at their kids as possessions, which they are not.



    Quote Originally Posted by ThankGod4Walsh View Post
    You can't fix it. You restrict guns in any way, you restrict the freedom of an individual to live his life as he sees fit. He's not breaking a law today. You make more laws, maybe he breaks them 10 years from now after "leaving a gun around a 3-year old" is a crime punishable by years in jail. Then the kid grows up without a dad for a while, then the dad was unable to exercise his own volition and free will, he was unable to raise his kid and live in his home as he chose. What have you accomplished?
    You have accomplished a measure of justice for the kid whose life was negligently taken by the person who is supposed to protect him the most - his 'parent'. You have prevented this 'parent' from letting the same thing happen with 'his' other kid. You have let it be known to ALL GUN OWNERS that this irresponsible behavior will not be tolerated.

    I think it's akin to leaving your son or daughter in a hot car. If some of those people (and some do) went to jail for doing that - maybe others would be a bit more 'conscientous'. Everybody I know, most who have grown kids, all agree this 'leaving kids in the hot car thing' is something none of us can fathom. Of course, there but for the Grace of God go we, but we also never did it.

    You seem to want to throw your hands up in the air and call it freedom, but freedom isn't free. Everything has a cost - and in the case of 'loose guns' it can be the cost of a child's life. I'm not willing to pay that cost without at least attempting to enforce some kind of general rules about guns around children. We do it with cars, but you skipped that point.

    Every life is precious in the eyes of God, Walsh, not just 'my kid'. And societally, I believe we DO have an obligation to at least attempt to protect kids from irresponsible, or otherwise negligent or even evil parents. We do it with many other things, such as not properly feeding them and seeing to their well-being, things like car seats, we have building codes, driver's licenses, etc... BUT GUNS!! Heavens No!! You're squelching my 'freedom' there. Kids are a huge responsibility. So are guns. Responsibilities come with obligations and when they are not met there are 'costs' to the 'freedom' to have them.
    Last edited by Rear Admiral; 08-10-2014 at 05:25 AM.
    Gang Way!

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    37,830
    Here is an example of a case that helps with my point: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...buse-case.html

    Now, this couple looks like a motley duo - and the guy was convicted of sexually abusing another child. I don't know how bad the entirety of this abuse was - the article doesn't really say. But we have negligent parents who thought the way to discipline and protect their child from himself (I guess). The parents are obviously not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier - but, well I don't want to make the point that if they threw a gun in there with him and he shot himself with it then dragged him out before the cops came they'd get NOTHING for it (the cops would probably detect that) - but this woman gets 22 years for it.

    I don't know if that sentence is fair or not. I've seen people cop to murder and get less. I don't cotton to abusing children. But if you leave a gun around... oopsie-daisy!. Your poor guilt and shame (when I think there are PLENTY of people who haven't a CLUE about either concept.

    Oh, Cripes, I robbed a bank. Nobody was hurt and I feel guilt and shame. You get 25. We protect our money better than we protect our kids - that's what's shameful.
    Gang Way!

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    38,511
    When you make new rules they can also bring complacency which can result in accidents as well. Traffic laws are good examples being demonstrated with some recent experiments.
    "There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything."

    - Richard Von Weizsaecker

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    37,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellowknifer View Post
    When you make new rules they can also bring complacency which can result in accidents as well. Traffic laws are good examples being demonstrated with some recent experiments.
    I'd need some kind of example to understand that. My suggestion is a rule that states something like if a child gets a hold of a gun and shoots/kills/even injures somebody with it, the parent/owner of the gun is held accountable for the death in some kind of negligent/criminal way. The death doesn't just get dismissed as an oopsy-daisy/accident! That's the HEIGHT of complacency right there.

    Many other things carry such sanction, and guns are the most lethal of them all but they don't. And no I'm not comparing statistics on gun/fire/drowning deaths. Guns are designed to be lethal. If the 'accident' rate is 'so low' what's the big deal about having a sanction for a child getting hold of a gun? What's the drawback - except for Walsh's lament of government restricting freedoms. I don't think we should have the freedom to be complacent with guns around children - or, really, anybody else. You buy a gun, you're responsible for what comes out of the muzzle of it.
    Last edited by Rear Admiral; 08-10-2014 at 02:20 PM.
    Gang Way!

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Barbecue Heaven
    Posts
    21,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Rear Admiral View Post
    Once again, IceFoot - I believe it's rather EASILY INFERRED RIGHT HERE. Especially in your FIRST TWO LINES which you then go on to lament all the foibles of mankind in the light of guns.
    Yes, I'm sure those first two lines can easily be misconstrued to mean "all people should be banned from owning guns." Especially when you own one of those special presenile dementia decoder rings, which can take what people actually say and retranslate it into what you think they really meant. No wonder it spurred you to launch an insult-filled rant against me for a point that only your squishy brain made. My bad.

    Like I said, no point arguing with loons.

    Keep on keepin' on, RA. You of all people know I have a special place in my heart for "azzhats" who can't admit that they've "flubbed it."
    Last edited by Ice-9; 08-11-2014 at 03:35 PM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.