How would you prep for an American revolution? - Page 6 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Fall- An American Revolution Disastersurvivalnet Books, Movies & Stories 0 11-02-2013 09:46 PM
Before the next American Revolution think about this... Herd Sniper Controversial News and Alternative Politics 148 01-20-2013 04:03 PM
The 2nd American Revolution Bizarro Controversial News and Alternative Politics 5 03-27-2009 08:37 AM
The Second American Revolution wengo1776 General Discussion 26 03-19-2009 07:53 PM
The Second American Revolution SJack Controversial News and Alternative Politics 0 12-25-2008 08:14 PM
First day of the 2nd American Revolution danpauselius General Discussion 6 10-03-2008 03:24 PM
The Second American Revolution Angus General Discussion 26 06-06-2008 05:18 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-13-2013, 11:26 PM
Levant's Avatar
Levant Levant is offline
Trump=WhiteObama=BlkBush
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NE Oklahoma
Posts: 10,178
Thanks: 18,027
Thanked 13,883 Times in 5,881 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebone View Post
Your not making any sense here.

We will 'take up arms' 'out' of love of freedom.
But my statement was not about revolution out of love of freedom; it was in response to a statement about revolution out of love of country and the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
You realize that should the Founding Fathers have applied your logic, they would not have been the U.S. at all?
The Founding Fathers did apply my logic.

In response to both of the above, this makes my heart swell every time I read it.

Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Notice that the Founders intended to create new government, not fix the existing government. It is not something to be undertaken lightly.

If you love your country and the Constitution then you cannot revolt; you have to work within the Constitution. Only when that no longer can protect our liberty can anyone justly consider revolution.

The events in Colorado this year prove that we still have complete liberty and the Constitution still stands. If we're feeling oppressed, it is only because of our own complacency while we let our local, county, state, and federal representatives tax and otherwise abuse us.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Levant For This Useful Post:
Old 11-13-2013, 11:44 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,144
Thanks: 1,044
Thanked 3,175 Times in 1,912 Posts
Default

"Notice that the Founders intended to create new government, not fix the existing government. It is not something to be undertaken lightly."

It is all just semantics: "Depends on what the definition of IS is". In fact many Englishmen deny even now, that the Revolution has taken place in America, believe it or not.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to GG42 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-13-2013, 11:58 PM
Levant's Avatar
Levant Levant is offline
Trump=WhiteObama=BlkBush
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NE Oklahoma
Posts: 10,178
Thanks: 18,027
Thanked 13,883 Times in 5,881 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
It is all just semantics: "Depends on what the definition of IS is".
No, it isn't semantics. Semantics is what a philandering president leans on to twist the truth to convince the American people that he's really an angel. This is not a case of what the definition of is is. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are quite clear and easy to read and understand. Only those who are trying to twist the meaning and intent of either need to say it's semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
In fact many Englishmen deny even now, that the Revolution has taken place in America, believe it or not.
Actually, I don't believe it. Unless you're talking about those with common ancestry to the idiots who, in a video in another thread, thought that Martin Luther King was still living. Otherwise, I'd like to see some references on that statement.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2013, 11:58 PM
fidalgoman's Avatar
fidalgoman fidalgoman is offline
Discipulus De Historia
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,054
Thanks: 1,922
Thanked 1,651 Times in 617 Posts
Default

The plot of tyranny, license, and jealous destruction has gone on since our country's birth. It's most dangerous enemies are from those within. Seeing that my life does not span the ages all I see is the decline from just past WW2 (history books) to the present. That's about as far as I trust most history.

If it seems that the attacks are growing more frequent I would say we are on the upward swing of the hockey stick (graph).

I guess you just need to be street smart, yet be who you were meant to be. I don't think we can fight the storm so to speak, but rather prepare for the carnage to come and rebound after that if possible. Be right with God, if you want and expect his help.

Interesting times for sure.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to fidalgoman For This Useful Post:
Old 11-14-2013, 12:31 AM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,144
Thanks: 1,044
Thanked 3,175 Times in 1,912 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levant View Post
No, it isn't semantics. Semantics is what a philandering president leans on to twist the truth to convince the American people that he's really an angel. This is not a case of what the definition of is is. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are quite clear and easy to read and understand. Only those who are trying to twist the meaning and intent of either need to say it's semantics.



Actually, I don't believe it. Unless you're talking about those with common ancestry to the idiots who, in a video in another thread, thought that Martin Luther King was still living. Otherwise, I'd like to see some references on that statement.
No references, just face to face argument with some Englishmen.
Now, imagine that that revolution has failed. You would probably be saying that all those traitors had it coming, and the so called leaders of the rebellions were just a bunch of psychos and moonshiners, fighting against everything which is good and holy. Using quotations from speeches by King George or whoever. The only reason we even call the Revolution "revolution" is because it succeeded. Do we call the Second American Revolution "revolution"? Not a chance! Just the Civil War. I can imagine what our online conversation would have looked like, should the South won. And there would be plenty of "references" to support the accepted point of view.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to GG42 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-14-2013, 01:35 PM
Levant's Avatar
Levant Levant is offline
Trump=WhiteObama=BlkBush
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NE Oklahoma
Posts: 10,178
Thanks: 18,027
Thanked 13,883 Times in 5,881 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
No references, just face to face argument with some Englishmen.
Now, imagine that that revolution has failed. You would probably be saying that all those traitors had it coming, and the so called leaders of the rebellions were just a bunch of psychos and moonshiners, fighting against everything which is good and holy. Using quotations from speeches by King George or whoever
You're mistaken. The idea that anyone who objects to a modern revolution would not have supported the revolution in 1776 is ludicrous. There's not comparison between the two.

You need to reread this document, in its entirety - paying attention to every word.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

When you read the charges listed there against King George, you'll find many of them applicable to government today - with one, single, huge difference: King George had abolished the legislature and had suspended the state legislatures. The colonists had no say or representation in how they were governed.

Once again, let me refer you to the recent events in Colorado to prove that we do still have protection of the Constitution and we still have representation. The solution is not to overthrow government and replace it with something new. The solution is not armed protests, war, riots, or other violence.

The solution is to print out some meeting notices and post them on telephone poles around your neighborhood and get your neighbors into an open discussion of liberty and the Constitution. Get them to work with you to replace your state legislators and county party leaders. When enough people do that, we'll get control.

The problem is, for the most part constitutionally, we're sitting around whining on the Internet while the liberals and progressives are doing exactly what I am telling you we must do.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Levant For This Useful Post:
Old 11-14-2013, 02:10 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,144
Thanks: 1,044
Thanked 3,175 Times in 1,912 Posts
Default

Levant
It does not matter, what the paper says, most people never read it, at the time. And the ONLY reason the revolution was attempted, is because its leaders thought they could get away with it. And the ONLY reason they did, was because of the French. Everything else is a mumbo-jumbo.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-17-2013, 02:12 PM
sgltrk sgltrk is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 342
Thanks: 366
Thanked 408 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levant View Post
Are weapons part of military? Then manufacturing is part of the military. Are policies that affect manufacturing part of the military? Are policies that grant contracts for military weapons systems to campaign donors even when the systems are not wanted part of the military when those unneeded weapons are delivered but basic body armor is not delivered? Is the President the Commander-in-Chief? Then politics are part of the military. Do generals make rules of engagement? Then they're military.

But this is a ridiculous thing to argue. You define it how you wish and I'll define it how I wish.

Even if you just talk about the men - and women - you'll have a hard time providing any evidence that they are the best we have ever fielded. By what measurement are you making that claim. English archers used to pull 200# bows. A modern bowman is pretty tough if he can pull a 75# bow. A Roman soldier yielded an 8# sword in fierce, hours long, hand-to-hand, face-to-face combat. Many modern soldiers fight with joysticks instead of steel.

But these are not the standards by which you can rate a modern soldier. Nor are computer skills the standards by which you can rate a Roman soldier. What soldiers have in common across all ages is that they're flesh and blood and sent to die by military and political leaders - sometimes for good and honorable purposes - us in WWI and WWII - and sometimes they're sent to die for all the wrong purposes - us in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan; the USSR in Afghanistan; soldiers all across the world when sent to war for imperialistic objectives of a greedy leader.

There is nothing in the soldier today that makes him more or less honorable than a soldier a thousand years ago. There's nothing that makes him more or less brave. There's nothing that makes him better or worse by virtue of the age in which he fights. But what we do have today is a fighting force of gang members, criminals and thugs, women, and homosexuals. We have a fighting force that is demoralized, has (justifiably) contempt for their senior officers and political leaders. We have a fighting force that is used as a socio-political breeding ground for policies that government wants to test or incubate before forcing it on the entire nation.

Individually, based on the needs today and not 1000 years ago, they have great potential. Given the opportunity, both current wars would have been over in weeks and would have stayed over.



No, calling them victims is an accurate statement. It has nothing to do with their sacrifice or bravery. Military men have been victimized and used for the personal or political gain of kings, queens, and other aristocracy since the beginning of time. When they are sacrificed for the political or financial gain of their leaders then they are victims.

Many of our military members are in the service because it's a job or a training opportunity. Many joined specifically to "defend" our nation in Iraq or Afghanistan. Having served for 10 years, myself, I can tell you that I joined for the first reason - I joined to learn electronics. I was patriotic before I joined in 1972 and I was patriotic while I served. I was never called upon to face serious danger while I was in but I was prepared to defend my country with my life - as were all of my shipmates and, I am sure, most all of those in the service today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Point is, people volunteer for a lot of reasons, not always out of patriotic desire to fight for their country. That they volunteered has nothing to do with their value, their sacrifice, or their skill. Volunteers and non-volunteers can be patriots and heroes. But when sent to die by leaders that are willing to let them die in order to get a few votes to stay in office, or to support financial interests of campaign donors, then they are victims. When sent to die without any true national defense interest involved, they are victims. Volunteering to defend our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan is noble. It doesn't mean the wars in either country is really defending our freedom. All that is happening is that these wars are being sold as patriotic and many young men and women are being suckered into believing it.




http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5b291326c

300 dollar RPG defeats 60 million dollar AH-64 helicopter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...g_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Afghanistan

Shot down with small arms fire, crashed, or for whatever reason, these lists show just how useless aircraft are in battle against a determined population.

Can you name a single war that we won where there was an AH-64 used in any way at all? If we won wars with AH-64s your argument might be more believable.

As for your flip-down night-vision - that's just proof of what I am saying. Very cool technology. Perhaps useful in battle but completely useless in war. Which is more evidence of my claim that our soldiers are victims. We send them in with very cool technology but without the things they truly need: a reason to be there, a plan to win, and an exit strategy. The enemy, on the other hand, have a clear reason to be there, a passion to win at any cost, and don't give a damn about exiting alive. All of our modern technology and we have yet to win a modern war - Granada excepted.

Technology that doesn't win wars is useless and worthless. Soldiers that are sent into battle with useless technology are victims.




Seriously? Let's make it clear first that you pre separating military policy from the military. I am not. Government policy is military policy when it comes to how or where the military is deployed. You can't separate them. Are generals, chiefs of staff, etc. government or military?

As for the rest, don't make assumptions about which you know nothing. How is it clear that I believe anything about our military venturing outside our own borders? I think they had no business spending 12 years in Iraq and Afghanistan while our borders are wide open. If you can find where I said they should never go outside our borders, please post it.

Again, government policy is military policy when it comes to how the military is deployed. So don't try to inject an artificial separation between the two. And I am dissatisfied with government policy and military policy. Don't try to twist that into any dissatisfaction with members of the military forces. I served for 10 years, starting during the Viet Nam war. I lost a brother after he committed suicide after three tours in Viet Nam. Don't try to tell me how I feel about the service of our vets. You have no idea how I feel about it and there is nothing I have ever said that would support your insinuations.

We have the technological power and we have men who would easily win any war with anyone except, perhaps, China. I have posted a hundred times in a hundred threads that our military men defeated the Taliban in 3 weeks and Iraq just as fast. Our military leaders didn't know how to win so they backed off - or they didn't want to win. Afterall, we need a war to test those new weapons, right? All that great technology that can't be tested unless we're killing a few thousand of our young men and women in the process?

So everything you assumed is completely wrong. Of course you know what they say about assumptions. I love a good debate and difference of opinions. Keep focused on the discussion unless you just don't have the mental fortitude to state and defend your views.
Sorry to have been gone so long. Where to start? Well I'm not going to try to respond to each point because A) I don't have the time B) this has gotten way too long and C) much of the post is repetitive. So, I'm going to try to condense it down to what seems, to me, to be your main arguments and positions.

1) You are unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between a militaries capabilities and effectiveness and the government that wields that military. You then blame the military, not the government, for all failures. I'll try an analogy: The military is a tool just as an axe is a tool. Properly employed that axe can be used to produce a desired result, felling a tree, splitting wood or shaping logs. Improperly employed the desired result will be poorly achieved or not achieved at all and the user may well injure himself in the process. To achieve his goal, and avoid injury, the user must maintain the axe and wield it with skill and proper technique. If the user fails to achieve his goal or injures himself it is not the fault of the axe. It is the fault of the user. In the cases of Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and the 1st Iraq war the civilian wielders of our military failed to properly wield their tool to achieve a complete victory. Our civil authority did not want to achieve a complete victory. For political reasons they chose a goal that fell short of complete victory. The military is not responsible for that choice nor can the military refuse to comply with that choice. To use the analogy, they used the axe to fell the trees and shape the logs for a cabin and then chose not to assembly the cabin. That isn't the axes fault. The axe did its job effectively and efficiently.

2) You judge the usefulness of a weapons system based two things.
A) Did the war it was used in resulted in complete victory. By that standard we should still be using the M1 Garand, BAR, water cooled .30 & .50 cal. machineguns as well as B-17s, P-51s, battleships and battery powered submarines.
B) Does the weapons system has vulnerabilities e.g. a Blackhawk being downed by an RPG. Is so, it is useless. All weapons systems have vulnerabilities. No weapons system is perfect because they are designed and built by people. This position is ridiculous on its face. By that standard the M1 Garand is useless because it makes a loud pining sound after the last round is fired alerting the enemy that you are empty and reloading. Any and all of the aircraft can be brought down by a single well placed pistol bullet if the shooter was lucky enough to make the perfect shot. That doesn't prove aircraft are useless as weapons of war. You take discrete facts and apply them incorrectly to draw unsupportable conclusions.

3) You maintain our military is not highly capable and the best in the world because A) it is composed of people you feel are of questionable morality and B) they are not, in your opinion, the equal of English archers of the 14th & 15th centuries or Roman legionaries.

First, I did not state that the US Military is the best in all of history. I said it "is", present tense, the best in the world. I don't see how your reference to English archers and Roman legionaries is relevant to the conversation. Second, many of the worlds most affective military forces have been comprised of criminals, deviates, mental defectives and the ignorant. Look at the British army/navy of the 18th & 19th centuries. If a soldier is affective as a soldier his/her background is irrelevant.

4) Lastly you insist that members of our ground, air and naval forces are victims. You seem to feel that if they die in a war that is not, in your opinion morally righteous and/or justifiable, by your definition, they are victims. They are not victims.

A victim is defined as;
vic·tim noun \ˈvik-təm\

: a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else

: a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else

: someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)

People who choose to enlist in the military are none of those definitions above. They made a free choice. They may, after the fact, decide their choice was a bad one but it was still a free choice, they were not coerced or forced into making that choice. You sight yourself as an example of someone who enlisted in order to get training. Did you not realize that joining a military force may mean you could be sent in harms way? You say some, maybe many, join just to get a job. So what? People's decisions are always influenced by their circumstances. As long as they are not coerced/forced into that decision they are not victims. I also enlisted, and there was a draft in my day, and I went in harms way. Maybe the draftees could be seen as victims but I was not and everyone who I served with were enlistees and therefor not victims although some of them died or were maimed.

You seem to be one of those people who believe nothing is the responsibility of the individual but always someone/something else's fault. I reject that philosophy. I believe in personal responsibility. When we make a free choice we, as individuals, are responsible for the results of those choices regardless of whether that choice is to consume/sell drugs, get married, rape& kill, take job A or B or enlist in the military.

I don't think this will in anyway sway you in your beliefs but, it may give someone else reading this food for thought. In any event this has gone way off topic and I'm done with this particular discussion. I also want to apologize to the OP for wandering so far astray.

Have a good life. :-)

SGLTRK
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sgltrk For This Useful Post:
Old 11-17-2013, 07:22 PM
manisonenmi's Avatar
manisonenmi manisonenmi is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 4,739
Thanks: 9,500
Thanked 4,755 Times in 2,192 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnycornbread View Post
Take a look at this article and leave a few comments on how you would prep for a americn revoultion,

https://bca1776.wordpress.com/2013/1...times-and-you/
american revolution? you are 238 years behind the 8 ball
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-17-2013, 07:28 PM
kris704th's Avatar
kris704th kris704th is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,522
Thanks: 724
Thanked 2,038 Times in 792 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonaMomma View Post
I'd buy a Gadsden Flag.
You need this one too USRevolution2



http://www.usrevolution2.com/News/ta...4/Default.aspx
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-17-2013, 07:46 PM
ChapNelson ChapNelson is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,832
Thanks: 4,157
Thanked 5,492 Times in 1,743 Posts
Default

We are not as a people equally oppressed by a government, as our founders were. And even then, only 3% of the population took action on their own behalf.

Seems the author's intention was to assert that the upper class (you know the religious ones with good paying jobs) would be the neo-loyalists, and that's where it all falls apart. The government has alienated the religious of all economic class, and non-religious upper mid/lower upper class. It has the support of the very upper class, and the have-not class (including the highly educated and deeply-indebted), as well as a broad swath of unionized middle to upper class.

This is not the context of a revolution, but of a civil war in the style of Iraq. They got us right where they want us.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-17-2013, 11:25 PM
Levant's Avatar
Levant Levant is offline
Trump=WhiteObama=BlkBush
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NE Oklahoma
Posts: 10,178
Thanks: 18,027
Thanked 13,883 Times in 5,881 Posts
Default

Quote:
1) You are unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between a militaries capabilities and effectiveness and the government that wields that military. You then blame the military, not the government, for all failures.
I'm not going to try to argue against all that you said even though it is almost all wrong. But I will defend against the statement above. Where did I ever blame the military for anything - your definition of military? As long as you're responding to things that weren't said then your responses are of no value.

Oh, one other thing. What you said was,

Quote:
Weapons do cross lines but not in the quantity of weapons/ammo to be effective. Don't forget it is not just weapons but training and tactics that matter. Our current military is the best we have ever fielded, the best in the world.
Read more at https://www.survivalistboards.com/sho...HwxcS74v3zg.99
You said they were the best we have ever fielded. Are they better than those who fought at Iwo Jima? Better than those who hit Normandy? Better than those at Lexington and Concord? By what measure are they the best? By what measure are they the best in the world? Yes, we love them more than any in the world because they're ours but you're making emotionally-based blind statements that you can't support.

That is why there are approaching 10,000 dead Americans between Iraq and Afghanistan - because people are afraid to speak the truth because people like you will attack them as hating the military.

We've created an environment where everyone that speaks out against the senseless killing of thousands and the maiming and crippling of a hundred thousand more - and that's just the American losses - is accused of not supporting the troops. Everyone is a hero, just for following orders and/or showing up at work. If anyone mentions that the emperor is naked then they hate the military and attacked vets returning from Viet Nam.

I am a veteran. I am not a hero. I went to work every day and did my job. If I was a hero, then what would we call the guy who falls on a grenade to save his squad? An extra-special hero?

I care about our military men and women apparently more than do you. I care enough to speak the truth about the wars and what is being done to them - by their own military and civilian leadership - going with your own definition. They are being victimized. Terrible things are being done to them. You continue to just talk about supporting the troops - a euphemism for don't speak out against the war, death, and maiming of our troops - and I keep saying that supporting the troops is more than waving the flag; it is getting people to see how senseless are the death and destruction they are enduring.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
america, guns, politics, prepping, survival, terrorist, war



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net