Advertisement

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

TV3 @ 20.30 Irelands Gun Crime Crisis

2»

Comments

  • #32
    stick shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 571 ✭✭✭stick shooter


    Ezridax wrote: »
    They believe they do/can until some tragedy occurs, and they seek to lash out at guns irrespective of their ownership status, legality, etc.

    So who suffers? The legitimate gun owners because we are known, can be easily affected, and results of actions levied at us are almost immediate.

    I agree that on a whole the programme kept pretty much to the topic, but when they introduced the legal firearms issue we should be putting on the best face/show we can. We did not get that. Irrespective of editing, pieces cut out, etc what we saw was once again not reflective of our position as legal gun owners.

    In my opinion Des Crofton and Paul Walsh done quiet a good job of representing the shooting community , Who would you prefered spoke for the shooting community ???(ie. spoke and represented us better )


  • #33
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    The programme is now up on TV3.ie here; our section starts at 34:00.
    stick shooter wrote: »
    In my opinion Des Crofton and Paul Walsh done quiet a good job of representing the shooting community , Who would you prefered spoke for the shooting community ???(ie. spoke and represented us better )
    The question is not who speaks, it's what they say. We need accurate details, presented clearly (and if Paul Walsh has a new, top-of-the-line .22 match rifle for €1500, buy ten of them; they usually go for the guts of €5000. And there were dozens of errors from both of them, I'm just choosing one at random there).

    We need to push the image of target shooters and hunters as sportsmen in the minds of the public; not tie us to mass shootings in Norway. We need to critique the licencing system clearly, impersonally, factually, accurately and even-temperedly, not just get digs into the AGS or DoJ at any and every opportunity.

    And frankly, I'm in two minds as to whether or not we should even be in programmes like that at all, where we haven't a shred of editorial control and the talking heads in the studio can then crap all over whatever you say without challange or correction.


  • #34
    stick shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 571 ✭✭✭stick shooter


    Thanks for your opinion sparks . But my question was to EZRIDAX was simply who could have ie: spoke and represented us better ???(in his opinion)


  • #35
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,876 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    stick shooter wrote: »
    ............... who could have ie: spoke and represented us better ???(in his opinion)
    Apologies for the delay. Internet has been down since just before midnight.


    Without purposely repeating what Sparks said my issue is not with who is speaking, but rather what is being spoken off. As per my first post in this thread.
    • There was an opportunity to mention the FCA1, but it was not said. However a dealers letter/notebook was shown.
    • Even if they "cut out" the FCA1 (if one was shown) then a mention of it at one or two other times during the interview would have given people an idea that we have to fill in applications. For example when the question was posed "If i wanted to get a gun whats the first thing/step i must do?". An answer i would have liked to hear wold have been "After you have chossen the type of firearm you want you need to make an application to An Gardai using an FCA1." This forces the interviewer to follow up as to what this FCA1 is or risk leaving a "gap" in the interview. As it stands i think people believe we need only meet the Super, have a chat, then we're "good to go".
    • The issue of waiting between 3-8/11 weeks for a license. Stick to the official timeframe, and say 3 months. Say due to the background checks, contacting referees, home inspection for security, etc the process is not a fast one. Its not exaggerating nor is it saying we get them "over night".
    • The subtle digs at the DoJ/Gardai. Accomplishes nothing except to further irritate them, and for no reason other than to say it. The DoJ/An Gardai will only suffer the "digs" for so long. We need to realise that while we should speak up for ourselves we rely on these bodies to give us the authorisation to have our firearms, and pissing them off is not the way forward.
    We get so few chances to show who we truely are, and this programme was a chance to further distance ourselves from the criminal element that the show was focusing on, and in my opinion it was not capitalised on.

    Now from the tone of both your first, and second post you seem to not only disagree with my opinon, but appear to know either Des Crofton or Paul Walsh personally, and you consider my "negative" opinon to be an attack on them personally.

    Well allow me to clarify this before it gets a life of its own. I DO NOT know either man personally and AFAIK have never either man. I also said that whether it was an editing issue, their responses or a combination of both i felt it could have gone better.

    If you do not agree with my asessment then you are free to point out why i'm mistaken and list the points in the programme where they made good and valid reasons that show legitimate shooting/shooters in a positive light. However if you are trying to provoke an argument from me out of some sort of "loyalty" to either/both men then please don't bother. I have kept my posts civilised, and to the point. So i would appreciate the same from yourself.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #36
    meathshooter1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭meathshooter1


    its a pity the media don't highlight some off the great achievements that Irish shooters have made over the years.the public need to know that they have noting to fear from legally held firearms,they are not the problem,the program showed the drug trade is responsible in fueling this. and the illegal actions of SCUM are no way Representative of legally held firearms owners.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,426 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    The old press adage,"It bleeds it leads!" applies here.Massacres wether with criminally aquired firearms or betterfor the story, legally held ones ,or gang related shootings will always sell more paper space or airtime than a good side of shooting..:(:(

    When Irish shooters came back from the last batch of medal harvesting in which there were a few golds a good selection of silvers and ever so many bronzes.Did we hear a word in the TV about this???? Sure we got some press time in the sports section,somwhere in the middle to back pages.
    But had it been in the over 75s tiddley winks or senior ladies pole dancing events ,it would have been all over the front pages!

    It seems to be that we are some sort of prirah group in the eyes of the Irish media.Somthing to report on in gory detail if saomthing fuks up,but to be ignored if they are suceeding,or knocked as quickly as possible if they are.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #38
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    And the only way around that Grizzly, is to keep plugging away at it, to keep presenting our case accurately and clearly, via the sports pages and anywhere else we can be reasonably sure we won't be edited into an outtake from a rambo movie.

    Like I said above, and like I've been saying since 2004 on here and for a few years before that in NGB committee meetings -
    Sparks wrote: »
    At the moment in this country, anyone who gets described as a shooter is thought of by the public in one of five ways : terrorist, armed criminal, army/ERU, hunter or nutter. I've been breaking my back trying to add a sixth category, that of olympic sportsman (yes, I know there are non-olympic disciplines, but the key here is simplicity of message and putting your best foot forward so I focus on the olympic side of things).
    Sparks wrote: »
    Look, right now you pick Joe Bloggs on grafton st. and ask him what's his first thought when you ask him to think of shooting. It'll be one of the following five: IRA/UDF, Armed Robber, Army/ERU, Hunter, Nutter.
    The job I've been trying to do (but which Derek Burnett's performance did more for than anything I've done) was to add a sixth category - sportsperson. Now you can't do that if you don't give not only the reality of being Safe and Harmless, but also the appearance thereof.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Simple facts are that the majority in Ireland don't understand firearms. They've got five images in their head when you mention shooting:
    1. Terrorism (IRA/UDF/whomever)
    2. Army/ERU
    3. Armed criminals
    4. Hunting (not as in custodian of nature, but as in bastard who shot bambi's mother)
    5. Nutter (as in Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur, etc)
    That's the reality we have to deal with. And we can't eradicate those images, so what we have to do first is get a new image in place; that of Sportsperson (Safe and Harmless).
    Sparks wrote: »
    The problem we're running into at all levels in this sport, from recruiting new members, to working with the Gardai and DoJ, to soliciting commercial sponsorship, is that in Ireland, there is a long and established public image of guns being used by:
    1. The IRA (or other terrorist group)
    2. Armed criminals
    3. The Army or armed Gardai
    4. Hunters (as in the miscreant who shot Bambi's mother, not the positive image we'd have of hunters)
    5. "Nutters" - meaning anyone who ever used a firearm in an incident like Dunblane, Hungerford, Columbine, Port Arthur or "lesser" (and I use that word under protest) incidents like Abbeylara or the more recent Nally case.

    Those are very negative images and our priority, for the community as a whole, regardless of any and all splits - and hell, if even Declan Keogh and I can agree on this principle, it must be universal - must to create and promote a more positive public image of the shooting sports if we ever want to see things get any better.

    None of those statements, even though they go back a few years, are any less accurate or true today. We still face the same problems, last night's programme was proof of that, as are the recent court cases and all the fun and games we've had with the PTB in the last few years.

    We still need to push the image of target shooters and hunters as sportsmen in the minds of the public. That's more important than getting in petty personal digs at DoJ or AGS personnel or the Minister. It's more important than splits in the administration, it's more important than one insurance provider having a public dig at their main competitor, it's more important than almost anything in the long term.

    Succeed at it, and we'll be a known quantity, afforded funding and recognition and legislation that doesn't crucify us. Fail at it, and... well, basicly, we'll be where we are now, with none of that. This is the kind of situation you cannot fix through the District, Circuit, High or Supreme courts - this is one that has to be won in the court of public opinion. And that's not a court that takes well to people getting shouty or shirty.


  • #39
    Suffering Jbox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭Suffering Jbox


    Very disappointed in Des Crofton. In effect, he is implying that the guards are responsible for killings with licensed firearms because they don't visit every gun club twice a year.

    No sign of him showing some real leadership on the issue. How about NARGC doing all that they can at club level to ensure any suspect behaviour that could lead to these tragedies will be notified to the guards.

    No, it's the guards' fault every time. And he's not going to sit down with "these people".


  • #40
    stick shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 571 ✭✭✭stick shooter


    WE get so few chances to show who we truely are

    When you say WE , Who are you representing ?



    The subtle digs at the DoJ/Gardai. Accomplishes nothing except to further irritate them

    Please explain.



    but appear to know either Des Crofton or Paul Walsh personally, and you consider my "negative" opinon to be an attack on them personally.

    Please explain why you would assume i know either of these individuals PERSONALLY .



    However if you are trying to provoke an argument from me out of some sort of "loyalty" to either/both men then please don't bother

    Just because i disagree with you on something , does not make it an argument , you are just being paranoid .


  • #41
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    stick shooter wrote: »
    When you say WE , Who are you representing ?
    Stick, what agenda are you grinding on here?
    It's blatently obvious from the comments above that "we" in this context does not refer to any specific group.
    Please explain.
    It should be self-evident that taking swipes at personnel within the DoJ, AGS or other groups is counter-productive when you will have to sit down at a table with these people and work with them in order to achieve your stated goals.
    Criticising agendas, policies, tactics - that's one thing, that's fair game. But the confrontational approach that we've seen dominating the media appearances of the NARGC for the last few years not only go beyond that, they actively hinder achievement of the NARGC's stated goals.
    It's not only completely possible to criticise the AGS or DoJ or Minister in a way that's civil and professional (and even polite) - but it's more effective to do it that way.
    Please explain why you would assume i know either of these individuals PERSONALLY .
    Because you're taking issue with the criticism of a professional's choice of tactics as if the criticism was of the professional themselves; which it patently is not.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,876 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    stick shooter wrote: »
    When you say WE , Who are you representing ?
    That question is redundant.

    You highlight "we" then ask who i represent. When i say we i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting.
    Please explain.
    Do you not understand how any finger pointing, whether justified or not, at the authorities that can take away all our firearms is, IMO, non productive?
    Please explain why you would assume i know either of these individuals PERSONALLY .
    Due to the "vigor" with which you have singled out my posts even after Sparks replied you still "dismissed" his response and sought a reply from me. It's my inference so please explain. Do you know either man personally? This will clear it up immediately.
    Just because i disagree with you on something , does not make it an argument , you are just being paranoid .
    Ah, the name calling. Was only a matter of time i suppose.

    I did not say you WERE trying i said IF you are trying then please don't. If you are not trying then it needs no rebutal.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #43
    stick shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 571 ✭✭✭stick shooter


    Ezridax wrote: »
    That question is redundant.

    You highlight "we" then ask who i represent. When i say we i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting.

    Do you not understand how any finger pointing, whether justified or not, at the authorities that can take away all our firearms is, IMO, non productive?

    Due to the "vigor" with which you have singled out my posts even after Sparks replied you still "dismissed" his response and sought a reply from me. It's my inference so please explain. Do you know either man personally? This will clear it up immediately.

    Ah, the name calling. Was only a matter of time i suppose.

    I did not say you WERE trying i said IF you are trying then please don't. If you are not trying then it needs no rebutal.

    After going back true some of your posts, i was not sure when you said WE , you were speaking for the THE MIDLANDS NATIONAL SHOOTING CENTRE OF IRELAND .
    If i am wrong ,my mistake . Thanks guys for clearing that up for US .


  • #44
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    stick shooter wrote: »
    After going back true some of your posts, i was not sure when you said WE , you were speaking for the THE MIDLANDS NATIONAL SHOOTING CENTRE OF IRELAND .
    If i am wrong ,my mistake . Thanks guys for clearing that up for US .

    Stick, you might not notice it from your end, but from outside that kindof looks like an attempt to start a currently non-existent MNSCI-NARGC spat...


  • #45
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,876 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    stick shooter wrote: »
    ............. you were speaking for the THE MIDLANDS NATIONAL SHOOTING CENTRE OF IRELAND .
    Other than the fact i was not speaking for the MNSCI i have no authority to speak for them. Also if you read my last post that you thanked you'd read ...............
    Ezridax wrote:
    ......... When i say we i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting ........
    As you like to pick on points may i ask you to point out where i say i am speaking about the MNSCI and name them specifically.
    If i am wrong ,my mistake . Thanks guys for clearing that up for US .
    US?

    Who do you mean when you say "US"?

    Also could you answer my previous question as i have been polite enough to answer your's.
    Ezridax wrote:
    ............point out why i'm mistaken and list the points in the programme where they made good and valid reasons that show legitimate shooting/shooters in a positive light.

    ............. and ..............
    Ezridax wrote:
    Do you know either man personally?

    Thank you.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #46
    Hibrion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭Hibrion


    I'm inclined to agree here, that we could have been represented better, but that's what we got and it could have went a lot worse. You will always be at the mercy of the editor when it comes to television, so we don't really know what was said in these interviews :(

    Personally, I would have liked to see them going to a more established range, rather than a new, small air rifle range. I also didn't like that there was a rifle randomly on the counter or that Paul went straight for the shotty with the pistol grip!


  • #47
    stick shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 571 ✭✭✭stick shooter


    Who do you mean when you say "US"?

    When i say US i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting .


  • #48
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    stick shooter wrote: »
    When i say US i mean all firearm holders involved in all aspects of shooting .
    Which is the same sense Ezri's comments (and mine) were using as well...


  • #49
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,876 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Ah. I only ask because when i say it you accuse me of speaking on behalf of the MNSCI, but its good to know you are on the same page now.

    Now thats all sorted perhaps you might answer the above questions by me to yourself?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #50
    Vizzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭Vizzy


    This is great lads :confused:
    We( and I mean all legal gun licence holders) are getting agitated because we might be seen in a bad light by the general public on some show that made no allegations towards us.

    Yet,we are arguing amongst ourselves as to who we represent.

    As I have been reminded by a Mod on here not so long ago,Boards is widely read by everyone from the DoJ to the Anti's.
    What impression does "disquiet in the ranks" portray ?


  • #51
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    We don't care about who represents us so much as we care about how they represent us.

    And the show didn't make specific allegations against us because that would have been actionable. However, when the only appearance we make is one where
    • we don't highlight the already existing legal controls on firearms ownership in Ireland;
    • we do bring up mass shootings like Norway and shootings like Abbylara (and don't get the facts across about those correctly);
    • we do say that you can't prevent mass shootings by tweaking our existing firearms legislation;
    • we don't show the vast numbers of farmers who use shotguns for agricultural reasons so we can all eat;
    • we don't show target shooting - of any kind as an organised sport - at all;
    • we don't show the other uses of firearms from Vets to starting races to preventing bird strikes at airports and so on; and
    • we don't show shooters as Safe&Harmless;
    Well, then in that case the programme didn't need to make specific allegations, because we painted ourselves on national television as a group of disorganised lads messing about shooting deer without any controls or safeguards to keep the general public safe, with no real investment in what we're doing (ie. if they shut us down we'd bitch about it but eventually move on to something else), generating nothing and with the ever-worrying spectre of Norway, Abbylara, Dunblane, Hungerford and every other mass shooting all hanging over us.

    I don't know about you, but I'm not well pleased that that's the image that got painted on national television about what I do.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    What should have been put across was something like this:
    • How you get a firearm:
      • Step one is deciding what you want to do - what sport you want to take part in or what game you want to eat or what agricultural problem you have, etc. - not "what do you want to shoot" because that's how you do what you want to do;
      • Step two is coming to places like your local club, your local dealer, here, your NGBs, whatever, for advice, and what we usually tell people (eg. Go watch a sport in your local club, go talk to hunters in your local gun club, etc). Emphasis should be put on how there's a training and support structure pushed at the newbies.
      • Step three is the point where you decide what kind of firearm you wish to get, and then you show how the applicant fills out the FCA1. You stress what controls there are - the character references, the club requirements for target shooters, the medical records access, all of it -- and you stress how much control the Gardai have over the process, and how none of the court cases have lessened that control.
      • Then you go over things like secure storage, random inspections, and so on.
      • And then, if you want, you can show the paperwork the gun traders use. But I wouldn't myself, because as a system, it doesn't really work so well, to track any firearm through it would be a strictly after-the-fact forensic exercise as it's all paper records.
    • At no point should we have been even in the same room as a mass shooting discussion, not unless it's forced on us, and then we don't speculate - we point out that we are the general public, we support sensible controls, we know that these events are tragic and if the system is properly enforced, they can usually be avoided (Hungerford, Dunblane and other such events were all preventable if people had simply enforced the laws on the books on the day they happened - the perpetrators would have been arrested months in advance). We should be strongly stressing that the real problem is criminals with guns, but far better would to never be mentioned in the same breath as these events.
    • We should never, ever, ever get personal. We shouldn't get shouty, we shouldn't try blaming all the woes of the system on the AGS or DoJ or Minister - it doesn't matter that we know the problems have largely come from specific AGS personnel, because only we know that. Joe Public hasn't been in our sport, hasn't seen the problems build up over years, hasn't seen the evidence against specific people and doesn't know us enough to trust our word over the AGS. So you keep it professional. You keep it even-tempered. You acknowledge problems, but stress that you want solutions, not retribution. If our argument and evidence is strong enough (and it is, by a country mile), then others will draw our conclusions themselves, they won't need our patronising to do so - but if we try to shove a conclusion down their throats, they won't accept it.
    • We show our sports and activities as Safe&Harmless. And I mean show. You show large organised competitions, well-run facilities, dedicated sportspeople, trained hunters and conservationists - and you show their work conserving species, you show DSPCA people who use firearms to put down animals they can't reach, you show farmers protecting crops, you show all the positive images - and I mean show, you don't tell, you present images.

    That's been the basic game plan for over a decade now. It's how many of the target shooting NGBs have operated in all that time (and you'll notice that the ones who do are the ones who have fewer hassles with the Powers That Be and get more positive media coverage). And I didn't see any of that last night at all :(


  • #53
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,876 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    As this is directed towards me allow me to respond.
    Vizzy wrote: »
    This is great lads :confused:
    We( and I mean all legal gun licence holders) are getting agitated because we might be seen in a bad light by the general public on some show that made no allegations towards us.
    We (and i mean all of us too) must take every opportunity to portray ourselves in the best light possible whenever the opportunity is there (as outlined by Sparks). In this instance we could have gotten our views across and shown solidarity with the topic of the show by saying how legitimate gun owners are as ardently opposed to such gun crime, and sympathise with the families of gun crime instead of using such programmes to try and bring an issue that relates to ourselves solely into the public forum.

    IOW the public don't care if we meet with the DoJ/Gardai or how often, and the majority of the public either have no opinion or dislike firearms simply because they are firearms. So the point is lost on them.
    Yet,we are arguing amongst ourselves as to who we represent.
    Again no. I was personally questioned as to whom i was refering to when i used the word we. I explained my position, and the matter was settled.
    As I have been reminded by a Mod on here not so long ago,Boards is widely read by everyone from the DoJ to the Anti's.
    That again was directed at me, and without breaking the confidence of the PM system the matter was in no way related to what is being discussed here. If you'd like to discuss the matter again then by all means contact me via PM, and we can continue the conversation from where we left off those months ago.
    What impression does "disquiet in the ranks" portray ?
    This has been an ongoing saga for decades, and if you look back through Boards alone this thread would be one of hundreds of a similar theme. So in the "grand scheme of things" this thread would not rank highly on anyone's radar. Not to mention all the "in fighting", and disagreements between the organisations that is out in the public domain already.

    Issues like this programme should generate discussion, and there will never be unified agreement otherwise we would not need multiple organisations merely one. IOW a fantasy.

    Two people spoke last night, and they are to be commended for their attempt. I, however, need not agree with what they said nor how they said it.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



Advertisement
Advertisement