07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 153154155156157 ...
tools
  1. NoYankees44's Avatar
    What we're doing certainly isn't working is it? Maybe they don't have people preaching how bad government is? or people on the radio saying the globalist are going to fly over your house in a black helicopter and take your guns away and then put you in a FEMA labor camp?
    Ignoring that most of that has nothing to do with the conversation:

    What are we really doing to fix it? Glorifying "artists" that rap about drugs and killing people. Telling teens it's OK to have sex. Telling teens it is not shameful to get pregnant. Are we raging a war against dead beat fathers? Are we telling people it's not OK to not properly discipline and parent their children.

    No we are living in a society that allows our government to push us around. That is too lazy and stupid to take responsibility for themselves and those around them. That is OK being told by politicians that our success is dependent on them. That glorifies entitlements and leaching off of others.

    We are not doing anything to fix the issues while blaming guns that are merely objects. Copping out on the real problems. Refusing to face reality because that might mean taking personal responsibility. Which is always too much to ask apparently.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    12-07-2013 06:44 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Yes as we have all also criticized the decisions others when choosing for ourselves.

    I merely presented the counter option. Fix the start of the problem instead of the end+accepting the consequences.
    Yep, and I have no issues with people expressing opposing opinions on how to solve problems, what the specific problems are, etc. I was just somewhat surprised to see the conversation devolve into "who are you" and "who is he" etc.

    I'd encourage people to recommend as many solutions or possible solutions as they can. Obviously a one size fits all and/or winner take all approach is not going to work, so common sense compromises based on strong philosophical and logical points seems to be the only possible approach to macropolitical issues.

    The role of civilian armament is deeply misunderstood and, as such, polarizing. As such, researching and considering as many perspectives as are available can only strengthen our ability to navigate the topic when it becomes time to consider legislatively reflecting the best of our values.

    There is no danger to us from trying to creatively define and resolve issues facing our community. None. There is a large danger in the idea of entrenching uninformed considerations above the common value of establishing a most free and just society (even if we don't all necessarily agree on the specifics of what that means).
    12-07-2013 06:58 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Think outside the box. Resent being confined within the box. Who's box is it anyways? Obviously we should never submit our thinking to someone else's limitations, but it may be worse to limit yourself by preconceptions.
    Learn.
    12-07-2013 07:01 PM
  4. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I have no problem with someone for posing an idea, especially one that has worked for them. However, the United States faces obstacles that Australia doesn't have to deal with.

    Sent from my HTC6500LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    12-07-2013 07:09 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    If it works for them, and they're happy with it, who are you to tell them that was the wrong way to fix it? and to tell them they took the easy way out?
    Based on the pretext of your statement, obviously if it worked sufficiently and they are pleased with the results, then two things happen:
    1. I'm happy for them
    2. I'm curious if we can apply any of the methodology or lessons learned to our situation

    With that being said, I'm leery of trying to base all or part of our solutions solely on another model without considering the societal differences that present challenges that they may have dodged or challenges that they were presented with, in a varying degree. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that we can attribute their measure of success or our abject failure to this one variable, when as No Yankees44 and many others have pointed out, there are systemic cultural attitude issues that seem to be either highly correlated with or are themselves the root cause issues.

    We may not all agree on what the "right attitude" is, but it's hard to deny that we live in a culture that glorifies violence, selfishness and a criminal mindset. Armed or not, with specific weapons or not, those issues are tougher to solve and in my mind are much more potentially intrusive on liberties than any questions of which specific toys/tools/weapons the population possesses.

    It could be that an thus far not quantified paradigm shift occurred in Australia either just before, during or just after their legislation was enacted and that fact(?) accounts for more of the reduction in crime and violence that they’ve experienced than just the regulation on weapons alone. If probable, that’d imply that the majority of our work COULD be done by creating a healthier common attitude, with common sense regulations as a last 10% augment to successful execution on the larger and more important strategy.

    We live in a nation that’s almost completely unwilling to even have these conversations, so getting real information about root cause is at best difficult.
    12-07-2013 07:21 PM
  6. Fairclough's Avatar
    Typing up a reply now.
    Should be interesting the see responses.


    Be warned its long and full of historical facts.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-07-2013 11:41 PM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    It seems while I was watching the hangover part III some debate has sparked up about my opinion here and how things went in Australia. This might be a long post, but it will be worth it reading where we came from with guns in a political and social life to where we are now.

    We had the nick name little America because we had similar values and ideals, what happened in your land was mirrored on a smaller scale on our own. Similar to your issue of massacres today we had the same, so bear with me while reading this. In order to trim some time typing this I have sourced parts from articles I believe articulate the implementation rather well with some modifications I added to trailor this to the forums a bit more.


    History of Guns:
    Firearms have been present in Australia from the landing of the First Fleet on 26 January 1788. Gun laws were the responsibility of each colony and, since Federation in 1901, of each state. The Commonwealth does not have constitutional authority over firearms, but it controls customs and military matters, and the external affairs power can be used to enforce internal control over matters agreed in external treaties.

    Massacres:
    From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in a series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne. In response, several states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of self-loading rifles and shotguns. In the Strathfield massacre in New South Wales, 1991, two were killed with a knife, and five more with a firearm. Tasmania passed a law in 1991 for firearm purchasers to obtain a licence, though enforcement was light. Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for longarms.

    The most known massacre was known as Port Arthur, the one I always mention. In Thirty-five people were killed and 23 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two semi-automatic rifles. Some may know these defence rifles as an AR15. This mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.
    The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence. This was on of our last major massacres in a run of massacres every year for sixteen years straight.

    The effect of Port Arthur
    Prime Minister John Howard (newly elected, liberal leader / our conservative party) immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[ and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement.

    This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

    The liberal government had public meetings discussing the change, under advisement from our security teams a bullet proof vest was wore for the fear our Prime Minister would be shot the death over the issue. Which was visible from the outside of his jacket.
    Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership. A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
    The Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[22] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Which on average calculates to be about $800 per gun in 1996 which was above market value.

    Modification to Hand gun laws.
    In 2002, an international student killed two fellow students at Monash University in Victoria with pistols he had acquired as a member of a shooting club. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment but ordered to be detained in Thomas Embling Hospital, a high-security hospital for up to 25 years
    As in 1996, the federal government urged state governments to review handgun laws, and amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, and even stricter probation and attendance requirements for sporting target shooters. Whilst handguns for sporting shooters are nominally restricted to .38 inches as a maximum calibre, it is possible to obtain an endorsement allowing calibres up to .45 inches (11.43 mm) to be used for metallic silhouette or Single Action Shooting matches. These new laws were opposed not only by sporting shooters groups but also by gun control supporters, who saw it as paying for shooters to upgrade to new guns. In the state of Victoria A$21 million compensation was paid for confiscating 18,814 target pistols, and 15,184 replacement pistols were imported.
    One government policy was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licences and their right to own pistols for sport for five years; in Victoria it is estimated 1/3 of people surrendering firearms took this option.

    Changes in social problems in relation to fire arms:
    Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 200910 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 199596 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."
    Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992 to 7% of all suicides in 2005. Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998. There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.
    The number of guns stolen has fallen from an average 4,195 per year from 1994 to 2000 to 1,526 in 20062007. Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses; only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year. Only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered. Approximately 3% of these stolen weapons are later connected to an actual crime or found in the possession of a person charged with a serious offence.


    The misconception:
    A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no person may possess them. This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, the armed forces, or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it's true that Australia has reasonably strict firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (including semi-automatic), as well as handguns are all legal providing the owner holds a valid firearms license.

    As of 2007 about 5.2% of Australian adults (765,000 people) own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, and target shooting. To obtain a firearm for these purposes a license is required. In order to keep a firearm on your premise there are generally two key steps. 1) Prohibition time has been met this is were generally your weapon has been held at a range for a period of time while you first get your license. This ensures that one cannot go out and use their weapon straight away outside of the premise it is stored at. 2) At the new premises of storage (your home) suitable storage fatalities are met e.g. an approved gun cabinet.

    While originally the farming community (were my bloodline is from) were against such legislation for the fears spread by groups similar to NRA about their lively hoods being destroyed have since been disproved as the government tailored the laws to fit exceptions in to allow weaponry for the killing of cattle and pests.

    The Hard Evidence Article conclusion:
    These brief case studies demonstrate conclusively that gun control can work, but it needs to be intelligently designed, effectively implemented and responsive to ongoing changes in criminal activity.
    In each case, trafficking in handguns, developing gang cultures and changes at the level of global organised crime and criminal trafficking have threatened to undermine domestic successes. Gun control is not a one-size-fits-all project; nor are there simple off the shelf solutions. Rather, policies have to be fitted to the problems and cultural contexts of particular societies. But first of all, societies have to acknowledge they have a problem.

    Virginia Citizens Defence League Supports Gun Control (they just dont know it yet)
    Phillip Van Cleave from Virginia Citizens Defence League stated if Gun Control worked he would support it, e.g. if there was planet x with real humans were gun control worked. Unfortunately there has been an example and this was Phillips Response. Phillip said there were few mass shootings and rare, when found out there was 1 per year he said he didnt know that was many and believe mass was more than two. He soon stopped when he found out mass was defined as four and that there hasnt been one in the 16 years after the laws being passed. I guess planet x exists.
    12-08-2013 12:11 AM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I love how the NRA is demonized as a boogeyman by gun fearing liberals. What is more scary? The NRA or an oppressive government?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Live2ride883, plumbrich and qxr like this.
    12-08-2013 06:23 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    I love how the NRA is demonized as a boogeyman by gun fearing liberals. What is more scary? The NRA or an oppressive government?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Conservatives are pretty worried about the power of lobbies as well. Prior to the 70's this was a much easier question to answer. Since that time, both have increased their power and the magnitude of their threat to society by great amounts and it's hard to say which is actually worse today. Obviously an oppressive government would be the one with the potential to do the most damage, but as far as which is actually damaging us more in the present... that'd be an interesting debate.

    The NRA itself isn't that big of a deal, it's the philosophy that they represent that is dangerous. The government of today IS that big of a deal, so the obvious answer is that government is currently (and has the potential to be in the future) the cause of more harm. They do lie a lot and have way more real political power than is justified or safe, however they're hardly the only game in town playing those games. We have much more to fear from groups lobbying the FCC, EPA, FDA, etc. The NRA also has an up-side to it, which most of the lobbies going after the initials previously listed typically do not...

    Lobbies, and the inordinate power that they wield, are one of the single greatest threats to our Constitutional government that exist. That and their (obviously fascist) merger with the propaganda machines and the corporate/civic executive hybrids that swing on the strings.
    12-08-2013 06:34 AM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    Clarification - From my work on the campaigns to get money out of politics, conservatives are deeply frustrated with campaign donation laws and lobbyists. Sometimes for dissimilar reasons than the liberals we talk to, but in many cases they hate the impact of money on our system more than the threat of an uninformed electorate. The fact is that today you cannot be elected to a major political office without being bribed and sponsored by the major lobbies in the United States. Once we fix that problem, organizations like the NRA will retain their teeth, in the form of political activism, civil education and social organization - however they'll lose their venom. That's how it ought to be.
    12-08-2013 06:44 AM
  11. plumbrich's Avatar
    Good write up and read Fairclough. I am confused somewhat as I thought you were for banning all guns for a safer Australia. Reading your post doesn't seem to enforce that way of thinking. I may have taken your previous posts as anti gun and shouldn't have assumed that SORRY..

    From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern.
    This is true even here in America the rise of mass murders in the last 20 years is alarming and needs to be addressed. To address the rise of mass murders we need to take a look back before the massacres started to see what created this sudden epidemic.

    Looking at say 1940 to 1960 I can't seem to find one school shooting or random mass murder even remotely like the past 20 years. I am dumb founded also during this time anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms. So one could rule out guns easily attainable as a reason of mass shootings.

    I booked a hunting trip in Australia in 1998 at Carmor Plains and had a good time, one of the chaps I met on that trip came here to hunt with me in the states every 3 years until his passing of cancer in 2008.Some people believe all guns are banned there. This is not true some can have guns for varying reasons. You would think since farmers hunters and club members have access to guns there would be murdering carnage in these communities but they don't so having a gun doesn't seem to turn them into murders and mass killers.

    So from 1940 to 1960 everyone had access to a gun no mass murders and school shootings. In Australia today farmers, hunters and club members have access to guns and no mass murders or shootings in those areas. I would have to come to the conclusion that guns are not the catalyst for mass killers.

    Good source of info on Australia's crime rates.

    Australian Institute of Criminology - Chapter 1: Recorded crime

    Obviously crime rose after the gun ban and just in the recent years began to decline but crime is dropping in the same recent years in countries like America with guns everywhere. New Zealand was pretty much a mirror of Australia in mass murders but choose not to enact a gun ban like Australia and haven't had another mass shooting either in the same time frame.

    Looking at the vast rural areas of America with virtually a gun in every home and looking at more populated areas with virtually no guns the crime rate is insanely different. Maybe we should look at those low crime areas and see what is keeping that crime rate down and look at the high crime areas and see what is creating it and find a solution. It drives me nuts that I live in a area with a gun in every home and virtually no crime then a populated area with crime tries to pass laws that effect my area.

    I don't mind having the gun debate but find myself uneasy when having to do the America versus Australia gun debate. I have allot of respect for my Australian friends and find the ones I know personally to be like minded as I. They come from rural areas like me and have the same values and low crime rates. Also respect Australia supporting our troops and putting their own lives on the line doing so.
    Fairclough, jdbii, qxr and 1 others like this.
    12-08-2013 07:33 AM
  12. Craig-Burton's Avatar
    this is all really interesting, but i cant seem to be as engaged as the rest of you when i live in country that has already had its guns taken. Needless to say gun crimes has not gone down and it has created a situation where by to get a gun legally you have to go through the most bureaucratic and time consuming process (months going on years really) just to get a glock19 and you are only allowed to have 50 rounds(and you can forget anything close to an AR unless you are police/military) . This is further compounded by the reality that political parties have given high powered rifles to thugs to "motivate the citizenship" to vote, ultimately the situation here is what is described by those who work against gun bans in the US the criminals do what they want with little fear of retaliation , the government tells you cant have guns but yet still does not provide an effective crime fighting force.
    qxr likes this.
    12-08-2013 10:26 AM
  13. palandri's Avatar
    Clarification - From my work on the campaigns to get money out of politics, conservatives are deeply frustrated with campaign donation laws and lobbyists. Sometimes for dissimilar reasons than the liberals we talk to, but in many cases they hate the impact of money on our system more than the threat of an uninformed electorate. The fact is that today you cannot be elected to a major political office without being bribed and sponsored by the major lobbies in the United States. Once we fix that problem, organizations like the NRA will retain their teeth, in the form of political activism, civil education and social organization - however they'll lose their venom. That's how it ought to be.
    The way you take the money out of it is by going to a delegate system, voted on by the grassroots, like we do when electing the president of our union at a national level.
    12-08-2013 11:30 AM
  14. Bratigan's Avatar
    Members of the US Militia are enumerated in USC 10 Section 311. It is clearly stated who will and at what age, they will serve and who is also exempted from service when called upon by the President. Its important to note that America is not and never will be like any other nation. We are different, our founders established the Militia clause and others to help defend against threats foreign and domestic. Its all boiler plate US Code. If people don't like the way Americans live their lives then maybe they should leave America. I think this will take you to the statute: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...57752919,d.aWc
    mrsmumbles and Scott7217 like this.
    12-08-2013 03:07 PM
  15. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Its important to note that America is not and never will be like any other nation.
    Which is why we should stick to our constitutionally guaranteed rights!
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    12-08-2013 03:21 PM
  16. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I'm not saying anything bad should happen to the Westboro Baptist Church. But, if they were to be struck by lightning, all at the same time, I might very possibly be tempted to offer to buy God a beer.

    True story.
    As would I.
    12-08-2013 06:25 PM
  17. gdruin74's Avatar
    http://gunsnfreedom.com/17-years-aft...ut-of-control/

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-08-2013 08:20 PM
  18. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    If people would actually read, study, and understand the constitution, they'd realize the federal government has overstepped its bounds already.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369, qxr and Tall Mike 2145 like this.
    12-08-2013 08:21 PM
  19. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    If people would actually read, study, and understand the constitution, they'd realize the federal government has overstepped its bounds already.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Agreed. Repeatedly.
    Serial Fordicator and qxr like this.
    12-08-2013 08:27 PM
  20. Fairclough's Avatar
    That article had no evidence to prove its title. Occasionally their is the illegal fire arm but if you have ever met our TRG (nice blokes they used to come into my work all the time) or seen them, you would understand they deal with illegal weapons or any threat rather well.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-09-2013 07:29 AM
  21. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I love how the NRA is demonized as a boogeyman by gun fearing liberals. What is more scary? The NRA or an oppressive government?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    The fact that you even need to ask the question is absurd. Anyone who says that the NRA is more scary than an oppressive government is, without a doubt, a moron.
    qxr likes this.
    12-09-2013 01:42 PM
  22. JW4VZW's Avatar
    If people would actually read, study, and understand the constitution, they'd realize the federal government has overstepped its bounds already.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Sadly the constitution osn't worth anything anymore.

    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    12-09-2013 01:55 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    The fact that you even need to ask the question is absurd. Anyone who says that the NRA is more scary than an oppressive government is, without a doubt, a moron.
    They question may be more subtle than it appears on the surface. It's like asking is having skin cancer or sitting in tanning booths (assuming they cause skin cancer) more scary? Obviously 99% of people will say actually having skin cancer is worse, but since one directly leads to and causes the other.... maybe both should be things to avoid. Our government is cancerous, however lobbies are the primary carcinogen, and by a long ways... so depending on your attitudes towards long term cost savings in trying to prevent cancer versus the costs of treating it once it's set in... there could be a very good argument that there is no point in trying to treat symptoms of someone with skin cancer if they are still going to sit in the tanning booth for several hours of every day. Maybe we react the same way the authors of the constitution did, and rather than trying to cure the lost cause, we start thinking about how to prevent cancer in the next patient (government).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Sadly the constitution osn't worth anything anymore.
    Strongly disagree. That's the only shield we have available and the only tool to try to bring things back to sanity.
    Fairclough likes this.
    12-09-2013 01:57 PM
  24. JW4VZW's Avatar
    They question may be more subtle than it appears on the surface. It's like asking is having skin cancer or sitting in tanning booths (assuming they cause skin cancer) more scary? Obviously 99% of people will say actually having skin cancer is worse, but since one directly leads to and causes the other.... maybe both should be things to avoid. Our government is cancerous, however lobbies are the primary carcinogen, and by a long ways... so depending on your attitudes towards long term cost savings in trying to prevent cancer versus the costs of treating it once it's set in... there could be a very good argument that there is no point in trying to treat symptoms of someone with skin cancer if they are still going to sit in the tanning booth for several hours of every day. Maybe we react the same way the authors of the constitution did, and rather than trying to cure the lost cause, we start thinking about how to prevent cancer in the next patient (government).
    That actually is a valid analogy. I do like what you are hinting at when you say “Maybe we react the same way the authors of the constitution did, and rather than trying to cure the lost cause, we start thinking about how to prevent cancer in the next patient (government).”
    Strongly disagree. That's the only shield we have available and the only tool to try to bring things back to sanity.
    I agree, however with the current tyrant in office, I feel as though it isn’t worth anything anymore. But, like you said, it is the only shield that we have available.
    12-09-2013 02:05 PM
  25. qxr's Avatar
    Sadly the constitution osn't worth anything anymore.

    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    I think the constitution still belongs to us. As long as we have our 2nd the gov't cannot take us for granted.


    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-09-2013 04:01 PM
4,617 ... 153154155156157 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD