Jump to content

Offensive Weapons Bill 2.0


Recommended Posts

Regarding buying an air rifle in England and bringing it to Scotland. That is very easy however the penalty for an unlicensed air gun in Scotland is potentially 2 years in the jail. If anyone wants to risk that, good luck to them 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Thats not really what I asked.

How do they screen out those who would use an air gun for mischief , against those who want it for legitimate reasons, if neither 'types' have any record ?
Are you less likely to get granted if you come from the rougher end of town, tattoos , a staffy called 'killer' ?
If licencing puts off those undesirable types , then surely in a few years , airgun crime will be eradicated ?

As you know, licensing is not a perfect system but it’s another tool in the box to filter out undesirables. Most idiots who would want to shoot swans, windows, each other etc are the type who would struggle to read the application forms, never mind complete them. And not want the police round their door.

Airgun crime won’t be eliminated but it’s already fallen and will continue to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

It’s a different scenario and irrelevant to firearms licensing as every single household in this country has dozens of knives. Every single person over the age of , I don’t know 16?, has a use for a knife. Knives are required by the public and are everywhere. They are a necessity. Firearms aren’t to 99% of the population. You could never license knives and I know you know that. It’s infeasible. 

But put it another way, if guns of all sorts were freely available as knives are. There would be very little knife crime as all the neds would be shooting each other instead of knifing.

I was just replying with the same.It would be impossible to license knives. The only thing that can be done, is being done with current legislation. However, the RFD's are full of shotguns. air rifles etc. No licence required no purchase, no licence required for purchase help yourself!!!!

Edited by turbo33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McSpredder said:

There must be records showing how many of crimes were committed guns and knives over the past decades.   Where can they be found?

If licensing has been successful, one might expect a very obvious reduction in the number of murders and robberies committed using firearms following each revision of the legislation.

Was there much more gun crime prior to the 1920 Firearms Act that we see nowadays?

Did criminals use guns much more frequently in the years when purchase of shotguns was unrestricted, prior to the 1968 Act?

Were there many more stabbings in the period when large numbers of young people, including Scouts and Guides, regularly and openly carried sheath knives?

Has the 1997 Act succeeded in eliminating nearly all crime involving use of pistols?

Many people have suggested that homicides by shooting are less common in UK than in USA because we have stricter gun laws.   In the decades prior to the Pistols Act 1903, UK citizens could acquire firearms just as easily as residents of USA.    Was murder by shooting in the 1890s just as common in UK as in USA?   If not, perhaps the difference between the two countries had very little to do with the licencing regime.

Good post :good:

 

4 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

It’s a different scenario and irrelevant to firearms licensing as every single household in this country has dozens of knives. Every single person over the age of , I don’t know 16?, has a use for a knife. Knives are required by the public and are everywhere.

And yet , no one except the criminal element goes around stabbing people ?
We are not allowed to carry a knife or any other 'weapon' for self defence , yet , as you say , everyone has access to knives, baseball bats ect, but only the criminal element sees fit to use them as 'weapons'

in the States where licencing simply doesnt exist, the safest states are those with open or concealed carry for legitimate firearms holders ?

Literally no one is saying lets have a free for all where anyone can walk into a gunshop and walk out laden with guns and ammunition, gun CONTROL can work if administered sensibly, firearms licencing in this country though , has had little to no effect on criminal firearms use, the stats speak for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I should say also is that nowadays society has evolved so licensing is required. Post WW2 there was very little gun crime, despite all the guns available after the war and shotguns being easy to access due to no records of individual guns kept until ‘68.  Now society has changed to the way it has unfortunately, licensing is required. As individuals the majority of folk can and should be trusted, but as a society as a whole. No chance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asked by a client to deal with some rabbits in her garden. She had a couple of men laying a patio. One had overheard the conversation and announced he was going to get an air rifle. His intention was to shoot deer with it! It sin't worth discussing here the conversation that ensued. My aunt is a vet, and whilst I prefer dogs to cats, its quite distressing to see the jars on the shelf in the surgery of airgun pellets removed from cats. I am reasonably confident, that this behaviour is not represented by the enthusiastic members here that have a passion for their sport, nor do I think that any of the aforementioned would either secure a permission or pass an interview with a reasonably astute FEO. Its not foolproof, but at the very least its restrictive. And as I and Stuartyboy states above, becomes a custodial offence to be in possession of an un licensed weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Good post :good:

 

And yet , no one except the criminal element goes around stabbing people ?
We are not allowed to carry a knife or any other 'weapon' for self defence , yet , as you say , everyone has access to knives, baseball bats ect, but only the criminal element sees fit to use them as 'weapons'

in the States where licencing simply doesnt exist, the safest states are those with open or concealed carry for legitimate firearms holders ?

Literally no one is saying lets have a free for all where anyone can walk into a gunshop and walk out laden with guns and ammunition, gun CONTROL can work if administered sensibly, firearms licencing in this country though , has had little to no effect on criminal firearms use, the stats speak for themselves.

My argument, and apologies for repeating myself, is that licensing reduces the guns available to criminals. It’s not perfect but it acts as a buffer. If there was no licensing, guns could be as common as knifes used in crime. Fact is that criminals can get guns but they are not easily available. If you think otherwise, ask any police you know. Don’t listen to what the papers say.

You mention America. How many accidental shootings are there each year compared to lives saved by having the right to bare arms in self defence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

My argument, and apologies for repeating myself, is that licensing reduces the guns available to criminals.

Tell me then, as no licence (bar sec 7 for historical) allows legal acquisition of handguns or SMGs, can criminals be using such weapons ?
When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a .308 sporting rifle , or other such common legal sporting calibres , bar shotguns ?

 

29 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

If you think otherwise, ask any police you know. Don’t listen to what the papers say.

Actually , I know quite a few cops, and Ive had this conversation a good few times.
The answer is usually , along the lines of 'We havent a clue whats out there' , the supposed 1000 legally held firearms stolen every year , seem to disappear into the ether, and yet , handguns are used in many crimes have either come from Eastern European countries, or suspected former provo stock.
Again , beyond the scope of UK licencing.

35 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

You mention America. How many accidental shootings are there each year compared to lives saved by having the right to bare arms in self defence?

Different argument entirely,  Im surprised you didnt bring up the 20000 average gun suicides a year too.
But its irrelevant, as no one is talking (or dreaming ) of a UK 2nd amendment, we are talking about the possible tightening of UK gun laws to prevent criminal use, and the pointlessness thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Actually , I know quite a few cops, and Ive had this conversation a good few times.
The answer is usually , along the lines of 'We havent a clue whats out there' , 

exactly my point living in a cozy semi gives no idea how many criminals are armed or how dangerous it is out there now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a .308 sporting rifle , or other such common legal sporting calibres , bar shotguns ?

You wouldn't hear about it because the licencing system has kept the majority of those firearms out of the hands of criminals. If there was a viable alternative to the licencing system I'd like to hear about it. There are firearms that I would love to own and shoot but the law prevents me from doing so. I don't like being tarred with the same brush of distrust by the lawmakers, but at the same time I have the wisdom to know that the reason why things are the way they are is because the minority would pose a viable threat to the majority if licencing didn't exist. Stricter punishment for offenders would help to lower crime levels, and perhaps allow the law abiding to enjoy a bit more freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lloydi73 said:

Not really, you're the one trawling for a fight with flawed conjecture and irrelevant drivel.....

Just because the threat of capitol punishment doesn't work for some, it will for a lot of others...as I have sad before, you will always get the hardcore criminals who either think 1) They won't ever get caught or 2) don't really don't care if they're caught or not as they have nothing truly to live for anyway. However, those who do enjoy life with a modicum of judgement, will think twice before undertaking capital crime as the punishment is too severe to comprehend!

 

total ********. 

If someone is of that sound a mind they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. 

Are you suggesting the thought process of a murderer today goes... 

I think I'll kill that bloke...

Ooh but I might get life in prison... 

Oh well at least I won't get hanged. I think I'll go for it. I fancy a few years at her majesty's pleasure anyway. 

For future reference the definition of conjecture... 

conjecture
noun
  1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
     
    Not sure what you are suggesting is incomplete in my argument.
     
    Is the death penalty an effective deterrent?
     
    Did murder occur in britain during the time that death was the penalty for murder? 
     
    The answer to that is yes. 
     
    The only reasonable conclusion is that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent.  
     
    Pretty clear clear cut there. 
     
     
Edited by ClemFandango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Tell me then, as no licence (bar sec 7 for historical) allows legal acquisition of handguns or SMGs, can criminals be using such weapons ?

Handguns can still be obtained on a FAC for humane dispatch, albeit restricted. Look at obsolete calibre handguns. They are now believed to be used in a third of shootings. Reason why? They are easy to obtain as they are unlicensed and freely bought. Only problem is ammunition but that can be solved.


When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a .308 sporting rifle , or other such common legal sporting calibres , bar shotguns ?

Never as it requires a license to obtain so harder for criminals to come across. Not impossible but harder. It also wouldn’t be a weapon of choice for obvious reasons.

 

Actually , I know quite a few cops, and Ive had this conversation a good few times.
The answer is usually , along the lines of 'We havent a clue whats out there' , the supposed 1000 legally held firearms stolen every year , seem to disappear into the ether, and yet , handguns are used in many crimes have either come from Eastern European countries, or suspected former provo stock.
Again , beyond the scope of UK

I agree. Firearms are brought into this country illegally. That goes without saying. As well as converted from blank furred, deacts ,CS guns etc. And for obvious reasons the Police don’t know the exact numbers but it’s proven to not be a huge amount. Hence the same gun being used throughout the country. The 1000 guns a year being stolen doesn’t hold water. Would need to research that but the figure of 3000 over a 5 year period comes to mind but that includes moderators and component parts such as bolts. If it is a 1000 a year, shooting is doomed because no body will be allowed to possess a gun in their home. They will all be locked away at a police station or approved club.

 

Different argument entirely,  Im surprised you didnt bring up the 20000 average gun suicides a year too.
But its irrelevant, as no one is talking (or dreaming ) of a UK 2nd amendment, we are talking about the possible tightening of UK gun laws to prevent criminal use, and the pointlessness thereof.

Ive never said I want licensing tightened. Only that it is a system that is not perfect but works to an extent. Air guns are licensed here and whether you agree with that or not, it’s reduced crime with them drastically.

 

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

exactly my point living in a cozy semi gives no idea how many criminals are armed or how dangerous it is out there now 

You make the UK sound like it’s the Wild West. It’s simply not, research how many people are shot each year with illegal firearms. There’s an issue with knife crime, yes, but at the moment gun crime is low for a population of 70 million. Unless you are involved in crime you are statistically far more likely to get hit by lightning 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a .308 sporting rifle ,

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

You wouldn't hear about it because the licencing system has kept the majority of those firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Might this be because a .308 or similar rifle is not a suitable tool for most crimes, rather than anything to do with the licensing system?

Difficult to conceal for a premeditated close-range murder.   Difficult to shorten (bolt action rifles in particular).   Far too unwieldy to be used when robbing a shop or a bank (needs something concealable such as a pistol).  Not capable of rapid fire for a gangland drive-by shooting (needs something fully-auto such as a Uzi).  

What sort of crime, other than a “Day of the Jackal”-style long-range assassination, might require a stalking rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

Might this be because a .308 or similar rifle is not a suitable tool for most crimes, rather than anything to do with the licensing system?

Difficult to conceal for a premeditated close-range murder.   Difficult to shorten (bolt action rifles in particular).   Far too unwieldy to be used when robbing a shop or a bank (needs something concealable such as a pistol).  Not capable of rapid fire for a gangland drive-by shooting (needs something fully-auto such as a Uzi).  

What sort of crime, other than a “Day of the Jackal”-style long-range assassination, might require a stalking rifle?

There is something to be said about the desirability of certain firearms. A pistol will appeal more to an urban criminal, whereas a hunting rifle would appeal more to a deer poacher, hence the reason for all firearms to be licenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

What I should say also is that nowadays society has evolved so licensing is required. Post WW2 there was very little gun crime, despite all the guns available after the war and shotguns being easy to access due to no records of individual guns kept until ‘68.  Now society has changed to the way it has unfortunately, licensing is required. As individuals the majority of folk can and should be trusted, but as a society as a whole. No chance 

Much of that is simply untrue. You need to do some reading, and a good place to start would be the books of Colin Greenwood, particularly ‘Firearms Control’. As an ex copper and shooter he was very critical of modern firearms licensing processes, and speaks with both authority and experience. 
Another is ‘Guns and Violence, The English Experience , by Joyce Lee Malcolm. The latter has a couple of errors but is a good start. 
There are others if you care to search. 
It’s worth repeating; the biggest shooting atrocities this country has experienced have been carried out with LICENSED firearms, and what’s more, the next one will be carried out with licensed firearms also. To believe otherwise is to be naive. 
Criminals don’t go around indiscriminately shooting civilians; there’s nothing in it for them. Some  may unfortunately become victims admittedly, but criminals on the whole shoot other criminals, and are carried for self defence ( as are knives ) because that’s the world they inhabit. 
 

1 minute ago, Cannon said:

There is something to be said about the desirability of certain firearms. A pistol will appeal more to an urban criminal, whereas a hunting rifle would appeal more to a deer poacher, hence the reason for all firearms to be licenced.

But poaching with CF rifles, air rifles and shotguns goes on, regardless of licensing. And criminals have handguns, again regardless of licensing. 
 

 

12 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

Might this be because a .308 or similar rifle is not a suitable tool for most crimes, rather than anything to do with the licensing system?

Difficult to conceal for a premeditated close-range murder.   Difficult to shorten (bolt action rifles in particular).   Far too unwieldy to be used when robbing a shop or a bank (needs something concealable such as a pistol).  Not capable of rapid fire for a gangland drive-by shooting (needs something fully-auto such as a Uzi).  

What sort of crime, other than a “Day of the Jackal”-style long-range assassination, might require a stalking rifle?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

Might this be because a .308 or similar rifle is not a suitable tool for most crimes, rather than anything to do with the licensing system?

Difficult to conceal for a premeditated close-range murder.   Difficult to shorten (bolt action rifles in particular).   Far too unwieldy to be used when robbing a shop or a bank (needs something concealable such as a pistol).  Not capable of rapid fire for a gangland drive-by shooting (needs something fully-auto such as a Uzi).  

What sort of crime, other than a “Day of the Jackal”-style long-range assassination, might require a stalking rifle?

There is absolutely nothing in place to prevent someone from setting up in a high rise with a .308 and going apepoo, nor any other firearm for that matter. 
CF rifles, along with RF, air rifles and shotguns are used in poaching quite frequently, so I’m assuming most of them are licensed. 
Ive no knowledge of an Uzi being used, but there is or was a full auto Mac-10 knocking about in the underworld so to speak, which makes its presence felt every now and then at various locations; these were never at any time able to be owned legally in the UK as far as I’m aware. That’s licensing for you. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scully said:

Much of that is simply untrue.

I don’t see what you quoted from me is untrue. Firearm crime has risen since, say the 1950s. That has nothing to do with licensing but changes in society. And I maintain that due to societal change since that era, licensing is required. 

Regards to deranged certificate holders being the perpetrators of the worst mass shootings that this country has experienced, I totally agree. As I agree that the next one will unfortunately be carried out by a certificate holder. However, we will never know how many other incidents have been prevented by licensing stopping undesirables from getting guns. So yes, it’s not perfect and there are flaws (which contributed towards Dunblane and Hungerford etc) but it’s bwtter than a free for all

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

There is absolutely nothing in place to prevent someone from setting up in a high rise with a .308 and going apepoo, nor any other firearm for that matter. 

Yes, it could happen but it’s less likely due to FAC holders being vetted. The fact is that it’s not happened says we’re doing something right. If you could walk in a shop and buy one without any hindrance it’s statistically far more likely to happen due to the number of people with issues and that kind of desire being able to buy a rifle impulsively 

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

Ive no knowledge of an Uzi being used, but there is or was a full auto Mac-10 knocking about in the underworld so to speak, which makes its presence felt every now and then at various locations; these were never at any time able to be owned legally in the UK as far as I’m aware. That’s licensing for you.

That’s my point about availability. There are these types of firearms in circulation but because they are so few in numbers, they generally get reused. If they where available in large numbers, they would be used once then destroyed/thrown in the sea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it another way. Vehicle drivers are licensed for whatever category of vehicle.

This doesn’t mean there’s no accidents or deliberate illegal acts performed by licensed or unlicensed drivers. Sometimes with no repercussions, sometimes with horrific results.

However it’s the best system we have for every ones safety and there’s no real alternative in this day and age. To scrap driver licensing would undoubtedly cause carnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2020 at 19:18, stuartyboy said:

I don’t see what you quoted from me is untrue. Firearm crime has risen since, say the 1950s. That has nothing to do with licensing but changes in society. And I maintain that due to societal change since that era, licensing is required. 

Regards to deranged certificate holders being the perpetrators of the worst mass shootings that this country has experienced, I totally agree. As I agree that the next one will unfortunately be carried out by a certificate holder. However, we will never know how many other incidents have been prevented by licensing stopping undesirables from getting guns. So yes, it’s not perfect and there are flaws (which contributed towards Dunblane and Hungerford etc) but it’s bwtter than a free for all

Yes, it could happen but it’s less likely due to FAC holders being vetted. The fact is that it’s not happened says we’re doing something right. If you could walk in a shop and buy one without any hindrance it’s statistically far more likely to happen due to the number of people with issues and that kind of desire being able to buy a rifle impulsively 

That’s my point about availability. There are these types of firearms in circulation but because they are so few in numbers, they generally get reused. If they where available in large numbers, they would be used once then destroyed/thrown in the sea

How can you claim the rise has nothing to do with licensing? Licensing became more stringently restrictive partly as a result of attempts to curb increases in armed crime and partly due to parliamentary indifference. Yet armed crime has risen drastically since the introduction of successive licensing schemes. Like I said, you need to read some books. 
‘We will never know how many incidents have been prevented by licensing’.....and that’s your idea of a successful strategy is it, unknown results? 
I can agree vetting of ticket applicants has become more stringent in recent years, but don’t kid yourself that it won’t be a ticket holder who next goes ape poop; criminals don’t do shooting frenzies. 
You still haven’t explained what a ‘free for all’ is, nor pointed out any countries , outside of tribal feudal territories, where such a policy exists. 
The point about the Mac-10, is that these types of firearm were NEVER available to anyone with a license, yet there is no doubt they’re out there, in whatever quantities. 
There are plenty of unlicensed guns out there, it is simply a lack of will or intent to use them which controls their use, and not licenses. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2020 at 15:54, Rewulf said:

Tell me then, as no licence (bar sec 7 for historical) allows legal acquisition of handguns or SMGs, can criminals be using such weapons ?
When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a .308 sporting rifle , or other such common legal sporting calibres , bar shotguns ?

Not quite true but that's by the by.

How many more criminals do you think would have and use fire arms of any sort if all they had to do was walk in to a shop and buy one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scully said:

How can you claim the rise has nothing to do with licensing? Licensing became more stringently restrictive partly as a result of attempts to curb increases in armed crime and partly due to parliamentary indifference. Yet armed crime has risen drastically since the introduction of successive licensing schemes. Like I said, you need to read some books. 
‘We will never know how many incidents have been prevented by licensing’.....and that’s your idea of a successful strategy is it, unknown results? 
I can agree vetting of ticket applicants has become more stringent in recent years, but don’t kid yourself that it won’t be a ticket holder who next goes ape poop; criminals don’t do shooting frenzies. 
You still haven’t explained what a ‘free for all’ is, nor pointed out any countries , outside of tribal feudal territories, where such a policy exists. 
The point about the Mac-10, is that these types of firearm were NEVER available to anyone with a license, yet there is no doubt they’re out there, in whatever quantities. 
There are plenty of unlicensed guns out there, it is simply a lack of will or intent to use them which controls their use, and not licenses. 

 

In your opinion, does licensing help to limit the criminal use of firearms by vetting applicants and reducing the availability of firearms. Or not. 

Note, I say, help to limit. Not eradicate as that’s not possible. 

Maybe you should spend less time reading books and more experiencing the reality of what’s out there. Like I have for over the last 15 years on the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh pleaseease! Licensing exists purely to ensure law abiding people whom apply aren’t nutters or convicted felons; ( and as history has proven on several occasions, it’s not even that good at doing that )  CRIMINALS DONT APPLY for licenses, they don’t need to!
Neither does licensing reduce the availability of firearms, only that which are available for sporting purposes through legal means. 
It’ll take more than fifteen years ‘ on the job’ to impress me I’m afraid, I’ve had a lifetime of experience of both sides of legit’. 
Incidentally, the author of one of those books you’d be well advised to read if you want to broaden your knowledge, was written by former Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood. 🙂
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scully said:

Oh pleaseease! Licensing exists purely to ensure law abiding people whom apply aren’t nutters or convicted felons

How do you know they are law abiding unless you go through all of the checks that are currently in place with our existing licencing system?
 

 

Edited by Cannon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluesj said:

Not quite true but that's by the by.

How many more criminals do you think would have and use fire arms of any sort if all they had to do was walk in to a shop and buy one?

How do you know they don't? 

Just not the same type of shops we use. After we've applied and been grilled Why we want them. 

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

Like I have for over the last 15 years on the job

Well I'm impressed, I can only last half an hour at best 🤣

Seriously though, if you think licencing does a good job of keeping guns off the streets, you crack on. 

Edited by Rewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/08/2020 at 09:16, Scully said:

Not sure really,  I’ve often thought it could be done something along the lines of this scenario......bloke or woman walks into a gun shop and says ‘I’d like to buy a shotgun please’. 
RFD says, ‘ certainly, I’ll need to take a photograph of you, you’ll need to send your passport and a utility bill of the same address to the rozzers,  I’ll need a 25% deposit and there’ll be a months waiting list while the rozzers do a background check.’ 

Considering you are firmly of the opinion that licensing does nothing to prevent the likelihood of criminals accessing firearms, when asked for a solution, you seem to suggest a licensing system that’s very similar to what we have already? Albeit a simplied system.

if licensing was such a waste of time and designed to be a burden on the legitimate sporting shooter, surely you would advocate no licensing at all?

Or could it be deep down you appreciate that without any form of licensing, more guns would be freely available to everyone with good intent or bad.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Well I'm impressed, I can only last half an hour at best

Now, that is impressive 😂🤣😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...