Quantcast

It seems to be happening again...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by PapaG, Jun 3, 2019.

  1. PapaG

    PapaG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,153
    Location:
    Il
    I just read John Ross's Unintended Consequences again, for either the fourth or fifth time and today, more than ever, it seems that it is a reminder of what has happened since 1934 and what is happening now. Now, with the new laws being passed, we are faced with gun restrictions never before seen. Illinois is leading the pack with onerous new laws. Gun dealer licensing has been enacted which duplicates and embellishes the FFL process. Fix the FOID act, at resent in limbo, which increases restrictions, cost, and effort to enjoy a constitutionally enumerated right. Lead shot ban, because it feels good. There are dozens more.
    If you haven't, find the book, available online in PDF, and read it. It is a novel but is based on history. It won't make you feel good but will refresh your memory about what power non-elected folks in government really have.
    Stan
     
    22250Rem and drobs like this.
  2. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    I read that book years ago. It had its excellent points (very fine historical portmanteau of gun laws....) but it also had its quirky ugly parts.

    History seems to go in phases. We had an assault weapon ban in 1994. Also in the 1960s a big eruption of gun regulations after a few assassinations that gave us the Gun Control Act of 1968. Back further, in the 1930s a crime wave in Chicago gave us the GCA of 1933.
     
    P5 Guy and drobs like this.
  3. drband

    drband Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,853
    Location:
    GA
    I read it again only a few weeks ago... and it is always current and always a reminder of why the government always grows in ALL areas.
     
  4. murf

    murf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,954
    Location:
    arizona
    a lot of "feel good" laws are being passed by our "nanny state" government (elected and nonelected). consequently, we, as a country, have veered too far down the socialistic path. most laws passed, these days, are these "feel good" laws and are meant to protect individuals from themselves. what those laws really do is control/restrict the individual's freedom.

    we, as a people, have to learn to say "no"... and keep saying "no" to these feel good laws.

    murf
     
  5. drk1

    drk1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Yep. It's particularly discouraging for those of us who have lived throuh most of it, because it forces us to think about how long before it's all gone, whether or not we'll live to see that happen, and what exactly will be the cause the next big blow to the 2nd Amendment.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  6. sparkyv

    sparkyv Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    Texas
  7. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,226
    Actually those are the official reasons, but unlikely the real reasons.

    The Bonus Army of WW1 veterans marched on DC, setup camps demanding some things in the middle of the great depression, and were experienced veterans of trench warfare, before WW2 had occured and the importance of infantry in trenches would be shown as outdated. This means in the 1930s when they did it they were considered a serious threat. The Federal Government used the military to remove the camps by surprise that time and surprised the Bonus Army thinking it was a military parade honoring veterans, but next time they might come ready for a fight.
    This while the government was extremely scared that Communism would take over, as it was in other parts of the world, in little more than a decade since the October Revolution in Russia, while a world wide depression was insuring even more people were poor and desperate and likely to see promise in Communism.

    A current mention of a declassifed part in wiki on the bonus army:

    They were in fear of actions that could be taken by veterans experienced with what was still considered the current form of military combat, and which really only required primarily weapons that were still legally available to civilians.
    The gangsters of the era were the excuse for the restrictions sure, but the real reasons were fear of uprising, during a depression when Communism was spreading across the world rapidly and would appeal most to desperate people.
    Many of the most infamous gangsters of the time actually used guns stolen from the military or law enforcement, including by taking them from police stations and national guard armories, and so laws that still kept them in the hands of those entities would not have disarmed criminals taking guns from them.



    The same exact thing happened in the 1960s. The real reason was the fear of rebellion, with the counter culture movement, widespread black militant activists taking up arms across the nation, anti war sentiment and draft to Vietnam with people not wanting to go to war being trained to fight and coming back, and still strong elements of the well organized labor movement that had become quite strong after WW2.
    There was a very strong and real fear that all you needed was to get enough AKs in the hands of some of these groups or unite a couple of them to create a threat the government could be overwhelmed by, and the Soviets would happily provide them. (Foreign machine gun imports were banned in the GCA of '68.)
    I think this becomes more obvious when you combine it with all the efforts we know through the freedom of information act declassifying many of the activities of government at the time that they were doing all they could to cause infighting among the various groups, keep them fighting with each other and not allying with other groups, and ultimately weakening or breaking them up.

    Creating a new class of permanently disarmed citizen through the creation of prohibited persons would make it much easier to target and disarm these groups. Essentially anyone that was a thorn in government's side could readily be disarmed for life, and if seen with or possessing weapons gone after for that, while essentially preventing them from having any real power that would concern government men with guns from then on. Since all of these activists made strong enemies disarming them or making it illegal to be found or seen with arms puts them in a vulnerable position where they will be easily preyed on by others, which also reduces their effectiveness in activism.
    Many black groups were taking after the black panthers or Malcom X type activism in the late 60s which increasingly included being well armed.
    Prohibited persons put an end to armed activism, it would just take some years.
    California passed the Mulford Act to disarm the black panthers a year prior to the federal government creating prohibited persons that would have accomplished the same thing, as most Black Panthers could be arrested and charged with felonies at will (just about anything is a felony conspiracy when dealing with a group, and many activists are in and out of jail or prison.)



    No the reasons were to disarm the threat to government, but they certainly will use whatever excuse is needed for public press relations.
    Gangsters and assassins were the headlines the public could relate to best.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2019
    Slamfire, tipoc, KevininPa and 10 others like this.
  8. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,489
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    The WPA and CCC sent many of those rambunctious WWI vets far away from DC so that Bonus Army couldn't reassemble. Many were killed in the Labor Day hurricane in the Florida Keys. FDR sent them to build the OverSeas Highway.
     
  9. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama

    Zoogster, you make some good points, but I'd like to point out I was making a quick remark, not provide as extensive a history.
    I am aware of the Bonus Marchers and what happened. I don't believe the motivating reasons I provided are exclusive of the reasons you provide; I think both are true.
    I think it's true the govt. used the gangster violence as their reasoning as the population at large would sympathize, and of course "law and order" stuff would be seen as a good thing for the government to pursue.
    Going after World War One vets .... far more likely the population would support the vets.
    I don't believe my background and yours are mutually exclusive.
    Yours does fill out the government motivations in a very important way, though.

    One thing seems true; our founding fathers feared freedom would give way to statism, or tyranny, through a desire on the part of the people for an ultimately ephemeral "security." Much of America's history supports the Founders' fears. But they were wise and had lived the history of their times, and seen this, so theirs was the original "school of hard knocks. "

    We would do well to better understand their philosophies and realize that people today are still pretty much the same....we just have much better tech.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  10. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,768
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Zoogster hits on a point, but it is actually quite the reverse. Our own government was leaning toward communism and fascism shortly after the beginning of the 20th century. It was checked by citizens and citizen groups that prevented the decay into socialism or communism almost a century ago. The cited references are simply blaming the citizenry for the motives of the government. This is normal for a government that seeks to expand power at the expense of its people. Happens all over the world in every era. Look into the "Blue Eagle Program" and the effect it had on businesses. The American government, in the early 20th century, was fascist. Mussolini was openly admired in the press. For everyone that says "It can't happen here", it already has. Read some more history books.
     
    P5 Guy, Texas10mm, murf and 1 other person like this.
  11. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,033
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    Short form: The wolves convince the sheep to de-horn themselves for their own good.

    Again.
     
  12. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,624
    Location:
    Virginia
    I have to disagree. I was in law school when the GCA '68 was being considered, and I never heard of fear of rebellion being put forward as a reason for it. This sort of conspiratorial thinking could not have been kept secret. Besides that, the authorities had the "rebellion" situation well in hand.
     
  13. murf

    murf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,954
    Location:
    arizona
    as was hitler

    murf
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  14. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,768
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    There was no fear of rebellion in the sixties. (*Rambling sentence deleted and I can't think of an appropriate substitute*) But GCA1968 was a direct result of the assassinations that took place. Open revolt and mass rebellion by the citizenry were not even on the radar.
     
    AlexanderA likes this.
  15. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    There were some hot times in the 1960s .... Riots, in Chicago during a political convention. There were machinegun nests protecting the White House and govt. buildings manned by National Guard.
    Was this rebellion?
    Well, it certainly was no civil war.
    Maybe low grade rebellion ..... if you could call it rebellion.

    But there were hot times in some towns back then .....
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  16. buck460XVR

    buck460XVR Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,997
    As baby boomers, many of us grew up in the time when gun violence was first brought live into our living rooms. We watched Jackie crawl over the back of the limo trying to retrieve the back of her husband's head thanks to the Zapruder film, over and over and over. Two days later we watched live as JFK's accused killer was shot and killed by a vigilante in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. Coupla years later it was the Texas Tower shootings. 2 years later it was MLK and RFK. Another 2 years and it was Kent State. A quick decade or so later we watched as Ronald Reagan and his entourage were attacked by a gunman on live T.V. These were shocking insights on Gun Violence that most of us, and our parents had never been exposed to, outside of war. Those shootings, even if not showing the actual event, were constant viewing on the only three networks available to most of us. There was no getting away from it. No wonder folks demanded something be done. Thus we got the GCA of 1968 and all of it's revisions along with the Brady Bill. Most of which were whole heartily endorsed.The NRA endorsed the GCA68 and Ronald Reagan strongly supported the Brady Bill. Was not dehorned sheep, but important Gun Toting citizens looking for answers. Did they get them? We got background checks and can't order guns from the back pages of Outdoor Life anymore. Folks argue both sides as to if that stopped or slowed gun violence down at all. While I truly believe it may have stopped a few folks with a small amount of desire to do harm, I think the issue is not our guns, but our society. Thus if folks really want to do harm, they will find a way. Right now, guns and access to them is one of the easiest, and most effective ways. We are a society of people who believe guns and easy access to guns are a birthright. We are a society that tends to think violence and aggression is a solution to many problems. We watch violence on T.V. such as UFC, WBA, NFL and the NHL and revel in it. As a society, we sometimes tend to see gun violence as a necessary evil, if we truly believe in the 2A. We are a society that sometimes has a fascination with evil and tend to immortalize famous killers like Jesse James, Billy the Kid, The Son of Sam, Jeffry Dalmer, etc. That sometimes makes others looking for an easy path to infamy, consider a mass shooting as a means.

    What is the solution? I honestly don't know, and I honestly doubt if there is one that is going to change things overnight. This is not a simple issue with a simple solution. I personally don't have an issue with background checks and certain folks being prohibited from owning firearms with good cause. Again, I think it may stop folks with only a small amount or just an immediate desire to do harm. It won't stop the sickos or those with deep and prolonged desire. I don't believe disarming the majority of us responsible gun owners is going to stop anything, only escalate the threat of harm to innocents.......but I am open to suggestions and ideas. I do think tho, that being critical and belittling, without any good ideas of your own, is doing nothing but wasting breath and bandwidth.



     
    seanie!, AlexanderA and earlthegoat2 like this.
  17. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,480
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    Jeb Stuart likes this.
  18. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,226
    I think the assassinations played a part in the GCA, but I think the right of a lot of people to be armed while vocal antagonists of government forces in the 1960s caused the government to put an end to that situation, and like I said California did it one year earlier by outlawing previously legal open carry as well as making it illegal to protest or picket while armed.
    As for having rebels under control?
    The government is not as all powerful as people presume, as you need several average tax payers to pay the wages of every single government employee. When everyone is a government employee you have communism, and it doesn't tend to work, and if you want enough tax dollars to accomplish much you have to limit the number of government employees which themselves do not directly add to the Gross Domestic Product or wealth of the nation, but consume large amounts of wealth. Government depends on a much larger private sector to function.
    If you turn big military armaments against the civilians the economy tends to crumble and the domestic funding for government then goes down the toilet. (Which then leaves them dependent on foreign assistance for anything that lasts longer than a short time) Using extreme violence also results in counter violence, which is why even most authoritarian governments in the world do not crush with direct force when they can make people just disappear instead without instigating violence.
    Nevermind the political fallout or risk of some of your government forces switching sides when asked to do such things.So you can't really bomb your own people into compliance, so how exactly did they have it under control? They used coercion, manipulation, infiltration, and various force multipliers to maximize what they could accomplish with the resources they had.

    The freedom of information act and declassified materials show things that would have been quite far fetched conspiracy theories at the time were in fact being done regularly.
    The government was in fact infiltrating most groups and movements, while combating Soviet and Communist influence around the world.
    Even the structure and methods of the early drug cartels stem from methods of funding counter revolutionaries in Asia, Africa, and especially South America without needing American tax dollars at the time. They were funding anti communist forces through drugs they knew were primarily going to be sold in the USA and Europe. It was widespread, some famous stories were made about some of it.
    This is because communism was the will of the people in most of the third world, and only didn't come to dominate the world because the Capitalist societies fought it hard in their foreign policy.
    Many of these things were all being done at this time.
    We got infamous things like MKUltra, a favorite of conspiracy nuts because the government was in fact investigating ways to use mind control as well as improve interrogations.
    Then we see the FBI was infiltrating many of the big movements of the 1960s. When you look into the internal conflicts of many of the groups, you often find they were instigated and even more often encouraged and escalated by comments and actions of the informants and agents. They were infiltrating many radical groups, then using those positions to turn the organizations against themselves and each other in addition to gathering intel.


    After WW2 a lot of the veterans came back and didn't put up with the poor treatment workers had been dealing with for years. They demanded better treatment, formed and grew many Unions, and dealt with assassins and strike breakers that were routinely hired to intimidate, attack, and eliminate the organizers and thorns in the side of big business. It was a very hard struggle to get the 8 hour day or a 40 hour week normalized. We hear a lot about the civil rights movement, but our government curriculum doesn't encourage being as informed about the labor movement that proceeded it. Jimmy Hoffa and the teamsters are probably the biggest portion of it you will hear about.
    These efforts and those behind them however were viewed with as much contempt as was held for communists by powerful and wealthy people seeing their bottom lines impacted, and as both stem from organized labor, they viewed and encouraged others to view them as communists encouraging communist policies.
    We even celebrate Labor day on a different day than most of the rest of the world even though their date is based on events in Chicago, while our own government celebrates that holiday in an entirely different part of the year and tries to distance itself from that day, distance labor from comradery with other labor movements of the world, and maintain distance from a day which is often a rallying call of Communists and Socialists.)


    Then comes the black civil rights movement, militant blacks, war and a draft. While the youth were in many areas abandoning tradition. A drug the government prohibited was becoming mainstream. The draft was making many feel the government was against them.
    Birth control was letting women have widespread sex outside of marriage without fear of becoming a social outcast and unmarried mother. Sex is a big motivator, particularly in the younger demographic, and they no longer needed to conform to society or the lifestyle of their parents to enjoy that either.
    The youth were thus a poorly controlled wild card that could join and become the foot soldiers of any other movement.
    No the government was definitely at risk. All you needed was the Soviet Union to get in and arm all the youngsters, or provide training and ideology and you could have very quickly had a strong rebellion and civil war.
    If some of these groups combined forces the government could also find them significantly more formidable, and some people like Martin Luther King actually started to combine the much wider and more mainstream labor movement and the black rights movement and anti war sentiment right before he was assassinated.
    Imagine that combined force with the armed black militant mentality.
    Bobby Kennedy had worked as chief Counsel of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management on the side of labor workers being abused, and created connections with minority leaders of the time.
    Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated in April, Bobby Kennedy a big ally of both the civil rights movement and labor movement and against Vietnam in June, and the GCA was passed in July, and took effect in October.
    Both had been promoters of non violence and kept their supporters in check fairly well, with Bobby even reducing how much rioting and violence happened after King's assassination, but there was a lot of prominent people in those movements more in favor of armed action to fill the void when they were gone.
    There was also the South where most blacks actually lived, and a large portion of white Southerners that didn't want to be forced to integrate and racially mix but were being forced to by the rest of the nation. There was already a civil war with that part of the country before over related issues, and the national guard was even being used to force integration because the local law enforcement and government sided more with segregation.
    So you had military force being used to enforce policies contrary to the wishes of local populations and law enforcement.
    During a serious Cold War when a strong enemy of the United States would help and assist any faction that would undermine the nation.
    Government was scared and decided to remove the RKBA. They did, it ceased to be a right and became a privilege you can retain if you stay in good favor.
    However before the time of computer databases it was impractical to go after the individual citizen and consumer on such a wide scale, and much more practical to deal with and restrict and keep track of and hold to specific transfer standards their sources in commerce.

    The media was much better controlled back then, limited to a small number of networks, and the general public was informed according to their wishes, which did not deviate too radically from those of the government.
    What was taboo to even say on air included far more than today.
    Of course government wouldn't tell you there is a risk of rebellion, that is one of the biggest ways of preventing it.
    When you tell people many people are ready to take action it encourages others that wouldn't but agree with the cause to also take action. So the last thing you do in preventing a rebellion is tell people there is a risk of it unless you are very confident in your ability to turn most of the population against them and their cause.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
    Gridley, P5 Guy, il_10 and 2 others like this.
  19. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,197
    Here's a couple of things to toss into the conversation...

    "On Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot the president with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement. NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967."

    Mulford Act was vigorously promoted by Governor Ronald Reagan.

    "The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

    thus the NRA helped it pass into law.

    http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

    It 1968 GCA also had the support of some of the gun manufacturers in the U.S. This was because of the ban on the import of "Saturday night specials" as they were called in the popular press. This was inexpensive and small revolvers and pistols made in Europe. Some cheaply made and some extremely well made (the Walther PPK was banned). These guns had been a thorn in the side of the growing market for handguns in the U.S.

    The 1968 gun law was sponsored by the well known lawman, top cop and FBI head Senator Thomas J. Dodd
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Dodd

    The bill passed the house by a vote of 305 to 118 and passed the Senate by 70-17 and signed into law by Southern Democrat Johnson. It was a bi-partisan effort.

    Two things in California led to the development of the first SWAT units in the U.S. The rise of the struggles of the farm workers in the 1960's and the violent opposition to that. and the Watts riots of 1965. These were also a factor in the passage of the Mulford Act.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  20. bds

    bds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,490
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Really appreciate the history lesson. Sometimes helps to see where you have been to see where you are going.

    So in 2019, what should we focus on? If history is a lesson, million gun owner march in Washington may not do much? I still believe if we keep voting out anti-gun/2A law makers and keep voting in pro-gun/2A law makers, we will see more pro-gun/2A bills authored.

    Am I off in my thinking?

    Seemed to have worked for anti-gun/2A crowd over last few decades.
     
  21. Shanghai McCoy

    Shanghai McCoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,644
    Location:
    The,sort of, Free state
    Well, a lot of those hippies were revolting...
    ;)
     
    Tommygunn and entropy like this.
  22. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,480
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    Reminds me of an old joke-

    -Commissar, Commissar, the peasants are revolting!

    -Well you're pretty repulsive yourself, Ivan Petrovich!
     
    Shanghai McCoy and Tommygunn like this.
  23. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,845
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    :rofl:
     
  24. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,197
    All I can add is my opinion. So...

    While electing folks to office who back the 2nd can be useful at times, as a strategy to defend the Bill of Rights it is a weak one. There is ample evidence of that all around us. Defense of the Bill of Rights does not lay in the hands of Democrats and Republicans or any elected officials but in the hands of the people. It's always been that way, always.

    A debate is going on that we need to be a part of. Need to explain over and over that guns do not cause suicides. The number of suicides in this country has been increasing, especially among enlisted men and women, veterans and lately police officers. Yet it's not being adequately addressed. Guns do not cause crime. Guns do not cause mass shootings at schools and offices.

    Gun opponents advance "common sense gun laws" in reality what does that mean? That we create a massive data base of all citizens background. Legal history, medical history, history of gun ownership that is available whenever anyone wants to buy a gun or ammo. That can be accessed by store clerks, cops, doctors, etc. at a moments notice. More taxes and fines. Laws against owning "high capacity mags" etc. More folks in jail. More driven to bankruptcy by legal fees, court fees, etc. That's just some of what they propose. But they hide some of that because they know the mass of the people hate that.

    Meetings, demonstrations, letters to the editor, all tools to be used. To carefully explain what they aim to do.
     
    P5 Guy and JTHunter like this.
  25. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,489
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Common sense gun control means keeping violent criminals away from guns not the law abiding. Problem with the gun grabbers is they see EVERY gun owner as a potential violent criminal, just needing the last straw to snap. We all know this is rarely if ever the case but those that hate/fear firearms do not accept this as truth.
    Most all violent crime is repeat violent offenders doing the same crimes over and over. Keeping those people out of society will reduce gun violence to near zero as possible.
    So, common sense violent people control has the only path to success.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice