RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/21/2011 2:16:59 PM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

quote:

which is why there's probably a gun shop in every other shopping mall in the US.

Yep, right between Victoria's Secret and Sees Candies. Do you really believe this? LOL

Generally don't use the word "probably" on things I really believe.... ;)

quote:

Also, you seem to have missed my post responding to your theory on the right to bear arms. It's post #218

Ummmm, probably.... lol Perhaps you've noticed I've been a busy little camper in here....? That and there's a shelf-life on me responding to those only looking for an argument or be difficult etc. Not saying you are but there's quite a few of those in here, too, so I've done my share of "skipping"....

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to WyldHrt)

Post #: 241

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/21/2011 2:46:43 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

I guess you conveniently overlooked that "at close range" estimate for your hand cannon, huh? Embarrassing, perhaps?

What I would find embarrassing is equating the suffering of an unwilling victim to the suffering of a violent criminal who gets his ass nailed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

<braces for a torrent of technical gobbledygook>

I apologize for offending your sensibilities by presenting technical facts that expose your ignorance. I sincerely hope this post avoids that.

K.

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 242

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/21/2011 2:46:56 PM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

quote:

What "amuses" me, and something that 2nd Amendment fundamentalists can and do argue about (denial is a wonderful drug) is that the right to bear arms that enables you to protect yourselves is the very reason you need to. Cause and consequence in one neat constitutional bundle....

I disagree. If you made every gun disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, violent criminals would simply pick up knives, tire irons, machetes, baseball bats, etc and get on with the 'business' of assault, rape, robbery, murder, and other crimes. Saying that getting rid of guns will somehow get rid of the criminal scum that currently use them is just silly, particularly since there are plenty of violent crimes committed without guns (sometimes without any weapon at all) worldwide, gun bans or no.

That said, I have a belaying pin next to my bed (banging it on something metal scares wildlife away from the trash). It is solid oak, the size of a small billy club, and perfectly capable of killing a person if used as a weapon.

Still, should someone break into my home while I am there, I will pass on the pin and reach for the 9mm. I have about zero desire to get into a physical fight with a criminal possibly much larger and stronger than myself, whether xhe is armed with a gun, a knife, or nothing at all.

Lol, looks like I didn't miss this post, I skipped it....

But ok - we mature adults here *know* there'll always be a criminal element in any society. Violent criminals, for the sake of this discussion. What your "right to bear arms" does is escalate degree and brinkmanship of that violence. And the one thing every American in this thread conveniently skips over - "collateral damage"....

You have the right to bear arms. That means there are plenty of gunshops etc available to legally acquire those arms. Shops mean a thriving business. Any industry that thrives inevitably attracts the criminal element and black-market supplies etc.... Human nature says there'll always be a nut who wants more than the next guy. Guns and paranoia are common bed-fellows.... "Survivalists".... The tentacles are infinite.

I wonder how many accidentally die cleaning their "knives, tire irons, machetes, baseball bats" etc. Or accidentally kill a loved one with them.... Or their kids die from playing with them even though they were forbidden to.

I never once said or implied getting rid of guns would get rid of the criminal scum etc. But it sure as hell would limit the damage they can do. And especially the damage an over-zealous defender does, including to their innocent own....

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to WyldHrt)

Post #: 243

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/21/2011 2:53:29 PM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

I guess you conveniently overlooked that "at close range" estimate for your hand cannon, huh? Embarrassing, perhaps?

I apologize for offending your sensibilities by presenting technical facts that expose your ignorance. I sincerely hope this post avoids that.

Still dodging the question AND claiming the moral high-ground with it.

Yorta run for office....

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 244

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/21/2011 3:23:33 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

Still dodging the question AND claiming the moral high-ground with it.

See? I answered your question. You're just making shit up. Right there, you've shown that you have the moral fiber of a snake. Add to that, you don't know fuck about firearms, dismiss facts as "gobbletygook," and, I suppose, imagine Harvard University to be in the business of fabricating research for the NRA.

On the plus side, though, I've heard that Australia's kangaroos are actually fairly intelligent.

K.

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 245

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/21/2011 5:17:13 PM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I don't know what you mean that our government could do a lot more on the types of arms our citizens have a right to bear.

Private ownership of a machine gun (full auto) requires a permit, a tax to be paid and quite an extensive background check by the FBI. To possess one illegally would be in violation of federal laws and likely state laws as well. This would cause you some major shit if caught with one and highly likely you would face jail time. It's not something I would want to mess with so I wouldn't touch one without a permit or unless I was with someone who owns it legally.

Yanno, I've been a sport but there comes a point where I get tired of banging my head against a wall. You're a talker, not a listener.

You seriously don't know what I mean about the types of weapons available and then tell me all about how a permit and FBI check etc is required to buy your (presumably) home defense machine gun! A freakin' machine gun, for cryin' out loud?

I'm happy to discuss most things with practically anyone here - but you have to try, too!

You stated in post #238 our "government could do a lot more on the types of arms your citizens have a right to bear." I was simply asking what do you think they should do. I'm still askin.

I know about the types of weapons available. Apparently I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you mean. You are the one who stated in post #238 "You simply don't need heavy, *full auto* firepower to defend yourself " and I'm tryin to tell ya, not only do we not use full auto for home defense but you can't just trot on down to the gun store and buy a machine gun. Full auto would generally not be practical for home defense and for that matter neither are rifles of any kind. Handguns or shotguns would be the most common choice.

In the US, using typical gun terminology, if using the words heavy, and full auto in the same sentence you would likely be referring to something like a Browning 50 caliber machine gun. There are heavy machine guns and light machines guns. Heavy could refer to bullet weight for any particular caliber you might be talking about. I have heard the line "I'm going in heavy" meaning going in well armed with the baddest arms you can carry and crap loads of ammo prepared to shoot it out, but I mostly hear that line in the movies. You really need to be more clear assuming you know what your talking about which I seriously doubt.

So maybe we "don't need" heavy firepower for home defense or "half the stuff available at the average gun store". Whats your point ?

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 246

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 3:26:27 AM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

Still dodging the question AND claiming the moral high-ground with it.

See? I answered your question. You're just making shit up. Right there, you've shown that you have the moral fiber of a snake. Add to that, you don't know fuck about firearms, dismiss facts as "gobbletygook," and, I suppose, imagine Harvard University to be in the business of fabricating research for the NRA.

On the plus side, though, I've heard that Australia's kangaroos are actually fairly intelligent.

Weeeeell, let's just see about that....

Here's your statement:
Kirata:
"In a face off with an non-full automatic "assault" rifle at close range, assuming equal skill the guy with the .45 has a much better chance of being the one left standing."

I called you out to clarify your fluffy "at close range" comment; ie, an estimated distance that'd constitute close range for your .45....
And I quote (myself): "So why don't you give us some context of what constitutes "close range" for your heavy calibre, short barrelled handgun."

You've posted 4 times since - and nothing! That'd be you answering my question, eh? And that'd be me making shit up and being the snake as a consequence for what your shrink undoubtedly refers to as "transference"?

You're all gob and no ticker - you've got nuthin'....

Ante up or fold.

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 247

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 3:34:36 AM

BOUNTYHUNTER

Posts: 9259
Joined: 2/5/2004
Status: offline

Focus, how about a double barrel saw off 12 gage with oo buck..It tends to put the 45 in its place for close range jobs smile..Bounty

_____________________________

US going to hell in a hand basket/

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 248

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 4:11:37 AM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

You stated in post #238 our "government could do a lot more on the types of arms your citizens have a right to bear." I was simply asking what do you think they should do. I'm still askin.

I know about the types of weapons available. Apparently I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you mean. You are the one who stated in post #238 "You simply don't need heavy, *full auto* firepower to defend yourself " and I'm tryin to tell ya, not only do we not use full auto for home defense but you can't just trot on down to the gun store and buy a machine gun. Full auto would generally not be practical for home defense and for that matter neither are rifles of any kind. Handguns or shotguns would be the most common choice.

In the US, using typical gun terminology, if using the words heavy, and full auto in the same sentence you would likely be referring to something like a Browning 50 caliber machine gun. There are heavy machine guns and light machines guns. Heavy could refer to bullet weight for any particular caliber you might be talking about. I have heard the line "I'm going in heavy" meaning going in well armed with the baddest arms you can carry and crap loads of ammo prepared to shoot it out, but I mostly hear that line in the movies. You really need to be more clear assuming you know what your talking about which I seriously doubt.

So maybe we "don't need" heavy firepower for home defense or "half the stuff available at the average gun store". Whats your point ?

You're the one telling me you can buy a machine gun with the right permit and FBI check etc. How about you tell me wtf a citizen even needs with a machine gun...! Surely you can remotely grasp the point I'm making? There comes a point where you draw the line on what constitutes the arms you have a right to bear. Machine guns, for example? IE, that's me saying your "government could do a lot more on the types of arms your citizens have a right to bear."

As for "heavy weapons".... A humble .22 is more than capable of putting the average adult down hard at 20 metres with one shot. Of killing them with that one shot. But in comparison, your .45 handgun or assault type rifle is much *heavier* in stopping power. Where the .22 will likely drop you, the others will probably send you cart-wheeling from the greater impact energy of these heavier weapons. "Heavy" is a common slang term here for such higher powered weapons, esp if you're talking big bored rifles....

Your .50 Browning machine-gun is just a bit too much, however; it's practically artillery! Most would likely have trouble just lifting one, let alone contemplate firing it from a hand-held position. For memory, they were pretty much the standard offensive weapon for WWII American fighter planes and even Sabre jets etc. But ok, for a machine gun firing a non-exploding munition, it might well be the heaviest of all....

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 249

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 4:16:04 AM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

Focus, how about a double barrel saw off 12 gage with oo buck..It tends to put the 45 in its place for close range jobs smile..Bounty

Sounds like you're talking from experience.

Scarey....

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to BOUNTYHUNTER)

Post #: 250

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 4:30:10 AM

BOUNTYHUNTER

Posts: 9259
Joined: 2/5/2004
Status: offline

yes I am and it is very scary to be looking down the barrel of a sawoff..Bountuy

_____________________________

US going to hell in a hand basket/

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 251

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 8:17:12 AM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

You stated in post #238 our "government could do a lot more on the types of arms your citizens have a right to bear." I was simply asking what do you think they should do. I'm still askin.

I know about the types of weapons available. Apparently I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you mean. You are the one who stated in post #238 "You simply don't need heavy, *full auto* firepower to defend yourself " and I'm tryin to tell ya, not only do we not use full auto for home defense but you can't just trot on down to the gun store and buy a machine gun. Full auto would generally not be practical for home defense and for that matter neither are rifles of any kind. Handguns or shotguns would be the most common choice.

In the US, using typical gun terminology, if using the words heavy, and full auto in the same sentence you would likely be referring to something like a Browning 50 caliber machine gun. There are heavy machine guns and light machines guns. Heavy could refer to bullet weight for any particular caliber you might be talking about. I have heard the line "I'm going in heavy" meaning going in well armed with the baddest arms you can carry and crap loads of ammo prepared to shoot it out, but I mostly hear that line in the movies. You really need to be more clear assuming you know what your talking about which I seriously doubt.

So maybe we "don't need" heavy firepower for home defense or "half the stuff available at the average gun store". Whats your point ?

You're the one telling me you can buy a machine gun with the right permit and FBI check etc. How about you tell me wtf a citizen even needs with a machine gun...! Surely you can remotely grasp the point I'm making? There comes a point where you draw the line on what constitutes the arms you have a right to bear. Machine guns, for example? IE, that's me saying your "government could do a lot more on the types of arms your citizens have a right to bear."

Focus.

   WTF does a citizen need with a machine gun ? I don't know. The reasons I'm sure would vary from one individual to the next. Whats your problem with a citizen owning a machine gun ? Most would be a want rather than need. I'll refer you again to the 2nd amendment, post 226, paragraph 3.

   Where we draw the line is small arms. No one is asking for tanks artillery or nuclear weapons.

   Yes I grasp the point your making though you won't just come out and flatly state it. You think semi autos and whatever you consider heavy should be outlawed and all turned in to be melted down into scrap metal. It's not going to happen. Once again I'm wrapping myself in the flag and crying 2nd amendment. Reread post 226, 3rd paragraph.

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 252

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 8:29:03 AM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

As for "heavy weapons".... A humble .22 is more than capable of putting the average adult down hard at 20 metres with one shot. Of killing them with that one shot. But in comparison, your .45 handgun or assault type rifle is much *heavier* in stopping power. Where the .22 will likely drop you, the others will probably send you cart-wheeling from the greater impact energy of these heavier weapons. "Heavy" is a common slang term here for such higher powered weapons, esp if you're talking big bored rifles....

Focus.

This paragraph makes it painfully obvious you have very little idea about what your talking about. You gained a small amount of knowledge somewhere but certainly not enough on the subject for which you try to speak with authority.

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 253

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 11:56:19 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

And I quote (myself): "So why don't you give us some context of what constitutes "close range" for your heavy calibre, short barrelled handgun."

See? There you go again. You're not quoting from the post I responded to.

I guess you conveniently overlooked that "at close range" estimate for your hand cannon, huh?Embarrassing, perhaps?

Now try to focus here, mister Focus: I answered you. Not embarrassing at all. Get it now? I'm never embarrassed when some fool drags a fish across the road and gets cranky because I didn't follow the scent into the woods.

K.

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 254

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 12:46:42 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

A humble .22 is more than capable of putting the average adult down hard at 20 metres with one shot.

The Hatcher Formula is a mathematical formula use to evaluate the approximate effectiveness of pistol ammunition in incapacitating a person shot with it. It was developed by Gen. Julian Hatcher in the 1930s and uses the bullet momentum, bullet frontal area, velocity, and a form or shape factor. It was derived from his observations of the effects of pistol ammunition on cadavers and steers. While it does not take into consideration bullet penetration or expansion and is basically an approximation, it is still a good formula to use to give one an idea of how a given round will stack up as a fight stopper.

Using a form factor adjusted for expansion, and granting variances due to barrel length, I found these Hatcher ratings for common cartridges:

Hatcher Rating -- Handgun Cartridge Type

136.8 --- .44 Magnum lead wad cutter 240 grain
92.3 --- .44 Magnum full metal jacket 240 grain
80.0 --- .41 Magnum lead wad cutter 230 grain
76.5 --- .44 Special lead wad cutter 240 grain
62.1 --- 10 millimeter jacketed hollow point 180 grain
60.7 --- .45 ACP jacketed hollow point 230 grain
59.4 --- .40 S&W jacketed hollow point 180 grain
54.0 --- .41 Magnum full metal jacket 230 grain
53.4 --- .40 S&W full metal jacket flat nose 180 grain
51.6 --- .44 Special full metal jacket 240 grain
50.3 --- 10 millimeter full metal jacket 180 grain
49.1 --- .45 ACP full metal jacket 230 grain
45.2 --- .357 SIG jacketed hollow point 147 grain
39.9 --- 9 millimeter jacketed hollow point 147 grain
39.7 --- .38 Special lead wad cutter 158 grain
36.6 --- .357 SIG full metal jacket 147 grain
32.7 --- .357 Magnum full metal jacket 158 grain
32.3 --- 9 millimeter full metal jacket 147 grain
26.7 --- .38 Special full metal jacket 158 grain
18.3 --- .380 Auto jacketed hollow point 95 grain
11.1 --- .32 Auto jacketed hollow point 71 grain
4.2 --- .22 Long Rifle jacketed hollow point 40 grain
3.7 --- .25 Auto jacketed hollow point 50 grain

There is no way to reliably put "the average adult down hard" short of a head shot with a round capable of inflicting instantly sufficient brain damage.

The FBI sums it up...

Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart if instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds...

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet... the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

Thanks for playing.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/22/2011 1:49:24 PM >

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 255

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 1:39:27 PM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

Why bother anymore Kirata. He won't comprehend that table or even try to. He is just trying to trip us up with his gun knowledge that he doesn't have. The guy is just against the private ownership or restrictions of certain types of guns. Until he begins to state his point more clearly whatever that may be, we are just going round and round for nothing. I mean going down hard with a .22 ??? LMAO

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 256

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 1:53:30 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Why bother anymore Kirata.

Not for his benefit, that's for sure.

K.

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 257

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 1:59:03 PM

susan34B

Posts: 30
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

I just wonder how many people advocating the possession of fire arms of any calibre could live with themselves if they actually killed someone....wether they were agressors or inocent bystanders

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 258

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 3:31:59 PM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Now try to focus here, mister Focus: I answered you. Not embarrassing at all. Get it now? I'm never embarrassed when some fool drags a fish across the road and gets cranky because I didn't follow the scent into the woods.

Nope; that's not your post; that's a link and I don't bother with them.

You've gotta man-up and put your name to it on *this* public board, just as I've done. It was a very simple estimation or should be for a gun nut of your self-proclaimed expertise.

Not interested in Hatcher - or the FBI - or your other technical mumbo jumbo unless it's your own. Gun nuts and NRA fundamentalists have always got subjective stats and technical reports to quote. Pardon me if I doubt their objectivity....

I'm talking to you, what's *your* opinion? And still you've got nuthin' but dodge and deflections. Pffft

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 259

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner - 5/22/2011 3:39:21 PM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: susan34B

I just wonder how many people advocating the possession of fire arms of any calibre could live with themselves if they actually killed someone....wether they were agressors or inocent bystanders

Ok I'll bite. Certainly shooting an innocent bystander accidentally or by mistake it would be hard to live with myself not to mention all the legal hassles with law suites or being charged with a crime. It's something I would feel guilty over for the rest of my life I'm sure.

As for shooting an aggressor it would not be the same kind of guilt. I would of course wish that it never happened. Even if the shooting was justified it could mean legal hassles too. In the first place the best thing to do rather than face a confrontation is avoid it or run but that is not always possible. In your own house what else can you do ? What kind of guilt would you feel if your kid, friend, relative or spouse was killed by an aggressor and you beat your self up over it wondering if only I could have done something ? What kind of guilt do you think the OP has for not allowing herself to be raped ?

(in reply to susan34B)

Post #: 260

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109