RE: Another poitless gun death. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:41:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

But you can't say death by guns has nothing to do with death by guns. Remember Politesub's link was not talking about crime and gangs... but accidental death by... what...hmmmmm... guns.

And even if, my point, there were no crime...or gangs.. or social inequalities... the accidental death by guns would continue... as things are now. Nothing will ever be prefect because of our rights to own guns... but improvements can be made that will save lives. But only if gun owners admit there is a problem.

Butch

The link didnt distinguish accidental or not, it just say injury by guns which in the last 3 pages we debunked because over 84% of those numbers arent death of kids but death of teens...

the point you dont seem to understand is, take away guns they will use knives, bows and arrows rocks and what ever the fuck else... why because your not addressing the reason why they are killing... guns dont kill people, people kill people, I can drop a gun over and over and over and there will be no death because of it unless you pull the trigger.

The reason theres such a high prevalance of gun deaths is to get in most gangs you have to kill someone, to advance in the rank of gangs you have to kill some shorty shorted you on your dope payment you kill her.

The problem isnt guns, its the lack of value on life




kdsub -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:43:05 PM)

Teens are children to me.. it is a lot harder for a 5 year old... or a teen for that matter to accidentally kill himself or another with weapons you listed... unless thousands of children all of a sudden start running with scissors.

Butch




quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:45:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Teens are children to me.

Butch

and 18 year olds are legally fucking adults... unless they changed the laws on me while i was eating my soup




kdsub -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:46:47 PM)

I added to my post please read




kdsub -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:48:14 PM)

Unless my math is wrong... most teens are not 18 and 19.. but they are children too... would you not agree?.




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:54:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Teens are children to me.. it is a lot harder for a 5 year old... or a teen for that matter to accidentally kill himself or another with weapons you listed... unless thousands of children all of a sudden start running with scissors.

Butch

a 15 year old can get a license to drive a motorcycle
a 16 year old can get a license to drive a car
a 17 year old can join the military
a 18 year old can drive a semi
a 18 year old can vote

that is not activity for children.




Kirata -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:56:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Teens are children to me.

Well there's your problem. The rest of are talking about what the word "child" means here on Earth.

a person between birth and puberty ~Houghton-Mifflin
a boy or girl between birth and puberty ~Collins
a young person from the time they are born until they are about 14 years old ~MacMillan
a young person especially between infancy and youth ~Merriam-Webster

K.




quizzicalkitten -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 7:56:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I added to my post please read



They find ways you cant put a bandaid on the problem guns arent the issue, because a 15 year old whos killing another kid with a gun isnt legally owning that gun,

How about instead of trying to ban guns, you look at a solution to the problem which is kids killing kids...

theres nothing accidental about a teen joining a gang or playing the knock out game. Accidental gun death is SO small its not even funny, Intentional gun death however.... is a problem

Example 2010 31076 dead of guns... 606 unintentionally....
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

And a more extensive view on accidental shootings for 7 years

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/04/24/accidental-v-intentional-fatal/

so a small percent roughly 4 percent from 2000 to 2007... die of accidental death...

But many thousands more die from intentional death, dont you think MAYBE we should fix the INTENTIONAL death seeing as it was the cause of 30470 deaths in 2010?




kdsub -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:02:24 PM)

I will agree with the military.. when it comes to guns.

Butch




subrosaDom -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:21:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Teens are children to me.. it is a lot harder for a 5 year old... or a teen for that matter to accidentally kill himself or another with weapons you listed... unless thousands of children all of a sudden start running with scissors.

Butch

a 15 year old can get a license to drive a motorcycle
a 16 year old can get a license to drive a car
a 17 year old can join the military
a 18 year old can drive a semi
a 18 year old can vote

that is not activity for children.


Based on the results, voting appears not to be an activity suitable for most adults.




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:24:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I will agree with the military.. when it comes to guns.

Butch

If you think about it a motorscycle, a car, and a semi are more powerful than any gun. Had they not been serious I would have laughed at the headline a few months ago which read Police shoot unarmed teenager
He was making his second attempt to run them down with his pickup.

And if you think that voting is an activity for children .........




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:26:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Teens are children to me.. it is a lot harder for a 5 year old... or a teen for that matter to accidentally kill himself or another with weapons you listed... unless thousands of children all of a sudden start running with scissors.

Butch

a 15 year old can get a license to drive a motorcycle
a 16 year old can get a license to drive a car
a 17 year old can join the military
a 18 year old can drive a semi
a 18 year old can vote

that is not activity for children.


Based on the results, voting appears not to be an activity suitable for most adults.


They don't do a very good job of it.




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:29:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I will agree with the military.. when it comes to guns.

Butch

Then at a minimum you would agree that 17-20 year olds should be removed.
That gets rid of most of the study.
Before you start getting things like they didn't hold the gun right and banged up their shoulder.
Keep in mind that the result of this study was determined before they started compiling data, not exactly the scientific method now is it.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:31:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Cars and poisons and pools, fires, stabbings, beatings, domestic abuse, drugs, rapes, accidents with power tools ,stupid parents, abusive parents, negligent adults, ignorant neighbours and curious children happen everywhere, in every country every day.
Humans are stupid.

There are regulations made covering safety issues when they become problematic or a solution is found to lessen the harm caused.
That a huge number of people dont get why others get upset angry, passionate about the pointless preventable deaths caused by idiots with guns. And especially those who have no desire to see a change in laws, OR enforcement of laws 7in place to lessen the harm done by idiots with guns is selfish, shortsighted and ignorant especially when they pretend (to themselves mostly) they have never done anything stupid/careless or thoughtless in their lives.

And yet...for all those regulations and laws, people die. Children die. In most cases, irresponsible behavior on the part of children masquerading as adults is involved.


Actually, because of those regulations, far fewer die. Most idiots whom would do such a thing, will not be thinking on whether the action will kill them, but on the penalty of doing such a thing. There are laws against murder. Murder laws are a REGULATION. People still get murdered; but how much less are ey murder than if there was no law covering murder?
That may be so, Joe but people still died and that was the point. You can make laws, you can make regulations and people will still die. I have no problem with laws and regulations until they infringe on my rights because of idiots that DON'T follow the laws and regulations. As I stated, punish them...not me. More children between the ages of 1 - 14 died as a result of drowning accidents and automobile accidents than died due to a gun
accident.

www.cpsc.gov/en/newsroom/news-releases/2012/in-home-danger-cpsc-warns-of-Children-drowning-in-bathtubs-bath-seats-And-buckets-more
www.theincidentaleconomist.com/WordPress/#article/32067

quote:

The only person displaying irresponsible behavior in this discussion is YOU. You do not understand what a law or regulation is defined (a regulation is a law, and a law is a regulation).
Actually joether, there is a difference. Congress enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of the laws passed.
www.answers.com/Q/what_is_the_difference_between_laws_and_regulations
Does that make you irresponsible now...not knowing the difference? Or just an idiot for not bothering to look it up before running your mouth?


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Having a swimming pool or a car or drugs is not a right. Having a gun is.


Yes, if you ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment and reinterpret the second half anyway you want; yes, having a firearm is an 'individual right'. Of course, I still haven't found a single conservative or gun nut on here that feels its 'ok' to ignore politically inconvenient concepts of other amendments and reinterpret the remainder of those amendments in a politically advantage way. If its not 'ok' to ignore parts of an amendment nor reinterpret them to fit our narrow political views; then its not 'ok' for conservatives and gun nuts to do the same on the 2nd amendment. For what you do on the 2nd, the government can easily do on the 8th. Would you like the first half of the 8th amendment being ignored and the second half reinterpreted by the government? You forget, that our government is run by US Citizens, whom have just as much to the rights as you do.
quote:

Here you go again with the amendments. But again, you're wrong. In the District of Columbia vs Heller (2008), the SCOTUS held that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to possess and carry firearms. Since they're the highest court in the land, you don't mind if I go along with their interpretation instead of yours, do you?


And your also wrong thinking you have a right to a gun. When US Citizens get tired of the blatant deaths due to firearms, things will be changed. The more of an asshole and dick you show your fellow Americans, the FASTER, that will happen. So you have nothing to gain by behaving in that form. You might consider improving your behavior.
quote:

See the above. And if you can show me waving my dick and asshole anywhere on this thread, point it out. If you can show me exhibiting any name-calling of any poster on this thread, in the manner that you have...just on this post...name the post number. I'll turn myself into the mods.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Because it is, some folks get upset when others argue as if it is the gun's fault rather than the person(s) handling it. And part of that is because those who argue most vociferously against guns do not come to these boards ranting when a child is killed by some parent stoked on drugs. They don't come ranting on the boards when some child drowns in a bathtub, left unattended by a young mother on her cell phone. They don't come ranting on the boards when some poor old gentleman is knocked unconscious ...and later dies... by some young thug playing the knock-out game. And yet...let a tragedy occur where a gun is involved and suddenly you have those like tweakabelle saying that no 2nd Amendment right is worth a drop of "precious child" blood. I don't like to assume because that's usually where I am proved wrong but I would be willing to bet that for tweakabelle...And some others...that statement would be extended to mean no drop of precious HUMAN blood.


I'm not saying to ban the 2nd amendment due to this instance. I am saying that unfortunately, we'll have to regulate this issue in the hopes that range owners do not hire total idiots to be instructors. And that firearm instruction with children is handled in a very specific manner. I don't think children should be allowed automatic firearms....EVER.
quote:

I really don't think you'll find many people disagreeing about automatic weapons in the hands of children on this thread, joether. Certainly not me, as I've stated. The problem comes when you start deciding the age limit for a child. And when you run into those who want no restrictions on their rights (unrealistic) and those who do want to scrap 2nd Amendment rights because "even if it saved only one life, isn't it worth it?"(again, unrealistic)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
The bigger problem comes about when they say "reasonable" regulations and then want to try and wrap up a right in a more restrictive package than anything else just waiting for a tragedy. Do I, as a gun owner, think that handing over an Uzi to a 9 year old is smart? Responsible? No. Nor do most of the gun rights proponents on this thread. So, punish the parents under child abuse statutes or make a law restricting the age of someone that is allowed to use an Uzi. The problem comes about when you want to restrict my access to one. If I have gone through a background check, taken a gun safety course and don't use it illegally, it is my right to have it. I've gone through more vetting to own a gun than I did to own a car which can be just as dangerous. More than I went through to have a child. Some people say that's a right too but I don't see anti-gun people lining up to demand background checks on those folks, despite the fact that there are a helluva lot more children killed through neglect and abuse every year than there are children killed by irresponsible gun owners.


See that BOLD part? That's you demanding a regulation. Someone that's against regulations.
quote:

See that finger scratching my head? That's me wondering where you got the idea I am against regulations that are specific? I have a problem with regulations restricting the rights of the responsible while not affecting the irresponsible.


No one on this thread is stating to restrict your usage of firearms. The WHOLE thread is about 'how do you feel about this event, and what could be done to minimize it going forward'.
quote:

See tweakabelle


An there are quite a number of different systems, tools, regulations, and people that deal with child abuse and neglect in the nation. Its a thankless job, but it helps keep children from being abused and killed.
quote:

Not completely, they don't. You don't seriously think I just looked up numbers of death of children due to drowning or auto accidents, do you?




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:36:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Cars and poisons and pools, fires, stabbings, beatings, domestic abuse, drugs, rapes, accidents with power tools ,stupid parents, abusive parents, negligent adults, ignorant neighbours and curious children happen everywhere, in every country every day.
Humans are stupid.

There are regulations made covering safety issues when they become problematic or a solution is found to lessen the harm caused.
That a huge number of people dont get why others get upset angry, passionate about the pointless preventable deaths caused by idiots with guns. And especially those who have no desire to see a change in laws, OR enforcement of laws 7in place to lessen the harm done by idiots with guns is selfish, shortsighted and ignorant especially when they pretend (to themselves mostly) they have never done anything stupid/careless or thoughtless in their lives.

And yet...for all those regulations and laws, people die. Children die. In most cases, irresponsible behavior on the part of children masquerading as adults is involved.


Actually, because of those regulations, far fewer die. Most idiots whom would do such a thing, will not be thinking on whether the action will kill them, but on the penalty of doing such a thing. There are laws against murder. Murder laws are a REGULATION. People still get murdered; but how much less are they murder than if there was no law covering murder?
That may be so, Joe but people still died and that was the point. You can make laws, you can make regulations and people will still die. I have no problem with laws and regulations until they infringe on my rights because of idiots that DON'T follow the laws and regulations. As I stated, punish them...not me. More children between the ages of 1 - 14 died as a result of drowning accidents and automobile accidents than died due to a gun
accident.

www.cpsc.gov/en/newsroom/news-releases/2012/in-home-danger-cpsc-warns-of-Children-drowning-in-bathtubs-bath-seats-And-buckets-more
www.theincidentaleconomist.com/WordPress/#article/32067

quote:

The only person displaying irresponsible behavior in this discussion is YOU. You do not understand what a law or regulation is defined (a regulation is a law, and a law is a regulation).
Actually joether, there is a difference. Congress enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of the laws passed.
www.answers.com/Q/what_is_the_difference_between_laws_and_regulations
Does that make you irresponsible now...not knowing the difference? Or just an idiot for not bothering to look it up before running your mouth?


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Having a swimming pool or a car or drugs is not a right. Having a gun is.


Yes, if you ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment and reinterpret the second half anyway you want; yes, having a firearm is an 'individual right'. Of course, I still haven't found a single conservative or gun nut on here that feels its 'ok' to ignore politically inconvenient concepts of other amendments and reinterpret the remainder of those amendments in a politically advantage way. If its not 'ok' to ignore parts of an amendment nor reinterpret them to fit our narrow political views; then its not 'ok' for conservatives and gun nuts to do the same on the 2nd amendment. For what you do on the 2nd, the government can easily do on the 8th. Would you like the first half of the 8th amendment being ignored and the second half reinterpreted by the government? You forget, that our government is run by US Citizens, whom have just as much to the rights as you do.Here you go again with the amendments. But again, you're wrong. In the District of Columbia vs Heller (2008), the SCOTUS held that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to possess and carry firearms. Since they're the highest court in the land, you don't mind if I go along with their interpretation instead of yours, do you?

And your also wrong thinking you have a right to a gun. When US Citizens get tired of the blatant deaths due to firearms, things will be changed. The more of an asshole and dick you show your fellow Americans, the FASTER, that will happen. So you have nothing to gain by behaving in that form. You might consider improving your behavior.See the above. And if you can show me waving my dick and asshole anywhere on this thread, point it out. If you can show me exhibiting any name-calling of any poster on this thread, in the manner that you have...just on this post...name the post number. I'll turn myself into the mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Because it is, some folks get upset when others argue as if it is the gun's fault rather than the person(s) handling it. And part of that is because those who argue most vociferously against guns do not come to these boards ranting when a child is killed by some parent stoked on drugs. They don't come ranting on the boards when some child drowns in a bathtub, left unattended by a young mother on her cell phone. They don't come ranting on the boards when some poor old gentleman is knocked unconscious ...and later dies... by some young thug playing the knock-out game. And yet...let a tragedy occur where a gun is involved and suddenly you have those like tweakabelle saying that no 2nd Amendment right is worth a drop of "precious child" blood. I don't like to assume because that's usually where I am proved wrong but I would be willing to bet that for tweakabelle...And some others...that statement would be extended to mean no drop of precious HUMAN blood.


I'm not saying to ban the 2nd amendment due to this instance. I am saying that unfortunately, we'll have to regulate this issue in the hopes that range owners do not hire total idiots to be instructors. And that firearm instruction with children is handled in a very specific manner. I don't think children should be allowed automatic firearms....EVER.I really don't think you'll find many people disagreeing about automatic weapons in the hands of children on this thread, northern. Certainly not me, as I've stated. The problem comes when you start deciding the age limit for a child. And when you run into those who want no restrictions on their rights (unrealistic) and those who do want to scrap 2nd Amendment rights because "even if it saved only one life, isn't it worth it?"(again, unrealistic)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
The bigger problem comes about when they say "reasonable" regulations and then want to try and wrap up a right in a more restrictive package than anything else just waiting for a tragedy. Do I, as a gun owner, think that handing over an Uzi to a 9 year old is smart? Responsible? No. Nor do most of the gun rights proponents on this thread. So, punish the parents under child abuse statutes or make a law restricting the age of someone that is allowed to use an Uzi. The problem comes about when you want to restrict my access to one. If I have gone through a background check, taken a gun safety course and don't use it illegally, it is my right to have it. I've gone through more vetting to own a gun than I did to own a car which can be just as dangerous. More than I went through to have a child. Some people say that's a right too but I don't see anti-gun people lining up to demand background checks on those folks, despite the fact that there are a helluva lot more children killed through neglect and abuse every year than there are children killed by irresponsible gun owners.


See that BOLD part? That's you demanding a regulation. Someone that's against regulations.See that finger scratching my head? That's me wondering where you got the idea I am against regulations that are specific? I have a problem with regulations restricting the rights of the responsible while not affecting the irresponsible.

No one on this thread is stating to restrict your usage of firearms. The WHOLE thread is about 'how do you feel about this event, and what could be done to minimize it going forward'. See tweakabelle

An there are quite a number of different systems, tools, regulations, and people that deal with child abuse and neglect in the nation. Its a thankless job, but it helps keep children from being abused and killed.
Not completely, they don't. You don't seriously think I just looked up numbers of death of children due to drowning or auto accidents, do you?


This looks like something got messed up in the posting .




CreativeDominant -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:47:40 PM)

Yeah...I fixed it. I am a techno-idiot when it comes to posting from my phone[:o]




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 8:56:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yeah...I fixed it. I am a techno-idiot when it comes to posting from my phone[:o]

It still flipped half way through and showed him as responses to your post but I was able to follow it.
Have you noticed that the less j has to say, the more words he uses.
He is our most verbose poster.
I particularly liked the part where he said that you don't have a right to bear arms then on his next line assured you that no one was trying to restrict your rights.




Kirata -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 9:25:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes, if you ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment and reinterpret the second half anyway you want...

I think you've been inhaling too much ether.

The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin

The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton

To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922

As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982

The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation

K.




BamaD -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 9:34:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes, if you ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment and reinterpret the second half anyway you want...

I think you've been inhaling too much ether.

The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin

The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton

To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922

As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982

The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation

K.


Haven't we explained this to him repeatedly?




Kirata -> RE: Another poitless gun death. (8/28/2014 9:37:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Haven't we explained this to him repeatedly?

Joether is a fellow on whom the effects of a pre-frontal lobotomy would go unnoticed.

K.





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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625