gun law reform... please!

Dr Kynes · Sep 7, 2012

canndo said:
Dr Kynes said:

canndo said:

Hang on, I never said ours was not a Constitutional Republic. I neglected for your sake however, to say that most are under the impression that ours is a democracy, you see that word waved around here often as though those who managed to pay attention only to their 8th grade civics presentation actually believe that we all vote for every option or decision.

I, unfortunately will become one of the casualties should things collapse, I like to believe otherwise, knowing the plants I do and having self sufficiency that many of us who inhabit the underground that is the pot culture but I know in my heart that I will finally fail.

Unless you think to save me - I do have a series of valuable skill sets and knowlege - should things fall appart I will be sure to get you my address.

you would quickly find that there are some individuals who, when they can.... lead, and when they cannot, know perfectly well how to follow.

Click to expand...

i may be able to squeeze you into a slot in my zombie apocalypse lineup, but i will not be bumping any hot chicks for ya homey, that would be crazy.

the key to a strong tribal unit is not leader + followers, it is everyone recognizing the strengths of other members and their weaknesses. i can fix machines, and grow plants, hunt fish and kill, but when it comes to being the person you can talk to when you have troubles, or treating diseases and shit, im the wrong cat. nobody can do it all, thats why we have a society. only dumbasses think they can live in a cave in the mountains and not wind up either dead or nutty as squirrel shit.

ill pencil you in as an alternate, but you WILL get bumped if a hot redhead shows up on the road. sorry bro, that just good planning there.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes · Sep 7, 2012

canndo said:
On a similar note, many on the right claim that California is in the state it is in because of democrats and liberals.

I have another view.

I believe the state has the problems it has because it depends so heavily on referendum. The people of that state leave it to the uninitiated and the lay to make decision on their own governance - they vote over issues that they have no understanding of and laws are enacted based on this ignorance. Furthermore, they insist that anyone who has gained the experience and knowlege it takes to run a state be forced out of office just at the time they are most capable of rendering proper decisions with respect to the management of the state.

They are perpetualy run by novice voters and novice elected officials who are rarely able to rule with needed expertice.

term limits were enacted because of the opposite situation to your hypothesis. case in point:

Willie Brown. he gave dozens of california's orphans and wards of the state to the tender care of Jim Jones, and still kept his seat in governance and only failed higher. he was a corrupt despicable career politician with less scruples than a snake oil salesman, but he sure could turn out the vote. he promised bread and circuses to the layabouts, and reparations to the black panthers,, no immigr5ation checks for illegals, and every document and service available in every language under the sun, even esperanto, a language as fake as klingon, to curry votes from every dipshit, dumbass asshole, and shifltess dickwad who could poke a hole in a ballot next to his name.

despite his record, willie could not be dislodged from office by anything short of a federal indictment (which was a possibility, but they never bothered) Thats why we have term limits. as to the referendums, our legislature is made up of dozens of single issue assholees who cant agree on anything and are incentivized to do nothing by their $248 a day per diem for being in sacramento. the more time they spend in sacramento the more they "earn" through their per diem.

Thats why california is the way it is,, besides the madness of King Moonbeam who is curently cutting billions from welfare, food stamps Medi-Cal (the states Medicare service) the schools and elder care (all the things leftists proclaim they love) just so he can continue to fund a bullet train between los angeles and san francisco, with no stops in between. the current plan for this toy train for the jetsetters who dont want to go through airport security for their junkets to the wine country? $6 million a day, every day, weekends and holidays included for the next 12 years.

and you guys say republicans are heartless fatcats who want to see old people die in the streets?

boedhaspeaks · Sep 7, 2012

I dont get it as dutch guy where only police and criminals have guns. What so important with those guns?
I like guns, there are some masterpieces out on the market i wish i could buy. I was a member of a legal shooting club but why do you need to carry them and do you see it as your right ?
Forgive me if i sound stupid> i'm from Europe

Carthoris · Sep 7, 2012

thehole said:
The US military's current armor wear does not guarantee stoppage of a 7.62x39 round. I should know. And when it does stop a round most of the time it does not leave the person wearing the armor unscathed. Level IV and beyond armor which is the only type of armor able to MAYBE stop such a round, is too heavy for most combat situations. Most soldiers choose mobility over more armor.

I said rated, and it does ok with it. The point was the rednecks have better/stronger guns than an AK for shooting people. I am guessing there aren't a lot of hunters in Iraq. What would they shoot at? You have a lot of rifles here that quite simply will go through our troops armor without any hesitation. I know I would not trust my life to the armor our troops use if the enemy had a 7.62x54 at 100 yards. Most hunting rounds are a lot closer to that than to 7.62x39

Dr Kynes · Sep 7, 2012

boedhaspeaks said:
I dont get it as dutch guy where only police and criminals have guns. What so important with those guns?
I like guns, there are some masterpieces out on the market i wish i could buy. I was a member of a legal shooting club but why do you need to carry them and do you see it as your right ?
Forgive me if i sound stupid> i'm from Europe

life in america is dangerous. we got wild animals, like mountaiin lions, bears coyotes, rattlesnakes and such, as well and the worst criminal element the world has to offer. why be a purse snatcher in bruges when you can do better and be much less easy to catch in teeming new york or sweltering los angeles, or permissive san francisco, or corrupt chicago? criminals come to america because it is the land of opportunity. if belgium sat next to mexico you would all carry guns too. mexico is currently only a few levels above uganda for it's random criminal violence and instability. and this is nothing new. just a little worse than usual.

if belgium were smack dab in the middle of sub-saharan africa your choclateirs would carry machineguns when they work at the sweets shop, and you know it. mexico is barely better right now, and barely worse than usual.

america also has, (not to put to fine a point on it) several entire classes of home grown criminals who have been taught since the cradle that they DESeRVE to take what they want from anybody who has more than themselves. thats why you hear all too common tales of school kids robbing each other for shoes, fucking shoes. not that the robber was shoeless, he just wanted the victim's swanky nikes or jordans or whatever shitty sneaker is popular at the moment. jacking for shoes when you already got shoes? retarded.
black liberation theology, chicanismo, and to some degree feminism all teach that your group has a RIGHT to take what they want from others based on perceived past injustice. so we create despicable self satisfied criminals who think they are doing the right thing (in the spike lee way) when they rob an old dude at the atm or push an old lady down some stairs for her social security check.

yep. guns are good. having a gun can make the difference between getting home or getting a chalk outline on the street some nights. i know, i had to draw mine once. and only a dumbass would try to mug me, but then crackheads arent that smart.

Dr Kynes · Sep 7, 2012

Carthoris said:
I said rated, and it does ok with it. The point was the rednecks have better/stronger guns than an AK for shooting people. I am guessing there aren't a lot of hunters in Iraq. What would they shoot at? You have a lot of rifles here that quite simply will go through our troops armor without any hesitation. I know I would not trust my life to the armor our troops use if the enemy had a 7.62x54 at 100 yards. Most hunting rounds are a lot closer to that than to 7.62x39

the 7.62x 39 is a pussy round, with ballistics similar to a .357 magnum with hot loads. the 7.62x 54R is a shitty obsolete round used only by the russians in their obsolete bolt rifles in ww 1 and 2. the nato .308/7.62x56 is head and shoulders above the 7.62x54R (why you forget the R always?) in every category from accuracy to trajectory to terminal performance. theres very few hunters who would try and take game with a 7.62x54R when a .308 is available. most nagants are shitty inaccurate clapped out beaters while the .308 is still available from every gunmaker in every platform available outside of repeating handguns. meanwhile the .308 only holds the default middle position in american huntin and defense arms, some of the heavy rounds (300H&H 32 Whelen etc) make the 308 look shabby. for some purposes, the .308 is simply not powerful enough or versatile enough, and thus like myself, a larger capacity cartridge with heavier bullet options is preferred. in other areas the .308 is too much gun for close in work in heavy brush so a 30/30 becomes a better choice, and even the mild 30/30 has a better chance of penetrating body armor at 100 yards than the 7.62x54R (a miss doesnt penetrate shit)

the 7.62x39 is capable of penetrating soft body armor at close range, but its not a sure bet, but then our standard battle rifle uses the fucking remington .223 varmint round, intended fro prairie dogs and coyotes. i's rather the 7.62 x 39 over a 223 in close range combat anyhow. at least a 357 can put a man down with some alacrity. both of these guns were designed for the peasant army to throw tons of lead at the enemy with next to zero aimed fire, and fill your own trenches with hot brass. thats not how i learned to shoot, and i find it shameful and wasteful that this "tactic" is used today. why have a professional army of they need 3000+ rounds to score a hit. a peasant conscript army could do that.

snowboarder396 · Sep 7, 2012

Earlier when i mentioned 7.62 i wasnt refering to the 7.62 x 39 while ak's are cheap and all that they can be very inaccurate why do you think so many countries use it? its cheap and very common round and weapon. I also wasnt refering to the 7.62x54R either. I was refering to the 7.62x51mm NATO round which is equivalant of .308 as Dr. Kynes said. I wouldnt be ever using a 7.62x39.. I use for hunting a 30.06(7.62x63mm) because its such a versatile and cheap round you can take somewhat smaller game with a smaller grain cartridge over something bigger with a higher grain one all without having use different gun or bullet caliber, also its easy to find anywhere. If i had to it would be something i could and would use for self defense over a 7.62x39 or long range self defense. If it was close quarters combat or less then 300m or so i'd use an AR 5.56mm.. same as indoors either 5.56mm or shotgun. A handgun is always your last resort for self defense or if its the only thing you have on you/can get to. It's also something you use to get to your primary weapon.

NoDrama · Sep 7, 2012

boedhaspeaks said:
I dont get it as dutch guy where only police and criminals have guns. What so important with those guns?
I like guns, there are some masterpieces out on the market i wish i could buy. I was a member of a legal shooting club but why do you need to carry them and do you see it as your right ?
Forgive me if i sound stupid> i'm from Europe

See it as our right? Umm have you looked at our constitution? The second amendment guarantees that the government is powerless to ever restrict our right to carry firearms.
I carry one because there are crazies out there who would just as soon stick a knife in your gut for the 43 dollars in your wallet than do something productive.

beardo · Sep 7, 2012

NoDrama said:
See it as our right? Umm have you looked at our constitution? The second amendment guarantees that the government is powerless to ever restrict our right to carry firearms.
I carry one because there are crazies out there who would just as soon stick a knife in your gut for the 43 dollars in your wallet than do something productive.

To bad there is no one to enforce the constitution.
I wish it was the law.
I guess there is no money in enforcing the constitution, so those that pay the enforcers disregard it.

boedhaspeaks · Sep 8, 2012

@ drkyneshttps://www.rollitup.org/members/dr-kynes-432064.html
That sound like you need a gun indeed, the only wild animals we have are in the zoo. Our criminals are much nicer i see, although they are still assholes. Also the Netherlands and Belgium are two different countries

but thanks for your reaktion, never saw it that way.

@nodrama
No i didnt watch to your laws and right so forgive me, im from Europe

It looks like your government shot itself in their own leg. Promising to not take away certain rights

But long story short, if i was an American citizen i would carry a gun (maybe two) too. And for those shootings, my opinion is that you cant blame the tool if the owner doesnt know how to handle it.

Peace and safety,
boedhaspeaks

Carthoris · Sep 8, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
no, i replied to the correct person. governance does not arise from order, order arises from governance. subjugating one's own self interest for the good of the society does not occur in anarchy, it occurs in structured ordered social groups.

you dont need to define order. it already has a definition. it is the polar opposite of chaos, you also dont need to define light and shadow, up and down, or hot and cold. these are firmly established ideas well understood by everyone.

canndo is correct. you are incorrect. without their queen, ant colonies descend into disarray, the workers panic, the drones freak out and the nest tenders frantically attempt to pupate a new queen before the food stores run out. without the queen, the colony is doomed to chaos, and ants are incapable of living alone outside of a social structure. just like most of the human populace today. most of the people in the cities would not know how to catch and kill their own prey, what plants are food and what plants are poison, and where to find clean water and shelter from the cold even 20 miles from their current home. without money and supermarkets most of you would starve. face it, come to grips with it, and accept thet you are social creatures who require a social structure to survive. only a few, a very few like myself and my brothers and cousins were taught and trained to survive without society, but that shit sucks hard. no interwebs, no porn, no tasty burgers and french fries, no central heating or air conditioning, no goddamned pretty girls, just beards and buckskins. a sausage fest on a cold mountain, and i dont swing that way. so therefore i too am a social creature.

I grew up in a swamp surrounded by protected land that no one lived on. I can live without the world. Also, people don't usually refer to the family unit as a 'government'. There is also a difference between society and government. If the Government collapsed and I went with my wife and family to live in the mountains, forests, or swamps. I might be in charge of the group, but that wouldn't make it a government.

If you believe order exists only with Government, then you are completely wrong. Order exists in every level of life and even without life. Given that the very foundation of existence is in complete and perfect order from the quarks on up, this completely proves you wrong and there need not be life or even society for order to exist. Government does not create order, it simply is a set of rules that causes the people who are within its power to set order up in a certain way. I suppose you could go out on a limb if you are religious and say that God is the president of reality and set up order and is therefor the Ultimate Dictator of Reality. I don't buy into that. What causes birds to migrate, salmon to swim home, and other things of that nature without government? Government has its uses, and I am not an anarchist. There is a difference between a government that you willingly are a part of and a government that holds you forcibly. Government is simply a manifestation of order, and not the other way around. To believe otherwise shows only a love for government control. There would be order in my life if I lived alone on a secluded island. Maybe you have a different definition of order than the dictionary does.

Definition of 'order' that fits our conversation: The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

Funny how it doesn't say government in there.

You could change your argument to 'Government provides a unnatural order that weak people are happier with.", but I doubt you like that argument more.

Government goes AGAINST the natural order of things. It doesn't create order from nothing, it replaces natural order with something else.

ChesusRice · Sep 8, 2012

Carthoris said:
I grew up in a swamp surrounded by protected land that no one lived on. I can live without the world. Also, people don't usually refer to the family unit as a 'government'. There is also a difference between society and government. If the Government collapsed and I went with my wife and family to live in the mountains, forests, or swamps. I might be in charge of the group, but that wouldn't make it a government.

If you believe order exists only with Government, then you are completely wrong. Order exists in every level of life and even without life. Given that the very foundation of existence is in complete and perfect order from the quarks on up, this completely proves you wrong and there need not be life or even society for order to exist. Government does not create order, it simply is a set of rules that causes the people who are within its power to set order up in a certain way. I suppose you could go out on a limb if you are religious and say that God is the president of reality and set up order and is therefor the Ultimate Dictator of Reality. I don't buy into that. What causes birds to migrate, salmon to swim home, and other things of that nature without government? Government has its uses, and I am not an anarchist. There is a difference between a government that you willingly are a part of and a government that holds you forcibly. Government is simply a manifestation of order, and not the other way around. To believe otherwise shows only a love for government control. There would be order in my life if I lived alone on a secluded island. Maybe you have a different definition of order than the dictionary does.

Definition of 'order' that fits our conversation: The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

Funny how it doesn't say government in there.

You could change your argument to 'Government provides a unnatural order that weak people are happier with.", but I doubt you like that argument more.

Government goes AGAINST the natural order of things. It doesn't create order from nothing, it replaces natural order with something else.

How do you know that given enough time inorganic matter wont create goverments of their own?

Carthoris · Sep 8, 2012

canndo said:
The good Doctor K explained as well or better than I could that as soon as there are two people together, there begins even then to be "government".

Fathers, tribal leaders, chiefs, kings, emperors are all heads of a form of government.

There is no lasting societal order without government and there never has been.

you didn't say "killing the unborn" you said murder. I said that abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal definition, the illegal taking of a human life. If abortion is indeed taking a human life (which is the question you pose) and that taking is not against the law, then abortion is not murder.

What is funny is that I am working currently on a blog that addresses your point from a sociological and legal prespective.

In short for this post, what do you propose happen to this evicted zygote? Regardless of the technology, the costs will always be very large and ongoing for at most 9 months of intensive care of one sort or another.

Medical costs for a premature baby are much, much greater than they are for a healthy newborn. In 2005, preterm birth cost the United States at least $26.2 billion, or $51,600 for every infant born prematurely. The costs broke down as follows:

$16.9 billion (65 percent) for medical care

$1.9 billion (7 percent) for maternal delivery

$611 million (2 percent) for early intervention services

$1.1. billion (4 percent) for special education services

$5.7 billion (22 percent) for lost household and labor market productivity

The average first-year medical costs, including both inpatient and outpatient care, were about 10 times greater for preterm infants ($32,325) than for full-term infants ($3,325).

These estimates come from Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention, a report published by the Institute of Medicine (2006) and funded in part by the March of Dimes.

Add to this the inordinatly greater cost as the "age" of the "baby" is younger and younger. The cost of supporting a one day old zygote will cause these figures to be exponentialy higher as these figures are reflecting a child two or three months premature, not 9.

Now this is to say nothing about post pregnancy care. Who would you propose pay for this, given that the woman would have ordinarily paid 500 - 2000 for an abortion?

After all, it is presumed that the woman who would have her creation "evicted" is likely doing so because for one reason or another she is not willing to herself bring it to term.

It has more to do with the definition of a person. The court agrees that a baby is a baby at the time of viability, otherwise outlawing abortion at that point would be no different than outlawing it at week 2. They did not go as far as to give the time that a person becomes a person, and the legislators are too cowardly to make a law that states when a person is a person, simply due to politics. The definition of murder isn't just a legal one, the law only gives someone the power to struggle against something within the court system, it does not change the fact of what it is or isn't.

If a 20 something week old baby in a woman is her creation to kill if she pleases by whatever means is OK, then murdering it with a hammer when it comes out is too.

As far as paying for premature babies that are evicted by a woman. 1) I am willing to bet the church, and thus the people in it will willingly pay for this if given the chance. 2) I think that many women would carry the baby along longer if they knew they could get rid of it whenever. 3) Remember that premature babies usually have something wrong with them or the mother and that is why they are premature. This would not be the case in eviction. You also include 22% lost labor in the family. That would not be part of this. Education for what? That is for people who are having premature babies and taking care of them. You can knock that off too. That is a quarter of your costs that simply don't exist. Also, the 'medical care' for most of these babies is calculated on 'crack baby' calculations. This would not be for an otherwise healthy baby.

I am not a religious person, and I don't see the world in sin or not sin. I see it as right and wrong, and being libertarian I actually understand what my right and wrong are based off of. Unlike democrats and republicans who base right and wrong off of lollipops and rainbows, I can apply the logic of my position across the entire platform of ideas and problems.

ChesusRice · Sep 8, 2012

Carthorsis

you are just another republican dressed up as a libertarian
Goverment needs to stay out of a womens vagina

Carthoris · Sep 8, 2012

ChesusRice said:
How do you know that given enough time inorganic matter wont create goverments of their own?

I think that it would, and you could argue that it would be a 'natural' order then or even that our current 'order' is natural order. I use that argument when I am making fun of 'organic' gardeners

Carthoris · Sep 8, 2012

ChesusRice said:
Carthorsis

you are just another republican dressed up as a libertarian
Goverment needs to stay out of a womens vagina

It depends on when you think a person is a person. I am not religious at all, but common sense tells me if the baby could leave the womb and survive then it is a baby. Otherwise you could wait til the baby is all out but the last inch of the baby and hit it in the head with a hammer.

ChesusRice · Sep 8, 2012

Carthoris said:
It depends on when you think a person is a person. I am not religious at all, but common sense tells me if the baby could leave the womb and survive then it is a baby. Otherwise you could wait til the baby is all out but the last inch of the baby and hit it in the head with a hammer.

Commonsense and libertarian values tell me
a fetus is a parasitic organism that resides in a womans body by her choice

Carthoris · Sep 8, 2012

ChesusRice said:
Commonsense and libertarian values tell me
a fetus is a parasitic organism that resides in a womans body by her choice

I agree completely with that statement, but without expanding your true meaning the comment is useless. I love hot chocolate. That is a statement I support, but not when its 110 degrees outside. Blue is my favorite color, but do I want nasty blue bruises on me? Previous to hearing Walter Block present the argument of eviction vs abortion, I have to admit that for a long time I never considered there was a 3rd choice in the abortion debate that gave people free will over their bodies but didn't make them a murderer. What you don't go on to cover is the removal of the 'parasite' and how it may be removed. This 'parasite' is there due to the woman's actions, and not the parasite's own actions. Unless it is a case of rape or she got pregnant from a toilet seat. This makes the parasite an innocent bystander. The woman has the right to remove the 'parasite', and the 'parasite' has the right to not be murdered. It may not live, but at least it won't be murdered. The churches and people of the world then have the right to spend their money to keep this person alive.

You go to sleep tonight, and while you are sleeping someone sneaks into a hospital, removes someone from a kidney dialysis machine, and then sneaks into your room and hooks them up to you. You have no responsibility to let the person beside you use you as a dialysis machine. You have every right to remove them from your body, but you cannot kill them. You do not have the right to kill that person because they are hooked to you. If removing the person kills them, so be it. Killing them forthright would get you a murder charge.

Murdering children is not a libertarian belief. So if a libertarian believes a child is a child at conception, then they cannot with conscious support abortion since it is directly counter to the libertarian belief. The mother would be committing an act of aggression toward the child who has done nothing wrong.

I am not a Christian. I am agnostic, so my views are not fed to me from an organization. I do believe that a baby has to become a baby at some point and it is open to interpretation of an individual when that time is. However, how can anyone seriously suggest that an unborn baby is not a person once it reaching the point where it could live outside the womb? How can a thinking unborn baby not be considered a person?

In the argument for eviction, it freedom to both mother and unborn child. The mother loses nothing in the scenario, but the unborn child is still given the chance to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by not being needlessly murdered. If you cannot grasp this simple point, then I fail to see how you can even call yourself a libertarian. You, like many others, simply call yourself that but refuse to apply the basic principles of it across all decisions.

Dr Kynes · Sep 8, 2012

boedhaspeaks said:
@ drkynesThat sound like you need a gun indeed, the only wild animals we have are in the zoo. Our criminals are much nicer i see, although they are still assholes. Also the Netherlands and Belgium are two different countries but thanks for your reaktion, never saw it that way.

@nodrama
No i didnt watch to your laws and right so forgive me, im from Europe
It looks like your government shot itself in their own leg. Promising to not take away certain rights

But long story short, if i was an American citizen i would carry a gun (maybe two) too. And for those shootings, my opinion is that you cant blame the tool if the owner doesnt know how to handle it.

Peace and safety,
boedhaspeaks

i moved you to belgium because it's funnier. stop cryin, your belgique now.

my coments would not be quite so pithy if we were talking about amsterdam. these stoners would never understand why anybody would ever leave amsterdam for any reason short of a devastating weed famine.

besides to me, belgium is always a part of the netherlands, even if William "Silly Billy" Orange couldnt keep his shit together between the hookers and the cricket matches.

in america at the time of our revolution the land was still rife with wolves, native tribes who often objected to the breaking of their treaties, frechies, spaniards, brits, and all manner of colonial type assholes who were treating the new world as a great place to throw their keggers without fucking up their own house. our founders saw the need for americans to have a clearly defined and inalienable right to keep and ccarry whatever armaments we deemed necessary, given the chancey nature of things. also remember every male american citizen, free and unindentured, between the ages of 16 and 55 is a member of the militia, and is expected to grab his gun and move out with the rest when the shit hits the fan.

in fact up till this year all american men between 16 and 55 were REQUIRED by law to own and maintain "a suitable rifle of a type in common use of the day", and sufficient ammunition and other materials necessary to go on campaign with the militia for 30 days. course people stopped obeying that law when we started slowly slidfing into the indolence and indifference of the european (no offense but you n=know it's true) powers and their lack of interest in their own nation's defense. of course one must also remember we dont belong to our nation, our nation belongs to us, we have no king, by design, and can (hopefully soon) change our government by whatever means we find needful, including violent overthrow of our tyrants. youll not find that any place else.

Carthoris · Sep 8, 2012

I am more libertarian than you are. I might not believe a person has the right to be provided life, but I do believe the person has the right to not have their life taken from them. If you don't believe that, then I am not sure what you would consider yourself. In my belief, the government has nothing to do with vaginas. Stop making up strawman arguments. You might as well go vote for Obama.

gun law reform... please!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member