|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
 Re: Home Protection  [Re: GazzBut]
#1128401 - 12/10/02 10:18 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Gazzbut writes:
where did I say "Gazzbut thinks that because he isn't an idiot no accidents would occur while he was in control of an automobile. I wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it."
Sorry. I just assumed you either owned a car or had at least driven one at some time in your life. My bad.
You missed the point, however. Your assumption was that Randall is too big an idiot to prevent gun accidents from occurring. This is an incorrect assumption. There are millions of guns in America which will never be involved in an accident, or even ever fired anywhere other than at a gun club. On a percentage basis, far more cars (orders of magnitude more) will be involved in accidents than guns.
A gun is fulfilling its destiny when it kills someone.
Or an animal. I've never killed anyone with a gun, though I have killed (and eaten) birds and rabbits.
Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons. - Obviously this was said with an amused look of disbelief on my face!
Ah. Sarcasm. How is my logic flawed?
Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say that technology advances to the point where it becomes possible for every human to be issued a "protective drone" at birth -- a little gizmo about the size of a bumblebee which hovers somewhere over the shoulder of every human on the planet. Inside the drone is a scanner, a transmitter, and an energy weapon similar to a "phaser" as seen on Star Trek. The scanner feeds to a megacomputer somewhere.
Whenever a human attempts to attack another human, the megacomputer notices and sends a signal to BOTH drones to zap the attacker. The attacker is instantly rendered unconscious for a few minutes.
Do you agree that this would lower the rate of violent crime?
pinky
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1128411 - 12/10/02 10:23 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons. - Obviously this was said with an amused look of disbelief on my face! The logic is so flawed it doesnt really merit being labelled as logic. I think you knew that though!
Why don't you go look up the crime rates in Israel and Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.
|
 Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Anonymous]
#1128557 - 12/10/02 11:10 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
Why don't you go look up the crime rates in Israel and Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.
Well, that wouldn't support the contention that the mere presence of a gun causes crime. Please do not attempt to bring reason to those governed by emotion, it distresses them.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 day, 19 hours
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Evolving]
#1129072 - 12/10/02 01:35 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Go play with your guns. Evolution will disarm us all or we will end up dead. Either way I'll enjoy the ride.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
ehud
Rocket Scientist
Registered: 10/23/01
Posts: 217
Loc: Middle America
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1129090 - 12/10/02 01:41 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Guns are pretty damn fun though, I like to play with them around the house. You trying to take away my fun? Just like drugs and alcohaul kill people and they are fun too. The only way to be completly safe in this country is not not have any fun.
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: ehud]
#1129118 - 12/10/02 01:50 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
YAAAH DDUUDE< LETS GO DRINK A 40 AND SHOOTS SOME CATS!!111 FUCK THE MAN
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1130824 - 12/10/02 11:35 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Gee, Alex, have you already forgotten your proud boast that even BEFORE the draconian post-war disarmament of the English there were almost no gun deaths in England? You must remember that post -- you tried to use it to claim that the sharp jump in England's crime rate after the latest round of legislation in 1997 had nothing to do with gun confiscation, but was instead related to some economic measures or something.
Reading comprehension pink, reading comprehension. The gun ban affected about 140,000 people out of 60 million. There was gun-control in England before 1997. This is typical of how you deliberately distort points tho.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1132282 - 12/11/02 10:22 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Reading comprehension pink, reading comprehension. The gun ban affected about 140,000 people out of 60 million. There was gun-control in England before 1997. This is typical of how you deliberately distort points tho.
Sigh. Not only can I comprehend what I read, Alex, I am capable of grasping the priciple and the context of what someone is trying to express. Would that you could. I wasn't DISPUTING your claim that gun deaths in England were low before the latest round of disarmament, I was AGREEING with it. Let's review, shall we?
You said (comparing America to England):
One has gun control, one doesn't. One has 14,000 deaths a year, one has 14.
I then said (throwing your own claims back at you):
Gee, Alex, have you already forgotten your proud boast that even BEFORE the draconian post-war disarmament of the English there were almost no gun deaths in England?
In other words, YOU had said (quite correctly) in a previous post that even BEFORE the latest round of disarmament (which you say affected only 140,000 people), Engand's annual death toll from guns was way, WAY less per capita than America's. I went even further than that by stipulating that even before England had ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL (pre 1920) the gun death toll in England was way, WAY less per capita than America's.
So we both agree that far, far fewer people in England murdered each other with guns than in America, GUN CONTROL or NO GUN CONTROL, just as far fewer people murder each other with guns in Switzerland (where gun ownership per household is near universal) or in Canada, where gun ownership (per capita, of course) is almost as high as in America. It has nothing to do with GUN CONTROL, it has to do with the nature of the inhabitants of a given country, AS YOUR PREVIOUS POST illustrates.
If the mere presence of guns in households is responsible for gun deaths (as you contend) how do you explain Switzerland or Canada?
So, the final step in the complete disarming of the law-abiding citizenry of England did little to affect the toll of gun related deaths -- there were almost none to begin with. It DID, however, coincide with a sharp increase of what the UN reports call "serious" crime. I contend the reason for this increase is because criminals know there is now no danger whatsoever of being harmed during the commission of a crime. You contend that the increase has to do with changes around the same time in English economic policy or something.
I can't help but note that you are still evading my question:
If you think it is wrong for private citizens to own firearms, (and you obviously do) do you think it is wrong for an individual to own a crossbow? A longbow? A TASER? A stungun? A blowpipe? A javelin? A sword? A machete? A knife? A cudgel? MACE or pepper spray?
If not, why not?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1133457 - 12/11/02 06:05 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I contend the reason for this increase is because criminals know there is now no danger whatsoever of being harmed during the commission of a crime..
It affected 140,000 people out of 60 million. Don't be ludicrous.
It has nothing to do with GUN CONTROL, it has to do with the nature of the inhabitants of a given country
You seem to be making two completly opposite arguments. You have just argued that criminals decided to commit crime only after 1997. Now you say gun control makes no difference whatsoever.
Which is it?
do you think it is wrong for an individual to own a crossbow
Expand more on this. Wrong for an individual to use a crossbow at a sporting club or wrong for him to walk down the street with one? btw, don't try and compare mace and guns. You cannot walk into a school and slaughter 17 kids with mace.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1134197 - 12/12/02 03:47 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
It affected 140,000 people out of 60 million. Don't be ludicrous.
Ah, but which 140,000 people did it affect? The very last private citizens still in possession of their means of self-protection. Surely even you must be capable of telling the difference between a quantitative change and a qualitative change.
Up until the final stage of complete disarmament of the law-abiding English populace, a predator could never be certain if the particular victim he was targeting was armed. That house he was entering may have contained an irate citizen armed with a match rifle or a skeet gun, for example -- one of the last 140,000 gun owners, in other words. But now (post 1997) that predator has complete assurance that he need not worry about coming to harm -- his victim cannot even spray him in the face with MACE.
You seem to be making two completly opposite arguments. You have just argued that criminals decided to commit crime only after 1997.
Sigh. I most certainly did not. I said that the rate of crime increased sharply once the citizenry had been completely disarmed. I never said that there was no crime prior to complete disarmament.
Now you say gun control makes no difference whatsoever.
First of all, I didn't say that, although readers of this thread cannot fail to note that you continue to evade the examples of Switzerland and Canada. "Gun control" is not equivalent to complete disarmament. There are literally thousands of laws in the United States specifying what hoops a law-abiding citizen must jump through in order to manufacture, sell, obtain, own, modify, carry, and use a firearm. All of those laws are gun control laws.
But in the case of England, we are not talking about gun control, we are talking about gun elimination. There is currently not a single law-abiding citizen in England in possession of a firearm, or even a sword. And the predators know that.
Expand more on this. Wrong for an individual to use a crossbow at a sporting club or wrong for him to walk down the street with one?
Since you chose to call this thread "Home protection", let's start there. Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?
btw, don't try and compare mace and guns. You cannot walk into a school and slaughter 17 kids with mace.
True. So why has England's government made it a crime for a law-abiding citizen to own MACE or even pepper spray?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1134654 - 12/12/02 06:31 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
a predator could never be certain if the particular victim he was targeting was armed.
I don't think many of your average friendly neighbourhood "predators" would have had a clue that handguns were still in the hands of a tiny minority. It was never an issue until Thomas Hamiliton wiped out the school at Dunblane. I'd certainly never seen the subject mentioned anywhere in the media. It was just a tiny, tiny minority hobby.
That house he was entering may have contained an irate citizen armed with a match rifle or a skeet gun, for example -- one of the last 140,000 gun owners, in other words.
I don't think the average burglar would give a shit either way to be honest. They'd just watch the house until the owners had gone out. Simple.
I said that the rate of crime increased sharply once the citizenry had been completely disarmed
I'm not much of a believer in "sharp increases" in everyday crime. People don't suddenly decide en masse "Lets all start committing crimes". Most of the "sharp increases" can usually be put down to different ways of recording crime, changes in making up the statistics etc.
So why has England's government made it a crime for a law-abiding citizen to own MACE or even pepper spray?
I suppose because the government classes them as offensive weapons.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1136106 - 12/12/02 03:41 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It was never an issue until Thomas Hamiliton wiped out the school at Dunblane. I'd certainly never seen the subject mentioned anywhere in the media. It was just a tiny, tiny minority hobby.
But after Dunblane the media covered the final disarmament of the law-abiding citizenry pretty thoroughly. It would have been pretty tough to miss the triumphant claims of the politicians that England was safe at last. Or is it your contention that criminals don't read the papers or watch the telly or listen to the wireless?
I don't think the average burglar would give a shit either way to be honest. They'd just watch the house until the owners had gone out. Simple.
One would think so, but strangely enough many burglars don't.
I suppose because the government classes them as offensive weapons.
One must wonder what the English government classes a defensive weapon. Apparently they feel there is no such thing.
Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1136521 - 12/12/02 05:37 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But after Dunblane the media covered the final disarmament of the law-abiding citizenry pretty thoroughly.
But your point was about what "predators" thought BEFORE dunblane.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1136718 - 12/12/02 07:21 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But your point was about what "predators" thought BEFORE dunblane.
Precisely. Before Dunblane, they knew that people owned guns, swords, pit bulls, crossbows, etc. Even the ones who never read the papers spoke with fellow lowlifes who did read the papers.
After Dunblane, it was, "Hey Alfie! D'ja hear our working conditions just got a whole lot better?"
Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/12/02 07:23 PM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 day, 19 hours
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1136795 - 12/12/02 08:22 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Something Ive just remembered about the Dunblane thing - A Couple of years later I was reading Robots Rebellion by David Icke, Im 90% sure Icke is a nutball but in there he was saying that an incident with a lone gunman would proabaly be used as a pretext for disarmament and this would involve the masons. The next day I got a lift in my sister's boyfriends car, he was a real slob and had old newspapers in the back seat, one was a daily mirror from not long after the Dunblane shooting. I thumbed through it and there was an article linking the dude who did the shooting to the masons aaaarrrgghhh!
So perhaps Pinky is not so paranoid after all. Still doesnt change my posistion on the matter. Even if gun laws are changed for questionable motives eventually it will be for the better!!
lumps of iron that shoot searing lumps of iron at people or animals are stupid. I dont care if it makes some guys hard. Its stupid.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 day, 19 hours
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1136805 - 12/12/02 08:34 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Pinky this little drama you have concocted of the criminal underclass reading the papers and watching TV to discover that no one is allowed to carry guns and then triumphantly passing this info on to all their criminal friends so they can then go on a carefree crime spree is to say the least laughable, construed to suit your arguement and 1 dimensional.
You have made a correlation with no facts to back it up. You wont be too pleased to know that around the time the gun laws changed in the UK, custodial sentences for certain crimes were also decreased, more community service was also given out in place of custodial sentences. This meant being caught was alot less of a worry for the criminal. Now even you would have to admit that this may have played a large part in the increase in crime in this country, maybe more so than the change in gun law.
Also, if the disarning of the populace has left us at the mercy of the armed criminals why dont we hear more stories of people being shot in their homes? I honestly can remember a single story of burglary where a victim has been shot. The only one I can think of is the case of Tony Martin, an armed homeowner who shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old in the back. The lad was commiting a crime admittedlly, but Martin had already scared him off, he was running away and then was shot.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1137408 - 12/13/02 03:38 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Before Dunblane, they knew that people owned guns, swords, pit bulls, crossbows, etc.
Pt-bulls and crossbows are as rare (or even rarer) than guns. The odds of coming across a gun pre-1997 was 140,000 in 60 million. I don't think most burglars would be put off by those odds. And of course cases of homeowners being gunned down by these "predators" since 1997 are non-existent. Like Gazz says, i've seen one case in the last 10 years and that was a homeowner shooting a burglar as he tried to run away.
After Dunblane, it was, "Hey Alfie! D'ja hear our working conditions just got a whole lot better?"
I don't think that would have even crossed their minds.
Do you disagree with the Engish government's position that an individual may not keep a crossbow in his home?
What for? If he's following a sport then sure. If it's some yahoo who'll spend most of his time shooting cats and swans with it then no. And seeing the damage kids do to wildlife with airguns every day, I'd prefer they had as little access to weaponry as possible.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1137784 - 12/13/02 06:36 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Gazzbut writes:
Pinky this little drama you have concocted of the criminal underclass reading the papers and watching TV to discover that no one is allowed to carry guns and then triumphantly passing this info on to all their criminal friends so they can then go on a carefree crime spree is to say the least laughable, construed to suit your arguement and 1 dimensional.
What is more laughable is your contention that not a single criminal in the country was aware that people kept defensive weapons in their houses. Do you really expect anyone to swallow that? Criminals are not always the brightest specimens, but they are not completely deaf, dumb, and blind. Most burglars (for example) have broken into many houses in their lifetimes, and have seen many a ceremonial sword hanging on the wall, or a match rifle tucked away in a closet, or had to sedate a pitbull or two. If they themselves have not, their cohorts certainly have. There is such a thing as the "criminal fraternity" and "known criminal associates", you know. People talk to each other -- that's what people do, even criminals. Further, statistically speaking, most criminals will be arrested at least once in their careers. Who do you think they talk to while imprisoned? Why, surprise, surprise -- OTHER criminals!
Ever heard the term "jailhouse lawyer"? The average criminal is far, FAR more conversant with criminal law than the average citizen. This is not something I'm making up, this is FACT. Ask any cop or prison warden. To believe that the average English criminal was unaware of the exact legal status of defensive weaponry allowed to the homeowner both pre- and post-Dunblane is absurd.
You have made a correlation with no facts to back it up. You wont be too pleased to know that around the time the gun laws changed in the UK, custodial sentences for certain crimes were also decreased, more community service was also given out in place of custodial sentences. This meant being caught was alot less of a worry for the criminal. Now even you would have to admit that this may have played a large part in the increase in crime in this country, maybe more so than the change in gun law.
If the two legislations changed at around the same time, then certainly that would have an effect on the crime rate. That's the problem with a single point on a data curve -- in and of itself it is impossible to explain. One can make reasonable guesses, but drawing a firm conclusion from a single data point is risky. I agree that it is entirely possible part (even a large part) of the sharp increase in England's crime rate post-Dunblane had nothing to do with the fact that all law-abiding citizens are both defenseless and subject to prosecution for defending themselves. What is NOT in dispute is that there WAS a sharp increase in crime post-Dunblane.
But there is more than one point on the data curve. There is also Australia's gun control legislation. They experienced a similar sharp upswing in crime immediately after implementing their disarmament program. Coincidence? Perhaps. I must also mention yet again Switzerland, which has almost universal gun ownership and extremely low rates of crime. Canada springs to mind as well. Coincidence? Perhaps. Even MORE points on the curve appear when you add in the studies by Prof Lott et al re: concealed carry legislation and crime rates. Coincidence? Perhaps. But all of them support the same reasonable hypothesis: the more access law-abiding citizens have to defensive weaponry, the less likely they are to be victimized by criminals.
Is it possible that all of this is sheer coincidence? Yes, it is possible. After all, in an infinite universe, anything is possible. But is it probable? I submit that it is improbable that there is no connection between all these facts.
Finally, even though Alex seems to have a hard time grasping the concept, let me ask you -- why has the English government seen fit to outlaw virtually every form of defensive weaponry in the country? Not just GUNS, but clasp knives, chemical repellants, ornamental swords, blow pipes, stun guns, etc. Does the government really think some madman is going to enter a school and slaughter seventeen kids with a stun gun or a can of pepper spray?
The final crusher is that even FAKE guns have been outlawed. Explain to us how you can mow down the customers of a MacDonald's with a fake gun, please. But I know for a fact that brandishing a convincing-looking fake gun is often all it takes to get an intruder to flee. Fake guns are completely ineffective at killing people, but they do have some effect in protecting people.
The English government has sent a very clear message to the English populace, one that only the dimmest of the dim can fail to grasp:
"You as individuals have no right to defend yourselves, your loved ones, or your possessions, from dangerous predators. That is OUR job, and our job alone. If you attempt to purchase defensive implements, you will be imprisoned amongst those very predators. If you actually succeed in HARMING one of those predators, kiss your family goodbye for a very long time."
And some people wonder why I prefer private industry to government!
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1137807 - 12/13/02 06:49 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
And of course cases of homeowners being gunned down by these "predators" since 1997 are non-existent.
Are you claiming that no one in England has been killed at home by an intruder since 1997? That is what "non-existent" means. And don't try to weasel about the difference between "gunned down" and "strangled", "stabbed", "bludgeoned to death" etc., because that is my entire point -- it is not necessary anymore for a criminal to carry a gun in order to harm anyone. Since all the law-abiding citizens have been completely disarmed, now any weapon is all that is required by a criminal.
I don't think that would have even crossed their minds.
The extent of your naivete is breathtaking.
What for? If he's following a sport then sure.
Nope. Since the title of this thread (YOUR title, remember) is "Home Protection", the crossbow was purchased in order to defend the home against intruders. It will never be fired at a cat or a swan.
Stop wriggling about and address the issue you yourself introduced -- home defense. It is quite clear from your continued evasions that you do in fact agree with your government's position that a law-abiding citizen has no right to defend himself from intruders.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1137821 - 12/13/02 06:58 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Most burglars (for example) have broken into many houses in their lifetimes, and have seen many a ceremonial sword hanging on the wall, or a match rifle tucked away in a closet, or had to sedate a pitbull or two.
The vast majority of burglars are not going to bother sedating pitbulls for christsakes.They are going to go in, rifle around for cash and get out as fast as they can. They have no desire to duke it out with homeowners.
Who do you think they talk to while imprisoned? Why, surprise, surprise -- OTHER criminals!
Have you ever met a burglar? A heroin addict? Do you really think if you told them "You mustn't burgle you know, there's a tiny, tiny, tiny chance that if you break into a house the owner might have a gun". They are going to sit there and go "Really!! Oh, I'd better take that job at macdonalds right now!"
Finally, even though Alex seems to have a hard time grasping the concept
No problem grasping it, I've told you the reason so many times I'm numb telling you. Give people offensive weapons and they start using them inappropriately. Even airguns and fireworks are a nightmare. Swans, cats, dogs, kids are regularly shot by assholes with airguns. Fireworks are shoved through old peoples letterbox's. And you want to give these assholes more of the same? Forget it.
The final crusher is that even FAKE guns have been outlawed.
Becase they were being used in so many robberies it was becoming a pain in the arse for the police, and people were getting shot by armed police for brandishing fake guns. It made sense to ban them.
You as individuals have no right to defend yourselves
14000 gun deaths in the US, 14 in the UK. For a people with no right to defend ourselves we seem to be doing a helluva good job!
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
Northernsoul
wilshire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Poid
Xlea321
Lana
Andy21
Pandeist