If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   State of NY to legal firearms owners, "Register your weapons, it's the law." Legal firearms owners to the State of NY, "Guns? I don't own any guns, and you can't prove it so go fark yourselves"   (nypost.com) divider line 1301
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

17845 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-26 05:49:18 PM
No matter what you do, all those brown and black people are still going to have guns, NY.
But your prison populations are at the lowest level in years, right NY?
Feed that beast, NY politicians.
 
2013-01-26 05:49:37 PM
Sure. Go ahead and don't register your firearms. Then when someone makes an anonymous call to the police to report you and no registered firearms turn up in the database for that address, they'll have probable cause to toss your house.
 
2013-01-26 05:49:52 PM

PsiChick: Amos Quito: Good.

Yes, because instead of, say, challenging this in the court system, we should encourage people to  actively ignore the law. I'm all for protesting laws, but standing in the streets screaming F-bombs is not a protest, it's a temper tantrum. A good lawsuit would clear this clusterfark right up, especially since the law has no rationale at all behind it--sitting in the street screaming is more than slightly retarded when you have that option.


Why not? If occupy can do it.
 
2013-01-26 05:50:47 PM

Fast Moon: Amos Quito: For instance, are you ready to REGISTER in order to exercise your First Amendment right to express your opinion here on Fark or elsewhere?

Um... we all had to register to exercise our First Amendment right on Fark. Fark doesn't allow anonymous comments.

And requiring registration to comment serves the same purpose as a firearm registration:
- To track patterns of TOS abuse back to a source
- To prevent others from committing TOS abuse masquerading as another user

And I seriously doubt that requiring registration to comment is some sort of covert ploy at eventually banning everyone from commenting.


Fark.com is a private entity, and can basically enforce its own terms of service as it pleases; the government is the government, constrained (at least on paper) by the Constitution.
 
2013-01-26 05:51:05 PM

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.


"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look
 
2013-01-26 05:51:47 PM

Gyrfalcon: while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.



Because that's worked out so well in the past with eminent domain, confiscation of large amounts of cash, confiscation of vehicles, confiscation of evidence, etc.

They've all but abolished the fifth amendment in every other sector of government, but clearly the ATF will get it right...
 
2013-01-26 05:51:52 PM

davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].


The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?
 
2013-01-26 05:52:43 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-26 05:52:52 PM

JesusJuice: I don't own a flash-suppressed AR-15 modified to fire semi or full auto with an extended magazine, reflex sight, and fingerprint-resistant grip, so there's no reason to register it. Try to prove otherwise.


Because the grip is the only place you've ever touched or will ever touch that weapon.
Clever.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:05 PM
Gun laws are rediculous.

I used to live in WNY - Buffalo had insane crime. They also had one of the "toughest" gun laws in the country. However, that didn't stop people from getting shot in broad daylight and regular people like me getting robbed in the streets. Ever call 911 and have the police not show up? Good times.

I move to Vermont. Absolutely no gun laws. And surprisingly, very little crime.

Thus, I submit to you that the problem in our nation isn't the guns. It's something else. And likely a variety of reasons that idiotic laws like the ones Cuomo and Silver pushed will not impact at all.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:09 PM
Requiring the registration of firearms is always followed by confiscation. This has been proven by the history of every country since guns were invented. Provide ONE, just ONE example, of where a country implemented a 'register your firearms' policy and did not follow it within 10 years by confiscating those same firearms that had to be registered.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:21 PM

muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look


No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:27 PM

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun


I look forward to your support for a bill banning dumbasses like you from fark.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:03 PM

the ha ha guy: Gyrfalcon: while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.


Because that's worked out so well in the past with eminent domain, confiscation of large amounts of cash, confiscation of vehicles, confiscation of evidence, etc.

They've all but abolished the fifth amendment in every other sector of government, but clearly the ATF will get it right...


I get the impression that fark authoritarians think the constitution was written to protect government rights.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:17 PM

spr: [d3u67r7pp2lrq5.cloudfront.net image 720x569]


Come and take it?
David Koresh took that attitude.
See how it played out for him.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:31 PM

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear.


EXACTLY. Ask the most extreme gun nut if it's okay for the average guy to own a nuclear tipped guided missile. He'll say no. Ask the most staunch anti-gun person if it's okay for anyone to own a pea-shooter. They'll agree it is.

Both sides already agree that it's permissible to limit the weapons people may own based on how dangerous or how much damage they can cause. The difference is where each side draws that line.
 
2013-01-26 05:54:55 PM

Haliburton Cummings: BgJonson79: GAT_00: violentsalvation: vpb: Amos Quito: There. See how silly you look?

No. Do I look as silly as someone who thinks playing with their toys and not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?

Please, inform us how registration will prevent mass shootings.

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Being Jewish and remembering what happened last time ;-)

play the emotional currency card fail is fail



LOL! This coming from the "OMG SCARY ASSAULT WEAPONS" bleachers, where emotion is the ONLY currency in play.
 
2013-01-26 05:55:50 PM

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.


More like "You don't have the right to express the concept of fire. Please report to jail for talking about it."
 
2013-01-26 05:56:36 PM

Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear. And the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate goods, while the 5th Amendment requires only just compensation for taking of private property.

So if they want to ban all assault weapons, take them away from you, and pay you fair market value, they can do it at any time and you won't have a leg to stand on; provided you can still keep all your revolvers and shotguns. Heller and McDonald only say you can have guns for personal protection; they don't say you have to have state-of-the-art military-grade firearms. In fact, if the government said, "OK, you can have all the gunz you want, but they have to be muzzle-loading unrifled muskets" there wouldn't much anyone could say about it.


That's up to SCOTUS to decide. This is what makes the US the US is that we can have this debate and smart people can decide that the 2nd amendment covers all guns .. as they have in the past by blasting down DCs anti-gun law. At the state level the registration of guns has not been shot down by SCOTUS because of state rights but if they cross a certain line it will be blasted down.

The ridiculesness of an "assault rifle" ban conversation is that everything else will remain legal. In fact when the ban was in place people still traded the weapons and I still had my assault rifles with extended clips. They still sold the rifles in stores under a different guise and a different name.

A license may be required but I can legally own a rocket launcher but not a so-called "assault rifle?" Ridicules. I can buy a tank but not a 30 round clip? Ridicules. I can buy a Mig 21 and fly it into PDK or ATL but I can't buy a box of ammo that contains more than 100 rounds? Ridicules.
 
2013-01-26 05:57:16 PM

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.


There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.
 
2013-01-26 05:57:48 PM

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


Government , without fail, always overreaches.

Look at health care. Depending on whose numbers you choose to believe somewhere around 10-20% of the population does not have health insurance. Notice I said did not have and not could not afford. So let us take the middle ground of 15% which means approx 45 million without health insurance. Or looking at it another way approx 255 million with health insurance. So why does providing the 15% with health care require dragging the remaining 85% of us under the massive, expensive bureaucratic nightmare that is the Affordable Care Act ? How about the Prescription Drug program under Bush? At the time of its implementation only 18% of Senior citizens had trouble affording their prescription meds so why did we have to include the other 82% in coverage?

Other examples abound -the TSA. Patriot Act, SCHIPS, EPA, DEA etc,
 
2013-01-26 05:57:50 PM

Securitywyrm: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

More like "You don't have the right to express the concept of fire. Please report to jail for talking about it."


You seem stupid.
 
2013-01-26 05:57:51 PM

truthseeker2083: davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].

The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?


I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say the results were positive.
 
2013-01-26 05:58:37 PM
How about this.

"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding citizen to bear arms with greater restriction that that which applies to all law enforcement within the borders of the country."

There... you... go. If the police can have an AR-15, so can you. If the police can have an automatic shotgun, so can you. If the police CAN'T have a rocket launcher... you can't have one either.
Bonus: Arguments against this, by definition, argue that the police should be better armed than the people they're supposed to protect (law-abiding citizens). The only reason for law enforcement to have superior weaponry than the people they are supposed to protect is if their mission has changed from 'protection' to 'oppression.'
 
2013-01-26 05:58:41 PM

muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.


If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...
 
2013-01-26 05:58:43 PM

vpb: xynix: A ban on "the more dangerous sorts of guns?" And what gun is more dangerous than another gun for example? Something with 30 rounds in a clip is more dangerous than 3 individual clips of 10? Can you tell me what is more dangerous between my M&P 15-22 assault rifle which holds 25 rounds and my .45 which holds 10? I can swap a clip in my .45 in less than 2 seconds. Competitive guys can do it in less than 1/4 of a second - literally blink your eye and you'll miss it. I don't have to register my gun because in Georgia we're not all retards when it comes to fire arms. I'm a certified instructor in every discipline and I even machined the barrel for my .45 myself. I make my own ammo.. I've been shooting since I was 8. For instance I know that one gun is as dangerous as any o ...

This is one of the more amusing arguments gun nuts make.  If M-16s weren't more effective than bold action rifles, especially at close range, the DoD wouldn't have gone to the expense of buying them would it?  This argument has been shot down many times before.

We already know gun control works, it has been tested in the entire developed world.  It's just a matter of choosing the most effective policies and getting them past the lobbyists and crazies.


Just kill them or put them in prison. At worst it will take a generation or two to suppress any rebellion. And by then the kids won't realize what rights they lost. Problem solved.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:33 PM

xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]


Wow.A blooper! Have'nt seen one since......'69....'70? Getting to old to remember dates,just events.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:35 PM

Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.


LOL, wow.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:38 PM

Securitywyrm: How about this.

"No law shall restrict the capacity of a law abiding citizen to bear arms with greater restriction that that which applies to all law enforcement within the borders of the country."

There... you... go. If the police can have an AR-15, so can you. If the police can have an automatic shotgun, so can you. If the police CAN'T have a rocket launcher... you can't have one either.
Bonus: Arguments against this, by definition, argue that the police should be better armed than the people they're supposed to protect (law-abiding citizens). The only reason for law enforcement to have superior weaponry than the people they are supposed to protect is if their mission has changed from 'protection' to 'oppression.'


I think this is entirely reasonable. I will go on record as saying I've misjudged you. You do not seem stupid.
 
2013-01-26 05:59:49 PM
I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:32 PM

TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.


You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:36 PM

Vodka Zombie: Meh. I don't really see how requiring firearms to be registered is all that big of a deal.


It's not, if your manhood is naturally sufficient.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:39 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Nobody yet?
 
2013-01-26 06:00:53 PM
What great citizens you are.

I don't feel like letting you know how many claymores I planted in your backyard, either.
 
2013-01-26 06:00:55 PM

davidphogan: truthseeker2083: davidphogan: truthseeker2083: But see, the knee-jerk reactions don't do 'nothing'. That's the problem, as they allow too much. If you give a mouse a cookie....

[Citation needed].

The Patriot Act. Going to war in Iraq. Government databases storing billions of private emails. Im on a tablet, otherwise I'd post links. Scanners at airports. Pat downs at airports. The TSA has already branched out to scanning teens going to proms. Stop and frisks in NY. Need I go on?

I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to say the results were positive.


Oh lord no!
 
2013-01-26 06:01:04 PM

Cheviot: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun. The government cannot necessarily impose a total gun ban, but they are totally within their rights to impose a ban on certain kinds of weapons. Even with the broadest possible reading of the 2d Amendment (which nobody has done yet), it only says a "right to bear arms". Nowhere does it say WHICH arms you can bear.

EXACTLY. Ask the most extreme gun nut if it's okay for the average guy to own a nuclear tipped guided missile. He'll say no. Ask the most staunch anti-gun person if it's okay for anyone to own a pea-shooter. They'll agree it is.

Both sides already agree that it's permissible to limit the weapons people may own based on how dangerous or how much damage they can cause. The difference is where each side draws that line.


It's actually legal to own weapons grade uranium if you have the proper permit. An assault weapons ban would allow me to manufacture a nuclear missile, if I had the proper paperwork, but not an assault rifle. That's why this discussion is silly.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:24 PM

Harry Knutz: You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.


I'm not you.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:25 PM
Everyone has Constitutionally granted rights.
Now everyone is capable of exercising them and can have them taken away instantly.

The courts have upheld this fact time and time again.

/Threaten people, commit crimes, go clinically crazy and end up diagnosed and see what happens to you.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:44 PM

Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Harry Knutz: muck4doo: Gyrfalcon: You may have a right to own guns. You don't have a right to own any particular KIND of gun.

"You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to a certain opinion."

/That is how dumb you look

No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

There are laws against causing mayhem, nice try though. There are also laws against murder. Shocking, i know.

If there are laws against causing mayhem, might there not also be laws against owning extended magazines? Shocking, I know...


When was the last time a magazine assaulted you? Have you always had this fear of inanimate objects? I heard a rumor your pillow is out to kill you in your sleep.
 
2013-01-26 06:01:49 PM

the ha ha guy: SuNJeStEr: Registering your gun doesn't mean we're taking them away.

History has proven that statement to be a lie.


California says otherwise: Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989


What a long time in terms of human civilization!

Some of us care for our great great great great grand kids to be able to resist a tyrannical government or occupying force.

Let me guess: you can't see beyond your own nose?
 
2013-01-26 06:02:18 PM

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.


Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.
 
2013-01-26 06:02:41 PM
i593.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-26 06:03:03 PM

Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.


He disagrees with you. That's proof enough.
 
2013-01-26 06:03:31 PM

sweet-daddy-2: xynix: Just keep this in mind.. Dipshiats that know nothing about guns who are participating in gun control and legislation conversations  Who have no idea that guns are already tracked and SNs are already tagged with your name and DL#. You may ban your so called "assault rifles" because you have no idea how guns work but this will always be legal and you won't have a problem with it because you don't even know what the fark it is.

[world.guns.ru image 575x309]

Wow.A blooper! Have'nt seen one since......'69....'70? Getting to old to remember dates,just events.


You sound cool and I bet you have interesting stories. Have some TF.
 
2013-01-26 06:04:00 PM

ghare: Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.


I like how "LOL, wow" turns into me having mental disorders or even me being a "gun nut".
 
2013-01-26 06:04:09 PM

ghare: Harry Knutz: TheJoe03: Harry Knutz: No. It's "you don't have a right to certain expressions of your opinions." Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or owning extended magazines.

LOL, wow.

You also seem stupid. Prove you are not. Go.

Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.


Ghare is just a racist. A minor mental disorder in his opinion.
 
2013-01-26 06:04:14 PM

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?



Pretty much. The cat is out of the bag, there is something like 300 million guns in this country. You could outlaw all guns and attempt to confiscate all of them and there would still be more than enough guns for the criminals and criminally insane to commit their crimes with guns for generations to come.

So why attack legal gun owners or deny people access to what everyone before them had access to?
 
2013-01-26 06:04:24 PM

Warlordtrooper: I'm not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first amendment has reasonable restrictions on it.

Stop acting all surprised that the second amendment is not unlimited and subject to reasonable restrictions just like the rest of the amendments.


Uh huh. Now tell us all about the background check you had to undergo before entering the theater, and about the mandated gag you were forced to wear to keep you from yelling fire in a theater.
 
2013-01-26 06:05:09 PM

Amos Quito: GAT_00: xynix: Come on now Gat.. You know how the government works. With registration comes registration fees for one thing. Then comes a new government arm of the BATF specifically built for handling registrations.. Another 1000 empty suits processing paperwork. First the fee will be 20 or 30 bucks then it will be 100 bucks and then who knows what else.

When I get a fishing license I pay a fee.. That's fine as the DNR stocks the rivers and lakes with 100s of thousands of fish. My fee goes to a legit and tangible thing. When I get my hunting license the same thing applies as the DNR maintains the roads to get into the places where I hunt and they also stock the feeders where the deer feed during harsh winter months. Again I have something tangible for my fee. The same can be said about a car as the money I'm paying for goes to pay for roads and stop signs .. lights and rest areas. It's tangible. What do I get for my gun registration fee?

It goes beyond that anyway.. I'm constitutionally granted a right to own guns and I'm not going to register them for any reason what-so-ever and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to fight such a thing if a law like that were ever passed. I would take it to the supreme court. This shiat will not happen to me:

So, tinfoil.  If you register it, it will be taken away, because we all know that once you register your car, you're just waiting for someone to come confiscate it.


Looking at your profile, I see that you have declined to list all of your personal information - real name,  DOB, home and work address, phone number, name of spouse, children (and all of their related info) etc.

Why is that?

Sure, here in America you have a "right" to free speech, but why should you be able to do so under a pseudonym?

Sure, you may be a law abiding citizen, but we all know that there ARE people out there who might say things that are offensive, threatening or even treasonous. Hell, some people might even abuse their "right" to speech by in ...


How about having to use a distinct ID when using network enabled devices, just in case you want to victimize any children, or to prevent SWATing, or to prevent piracy? Most technology already leaves a trail. And it doesn't even squash first-amendment rights, since it doesn't prevent communication. Might as well just let the government have what it wants, right?
 
2013-01-26 06:05:13 PM

ghare: Gun nuts are also regular nuts. It's pretty obvious, the most vocal "gun rights" people are almost always suffering from serious mental disorders.


You got a permit for that projection?
 
Displayed 50 of 1301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report