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.

(Fox News)   Colorado sheriff announces that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like   (foxnews.com) divider line 462
    More: Dumbass, Colorado, Weld County, John Hickenlooper, Colorado sheriff, El Paso County, undue burden, gun laws, Columbine High School  
•       •       •

15275 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 5:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 07:20:46 PM

namatad: cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.

How is this NOT exactly the same thing as not enforcing a speeding law?
Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

This same mind set allows cops to decide who to selectively pull over to enforce minor traffic violations.
Unless you are ok with DWB.


Just to clarify, I expect you to vocally attack all the people who go off on 'just following orders' hyperbole in other cop threads, right?

So when a fed enforces a pot law you will support the individual LEOs and only complain about voters and legislators.
 
2013-03-17 07:23:15 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: That's not something that you'd want when a bobcat is jumping at you. That shiat works in CAWADOODY, not in real life.

I've never used a hunting rifle in Call of Duty, but I have used one in the mountains of Vermont.

Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Aside from the location and circumstance of your experiences, they are completely applicable and analogous to what we're talking about.

Well I've spent time in Colorado. Every summer as a kid, I lived in a mountain town of 700 people, and spent my days hiking alone around the mountains. For the past 20 years, I usually spend a week every fall camping and fishing around the state.

I've never felt a need to carry a gun. But I'm not a frightened bedwetter by nature.

You may be different.


No, no, I get what you're talking about.  I lived indoors all my life and never felt the need once to carry a fire extinguisher on my person. To be honest, I think these fire extinguishers are just a nuisance because people tend to misuse them so much.

I'm not afraid of fire, nor have I encountered one burning in my kitchen  and I look down on those cowards who do feel the need to get so called 'fire protection'. The same can be said about vaccinations, but that's for another thread.
 
2013-03-17 07:24:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: There's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into it.

No, there's a very good chance he emptied the magazine into "its general direction" according to the article.


Into it/in its general direction actually supports my point. You can't rely on awesome accuracy and frankly it's a pretty useful application for a "high capacity" magazine. When my friends or one's dad have gone bear hunting (either muzzle loader or rifle), they've carried a handgun with them as back up in case their first shot doesn't kill and it charges.

I perfectly understand people questioning the need or desire to carry a gun whilst hiking when a can of bear mace and walking stick can and often work. I just don't think it's particularly consistent to allow for people to carry guns for self-defense in the wilderness and then question why they'd want to carry the best type of weapon for the job.
 
2013-03-17 07:25:13 PM

redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.

He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.

That's not a weakness. That's awesome.


Unfortunately he's in his late 80s now and we don't go shooting anymore. I am trying to convince him that he shouldn't sell off all of his collection.
 
2013-03-17 07:27:01 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


The local sheriff in San Antonio said he didn't want to arrest people for pot any more.  They may just start writing tickets.
 
2013-03-17 07:28:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: cameroncrazy1984: WhoopAssWayne: cameroncrazy1984: I own a gun because my grandfather got me into shooting his Colt .45 when I was 11.

Whoah, that's a quite a gun for an 11 year old, he obviously trusted you quite a bit. Good times I'm sure.

He worked me up from a Ruger .22 to a couple of 9mms (he has a beautiful Australian SAS Browning and Walther P38). He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96. Basically, my grandfather has a weakness for WWII pistols.

That's not a weakness. That's awesome.

Unfortunately he's in his late 80s now and we don't go shooting anymore. I am trying to convince him that he shouldn't sell off all of his collection.


He should sell and/or gift it. My grandpa had a 7 mm Mauser he used to hunt with back in the day. He lost his taste for hunting but kept it for decades until he sold it because no one else in the family liked guns very much. Well then my dad (grew up on a farm) married my mom and I came along a few years later. My dad and I both love target shooting and I like to go hunting. He said it's one of the things he regrets doing and he'd have given it to me in a heartbeat.
 
2013-03-17 07:29:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.


FYI one can fire a fully auto m-4 at 15 yards and get all thirty in the five ring.

You just use a relaxed grip.

There is no issue with muzzle climb on 3 round burst or semi-auto.
 
2013-03-17 07:29:30 PM
"Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights."



The guy is making the right stand, and is willing to pay the price for it.
 
2013-03-17 07:35:55 PM

duenor: "Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights."


The guy is making the right stand, and is willing to pay the price for it.


What price? Support this guy.

ALL the rights exist to fark with the government. They're OUR servants, not vice versa. G-men are supposed to be lackies, not bosses. If the government says "Jump." you say "You're fired."
 
2013-03-17 07:36:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.


I thought we were talking about 'charging mountain lions', not picking off a kitty at 150 yards?

And fyi, non shooter, contrary to your belief no one should miss at pistol range: it is easy to miss things charging at you full speed. Plinking a target is completely different than shooting a moving target under pressure.
 
2013-03-17 07:39:00 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.


You don't think they do that on a daily basis?
 
2013-03-17 07:42:16 PM

machodonkeywrestler: This guy used fertilizer. Want to ban that too?


Nope, but I'm confident that if I went down to Home Depot with a Ryder truck and tried to buy 3 tons of fertilizer they would probably contact law enforcement. It might even be required by law although I'm not sure about that.
 
2013-03-17 07:42:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: redmid17: It's just as likely you have no idea what it's like to actually be outdoors or how to use guns,

Given that I have both A) been hunting and B) own a gun, it's just as likely that I'm not the idiot here. Because I'm not the one making the assumptions about my opponent.


Given your posts in the thread I call bullshiat on this claim.

If I am wrong then you have spent the thread trolling the 2nd amendment folks with a combination of goalpost/scenario changing and deliberate posting of incorrect things.
 
2013-03-17 07:47:54 PM

Happy Hours: machodonkeywrestler: This guy used fertilizer. Want to ban that too?

Nope, but I'm confident that if I went down to Home Depot with a Ryder truck and tried to buy 3 tons of fertilizer they would probably contact law enforcement. It might even be required by law although I'm not sure about that.


They're only required to report it if it's above 25 lbs per purchase. McVeigh himself spent a while accumulating the ammonium nitrate he used. Even today no one is going to know you're buying that much if you buy 20 lb bags using cash only at a bunch of stores around the city.
 
2013-03-17 07:49:00 PM
So, I recently moved from Colorado to Virginia.  I took my AR-15 (among other things) with me, along with a pile of 30-round magazines (which I had purchased in CO).... Question is, if I ever move back home, can I take my mags with me?
 
2013-03-17 07:49:56 PM
sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?
 
2013-03-17 07:52:31 PM

jcadam: So, I recently moved from Colorado to Virginia.  I took my AR-15 (among other things) with me, along with a pile of 30-round magazines (which I had purchased in CO).... Question is, if I ever move back home, can I take my mags with me?


Unless the law allows for grandfathering, I would guess no.
 
2013-03-17 07:53:06 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


Nothing.
 
2013-03-17 07:55:19 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.
 
2013-03-17 07:56:08 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?




Nothing wrong with a background check.

Its when we get to doing an absurd number of background checks which have no additional value that it becomes more of a problem than a benefit.
Intentionally harassing gun owners is not about safety, its about pushing political agendas.
 
2013-03-17 07:58:38 PM
It encourages me to see people in positions of public trust who actually take their jobs and oaths of office seriously, and not just some ceremonial words they parrot back with their hand on a book.
 
2013-03-17 08:00:11 PM
The only thing more dangerous than a judge crafting legislation from the bench is a sheriff doing it.
 
2013-03-17 08:04:05 PM

cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?


Exactly - don't the citizens have every right to find a sheriff that they can entrust to enforce the laws? They should throw the bum out of office. I'm sure it the law was a right-wing knee-jerk reaction about banning homosexual activity, he'd be all over it with an immediate glory hole stake-out at his favorite leather bar.
 
2013-03-17 08:04:58 PM

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


lol, it's colorado... what's he gonna charge em with?

Seriously though, before prop 64, there were some departments that took a whole lot of heat for ticketing people for simple possession instead of dragging them to jail. Helll, who are we kidding, these are the same people who think that EOs telling the ATF or ICE their enforcement priorities are so terrible that Obama should be impeached for them. They are ok with people getting a DUI going dying from prison violence because if you don't wanna pay, you shouldn't break the law, but they don't give a fark about the law. They're just hateful dicks.
 
2013-03-17 08:05:41 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


background check in and of itself: nothing.
background check with gun registration: bad - it allows a registry of gun ownership to be kept. A list like this is currently being used in california to confiscate guns from people they don't think should have them (like vets that may have sought counselling to help recover after a tour of duty).
 
2013-03-17 08:06:28 PM

way south: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

Nothing wrong with a background check.

Its when we get to doing an absurd number of background checks which have no additional value that it becomes more of a problem than a benefit.
Intentionally harassing gun owners is not about safety, its about pushing political agendas.


Define 'absurd'.  Because in my mind, the only non-absurdable number of background checks would be some value other than 100% of all purchases.

And there's not some insurmountable level of technology to be surpassed here.  The feds and the states have a list, make up a website where you insert the name, DOB, and address off someone's driver's license and have it spit back a go if he's good to sell to, or a no go if he ain't of if the info doesn't all match.
 
2013-03-17 08:07:11 PM

Happy Hours: I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can.


To me, this attitude right here is the most terrifying thing about the times we are currently living in.  I've heard the same thing from multiple people in the past 4 months.

When we have reached the point that average, intelligent Americans living safely in Middle-class lifestyles has to think "I'm afraid of what my government is going to do" we've reached a pretty low point.
 
2013-03-17 08:08:00 PM

najay1: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

background check in and of itself: nothing.
background check with gun registration: bad - it allows a registry of gun ownership to be kept. A list like this is currently being used in california to confiscate guns from people they don't think should have them (like vets that may have sought counselling to help recover after a tour of duty).


That and there are entire cities (ie Chicago) which have banned gun stores and gun ranges within the city limits. I couldn't get an NICS check inside the city limits if it were the only thing that'd keep me alive.
 
2013-03-17 08:09:08 PM
There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.
 
2013-03-17 08:11:16 PM

jaytkay: Azlefty: 1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary

Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?


+2  Mag extension for $3.49
 
2013-03-17 08:12:11 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


Nothing. It would be great if all states reported adjudications of mental defect to NICs and the feds opened up NICs for any private person to call in a background check on a prospective buyer.

Unfortunately, without very strict controls which have been oddly left out of the proposed laws, you end up with a de facto registry of everyone who owns a gun, which has been expressly forbidden as prone to governmental abuse. In addition, most states fear non-compliance with HIPAA medical records privacy laws, so they do not report to NICs.

In short, it COULD be a positive measure, but it would have to be more carefully crafted than in its present form.

And not tacked on with all the other random bans and restrictions on the most commonly used rifle and magazines in the US which the Dept of Justice has already told us with several reports and studies did not and will not affect crime.
 
2013-03-17 08:12:23 PM

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.



You have a problem with sanctuary cities too?
 
2013-03-17 08:13:40 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


Prove he's not enforcing it.
 
2013-03-17 08:15:48 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


That would be the start of a civil war. I'm on the sheriffs side. Lets get it over with.
 
2013-03-17 08:16:00 PM

jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.

You must get into a lot of combat situations. That sounds exciting. Tell us all about your experiences.

So only those who have needed a gun in the past should be allowed to have one?  You must get into a lot of grueling intellectual contests with 3rd graders.  That sounds exciting.  Tell us about your experiences.

So you have not, but you are likely to get into a lot combat situations.

Tell us all about that. It sounds exciting.

How many severe car accidents have you been in?  Do you wear a seat belt?  Did you seek out a vehicle without airbags?  Why is the standard of whether I can have something that you don't like my odds of having to use it in self defense?

Why are you so shy about your combat training and the dangerous circles you move in?

You really should tell us all about those things. I never get exposed to manly feats and skills the way you do.


Farkied:  Potato
 
2013-03-17 08:16:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If there's a constitutional law passed and they violate it, are they law-abiding citizens?


How and when are you determining that a law "is constitutional"?  Are you in the camp that a law is constitutional the instant that the people writing the law say it is?
 
2013-03-17 08:17:05 PM

special20: cman: I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?

Exactly - don't the citizens have every right to find a sheriff that they can entrust to enforce the laws? They should throw the bum out of office. I'm sure it the law was a right-wing knee-jerk reaction about banning homosexual activity, he'd be all over it with an immediate glory hole stake-out at his favorite leather bar.


It would seem he is banking on the assumption that most of the people who elected him expect him place his oath to uphold a fundamental right of all people above enforcing state law.
 
2013-03-17 08:17:53 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


So it would be a felony if an officer didn't stop every jaywalker?  You seem to think things through well.  You'd make an excellent legislator.
 
2013-03-17 08:20:02 PM
At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"
 
2013-03-17 08:21:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: This is why cops always carry a large hunting rifles on patrol instead of a pistol that they can grab and shoot immediately.

Cops on patrol are usually attacked by bears in the mountains?



Police officers have a lower rate of dying on the job than everyone else. Which is wierd considering that the police officers job is to get into dangerous situations and shootouts and whatnot....it's almost as if their use of high cap magazines and body armor increases their rate of survival and decreases their chance of death.

ie...guns make people more safe.
 
2013-03-17 08:21:41 PM

TV's Vinnie: At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"


Make sure they bring a shiatload of dimes with them.
 
2013-03-17 08:21:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


It'll end up like a TSA list - you'll get on there for a) political free speech, b) mistakes, c) vendettas, d) bureaucratic incompetence, and at worst, because maybe you needed some kind of help in your life. 1) ADHD prescriptions? on the list, 2) Smoking cessation? (with wellbutrin) Yep, 3) Mom died last week (xanax), yep. 4) Combat stress (anti-anxiety), yep, 5)  teen anxiety, yep. Once on, you're not getting off. Hell, Ted Kennedy made it on the TSA list, and was only able to get off because of his position - the rest of us won't have that luxury.

Make this database applicable for violent video games and the liberals will come around - they will see the light once their own interests are threatened.
 
2013-03-17 08:22:49 PM

Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.


Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.
 
2013-03-17 08:23:44 PM
At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"

Actually the Dems have already done that, you should study history
 
2013-03-17 08:25:36 PM

kellyclan: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.


You'd be surprised. In some states the coroner can arrest the sheriff.
 
2013-03-17 08:26:12 PM

super_grass: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.


You conservatives are always concerned about the rights of poor people and minorities.

Always very, very concerned.

Yes, you are.
 
2013-03-17 08:28:26 PM
"I am well regulated. I not only pass a background check with every firearm I buy, I maintain my proficiency in marksmanship to military standards, maintain my equipment to ensure that it is well functioning, ensuring they can accept ammunition from local law enforcement or military in times of emergency civilian mobilization, keep myself informed of current firearms law, both in ROE and ownership, and keep them secured against theft. How much more regulated would you like me to be?"

A gun should never be the first choice for self defense. It should be the last. And the majority of law abiding gun owners understand that.

I totally respect your choice to not own a firearm. However I strongly disagree with anyone telling me that I shouldn't. Having been the target of assault, mugging, robbery, and attempted murder, (south phoenix is a rough place) I can confidently state that I wouldn't be here today without my pistol. The felon that decided to shoot up the club I was working at didn't care that it was illegal for him to 1: posses a firearm 2: that was stolen 3: to shoot from his car 4: at me, while I was checking wristbands at the side door. Predators prefer unarmed victims, proven by the point that when I drew my own legally purchased and carried weapon to return fire he and his buddy hauled ass as quick as their freshly ventilated clunker could go. The man that tried to rob me thought that I looked an easy target as a well dressed white kid in a run down neighborhood. The 2 punks that tried to mug me in a rest stop bathroom. The guy that pulled a knife after I stopped him from trying to beat a female friend. They all went from thug to running away in the time it took to draw.

As for automatic weapons, they are some of the most tightly regulated items in the country. Without a lengthy background check run by the ATF it's a felony to posses one, and it cannot have been manufactured after 198(6?). The price of a fully automatic M16 on the legal market is around 20,000 dollars last time I checked. Not something a legal buyer is going to use in the commission of a crime.

As for my beloved AR-15, I encourage you to look at this page:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime -in-th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Look at the rifle deaths. That includes hunting and sporting rifles along with "assault" rifles. But lets put all the blame on the AR-15 just for the purpose of discussion. There are over 3,000,000 million AR-15 variant rifles currently in circulation. Of those lets just say they cause 400 deaths a year in criminal hands. Now we divide 400 by 3000000 and get .013~ % if one person uses one rifle to kill one person. The rifle is obviously not the cause of the problem or there would be dead bodies everywhere. We don't have a gun problem, we have a lack of respect for life by psychopaths problem.

I'm all for tougher enforcement of current laws forbidding felons, violent offenders, and the mentally adjudicated from owning weapons. I'm OK with tougher punishment for using a weapon in the commission of a crime. Rob someone with a gun? 20 years no parole. Shoot someone during the commission of a crime? life, with the possibility of parole in 20 years. No Less. But I take issue with the whittling away of MY second amendment rights guaranteed in our nations charter and repeatedly upheld by the supreme court over the last century. If you don't want to exercise your right that's fine, but I ask that you not support people that would take away MY right, as my ability to fight off an attacker physically ain't quite what it used to be.
 
2013-03-17 08:28:29 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.

You conservatives are always concerned about the rights of poor people and minorities.

Always very, very concerned.

Yes, you are.


Fun fact: a lot of us who like guns are not conservatives. I know I'm not. I find it amusing when people I know try to call me a Republican despite my leftish views (eg anti Patriot Act, pro gay-marriage) and then turn around and support organizations like the TSA and a ban on gay marriage
 
2013-03-17 08:29:24 PM
The administration chooses which laws it wants to enforce as well.  It's apparently a common practice.
 
2013-03-17 08:29:50 PM

kellyclan: In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.


Protip: Your favorite sovereign citizen web site is not a reliable source for legal advice
 
Displayed 50 of 462 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report