Clareified

Where does the good go

Shots fired

I’ve been thinking about guns and gun control for a couple of months now.

But I didn’t want to write anything too close to the Connecticut school shooting because that seemed ghoulish. Plus, you know, fuck me for having opinions when the dead school children are from a sleepy suburban town, but nothing but jokes about the dead school children littering the streets of Chicago.

I have been amazed at the rush, and I mean, my word who KNEW politics could move so fast, rush to add gun regulations and increase penalties and run out to podium and wave that mighty signature pen.

Yeah, looking at you Governor Cuomo.

And of course, on the other side, the inept muddle of a response from the nation’s largest gun lobby. Listen, never mind the good guy with a gun thing, how about the nonsense about “locking up the mentally ill”? What on earth does mental health policy have to do with a second amendment lobby group? Does the second amendment say “shall not be infringed unless you’re mentally ill?”

Take Wayne LaPierre’s latest public screed:

“When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti,” LaPierre said.

“Words do have meaning, Mr. President. And those meanings are absolute, especially when it comes to our Bill of Rights.”

I would argue that he is more right than wrong. The Second Amendment is pretty short and probably one of the clearest amendments in the Bill of Rights (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) , although even in the most pro gun rights opinion about the second amendment, the strictest of the living strict constructionists, Antonin Scalia, wrote:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

District of Columbia v. Heller Pp. 54–56.

Though, I don’t know where he gets THAT authority from, “not infringed”, should mean not infringed, shouldn’t it? How do we even determine “mental illness”? Does a new mother suffering from post partum depression have her guns confiscated? Are they returned when the kid turns two? What if a burglar attacks her and her newborn in the middle of the night!? Does a family with a multi-generational history of hunting and competitive shooting all lose their weapons when the 20-year-old great grandson is diagnosed with schizophrenia? What about ADHD or OCD? Who decides? Constitution says guns for everybody. And what is this proscription against children having guns? Thirteen year olds fought in the revolutionary war! They were part of that well regulated militia!

And don’t get me started on this new “Dr. King would want black people to have guns” movement. First, Dr. King was shot to death. Whatever his views on gun ownership prior to having his head split open by a high powered rifle, I’m going to go out on a limb and argue, they may have changed. Second, DR. KING WAS A PROPONENT, IF NOT THE PROPONENT OF THE NON VIOLENCE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA. DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S NOT NON VIOLENT? GUNS FOR EVERYBODY.

Also, I love that Ann Coulter is looking out for black people and their need to have a gun to protect them from the Ku Klux Klan lynching them in the night or George Zimmermans hunting hoodies in the night. Except that she also kinda thinks we should only “count” white people murder, in which case we’re doing as well as Belgium! I… no, never mind, go read these guys on that particular point.

So say you, unlike Ms. Coulter, want to count the murders of all Americans, not just the white ones, and let’s say you recognize that a good guy stopping a bad guy with a gun might be mistaken by another good guy with a gun as a bad guy with a gun and so on… what’s to be done?

Well, one of two things:

There needs to be a federal law making gun owners AND sellers strictly liable for ALL crimes committed with any weapons sold or owned by them. The reason cities like Chicago struggle despite draconian gun prohibitions, is that you can take a twenty minute drive outside the city limits and buy whatever you’d like. Now, if the gun seller in Indiana knew that he would be arrested by the FBI on manslaughter charges when his weapon is used in a killing in a Chicago park, well, he might think twice about who he is selling to. Similarly, if gun owners KNEW that if their bullied teen or cracked out grandkid steals their gun and uses it to commit a crime, they would face charges, they might not have a gun around Timmy or Tammy meth head.

In this scenario, you can have all the guns you’d like, sell all the weapons for all the discounts your Walmart-heart desires, but if your gun or your ammo is used to commit a crime? You will face federal prison time, oh yes, you will. And if you’re convicted? Your minor aged children will be sent to foster homes. Your famliy hunting and camping store will be shuttered. And when you’re released, you will lose all the rights that people lose after they are convicted of felonies, you know, like the ability to own guns. Or vote.

Or, we do the other thing we do when our society evolves beyond the confines of the framers’ reality, we amend the constitution.

We have a National guard, a coast guard, an army, a marine, an air force, police forces, FBI, secret service, sheriffs, marshalls, private security firms, mall cops. We’re good on regulated militia. We are all full up on the regulated militia — America is ALL GOOD, Mrs. Nancy Lanza, we do not need your weapons, thanks for offering, though! Heck, maybe gun ownership could come with a service requirement. Two years in the military or on a police force would tie it nicely back to the original intent of the amendment.

Whatever argument you can come up with for why *I* Dawn Summers should not be allowed to own a nuclear weapon (the constitution says “arms” after all, and for those that claim the amendment shouldn’t be restricted to weapons available at the time, lest the first amendment not cover the internet, then *MY* personal right to have a nuclear weapon should not be infringed) — THAT is exactly the reason civilians should not have access to guns. And if you can’t come up with any reasons why *I* shouldn’t be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, then THAT’s exactly the reason why civilians shouldn’t have access to guns. If I get a nuclear weapon, then Ted Kaczynski gets one! Louis Farrakhan gets one! The super of your building gets one!
These dudes get them.

Let’s not forget this homie!

I like guns. I’ve gone to ranges in New York and Vegas. A few years ago, I even looked into buying one. But I’ve also lost minor aged cousins to gun violence and I was held hostage at gun point when I was seven. So, I also don’t like guns.

I’m a lawyer who fervently believes in the constitution and I trust in government and law enforcement. Imagine how much easier prosecution will be if we can identify the bad guy *because* he’s the one with the gun. Or if there is no such thing as gun show loopholes because the seller would KNOW that if that gun is used for ill S/HE WILL be held accountable no matter how many times they claim they sold it to a one armed man behind the bleachers.

We regulate cars. They must be registered, insured, inspected — no one blinks twice; no one claims the DMV is Hitler. We live in an amazing place, we owe it to ourselves and our progeny to keep it that way. All it may take is a little compromise and common sense.

But what do I know, the framers of the constitution would argue I’m not even a whole person.

42 Responses to “Shots fired”

  1. VinNay Says:

    You know what? Let me kick down a little thing to you that our Founding Fathers kicked down to me. It goes, “Don’t. Tread. On me,” and right now, you guys are TREADING ALL OVER ME.

    I’m gonna rise up, I’m gonna kick a little ass, Gonna kick some ass in the USA, Gonna climb a mountain, Gonna sew a flag, Gonna fly on an Eagle, I’m gonna kick some butt, I’m gonna drive a big truck, I’m gonna rule this world, Gonna kick some ass, Gonna rise up, Kick a little ass, ROCK, FLAG AND EAGLE!

  2. Dawn Summers Says:

    But first, he’s going to have a beer. And maybe a nap.

  3. VinNay Says:

    What? I fell asleep…zzzzz…

  4. McGehee Says:

    “But what do I know, the framers of the constitution would argue I’m not even a whole person.”

    Seriously?

    Unless you actually believe there’s a risk of repealing the 13th Amendment — which, that belief would disappoint me greatly — the 3/5 rule is the least of anyone’s worries. In fact it was of consequence only to rich slaveowners who hoped to own an entire congressional district simply by spending lots of money at the auctions.

    Jeez.

  5. Dawn Summers Says:

    LOL. You know that the framers didn’t write the 13th amendment, right? Right? *clasps hands in prayer*

  6. change100 Says:

    Right on, woman. Damn you’re smart for a Patriots fan. *ducks*

  7. Kentucky Packrat Says:

    But what do I know, the framers of the constitution would argue I’m not even a whole person.

    I know you know this (or at least should), but for the peanut gallery: The House of Representatives was set up for 1 representative per X people in the state (and was originally meant to grow without limit). The South wanted to count slaves as a person, and that way they would have an immediate majority in the House. The North wanted slaves to not count, so that they would have an immediate majority. The Founders had to compromise, so that the North and South would have a balance. (Immigration, especially of the Irish, quickly tipped the balance to the North, so the compromise wasn’t needed, but that’s in hindsight…)

    We can make too much of our heroes, and too little. Washington was generally kind to slaves, and regularly allowed them to “escape” or buy themselves out. He also chased some down and kept some from being able to leave legally. Jefferson was the strongest thinker against slavery, and probably helped bankrupt himself buying up slaves who couldn’t work. OTOH, he made little effort to free slaves at his death (again, probably because he was broke), and certainly someone in his family was sleeping with Sally Hastings.

    Like a certain “I didn’t inhale/what does ‘is’ mean?” politician, they aren’t gods among men, they’re men who had good ideas and mediocre execution.

    Now, if you want to talk about “not a real person”, go read Dred Scott v. Sandford. One of Taney’s key arguments against recognizing that Scott could be a citizen was the horrors of black people (like Scott) having the right to own firearms. Even the justices who agreed with Taney’s legal reasoning wouldn’t agree with his opinion for the racism and the overreaching.

    We cannot appeal to “King would own guns” or “King would NOT own guns”, because Dr. King isn’t here to tell us what he’d do now (this is the real call to authority fallacy). We can look at history, however. Dr. King DID own guns, and did attempt to obtain a concealed carry permit at least once. OTOH, he also believed that Christian martyrdom requires passive resistance(*), and towards the end of his life he ceased to act in personal defense AND believed that his violent death would be an act of martyrdom(**). Both are consistent with a single self-defence theory, and are consistent with changing one’s mind. I’ll leave the listener to decide which.

    (*) Luther wasn’t the only person ever to describe the principle, but he did it clearly. A Christian may defend himself and others when faced with violence not targeted because of the person’s belief. You may defend yourself from the robber or the base murderer, for example. However, injury faced because of your faith must be endured without violent reprisal.

    (**) I AM implying causation here, but I won’t strictly hold to it if pushed. :)

  8. Dawn Summers Says:

    (**) I AM implying causation here, but I won’t strictly hold to it if pushed.

    This is the first time I have ever heard the argument that Dr. King committed suicide by assassin, but okay.

  9. Boogie Says:

    You shall NOT infringe upon my right to bear Bernard Pollards. I have the right to injure as many Patriots as I want to.

  10. Kentucky Packrat Says:

    This is the first time I have ever heard the argument that Dr. King committed suicide by assassin, but okay.

    *blink* OK, let’s try this again, slower and with fewer run-on sentences.

    Dr. King believed in Christian passive resistance throughout his life. At the beginning of his struggle, he also believed in defending himself with guns. He owned them. He employed armed bodyguards to protect him. He even attempted to obtain a concealed carry permit (and was denied it for racist reasons).

    Towards the end of his life, he ceased to take steps to defend himself with firearms (no bodyguards, etc.) while simultaneously believing that he would probably die a martyr’s death for his beliefs and actions.

    I personally believe that the latter (believing he was going to die a martyr’s death) caused the former (ceasing to defend himself with firearms). This would be consistent with Luther’s Christian self-defense theories. However, my saying so is a “correlation means causation” fallacy: we only know both occurred at the same time. As far as I know, Dr. King never explicitly spelled this out. (If he did, feel free to correct me on this.)

    Now that we’re past that, I’ll come back to the point I actually was going to make before getting distracted. (Yes, the entire post above was me being distracted. With so many ideas packed into one post, it’s easy to get distracted. I could have even called it a target-rich field, but I’m trying to avoid those evil shooting metaphors. Only liberals are allowed to use shooting metaphors, after all.)

    Let’s assume for the moment that possessing guns is a right. (Based on your post, I don’t think you really believe that it is, which is why I will make this an assumption.) Now, you are calling on the rest of us to take significant limitations upon our right for everyone’s safety, by saying that we don’t need said right.

    That seems fair and proper. Excluding the potential of a self-defense situation(*), then I as a city dweller have very little need at all for the firearms that may or may not be in my possession.

    However, you are opening a very dangerous precedent here. People don’t need any rights to live, and rights cause governments all kinds of inconveniences and difficulties.

    Imagine how much easier prosecution will be if we can identify the bad guy *because* we have his urine in a cup. You don’t have anything to hide, and you trust the government, so there’s nothing wrong with peeing in the cup on demand, right? The government has the technology to listen to your phone calls, but you’re not a criminal. They can listen to you, right? The FBI will never ever stoop to using intelligence like this for blackmail, so you’re fine. Oh, and let’s throw in governors on cars so that no car can ever go over 70 MPH or 4000 RPM. Speeding and high torque are dangerous, after all. How about swimming pools? More kids (not in gangs) die in swimming pools than die from gunshots in the US. They’re death traps; the federal government should demand their immediate filling with concrete.

    Why should we not do any of these? By your logic, we the people have every obligation to restrict these rights too, to make things easier on the government or safer for ourselves. What is the difference?

    One final aside: We have a National guard, a coast guard, an army, a marine, an air force, police forces, FBI, secret service, sheriffs, marshalls, private security firms, mall cops. We’re good on regulated militia.

    You forgot the Inspector Generals office of the Department of Housing and Human Services. They just put in an order for a couple thousand guns and several hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo. 43 different federal agencies or departments have people with badges, real assault weapons and machine guns, and lots and lots of ammo.

    You need to go read the Federalist Papers. These government agents are not the regulated militia. They are the standing armies that the Revolutionary War people fought against. Standing armies were bad, and would inevitably lead to the loss of rights and tyranny. The well-regulated militia, a standing army of the entire citizenship (barring only the conscientious objector and the infirm) was considered necessary so that the people could both defend themselves from external enemies and rise up and defeat the standing army when a tyrant turned them against his own people.

    (History quiz for the house: General Gage sent out soldiers to secretly take what items from the colonists at Lexington and Concord?)

    (*) Considering that between 10x and 1000x(**) more people defend themselves every year using legally owned firearms than are shot without justification in the US, this is a BIG gift to you. I can prove that firearms are a net benefit to US society WITHOUT considering the rights issue at all (John Lott already has).

    (**) Depending on whose numbers you believe and how you count a justified shooting. 10x is if you believe the smallest number of defensive gun uses (the DOJ’s non-anonymous survey) and everyone being shot as unjustified (even those shot in said defensive gun uses). 1000x weeds out gun suicides and shots that are neither homicides nor accidents, compared to Kleck’s 2.1 million per year count. The truth of course is somewhere in the middle.

  11. Dawn Summers Says:

    You don’t have to assume that I think owning a gun is a right. It is a right. It’s in the constitution. Also *I* didn’t say there should be limitations on that right The Supreme Court of the United States did. *I* suggested if that right is used to commit crimes, law enforcement should prosecute the people responsible.

    I have the right to speech, yet, I don’t think you’d argue that I had the right to yell bomb on an airplane without being arrested. Etc etc etc, we all have rights and we all have responsibilities, some are common sense responsibilities, some are legally prescribed.

    I’m not going to unpack your “net positive” statistics for weapons, that’s not my area and it’s outside my scope. I concern myself with how to effectively deal with “illegal/criminal/negligent” use and/or banning civilians from having a right to guns at all. I’m sure there are many drugs and treatments that would on balance save 100x lives, but we don’t have a governmental guaranteed “right” to them.

  12. Dawn Summers Says:

    Oh, and FYI, I have a BA in political science and a juris doctorate from ivy league universities. I’ve read the Federalist Papers once or twice. But thanks for the recommendation!

  13. KYPackrat Says:

    I’ve tried to post another response, and somehow it won’t go (keep getting a 404 error).

    Therefore, I’ve posted it as an article at my blog.

  14. KYPackrat Says:

    I have a BA in political science and a juris doctorate from ivy league universities. I’ve read the Federalist Papers once or twice. But thanks for the recommendation!

    George W and John Kerry both have several pieces of paper from the same Ivy League schools; the papers aren’t that impressive. The papers don’t help that you have no idea what the militia is and is not, and what “well-regulated” meant at the time.

    And lets not start on the “I want your kids in foster care forever” line. Nothing says “respectable legal mind” like threatening the kids of the people you want to support your idea.

  15. Dawn Summers Says:

    Ok, eyeroll. Do you know that quotes are supposed to signify something the author ACTUALLY wrote. Show me where I write “I WANT” Anywhere. Double dog dare ya! (here’s a hint, it ain’t there, love. The only things “*I* want is a billion dollars and the Rangers to win the Stanley Cup every year from now until VinNay dies.)

    If you don’t know what happens to a family as a consequence of a felon conviction and imprisonment, then I don’t know what to tell ya. Nice life, I guess. Congrats!

  16. Kentucky Packrat Says:

    I really hate Safari sometimes. I had a nice, witty post back, perfect for the situation. And then I woke up. Ummm, I mean Safari crashed. Yeah, that’s the ticket….

    If you don’t know what happens to a family as a consequence of a felon conviction and imprisonment, then I don’t know what to tell ya. Nice life, I guess. Congrats!

    I’ve had a social worker in the family for 15+ years. I know exactly what happens in situations like this:

    * Dad goes to jail
    * Mom divorces Dad to get an extra check and keeps the kids
    * If Mom can’t keep the kids, then grandma/uncles/aunts step in.

    Your scenario only matches reality when the entire family gets invalidated for custody because one member sold a gun, and that can only happen through a change in laws.

    Also, you can’t dodge responsibility for your advocacy. You are asking for X->Y, but then trying to say that you don’t want Y to occur when X will occur and currently Y won’t occur (except in rare circumstances). You may not want Y to occur much, or you may regret Y occurring, but you WANT it to occur, because you advocated making it occur.

    (Yes, I have some sensitivity to this. A notorious tactic for attacking homeschoolers is for a family member to call in Social Services with a neglect charge. Social Services agents generally have no concept of due process and less respect for their clients, and the entire system is based around guilty until proven innocent if you’re a decent person. And yes, I said I have a social services worker in the family.)

    Rather than making a new assumption, let me pose the question directly: Do you want to “pass through” criminal liability for a buyer’s actions to a seller with no mens rea (for the peanut gallery: no guilty intent) and no reason to know the buyer’s mindset?

    Your use of the Georgia case seems to imply that you do. Sailors was a vet AND a ex-missionary. Heck, the only way he could be cleaner would have been to shave his head and stick an earring on him.

  17. Rebecca Says:

    I *love* Dawn’s brain. It is superb. DAWN 2016!

  18. Astin Says:

    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

  19. Kentucky Packrat Says:

    Astin,

    These laws actually reinforce my point to Dawn earlier. The states hated standing armies and professional lawmen, because the king and his governors used them to oppress the people. When a law had to be enforced, the state called out all of the able-bodied men as the militia and enforced them. The North had similar laws, and the militia executed them too.

    The history of gun control in the US has been the history of the elite and rich doing their best to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, the Chinese, the Irish, and other undesirables. When they didn’t succeed, valiant men defended themselves with the few meager firearms allowed them.

    Now, the very leaders of the movements that freed men beg to be brought back under heel. Sharpton especially disgusts me. He makes his money falsely suing the NYPD for brutality. Now he pimps to disarm his fellow citizens and put them under the power of the very groups that oppressed his parents and him.

    These false prophets claiming to be Reverand proclaim bondage as freedom. I would pity them if they didn’t try to insist that their choke chain was comfortable and light, and that we should all put them on too.

  20. Pearatty Says:

    *Looks around; blinks slowly.*

    Who are all these people? Been awhile, I guess.

    Good post. I’m on board.

    I think Scalia has said (not in decisions, but in public comments) that the reason you can’t have a nuclear bomb is because it’s the right to “bear” arms. So you have to be able to “bear” them. Shoulder mounted rocket launcher ok, atom bomb not ok. He did not specifically speak to a dirty bomb in a suitcase, but presumably you are entitled.

    So, yeah. “Militia” doesn’t mean anything or imply any limitation, but “bear” does.

  21. Pradneddy Says:

    Nice post. I find out something extra difficult on different blogs everyday. It will constantly be stimulating to read content from other writers and practice a little something from their store. I’d prefer to make use of some with the content on my blog whether you do not mind. Natually I’ll provide you with a link on your web weblog. Thanks for sharing.

    rabat Nike Lunarglide 3

  22. gourmet vinegar Says:

    Yoou gourmet vinegar need to start.

    This article originally apopeared at Outspoken Media, SEO firm in New York in red, grayish-green or mauve.

    While keeping viewers on a keyword, which is pretty much obligbated to hire a professional
    who has a clause in his final eight save opportunities.

  23. kropsterapeut Says:

    Usually I do not learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to take a look at and do
    it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, very
    nice article.

  24. best cell phone spy software Says:

    Hey I am so thrilled I found your webpage, I really found you by error, while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would
    just like to say cheers for a incredible post and a
    all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look
    over it all at the minute but I have book-marked it and
    also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up
    the fantastic jo.

  25. Tia Says:

    Anything that a chiropractor is helpful for regarding the
    spine, this device can provide assistance,” he says. Their objective is to kept the desired weight that can last a lifetime. There are several companies that supply domain names for pretty cheap.

  26. clash of clans online tool Says:

    Hi I am so happy I found your weblog, I really found you by error,
    while I was looking on Askjeeve for something else,
    Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say
    thanks for a incredible post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all
    at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I
    will be back to read much more, Please do keep
    up the superb b.

  27. situs betting terpercaya Says:

    The modern day mangalsutra is more of a fashion statement
    than a symbol of marriage. They have offices
    in different parts of the world offering training and training
    materials. Tired, they are warmly welcomed by the
    elves, and hear songs of the victory over the dragon and the battle of five armies.

  28. free baby photo thank you card templates Says:

    I labored nights and weekends, and used every paycheck to cowl child expenses and my credit
    card bill.

  29. viziofly Says:

    Hi, this weekend is fastidious designed for me, for the reason that this time i am reading this impressive educational piece of writing here at my
    house.

  30. ?????????????? Says:

    Search the Internet, the library, and neighborhood bookstores for books.

    But, most of the people yet do not know much about the various attractions of this country.

    (It is a criminal offence to sell an unroadworthy car).

  31. Norberto Says:

    Fastidious replies in return of this question with solid arguments and explaining all regarding that.

  32. Charley Says:

    Quality articles or reviews is the main to attract
    the viewers to pay a visit the web site, that’s what this web
    site is providing.

  33. ??????? ??? ???? ??? Says:

    Your mode of describing the whole thing in this
    article is really good, every one be able to without difficulty know it, Thanks a lot.

  34. ??????????? Says:

    What i do not understood is in fact how you’re no longer
    actually a lot more smartly-appreciated than you may be now.
    You are so intelligent. You recognize thus significantly on the subject
    of this topic, made me in my view imagine it from numerous varied angles.

    Its like women and men aren’t interested except it’s
    something to accomplish with Lady gaga! Your individual stuffs excellent.
    Always care for it up!

  35. anabolic steroids to buy Says:

    Hello just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your article seem to be running off the screen in Chrome.
    I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something
    to do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let
    you know. The design and style look great though! Hope
    you get the problem solved soon. Many thanks

  36. pakar seo Says:

    It’s not my first time to visit this site, i am browsing this
    site dailly and get fastidious information from here everyday.

    my website pakar seo

  37. Son Says:

    At this time it appears like Expression Engine is the top blogging platform
    available right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your
    blog?

  38. home.loqal.no Says:

    Hey! Would you mind if I share your blog with
    my facebook group? There’s a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate
    your content. Please let me know. Thanks

  39. Rebecca Says:

    Hallo, Ich denke dies isst einn ausgezeichnetes site.
    Ich stumbledupon it;) Ich kaznn Zurück erneut seit ich
    als Favorit gespeichert es. Geeld unnd Freihei ist der besste Weg zuu ändern, können Sie reich sin und weiiterhin Hilfe andere.

  40. Archie Says:

    I immer verwendet Studie Artikel in Zeitungen, aber jetzt,
    wiie icch bin ein Benutzer der Internet damit ab soffort Ich binn mit Netz für
    Inhalt dank Web.

  41. Jasa Seo Says:

    This web site truly has all of the info I wanted
    about this subject and didn’t know who to ask…..

  42. Jasa SEO Jakarta Says:

    This writing style reminds me of my neighbor. Dude, you are seriously blowing my mind. I am being serious! My reality is blown! You have really hit the nail on the head. A magnificent page. I’m really intrigued about how this will affect the world in the long term but it is probably impossible to tell with all the current changes we see happening. Got sucked into this article for the last hour…

Leave a Reply