Australian Politics Forum - Liberal Democratic Party

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #60 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:36pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:21pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:16pm:

phantom

What stops you from stabbing people with a sharp knife, if you believe you would shoot people if you owned a gun?

I owned several weapons from the age of 15 up until '97 (33) and during that time i rekon I got angry at various people a couple of times a week. At no time did I even contemplate shooting them let alone do it.

Just because a person owns a gun does not automatically make them a psychopath mass murderer, no matter what john howard told you. It just makes them a gun owner.

and that is true for most people probably even 99% of them. but it is NOT true for that small minority and giving THEM guns IS a problem. and you also forget the fact that 2/3 of the fun deaths in the USA are accidents.

THEM still have access to guns, regardless of the law, that is why they are THEM. And they are still shooting people, the current laws were never design to stop THEM.

Longy we are not the US, we were never the US, making comparisons to the US is fallacious. The US are a special little breed all unto themselves, even canada is nothing like the US and they live right next door.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #61 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:33pm:

I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed?

In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective.

Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland?

Do not make an idiot of yourself by trying to talk about US gun laws as though they had any releveance whatsoever - even to them. a 3day wait to buy a automatic pistol is hardly 'control'. USA has a massive massive violent crime rate and a culture that fuels the violence. given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? what groups in our society are in such mortal risk that they would need them? NONE. and part of the reason for that is that so few other people have them either. and one thing worth mentioning is that very few criminals have them either. SOME do, but most dont. do we really want to arm our criminals? the ones that rob shops with a knife or baseball bat?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

lil.brat26

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 333
melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #62 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:52pm

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:32am:

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:57am:

Yes I realise that you have to try and save face after your stupid post.
Perhaps a simple apology and acknowledgement that you stuffed up would have saved you, but no you chose to dig yourself further into the quagmire.
Guess you adopted the Homer Simpson (The Vigilante)when he was stuck in a hole and was asked how will we get out, "we'll dig our way out"!
And you're not satisfied with that so you go further with Chief Wiggums comment "dig up stupid"

Otto: Um, how are we going to get out of here?
Homer: We'll dig our way out!
Wiggum: No, dig _up_, stupid.

But keep trying Wiggy, it really is funny.....pathetic, but funny
Grin

I can see now your absolutely rational response to the fact this I wrote "the US" instead of "us" and for that I oppologise unreservedly I fully intend to seek forgiveness by writing out 1000 times, "us, not the US".

So once again please forgive my mis-statement I can asure you will never do it again, I promise that I will also make sure I will never overlook any mistakes or mis-statements that you make in the future either, which should be fun for both of us. Grin

I agree that focusing on the semantics is a much better way to utilise these boards than to look at the overall intent

That hole of yours just gets bigger and bigger

Grin

Don't forget to Dig Up there.
Cheesy

Back to top

I love to shoot down the big mouth clowns - so easy.

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #63 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:33pm:

I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed?

In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective.

Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland?

Do not make an idiot of yourself by trying to talk about US gun laws as though they had any releveance whatsoever - even to them. a 3day wait to buy a automatic pistol is hardly 'control'. USA has a massive massive violent crime rate and a culture that fuels the violence. given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? what groups in our society are in such mortal risk that they would need them? NONE. and part of the reason for that is that so few other people have them either. and one thing worth mentioning is that very few criminals have them either. SOME do, but most dont. do we really want to arm our criminals? the ones that rob shops with a knife or baseball bat?

Perhaps even more pertinent, is that the over-riding policy agenda of the elitist LDP is to polarise income, wealth opportunity and power - which would cause our socio-economic systems to trend exponentially towards 'individualist' exploitation, deprivation, anarchy and violence!

In which case, those 'individualists', 'egotists' and/or 'nutjobs' with the most land/assets/resources would be entitled (under their proposed recklessly-relaxed laws), to utilise an ever-bigger and ever-better armoury - and to pay mercenaries to fight for them.

Meantime, what limitations (other than grossly-inequitable access to resources) would there be on private 'individualists' in relation to seeking to self-servingly restore 'order' by utilising mass control/eradication methods such as tanks, missiles, bombs, aircraft and/or biological agents!?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:11pm by Equitist »

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

BobH

Moderator

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #64 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:12pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm:

given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns?

The onus is really on you to provide a reasonable argument why gun control is necessary. Because I don't think you need a reason to give people freedom, but you need a damn good one to take it away.

Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough? That just shows the sad state of affairs we're in. You now have to justify why you deserve the right to the things you want to do. So much for a "free country". People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want unless it harms someone else or their property.

Guns don't harm anybody else until they are used violently against another person. That's when the law should kick in. Not before. Because when you enforce it before the act of violence happens, you not only punish the people who will potentially commit a violent act but also those who probably wont. 9 out of 10 gun owners would probably never use their gun outside of safe hunting and sports shooting. Yet because of 1 nut you want to punish the other 9? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry, I value freedom too much. I suppose I have to think like a control freak to understand gun control.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #65 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:15pm

Equitist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:33pm:

I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed?

In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective.

Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland?

Do not make an idiot of yourself by trying to talk about US gun laws as though they had any releveance whatsoever - even to them. a 3day wait to buy a automatic pistol is hardly 'control'. USA has a massive massive violent crime rate and a culture that fuels the violence. given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns? what groups in our society are in such mortal risk that they would need them? NONE. and part of the reason for that is that so few other people have them either. and one thing worth mentioning is that very few criminals have them either. SOME do, but most dont. do we really want to arm our criminals? the ones that rob shops with a knife or baseball bat?

Perhaps even more pertinent, is that the over-riding policy agenda of the elitist LDP is to polarise income, wealth opportunity and power - which would cause our socio-economic systems to trend exponentially towards 'individualist' exploitation, deprivation, anarchy and violence!

In which case, those 'individualists', 'egotists' and/or 'nutjobs' with the most land/assets/resources would be entitled (under their proposed recklessly-relaxed laws), to utilise an ever-bigger and ever-better armoury - and to pay mercenaries to fight for them.

Meantime, what limitations (other than grossly-inequitable access to resources) would there be on private 'individualists' in relation to seeking to self-servingly restore 'order' by utilising mass control/eradication methods such as tanks, missiles, bombs, aircraft and/or biological agents!?

I think we would both agree that the LDP is a genuine extreme right-wing party. but you use the same language to describe them and the coalition!! LOL do you see now the downside to using ridiculously over-the-top extremist adjectives for those you disagree with? when a really objectionable party comes alone, you ahve nowhwere else to go. the language is the same and people ignore you.

You are the 'boy who cried wolf'.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #66 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:16pm

Hey Bob, I'm keen to hear your response on this, ta!

Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 9:25pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote:

- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos

You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies.

lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote:

We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land.

Can you elaborate on this please?

Well, read http://reason.com/archives/2002/04/17/rewarding-private-conservationon private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you?

Hey Bob, ignoring your other policies for the moment, do you lot REALLY believe that: -

* We should happily privatise the nation's/world's oceans and allow owners to wantonly cull whales and/or dolphins that pass through same!?

* Private landowners - such as farmers and miners and industrial corporations - give a flying fancy about the long-term consequences beyond their tenure (physical boundaries and chronological timeframe)!? In the world according to the LDP, what is to stop them from clearing, strip-mining, blasting and/or industrialising - and thereby polluting the surrounding air, land and water - and not caring about the long-term consequences because they will earn enough to never have to sell their lot. After all, they can just leave it as a toxic wasteland and then just move on the the next plot in the next unwitting neighbourhood and do it all again!? Hello - is this not exactly what wantonly self-serving and destructive multinational parasites have been getting away with, throughout the 3rd world for the past several decades!? Oh, and can the neighbours just hunt them down and shoot them cos they piss them off by threatening their livelihoods and way of life!?

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #67 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:18pm

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 12:42pm:

given the risks you need to articulate an actual reason and a need for such relaxed gun laws. can you do that? other than 'i want a gun' can you give me an actual argument for guns?

The onus is really on you to provide a reasonable argument why gun control is necessary. Because I don't think you need a reason to give people freedom, but you need a damn good one to take it away.

Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough? That just shows the sad state of affairs we're in. You now have to justify why you deserve the right to the things you want to do. So much for a "free country". People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want unless it harms someone else or their property.

Guns don't harm anybody else until they are used violently against another person. That's when the law should kick in. Not before. Because when you enforce it before the act of violence happens, you not only punish the people who will potentially commit a violent act but also those who probably wont. 9 out of 10 gun owners would probably never use their gun outside of safe hunting and sports shooting. Yet because of 1 nut you want to punish the other 9? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry, I value freedom too much. I suppose I have to think like a control freak to understand gun control.

that is the same argument i hear from crazy gun-loving americans and just as flawed. Shoudl I be allowed to own pipe-bombs? Attack dogs? missiles? nuclear weapons? where does the argument end?

9 out of 10 owners being responsible does NOT engender confidence.

'nuclear weapons dont kill people - people kill people'

I want one!

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #68 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:22pm

||Guns don't harm anybody else until they are used violently against another person. That's when the law should kick in. Not before. Because when you enforce it before the act of violence happens, you not only punish the people who will potentially commit a violent act but also those who probably wont. 9 out of 10 gun owners would probably never use their gun outside of safe hunting and sports shooting. Yet because of 1 nut you want to punish the other 9? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry, I value freedom too much. I suppose I have to think like a control freak to understand gun control. ||

the argument against child porn is that it promotes child abuse. but that is only true in a very small minority of downloaders. so shoudl that be made legal under the same argument, especially if it is only viewed at home?

some things are just DANGEROUS and need to be controlled or banned on that basis alone. guns are one of them.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #69 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:24pm

Quote:

Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough?

Maybe the same as , "I want a nuclear missile" is not a good enough reason for wanting Iran to have them.
People usually are expected to show a legitimate need, and an ability to act exceptionally responsibly, if they wish to have stuff which would create havoc if used injudiciously.

Back to top

2432602047_3e016606e7.jpg (96 KB | 163 )

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

BobH

Moderator

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #70 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:25pm

Equitist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Hey Bob, I'm keen to hear your response on this, ta!

Equitist wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 9:25pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote:

- sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos

You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies.

lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote:

We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land.

Can you elaborate on this please?

Well, read http://reason.com/archives/2002/04/17/rewarding-private-conservationon private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you?

Hey Bob, ignoring your other policies for the moment, do you lot REALLY believe that: -

* We should happily privatise the nation's/world's oceans and allow owners to wantonly cull whales and/or dolphins that pass through same!?

* Private landowners - such as farmers and miners and industrial corporations - give a flying fancy about the long-term consequences beyond their tenure (physical boundaries and chronological timeframe)!? In the world according to the LDP, what is to stop them from clearing, strip-mining, blasting and/or industrialising - and thereby polluting the surrounding air, land and water - and not caring about the long-term consequences because they will earn enough to never have to sell their lot. After all, they can just leave it as a toxic wasteland and then just move on the the next plot in the next unwitting neighbourhood and do it all again!? Hello - is this not exactly what wantonly self-serving and destructive multinational parasites have been getting away with, throughout the 3rd world for the past several decades!? Oh, and can the neighbours just hunt them down and shoot them cos they piss them off by threatening their livelihoods and way of life!?

Umm, yes and yes. lol

OK, so seriously for a moment. You are suggesting that private land owners would have no incentive to protect their land beyond their tenure. That private land owners don't care about the long-term consequences of their actions and have no desire to protect the environment for the future. So here's my question to you: do you care? Do you care about future generations and what kind of environment they will have to live it? Because if you do, do you then assume that you are the only one? It's not possible that someone with a lot of money cares about the environment? I know it hard to believe that when we see rich people all the time like Al Gore pretending to care when all he wants is to install a carbon trading scheme that will make his buddies richer. But is it possible that anybody with a bit of land cares about what happens to it after their gone? What, they don't have children? Or children who have children? Are you the only who cares? Oh righteous one?

The point is, the private sector is better equipped to conserve the environment than government. Do some research on private conservation. And just have a think about the incentives involved in owning land and making profit off that land. So as long as some private property owners care about the environment, then I trust them. Is it easier for you to trust government? Is it easier for you to believe more of them genuinely care about the environment? Why? Are they not greedy or self-interested like the rest of us? Tell me, why is political self-interest somehow nobler than economic self-interest?

Back to top

IP Logged

lil.brat26

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 333
melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #71 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:27pm

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:24pm:

Quote:

Why isn't "I want a gun" reason enough?

Maybe the same as , "I want a nuclear missile" is not a good enough reason for wanting Iran to have them.
People usually are expected to show a legitimate need, and an ability to act exceptionally responsibly, if they wish to have stuff which would create havoc if used injudiciously.

Yes but logic and sanity go out the window in the USA, merely wanting a gun is reason enough.
Hey they even offer them to new bank account applicants....at the bank too!
Great logic there!!

Back to top

I love to shoot down the big mouth clowns - so easy.

IP Logged

BobH

Moderator

Offline

Posts: 174

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #72 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:22pm:

some things are just DANGEROUS and need to be controlled or banned on that basis alone. guns are one of them.

But you need to show that that works. Does banning guns result in lower crime rates? Does banning marijuana result in less drug usage? Are we safer now because of Howard's gun laws? Do we as a whole use less drugs now because of marijuana prohibition?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #73 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:32pm

BobH wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:22pm:

some things are just DANGEROUS and need to be controlled or banned on that basis alone. guns are one of them.

But you need to show that that works. Does banning guns result in lower crime rates? Does banning marijuana result in less drug usage? Are we safer now because of Howard's gun laws? Do we as a whole use less drugs now because of marijuana prohibition?

nice avoidance of the child porn example. that stuff generally does NOT increase child abuse except in a very small number. so should that be legalised as that is the identical argument you are making for guns.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Liberal Democratic Party
Reply #74 - Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm

lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:31pm:

I wish Edited:

dumb, and inappropriate joke edited out by mozzaok

!

Interesting that you are rabidly anti-gun but just threatened to shoot a political canditidate because you don't agree with them.

Better make sure the federal coppers don't come knocking on your door, Im pretty sure they take a dim view of what you just did, even in jest.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:52pm by mozzaok »

IP Logged