Video: People bringing assault rifles to Obama rallies now
posted at 7:51 pm on August 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
And maybe not just people on the anti-Obama side, either. CNN reports seeing at least two AR-15s at today’s event in Arizona, one of which was carried by a guy standing among those waving “Reform Now” signs.
As I’ve said before, it’s a security risk and a de facto provocation to the other side. And having the right to do it is no more of a justification than bringing porn to a meeting with the president would be. Exit question: Why?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 19 Next »
My conscious tells me not to “bear arms” at such an event. However, insisting that someone else adheres to what my conscious tells me not to do, when that someone has the right to do as such, is an infringement upon their liberty.
And about the porn thing… There’s no comparison. That could be prevented by certain decency regulations.
Cody Baker on August 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM
We need to stop these lunatics from lawfully exercising their Rights. You should only be able to exercise one Right at a time. These people might get confused and shoot their mouths off.
AlexJ on August 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM
“Why?”
Because they can.
atheling on August 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM
I got that part. Vehicles?
Jim Treacher on August 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM
What is the difference between open carry and concealed carry other than your awareness that the person has a gun?
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM
lol sorry, should have clarified Jim, missed that “huh?” :)
ConservativeJawa on August 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the lord created men!
Adam was a gentleman in Eden!
Though his body was admired
You will grant the adding of a fig leaf was inspired!
If you’re out to make a splash, cherie
Do know your haberdashery
Buttons, buckles, ruffles and lace
Represent the human race!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes!
Each species needs a sex whose fated
To be highly decorated
That is why the Lord created men!
PercyB on August 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
You could be right.
Mommypundit on August 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Don’t know, maybe he thought they would run him down…
Wolftech on August 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
+1 a lot of people are mistaken about that.
liquidflorian on August 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Nearly 100 comments and not a single link to this song. Sad.
Weight of Glory on August 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Excuse me folks, but it’s legal to openly pack a weapon in Arizona. It’s the law there. Plus, in spite, and despite what the anit-gun movement would like you to believe, the Second Amendment is your permit. Clearly, every anti-gun law written by states, counties, or municipalities, are illegal. I can understand where this would make politicians NOT from Arizona nervous. But, until the Second Amendment is repealed, of which is almost impossible, that’s the way it is!
byteshredder on August 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
That it is, and there will be a reckoning in this country.
Viper1 on August 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Yeah, I’m all about gun rights and everyone can own whatever, but bringing that crap to this kind of a situation is just *stupid*.
Midas on August 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
who decides when the tension levels are low enough to carry? the govt??
Ris4victory on August 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Sorry… failed joke about old people and bad driving.
ConservativeJawa on August 17, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Not at all. Why would you be afraid of someone openly carrying a weapon? I’m pretty sure all assassins either hid their weapon until they fired or did it from a sniping distance. Reports and pictures indicate this guy was closely watched by police and secret service agents. He’d be suicidal to try anything.
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I’d say the media, the DNC happiness Gestapo, the secret service, and chairman Soetoro are trying….
I’d feel a lot more comfy if it was mayors, cops, and responsible people themselves….
sven10077 on August 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I like seeing guns around. If The Precedent, or anyone, feels it is an unsafe environment, then he needn’t go there.
progressoverpeace on August 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Just because man can do a thing, does not mean that he should do a thing.
There’s no reason for a nimrod to carry an assault rifle to a presidential event. None. And plenty of reasons *not* to, not the least of which is that ‘the other side’ will categorically and undeniably use it as a talking point against ‘us’.
Stupid. Not illegal, but incredibly stupid.
Midas on August 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM
I’m all for it. It’s their right, and they are being defiant about it. Good for them.
If it’s so “dangerous” for law abiding citizens to openly pack heat, then why have cops standing around doing the same?
We are equals.
atheling on August 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Side arms or assault rifles? I’m going to Arizona in a couple of weeks–should I expect the locals to walk around with semi-automatic assault rifles? I don’t even like seeing police walking around with that kind of weaponry, let alone John Q Public. It’s not for self-defense, it’s for offense.
jonknee on August 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Some states only allow open carry–they don’t allow concealed carry.
Whole I think the AR-15 was a bit over the top and meant to get attention, I have no problem with the other guys who had the gun holstered in the open (since it’s their law and it’s legal.)
And yes, it was legal. The Secret Service won’t get involved until the guy passes their security parameter, and then they’ll deal with it. He was far outside of the parameter, though–they all have been.
Enoxo on August 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
If they were liberals carrying the arms, there would have been at least one unplanned discharge…perhaps it was an airsoft assault rifle.
JIMV on August 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Lefties/commies w/guns makes me a whole hell of a lot more concerned than a conservative.
The reason is all in the intent of the carry.
Lefties don’t have a reason to carry that could be seen as defending their constitutional right since most of the lefty nutters at Obama rallies have no affinity for the constitution. So my conclusion would have to be that their intent is to intimidate, be defiant, or create fear and abuse the right in order to encroach on the right to carry.
katy on August 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Good point . . . it’s just a semi-automatic rifle with a short stock. It looks a little different but is functionally the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. “Assault weapon” is simply the left’s misleading definition of choice.
rplat on August 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I own an AR-15 – it stands for Armalite, the original brand name sold to Colt back in 50′s (it IS an assault weapon & very legal)
Ris4victory on August 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM
lol I could walk around with a butter knife and it could be used as offense.
ConservativeJawa on August 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Ah! Okay, I get it, sorry about that.
Jim Treacher on August 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM
God, Perimeter, even.
Enoxo on August 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM
That cat totting a AR15 hanging out with the SEIU crowd, dressed like the Fruit of Islam… This is all bad… I’d bet he was rollin’ condition one or condition zero… all bad…
To quote Nut’n'Fancy; don’t hasten the day….
liquidflorian on August 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Can’t believe it, but +1
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM
You better not head to AZ without plenty of Depends then.
thomasaur on August 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I lived in Israel where every 18 year old is walking around with an M-16, Uzi, or Galil. I guess you wouldn’t like it there. BTW, their murder rate is close to zero, except for the terrorists, but the terrorists don’t try shooting attacks there anymore because they were always picked off pretty quickly by someone.
progressoverpeace on August 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I take it you don’t own a weapon?
jerrytbg on August 17, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Unless you own an automatic one you do not own an assault rifle by the definition I was taught at Ft. Benning….
“carry on”
sven10077 on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
“Assault rifle” is an actual firearms term. “Assault weapon” is a political term.
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
You answered your question, AP. Intimidation.
Just like the thugs with clubs standing in front of the polling place last fall, brandishing a weapon makes you a badass, even if you’re really not.
No place for it in this case.
BacaDog on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
It inflames an already inflamed situation.
blatantblue on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Just consider the following exerpt from http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:OQKmDOJoTdoJ:www.nyipl.org/documents/Winkler_Global_Warming.doc+Alinsky+would+advise+people+to+disrupt+meetings+by+posing+as+KKK+members&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us as an example of Rules for Radicals.
College students in the 1960s and 70s sought out Saul Alinsky for advice about tactics and strategy. On one such occasion, in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University’s annual week-long series of events featuring leading public figures, students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H.W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations–a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he responded, not very creative–and besides, causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading “The KKK Supports Bush.” And that is what the students did, with very successful, attention-getting results.
Americannodash on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
So,its the un-official Civilian National Secruity Forces!
Plain-clothed Black Panthers!
Liberal Insurgents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Heh np, was a joke in poor taste anyway.
ConservativeJawa on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
That’s your opinion and I respect it. But I disagree. I think this is provocative and it doesn’t show good stewardship of our 2nd amendment rights
keebs on August 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Pssst! Lefties hate the Jooooos!
Blake on August 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Indeed.
Click this…
…and this.
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
I think this is major league BS. This might have been a “presidential event” but I’ll bet a Ben Franklin that the president was not within miles of the people with the firearms. I run a pawn shop. Years ago vice-president G.H.W. Bush visited our town. His motorcade route was past my shop. The secret service made us close and lock our doors 2 hours before the v.p. traveled past. They explained that it was so that everyone would know we were closed and would not innocently or otherwise carry a firearm into our shop so close to the v.p. route — the secret service policy being that those with a gun in close proximity to the v.p. would be shot first and questioned second. I doubt the policy has changed in the last 20 years.
el rey on August 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Uh, yes it is.
And it is a good one too.
Especially if you happen to own some of the older one’s.
cozmo on August 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
There’s no reason for it
I have an AR, and a Thomspon.
I see no need to bring it to something like that
blatantblue on August 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
You know, if that guy that got beat up in St Louis by those SEIU thugs was carrying openly, he probably would not have gotten beaten up. Remember, the left is the one that has started with the violence against those of us who disagree with them on this issue, not the other way around.
Besides, it doesn’t matter what we do, they left uses it as talking point anyway. That is why the GOP is crap right now. They are walking on eggshells trying not to give them ‘ammunition’. That is why the only person in the GOP these days that has any testicular fortitude is Sarah Palin.
Midas, you must be one of those RINOs, if you are more concerned with what other people think rather than what is right.
Wolftech on August 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
More info about the guy here
modnar on August 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
as someone else alluded to….
random non-terr violence in Israel is statistically insignificant and the trained use of mil weapons is why….
if it ever gets to brass tacks at those ranges one would be better served packing pistol caliber carbines and shotguns anyway.
sven10077 on August 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
So….. the pro-Obama CNN guys sees an anti-Obama guy with an AR14 but fails to get a photo? In the day of camera cell phones? Hmmmmmmmm? Something seems a little “fishy.”
PrincipledPilgrim on August 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
It would depend on who it was, actually. I didn’t want to wade through the comments on the site you posted, but, which side they are on actually DOES matter to me. Both sides doing this at this precise moment would be provocative. If it were a Black Panther or Union thug, yeah, it’s intimidating and I do not trust them. If it were a real conservative, I’d be ok with it but wonder why the provocation at this exact time, but, it wouldn’t bother me to allow my kids to see it.
The issue is the ratcheting of rhetoric and heat/pressure on the other side. I do not trust them.
Mommypundit on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
my automatic possessions are none of your darned biz, thank you very much. I called it an assault weapon, which it is…..tee
Ris4victory on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I just got back from grocery shopping while open carrying in VA no issues to report. My gun did not shoot anyone or jump out of it’s holster. (maybe its broken and I should get a new one)
I generally favor open carry over concealed carry because…
1. It is legal and my right to do so.
2. It can reduce crime (Just the sight of a law abiding citizen with a loaded firearm can cause a Bad Guy to re-think his plans).
3. Just like concealed carry guns saves lives
4. It is safe. I am always aware of my surroundings, and make sure to protect my firearm. If that ever fails I have same firearm in a good retention holster (Blackhawk SERPA CQC) so no one can just walk up and remove it from the holster.
5. It is easier and more comfortable to open carry a full size .45 openly, then it is to conceal it, when wearing shorts and a t-shirt in 90+ degree heat.
6. My CHP paperwork has never been submitted.
However even though I open carry whenever I can I would certainly not open carry to a Obama (or any POTUS rally) that just causes negative press and does not help.
F15Mech on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I have four AR-15s… they’re not an assault weapon (liberal term) or rifle. It’s a semi-automatic rifle. Nothing more, nothing less.
Enoxo on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Why? Because we can… The gun you don’t see is the one that will kill you. Just ask George Wallace or JFK or MLK or Bobby or…
Oh, wait you can’t.
David Toohey on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
My little story lets the lefties hate them even more. :)
progressoverpeace on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Ok.. I am moving to Israel :)
Wolftech on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
there is absolutely no reason to bring things like that to rallies
no reason
blatantblue on August 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Pardon me, I couldn’t find an answer to this question with a cursory look at the comments but : Was the President at this event!? It can’t be legal to stand a certain distance from the President with a loaded weapon, no matter what state you are in, no? I’m confused.
pleaseandthankyou on August 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Because they are nuts. Why are you trying to talk rationally to nuts? If they want to stop it, congress should pass legislation. Other than that, potuses need to appear in secure venues that can be limited by the Secret Service.
Blake on August 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Those thugs were part of the modern Black Panthers, an organization dedicated to the prospect of violence and racial extermination, standing near the entrance of a polling station, intentionally intimidating people.
This guy, and others who have open carried, are not affiliated with any such groups, nor were they standing in any positions with clear intent to intimidate anyone.
Apples and oranges.
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Ric Sanchez = TOOL
kara26 on August 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Please, constitutional rights don’t just belong to people who share your world view.
No, I wouldn’t like Israel very much.
jonknee on August 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
You’d be incorrect, try reading what I said again (try not to engage in lefty arguing skillz and leap to wild conclusions and set up flimsy strawmen – just deal with the comments and discussion itself, thx).
I’ve already pointed out that I’m not in favor of gun control – what I’m in favor of is good decision making and people with self-control – and while certainly legal to do what they did, whether they *should* have done it is the question. What’s the point they’re trying to get across? Are they *trying* to hand the lefties and media some more talking points about how “the right” is a danger to Obama’s life? How will choosing to pack heat (of any variety) at this function help the conservative cause?
It won’t. It’ll hurt it.
Just dumb.
Midas on August 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Sorry, some others beat me to it.
Which isn’t hard to do with the older ones.
cozmo on August 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
The clip made it sound as if the president was personally treatened.
el rey on August 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
He was far outside the Secret Service security perimeter, thus no where near the President.
Enoxo on August 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Apparently the Secret Service didn’t have a problem with this guy and his weapons at the rally. Of course there’s no way he’d have gotten in 300 meters of sight of Obama.
Liam on August 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM
An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented larger and more powerful battle rifles such as the M14, FN FAL and the Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle, AK-47, M4 carbine, and the Steyr AUG.
Unless it is a pre-ban held by a III license holder it is a semi-automatic rifle……
some C=R holders legally own ww2 full auto kit but it is pricey….
gun rights are hard enough without using the leftbot’s lingo…
sven10077 on August 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM
The guns were outside of the security perimeter. Not sure how far that was, but obviously the SS wouldn’t knowingly allow weapons within range of any President.
jonknee on August 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Then I would think the most sensible response would be to arm yourself. If they have any intent to do harm, you can either be a helpless moving target, or able to defend yourself.
I disagree. Why shouldn’t they? Are you assuming them already guilty of some crime?
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM
The guy was not in the wrong in the sense of exercising his rights but at the same time it seems more of a statement than anything.
I own an AK-47 but I wouldn’t bring it to an event such as this either… but I would indeed carry a pistol with me. Any political event could have something go wrong, especially with some nut out there bent on some personal vendetta.
ConservativeJawa on August 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM
So the Black Panther guy at the polling station was “exercising his constitutional rights?”
Sometimes constitutional rights conflict. (Yelling fire in that crowded nightclub.) There is a time and place for everything and there is too much down side to packing heat at a political rally, such as the other side exercising their rights as well.
Do some research on the Klan shootings in Greensboro, NC at one of the Commie’s rallies.
BigAlSouth on August 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Heck, in the right hands, a baseball bat is an ‘Assault Weapon’…
…of course so is a Britney Spears CD
Wolftech on August 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Yes. Blake answered for you, already.
But what do you think about a country with a murder rate of about zero and where kids walk around with automatic weapons and most of the population has them at home?
progressoverpeace on August 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM
No
but it doesn’t help an already tense climate
blatantblue on August 17, 2009 at 8:39 PM
By the way, can someone please answer this question for me:
If you are in favor of concealed carry, but are against open carry, what difference do you see between the two other than your awareness that they have it? Either way, they have it. Do you prefer to pretend it’s not there?
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:39 PM
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
bluemarlin on August 17, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Straw man arguement. Read my post again.
Here… I’ll help you. Key word.. Intent.
Get back to me when you’ve thought it through.
katy on August 17, 2009 at 8:39 PM
ANd this helps make the point – what your definition, my definition, the ‘real’ definition, etc is – doesn’t matter.
These guys, by bringing guns to a situation that didn’t need it – intentionally inflammatory – haven’t helped the conservative cause, they’ve harmed it by making all of us conservatives try to defend them, defend gun ownership, argue what is or isn’t an assault rifle, make us listen to more nonsense about the increasing threat to Obama’s life as a result (while showing the country and the world all the nutjob conservatives (in their opinion) carrying guns near the president, then we get to object and argue that that’s not what’s going on, and and and… in the meantime, what happened to the constructive conversations about shutting down single-payer healthcare, cap and trade, etc…?
Midas on August 17, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Where are the Black Panthers exempted from the second amendment? Freedoms apply to dirtbags too. Having an AR-15 in public as a citizen at a protest is entirely for intimidation and provocation.
jonknee on August 17, 2009 at 8:40 PM
OF COURSE IT DID.
If only for that reason – KNOWING that the pro-O media would do that kind of thing (and more), bringing those guns was incredibly, INCREDIBLY stupid.
Midas on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
So it’s a tense climate. That indicates that people there may be at risk.
Wouldn’t their personal safety then be their first priority? Additionally, wouldn’t awareness that someone is able to exert maximum force in a violent situation help to prevent such an occurrence? In other words, isn’t “an armed society is a polite society”?
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Thanks for that Enoxo. BTW, I forgot to mention that I’d rather stand next to a guy with an assault rifle that listen to one second of Rick Sanchez’s douchebaggery.
pleaseandthankyou on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Out of sight out of mind for most people. I wish more states had open carry, because an individual would be more hesitant to try to do you harm if they saw you had the gun.
And people who do open carry in states where it’s legal are less apt to use them. You have to be more worried about the ones who have the gun hidden when they’re not legal to be.
Enoxo on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
What they don’t know wont hurt them.
F15Mech on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
If concealed carry were a given, this would probably not have occurred.
OldEnglish on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Yeah, great job there. He doesn’t have any answers—doesn’t even have any pictures of the other guy he claims to have seen—but great job.
FloatingRock on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
“
Hmmm. Interesting.
Mommypundit on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Until the Kennedy Assassination (ie, after 3 previous assassinations and who knows how many tries) folk routinely carried arms to events, especially in the west…
In fact, as far as I know no one openly carrying a gun has ever shot at a US politician. Every attempt was done by folk hiding arms.
In addition, the president was never even within sight of the fellow..He does not spend a lot of time facing protesters.
Finally, there is no exception in the 2nd amendment for folk within sight of a politician.
JIMV on August 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Such sad little men with feelings of inadequacy. We know your secret ‘manly’ gun nuts – and laugh at you.
simplesimon on August 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM
I never said they were exempt. I said comparing the evident intentions of the Black Panthers to this guy is apples and oranges.
MadisonConservative on August 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM
When things go bad,a calibre upgrade on
the fly can help!!
http://www.50beowulf.com/
canopfor on August 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Can you say, CLINGING???? I wonder if there’s a gideon in his vest pocket too.
Good4Onan on August 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Not the best place to carry, but it is legal in Arizona to carry in plain view.
Really, isn’t it better to see it out in the open than wonder if it’s concealed?
Surely they do a very good background check for an individual to carry in that state. I know they do in Texas and Oklahoma.
That being said, a person who has passed the course, qualified at a range, and background check, the odds they would go berserk and start throwing bullets around are more slim than a person who illegally purchased a weapon, sneaked it in a backpack or under their clothes.
I certainly would not do this, but I think this is just more gas on the fire via MSM.
tru2tx on August 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
The sad part is that people are freaking out over a legally carried weapon that is not being displayed in a menacing fashion.
If having a couple New Black Panthers with billy clubs standing outside a polling place is legal – then carrying a gun to a rally/protest in a state where it is already legal should not be an issue.
I admit it is probably poor judgement, but poor judgement is not illegal.
These people calmly carrying weapons legally and not displaying them in any threatening manner concern me a whole lot less than the screaming idiot BDS protestors who throw molotov cocktails and vandalize everything in site trying to incite a riot.
Mr Purple on August 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Has it come to this? Americans upset because a citizen is exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms…in the presence of the President? Who do you think he is, royalty or something?
Next thing you know people will be getting their panties in a twist because someone exercised their right to free speech in the presence of the President.
Unbelievable.
Jay Mac on August 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 19 Next »