Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 16:22:52 GMT
What do you mean by administer ownership of guns? Dole them out? Like by the government? what do you gain from this obtuse act you love to perform? It's a request for clarification. (I really should take a drink every time one of you uses the word "obtuse", LOL)
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 16:24:37 GMT
So I am supposed to trust citizens with guns when that wonderful road rage, or crazy attitude can make that "law abiding citizen" shoot someone and then we can call them a criminal. I don't advise trusting anybody, you can't take their rights away because of that though.Right of a gun trumps the right to life? ?
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Jun 23, 2016 16:25:41 GMT
I don't advise trusting anybody, you can't take their rights away because of that though. Right of a gun trumps the right to life? ? In her mind, I believe it truly does.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 16:39:13 GMT
I don't advise trusting anybody, you can't take their rights away because of that though. Right of a gun trumps the right to life? ? Sigh. That isn't what I said. You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong. The law doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 16:51:06 GMT
Right of a gun trumps the right to life? ? Sigh. That isn't what I said. You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong. The law doesn't work that way.We actually can. Check out the Supreme Court Justices 4th amendment ruling. The 5-3 decision ruled that police can use evidence obtained during an illegal stop, if the police find out during the stop that the person has pending arrest warrants. Once again ILLEGAL STOP by the police. People also feel the US should be able to spy on it's own people for ALL of our safety. Police seizing cash from US citizens because they were carrying to much cash. These people did no wrong yet the court allows this. Sounds like theft to me. I don't see you speaking out against that. Only the wonderful don't take my guns!
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 17:24:20 GMT
Sigh. That isn't what I said. You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong. The law doesn't work that way. We actually can. Check out the Supreme Court Justices 4th amendment ruling. The 5-3 decision ruled that police can use evidence obtained during an illegal stop, if the police find out during the stop that the person has pending arrest warrants. Once again ILLEGAL STOP by the police. People also feel the US should be able to spy on it's own people for ALL of our safety. Police seizing cash from US citizens because they were carrying to much cash. These people did no wrong yet the court allows this. Sounds like theft to me. I don't see you speaking out against that. Only the wonderful don't take my guns! If the police are doing something wrong - that is not OK. Agreed? If the person has warrants they should act on that. Agreed? I don't like spying at all. I don't know which people you are saying agree with it. It's too general. I think I did hear of cash/card seizure if the cops felt it had to do with a crime, not simply because someone had too much money on them.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 17:54:01 GMT
We actually can. Check out the Supreme Court Justices 4th amendment ruling. The 5-3 decision ruled that police can use evidence obtained during an illegal stop, if the police find out during the stop that the person has pending arrest warrants. Once again ILLEGAL STOP by the police. People also feel the US should be able to spy on it's own people for ALL of our safety. Police seizing cash from US citizens because they were carrying to much cash. These people did no wrong yet the court allows this. Sounds like theft to me. I don't see you speaking out against that. Only the wonderful don't take my guns! If the police are doing something wrong - that is not OK. Agreed? If the person has warrants they should act on that. Agreed? I don't like spying at all. I don't know which people you are saying agree with it. It's too general. I think I did hear of cash/card seizure if the cops felt it had to do with a crime, not simply because someone had too much money on them.Seizing Cash dailysignal.com/2015/06/17/law-enforcement-seizes-11000-from-24-year-old-at-airport-without-charging-him-with-a-crime/Person with warrants - Did you not see the part about the ILLEGAL stop? Cops should track down people for violent warrants and arrest them. But should a cop be able to stop you for no reason and run a background check to see if you have warrants? That is an illegal stop. Spying on Citizens Majorities both of Republicans (67 per cent) and Democrats (55 per cent) favor government surveillance of Americans' Internet activities to watch for suspicious activity that might be connected to terrorism. Independents are more divided, with 40 per cent in favor and 35 per cent opposed. All because of a fear of terrorism. Yet I fear gun violence but MORE GUNS is the answer from you. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3378532/AP-NORC-Poll-Christian-rights-vital-Muslim-ones.html
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 17:58:56 GMT
If the police are doing something wrong - that is not OK. Agreed? If the person has warrants they should act on that. Agreed? I don't like spying at all. I don't know which people you are saying agree with it. It's too general. I think I did hear of cash/card seizure if the cops felt it had to do with a crime, not simply because someone had too much money on them. Seizing Cash dailysignal.com/2015/06/17/law-enforcement-seizes-11000-from-24-year-old-at-airport-without-charging-him-with-a-crime/Person with warrants - Did you not see the part about the ILLEGAL stop? Cops should track down people for violent warrants and arrest them. But should a cop be able to stop you for no reason and run a background check to see if you have warrants? That is an illegal stop. Spying on Citizens Majorities both of Republicans (67 per cent) and Democrats (55 per cent) favor government surveillance of Americans' Internet activities to watch for suspicious activity that might be connected to terrorism. Independents are more divided, with 40 per cent in favor and 35 per cent opposed. All because of a fear of terrorism. Yet I fear gun violence but MORE GUNS is the answer from you. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3378532/AP-NORC-Poll-Christian-rights-vital-Muslim-ones.html If you read carefully you will see that I said IF THE POLICE ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG - THAT IS NOT OK. Why are you asking if I saw the part about illegal stops? CLEARLY, I DID.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 18:20:11 GMT
This part right here If the person has warrants they should act on that. Agreed
Do you feel stopping anyone and running background checks is wrong?
What about the rest?
If you are carrying a large sum of money the police can seize it because they can assume you are doing something illegal. So they can take your rights away for doing nothing wrong.
So my safety trumps your right to own certain guns. Which is how I feel. I know you don't feel that way though.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 3:16:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 18:45:10 GMT
what do you gain from this obtuse act you love to perform? Yes I was hoping for a convo but think I was a little naive and don't have the energy anymore. When your question isn't clear to the person you're asking the question and that causes them to ask for clarification, that's part of the "convo" you were hoping for. If it was anyone else, you would have just confirmed their understanding or cleared up their misunderstanding of your question. Doing otherwise with Rainbow says more about you than her.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 19:51:43 GMT
This part right here If the person has warrants they should act on that. Agreed Do you feel stopping anyone and running background checks is wrong? What about the rest? If you are carrying a large sum of money the police can seize it because they can assume you are doing something illegal. So they can take your rights away for doing nothing wrong. So my safety trumps your right to own certain guns. Which is how I feel. I know you don't feel that way though. I really can't speak as to what the police are and are not allowed to do. I'd have to research that. They need to follow the law. So what ever the law allows I guess they can do. That doesn't mean that I agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 20:00:32 GMT
This part right here If the person has warrants they should act on that. Agreed Do you feel stopping anyone and running background checks is wrong? What about the rest? If you are carrying a large sum of money the police can seize it because they can assume you are doing something illegal. So they can take your rights away for doing nothing wrong. So my safety trumps your right to own certain guns. Which is how I feel. I know you don't feel that way though. I really can't speak as to what the police are and are not allowed to do. I'd have to research that. They need to follow the law. So what ever the law allows I guess they can do. That doesn't mean that I agree with it.Go ahead and look it up doesn't matter though. Supreme Court said ignorance of the law is okay. They can pull you over for pretty much anything. And it is okay what they find afterwards. www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything#.3XybZW2cf
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 20:06:03 GMT
And - you think that is a good thing? Or what? I'm not sure what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 20:47:03 GMT
You said: (We got off on a different topic) You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong
I said they have and gave you examples. Along with links showing you that people agree with losing rights based on terrorism and the law backs them up.
Back to the topic at hand
More guns is not the answer. I do not want to take your guns. I want some guns banned and more training to own a weapon.
New Mexico: Hand Gun Long gun State permit to purchase? No No Firearm registration? No No Assault weapon law? No No Magazine Capacity Restriction? No No Owner license required? No No Carry Permit Shall-issue to full-time and part-time residents (who hold a valid New Mexico ID/Driver's License), with passage of a criminal history check and mental health records check, and completion of 15-hour handgun safety course that includes live-fire instruction. Active military and law enforcement members and veterans honorably discharged within 20 years of permit application are exempt from training requirement.[4] Permit required to carry concealed loaded firearm on foot. No permit needed for open carry, concealed carry of an unloaded firearm, or transport of a loaded firearm either concealed or openly in a vehicle. Unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm is a petty misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 6 months in a county jail and/or a fine of up to $500. Except for active-duty military members and dependents permanently stationed in the state, New Mexico does not issue CHLs to non-residents.
Only 15 hour safety class which includes live fire instruction.
So let's think about this. Anyone can go in and in 15 hours own and carry a gun around to "protect" themselves. I am sure that 15 hours of safety and live fire instruction will get someone ready to shoot when needed. Are you okay with this law? If no what would you change it to?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 23, 2016 20:52:45 GMT
Right of a gun trumps the right to life? ? Sigh. That isn't what I said. You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong. The law doesn't work that way.You see, I agree with this, HOWEVER, the constitution does not state a damn thing about what those "arms" are specifically. If you insist that we take the 2nd Amendment for how it was written then, because you are 100% certain you knew exactly what it meant, then awesome, have at it keeping your muskets with ball ammo, Kentucky long rifles, field guns that weighed like 6#, scabbards, and sabers. Many (and possibly more) people were killed with sabers and swords in hand to hand combat vs guns on the battlefields! If you interpret the 2nd Amendment the way you are, then why can't people buy tanks that shoot, have automatics, bazookas, or other heavy artillery? Just because something is made, doesn't mean everyone should have a right to have it. Most if not all here have been asking to restrict/ban with the combat/military/high capacity type weapons. By doing just that, not one ounce of your rights have been taken away. Not a teeny tiny bit.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 20:52:52 GMT
Rainbow: Selling a gun in Texas privately: In the state of Texas you do not have to transfer ownership of the firearm via a dealer, nor do you have to have the firearm re-registered as there is no such firearms registration in the state of Texas.
Your only obligation is to reasonably assume that the purchaser is a Texas resident and legally able to own and possess the firearm
Do you agree with this law? If no what would you change it to?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 21:08:15 GMT
You said: (We got off on a different topic) You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong I said they have and gave you examples. Along with links showing you that people agree with losing rights based on terrorism and the law backs them up. Back to the topic at hand More guns is not the answer. I do not want to take your guns. I want some guns banned and more training to own a weapon. New Mexico: Hand Gun Long gun State permit to purchase? No No Firearm registration? No No Assault weapon law? No No Magazine Capacity Restriction? No No Owner license required? No No Carry Permit Shall-issue to full-time and part-time residents (who hold a valid New Mexico ID/Driver's License), with passage of a criminal history check and mental health records check, and completion of 15-hour handgun safety course that includes live-fire instruction. Active military and law enforcement members and veterans honorably discharged within 20 years of permit application are exempt from training requirement.[4] Permit required to carry concealed loaded firearm on foot. No permit needed for open carry, concealed carry of an unloaded firearm, or transport of a loaded firearm either concealed or openly in a vehicle. Unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm is a petty misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 6 months in a county jail and/or a fine of up to $500. Except for active-duty military members and dependents permanently stationed in the state, New Mexico does not issue CHLs to non-residents. Only 15 hour safety class which includes live fire instruction. So let's think about this. Anyone can go in and in 15 hours own and carry a gun around to "protect" themselves. I am sure that 15 hours of safety and live fire instruction will get someone ready to shoot when needed. Are you okay with this law? If no what would you change it to? I am OK with this. It's actually stricter than in my state, and I'm OK with my state.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 21:09:15 GMT
Rainbow: Selling a gun in Texas privately: In the state of Texas you do not have to transfer ownership of the firearm via a dealer, nor do you have to have the firearm re-registered as there is no such firearms registration in the state of Texas. Your only obligation is to reasonably assume that the purchaser is a Texas resident and legally able to own and possess the firearm Do you agree with this law? If no what would you change it to? I am OK with it.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 21:17:52 GMT
Then no matter what anyone says you will not agree with it.
Selling a gun without a background check you are okay with it. That means someone can sell to a felon without realizing it.
Being able to open carry a weapon with only 15 hours of training and you are okay with it. Got it. Who is proficient after 15 hours of training?
I can't wrap my head around this.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 21:20:05 GMT
Sigh. That isn't what I said. You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong. The law doesn't work that way. You see, I agree with this, HOWEVER, the constitution does not state a damn thing about what those "arms" are specifically. If you insist that we take the 2nd Amendment for how it was written then, because you are 100% certain you knew exactly what it meant, then awesome, have at it keeping your muskets with ball ammo, Kentucky long rifles, field guns that weighed like 6#, scabbards, and sabers. Many (and possibly more) people were killed with sabers and swords in hand to hand combat vs guns on the battlefields! If you interpret the 2nd Amendment the way you are, then why can't people buy tanks that shoot, have automatics, bazookas, or other heavy artillery? Just because something is made, doesn't mean everyone should have a right to have it. Most if not all here have been asking to restrict/ban with the combat/military/high capacity type weapons. By doing just that, not one ounce of your rights have been taken away. Not a teeny tiny bit. I disagree. I believe that the people of this country should have access to every weapon they need to prevent tyranny. Nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 21:22:57 GMT
You see, I agree with this, HOWEVER, the constitution does not state a damn thing about what those "arms" are specifically. If you insist that we take the 2nd Amendment for how it was written then, because you are 100% certain you knew exactly what it meant, then awesome, have at it keeping your muskets with ball ammo, Kentucky long rifles, field guns that weighed like 6#, scabbards, and sabers. Many (and possibly more) people were killed with sabers and swords in hand to hand combat vs guns on the battlefields! If you interpret the 2nd Amendment the way you are, then why can't people buy tanks that shoot, have automatics, bazookas, or other heavy artillery? Just because something is made, doesn't mean everyone should have a right to have it. Most if not all here have been asking to restrict/ban with the combat/military/high capacity type weapons. By doing just that, not one ounce of your rights have been taken away. Not a teeny tiny bit. I disagree. I believe that the people of this country should have access to every weapon they need to prevent tyranny. Nothing less.So we should have these mounted on our cars or the roof of our house then. Got it www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqDfVMIgzXQ
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 21:26:13 GMT
Then no matter what anyone says you will not agree with it. Selling a gun without a background check you are okay with it. That means someone can sell to a felon without realizing it. Being able to open carry a weapon with only 15 hours of training and you are okay with it. Got it. Who is proficient after 15 hours of training? I can't wrap my head around this. In my state you can open carry with zero training. I don't advise it, but you could. Proficient is subjective. What I call proficient and what you call proficient may be two different things. I don't think training should ever stop. I am for going to the range regularly. As a matter of fact I'm going this weekend for more training and trying to get my daughter to come if she can get someone to watch the grandbabies. (And to the pea who recommended the 5.11 bag - I got one and it is fabulous. Lots of room for everything.)
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 21:30:05 GMT
Then no matter what anyone says you will not agree with it. Selling a gun without a background check you are okay with it. That means someone can sell to a felon without realizing it. Being able to open carry a weapon with only 15 hours of training and you are okay with it. Got it. Who is proficient after 15 hours of training? I can't wrap my head around this. In my state you can open carry with zero training. I don't advise it, but you could. Proficient is subjective. What I call proficient and what you call proficient may be two different things. I don't think training should ever stop. I am for going to the range regularly. As a matter of fact I'm going this weekend for more training and trying to get my daughter to come if she can get someone to watch the grandbabies. (And to the pea who recommended the 5.11 bag - I got one and it is fabulous. Lots of room for everything.)What do you call proficient? Now since people do not need to be proficient to carry are you okay with that? I mean if something happens they are pulling out their gun and shooting. That does not sound safe to me.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 21:31:58 GMT
I disagree. I believe that the people of this country should have access to every weapon they need to prevent tyranny. Nothing less. So we should have these mounted on our cars or the roof of our house then. Got it www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqDfVMIgzXQ Whatever it takes to prevent tyranny and destruction of this country and our freedoms. It's sad that so many would simply give their freedoms away so easily after so many died defending them. It's like spitting on their graves.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 23, 2016 21:38:05 GMT
In my state you can open carry with zero training. I don't advise it, but you could. Proficient is subjective. What I call proficient and what you call proficient may be two different things. I don't think training should ever stop. I am for going to the range regularly. As a matter of fact I'm going this weekend for more training and trying to get my daughter to come if she can get someone to watch the grandbabies. (And to the pea who recommended the 5.11 bag - I got one and it is fabulous. Lots of room for everything.) What do you call proficient? Now since people do not need to be proficient to carry are you okay with that? I mean if something happens they are pulling out their gun and shooting. That does not sound safe to me. I'm not going to give a definition because proficiency means different things to different people. I don't know anyone who carries who hasn't had some sort of private/professional training/practice. Also, this is a military town, so there is that. No shortage of handsome and buff guys at the range to help a gal out.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 3:16:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 21:42:45 GMT
Sigh. That isn't what I said. You can't take away the rights of others when they haven't done anything wrong. The law doesn't work that way. You see, I agree with this, HOWEVER, the constitution does not state a damn thing about what those "arms" are specifically. If you insist that we take the 2nd Amendment for how it was written then, because you are 100% certain you knew exactly what it meant, then awesome, have at it keeping your muskets with ball ammo, Kentucky long rifles, field guns that weighed like 6#, scabbards, and sabers. Many (and possibly more) people were killed with sabers and swords in hand to hand combat vs guns on the battlefields! I guess that applies to the 1st amendment too and your freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet, telephone or TV? When facts are presented to you, you just refuse to hear what is being said to you. You just want to keep repeating MILITARY and BAN and refuse to hear WHY people disagree. And WHY it would be INEFFECTIVE in accomplishing your goal.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 23, 2016 22:01:52 GMT
You see, I agree with this, HOWEVER, the constitution does not state a damn thing about what those "arms" are specifically. If you insist that we take the 2nd Amendment for how it was written then, because you are 100% certain you knew exactly what it meant, then awesome, have at it keeping your muskets with ball ammo, Kentucky long rifles, field guns that weighed like 6#, scabbards, and sabers. Many (and possibly more) people were killed with sabers and swords in hand to hand combat vs guns on the battlefields! I guess that applies to the 1st amendment too and your freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet, telephone or TV? When facts are presented to you, you just refuse to hear what is being said to you. You just want to keep repeating MILITARY and BAN and refuse to hear WHY people disagree. And WHY it would be INEFFECTIVE in accomplishing your goal. When you bring in non-relevant things to a discussion, it makes the discussion so all over the place. We are not speaking about the 1st, only the 2nd. You can keep insisting all these "facts" that I supposedly Gia, but in reality you are chomping on my ass because I don't happen to subscribe to your version. You were all up in my shit just a week or so back accusing me of yammering on because Someone else didn't agree with me, and here you are doing the same exact thing! You constantly try shutting down anyone who doesn't subscribe to how you think or what "facts" you post by claiming that I (general us) refuse to hear. I hear you just fine, thankyouverymuch. I don't believe that preventing certain types of weapons infringes on anyone, and I'm not alone in thinking that. You don't agree, I get it. It still doesn't mean I'm wrong! And I do keep repeating military/combat/high capacity guns and restrict/ban because I'm not stuck to one extreme or another, I'd be somewhere in between. It really isn't productive to keep on having these discussions. You keep on insisting though if it makes you feel "right".
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 22:05:50 GMT
Whatever it takes to prevent tyranny and destruction of this country and our freedoms. It's sad that so many would simply give their freedoms away so easily after so many died defending them. It's like spitting on their graves. Me not being able to own a 50cal machine gun is not spitting on the grave of a soldier from the American Revolutions grave. You have said something like this before. In the past 100 years which war was defending your rights to own a gun? What is sad is that you think a citizen of the United States needs a 50 caliber machine gun to prevent tyranny and destruction on this country.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2016 22:10:51 GMT
What do you call proficient? Now since people do not need to be proficient to carry are you okay with that? I mean if something happens they are pulling out their gun and shooting. That does not sound safe to me. I'm not going to give a definition because proficiency means different things to different people. I don't know anyone who carries who hasn't had some sort of private/professional training/practice. Also, this is a military town, so there is that. No shortage of handsome and buff guys at the range to help a gal out. No kidding it does. That is why I asked YOU what it means to you. In the military 23 out of 40. Those soldiers are training for a war and all shooting at the enemy. Now 23 out of 40, which is 57.5%, in my neighborhood is NOT proficient to me. Still trying to figure out why you are not answering this question. What is the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by lumo on Jun 23, 2016 22:27:39 GMT
rainbow, i just want to know where this lifestyle choice to live in fear of some so-called tyrrany stems from. Were you raised that way? What makes you believe that this is a real and present danger? I've never ever met anyone in my life that thinks that way, and it's so far removed from my way of thinking that I really havea hard time wrapping my mind around it. No snark, I really just don't get it.
|
|