Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Gun Control
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 4:58 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
First of all, hating the NRA doesn't mean hating its members. That's exactly the type of intellectual dishonesty that I'm condemning.

I will keep this in mind the next time someone says, "Hating Zionism doesn't mean I hate all Jews!" In theory, perhaps. In practical application, not so much.

I would need more context for the second NRA quote, since licensing and registration minutiae is a constant theme of the NRA-ILA and seems to be a given. However, why do you find the other quotes so problematic?

Quote:
NRA opposes expanding firearm background check systems, because background checks don’t stop criminals from getting firearms, because some proposals to do so would deprive individuals of due process of law, and because NRA opposes firearm registration..... Federal gun control laws are already strong enough

Whether or not federal controls are strong enough is something that reasonable people can disagree about. As I wrote upthread, creating laws or policies that deny due process or Constitutional rights allows for dangerous precedents for a wide range of issues unrelated to guns. Concerning oneself about such matters is reasonable and responsible. Just ask the ACLU.

Quote:
The NRA will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.

This is mind-boggling to me. How many threads have we had about the stigma that remains in the frum community about even the most minor mental illnesses. How many people have been rejected for possible shidduchim because they once got counseling to help them over a bumpy patch and some ignorant individual can't see the difference between suffering from mild, treatable depression/anxiety and schizophrenia?

So are you really advocating for laws that would allow government bureaucrats -- not even elected officials -- to have the ability to deny people's Constitutional rights using the same logic and standards?

In fact, mass murderers share a fairly standard set of characteristics. Even terrorists are rarely found to be perfectly nice guys without any hint whatsoever of difficulties. Most mass murderers start showing a series of behaviors long before they do anything to run afoul of even the most stringent gun laws. As I wrote in my first post, it's possible we would be more successful in preventing mass violence if we did a better job tracking and addressing those behaviors.

Btw, I have no personal knowledge, but I am told this is part of Israel's success in this area. Because the majority of people in the country register for national service, there is an identification and tracking mechanism. There are various points at which people who exhibit concerning behavior can be identified and handled accordingly.

Quote:
“If the antigunners have their way, this highly publicized and emotionalized issue will be used to enact a backdoor, national gun control scheme.”

Based on everything I've heard on this thread alone, this seems like a pretty legitimate fear. People who would happily set in motion a precedent to deny Constitutional rights to people with disabilities such as Down Syndrome are not going to suddenly say, "Well, we've done all we can."

Really, I think Marina nailed it. We obviously need laws and policies regarding weapons. I can't help but remember the story about the anti-Castro activist who towed a torpedo down one of Miami's main streets in 1968. Can you imagine being the cop who pulled him over? For whatever it was worth, it was not a semi-automatic torpedo.

At the same time, there are reasons to tread carefully when it comes to Constitutional rights.

Legislatures, the NRA-ILA, the ATF, the ACLU, et. al., should all be part of the ongoing process. But I'm not going to worry about it anymore. When Marina is President, she'll tell everyone to sit down, stop yelling, and stop being ridiculous.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:01 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
from the NRA's Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and "Large" Magazine Bans https://www.nraila.org/article.....-bans

So what conclusions do you disagree with?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:07 pm
Fox wrote:
So what conclusions do you disagree with?


She asked the NRA's position on limiting the sale of AR-15s. I gave her the answer.

Your point?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:11 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
She asked the NRA's position on limiting the sale of AR-15s. I gave her the answer.

Your point?

My bad -- I was an inattentive reader and thought you were answering a different question.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:31 pm
I found this podcast super interesting and informative. It goes through the history of the NRA and the 2nd amendment jurisprudence.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/gun-show/
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:38 pm
and I found this article by Ben Shapiro very interesting. I realize that Shapiro is very RW as well as being a noticeable member of our tribe and sometimes I disagree with him but he does have a point here.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....tives
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:45 pm
southernbubby wrote:
and I found this article by Ben Shapiro very interesting. I realize that Shapiro is very RW as well as being a noticeable member of our tribe and sometimes I disagree with him but he does have a point here.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....tives


His main point seems to be that no, we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. We are all going to have to choose between enforcing laws that we have and creating new ones.

Do you really agree with that?

Do you think that the legislation that Congressman Flake is proposing is just some words on a piece of paper that he shouldn't bother with? Instead we should daven?

Do you really think that we are not calling enough for accountability within government as a whole?

I feel like every single political article I read is about that and every single lawsuit against a state or government entity I defend is just exactly that - a call for accountability within government.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 6:11 pm
marina wrote:
His main point seems to be that no, we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. We are all going to have to choose between enforcing laws that we have and creating new ones.

Do you really agree with that?

Do you think that the legislation that Congressman Flake is proposing is just some words on a piece of paper that he shouldn't bother with? Instead we should daven?

Do you really think that we are not calling enough for accountability within government as a whole?

I feel like every single political article I read is about that and every single lawsuit against a state or government entity I defend is just exactly that - a call for accountability within government.


Laws that are not going to be enforced are worthless.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 7:08 pm
marina wrote:
I found this podcast super interesting and informative. It goes through the history of the NRA and the 2nd amendment jurisprudence.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/gun-show/

Absolutely outstanding! I loved, loved, loved the interview with Bobby Seale!

As with most issues, problems, and people: messy and complex.
Back to top

kjb




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 12:21 pm
Messy and complex of course. But is there really an argument that says that countries with very tight - and enforced - gun control ( like say Britain and Japan) do not have lower over all per capita murder rates than those with very liberal gun laws? Or more precisely, that those countries with very tight gun control laws AND those countries where people DO have guns but the prevailing gun culture is one of self control and social usefulness, such as Switzerland and Israel do not have lower per capita murder rates than the USA, where gun culture is as much about individualism, self expression and personal 'defence' as it is about community safety. If you have those statistics, Id like to hear them.

And then we need to talk about the astounding number of accidental deaths, often of children, in the US resulting from firearms being freely available in homes.....
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 1:31 pm
Most mass murderers are not mentally ill:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1.....?_r=0
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 2:32 pm
kjb wrote:
And then we need to talk about the astounding number of accidental deaths, often of children, in the US resulting from firearms being freely available in homes.....

Tragic, but less than half the number of deaths overall caused by accidental drowning.

This was one of the original Freakonomics (Steven Levitt) analyses decades ago: Would you allow your child to play at a home where a gun was stored? Would you allow your child to play at a house with a swimming pool? Guess which is more dangerous?

You are correct that American culture and cultural legacies have a led to a much different attitude toward guns than other countries. It's also fair to say, I believe, that the cultural legacies that surround gun ownership no longer work for us at a variety of levels.

However, there are two problems with addressing this:

1. You can't just legislate away cultural legacies.

2. To some degree, we are dealing with cultural legacies that are deeply rooted in the aftermath of the Civil War. Guns are only one aspect -- a symptom, even -- of this dysfunction, and until we address this, we're stuck with "cold, dead hands" rhetoric.

Every country and culture has certain things it does really, really well, and other things that it doesn't do well. That's why it's really not useful to compare countries/cultures on any single issue.

You mentioned Japan, for example. The value and reverence Americans have for individualism doesn't exist in Japan. Conformity and group affiliation are core values and cultural legacies. In fact, many taboos exist in Japan not because they contradict religion or morality, but simply because they represent being different from the norm.

This is not a culture that lends itself to owning guns or defending one's castle. However, it is a culture that leads to astonishingly high rates of alcohol abuse and suicide. In fact, addiction experts aren't really sure of the alcoholism rate in Japan because Japanese culture doesn't consider dependence on alcohol to be a problem. What we in the U.S. see as alcoholism, they see as "letting off steam."

Or Britain. The cultural legacy of noblesse oblige means that Brits provide and accept services and benefits from the government. In fact, many Brits firmly believe that providing such security is one of the primary jobs of government. So if the government determines that guns are a bad thing, very well then.

The flip side of this cultural legacy, though, is a class system that can never quite be buried. According to the Guardian reporting on various surveys, fully 89 percent of Brits claim that they are judged by what "class" they are seen as belonging to. Half of those claim that class rather than ability determines success. We're not talking simply about race or ethnic/cultural background, as Americans might think. A difference in accent so slight as to be indistinguishable to an American is sometimes enough to kill your chances for a job.

Cultural legacies that are no longer working well should be challenged in society, but it simply doesn't work to hector people about their cultural legacies being "wrong" and even persuasion is usually a lengthy, zig-zag process. Japanese people don't particularly appreciate being told by Americans to loosen up on this whole conformity thing, and Brits hardly ever express appreciation when Yanks say, "If Received Pronunciation is such a big honking deal, just teach your kids to talk that way!"

Which brings us back to why demonizing the NRA is ultimately really, really counter-productive if the goal is to reduce gun violence.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 3:06 pm
To Fox:

About the same could be said for any topic that you want to discuss about policy in America, we don't change a culture on a dime.

As far as comparing guns to swimming pools, I wouldn't think that parents want take that risk either.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 3:14 pm
Fox wrote:
Tragic, but less than half the number of deaths overall caused by accidental drowning.

This was one of the original Freakonomics (Steven Levitt) analyses decades ago: Would you allow your child to play at a home where a gun was stored? Would you allow your child to play at a house with a swimming pool? Guess which is more dangerous?


So if I can't stop accidental drownings, I shouldn't try to stop accidental death from firearms?

Did you know that most children who die in car crashes are properly restrained? Why bother with car seats or seat belts?

Gunshot wounds are the 3d leading cause of death of children in the US, behind non-firearm accidents (including drowning) and cancer. We can't cure cancer, let's not worry about the guns.

And there is so much we can do to prevent accidental shootings. One poster repeatedly mentioned her gun safe that opens only with her hand print. Impressive. But we don't require them. Nor do we require that people pass safety exams. Texas, for example, has no licensing requirements for guns. Why don't we require gun owners to be as proactive and safe as that poster?

Which, of course, brings us to smart guns. Which to some extent have been developed, and which hopefully will be refined. The NRA, cattily, states:

Quote:
The NRA doesn’t oppose the development of “smart” guns, nor the ability of Americans to voluntarily acquire them. However, NRA opposes any law prohibiting Americans from acquiring or possessing firearms that don’t possess “smart” gun technology.


But their actions speak louder than those words. In 2001, Smith & Wesson, facing multiple lawsuits, entered into an agreement with the federal government. Its president said that Smith & Wesson would include locks on its handguns, research and implement ''smart-gun'' technology that would only allow the owner of a gun to operate it and improve the way retailers sold its products. The NRA was not happy. It questioned S&W's president's experience. NRA members were told "that S&W "became the first gun maker to run up the white flag of surrender and duck behind the Clinton-Gore lines." The NRA organized a boycott of S&W that almost drove it out of business. Its all proudly on the NRA website, of course.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 6:06 pm
southernbubby wrote:
About the same could be said for any topic that you want to discuss about policy in America, we don't change a culture on a dime.

As far as comparing guns to swimming pools, I wouldn't think that parents want take that risk either.

Right . . . I was responding to specific points made kjb.

You really think that parents are either knowledgable or careful about swimming? I spent at least a decade as the annoying mom who questioned camps about whether they'd actually checked lifeguard certification; whether the pools were fitted with safety drain covers; the ratio of lifeguards to kids; whether CPR training was up-to-date, etc.

Camps that had their own facilities were surprisingly lax, and camps that rented pool time from other independent facilities were completely negligent.

I would love to believe that parents and camps are informed and vigilant enough to carefully consider pool safety issues, but I've not seen an iota of evidence to that effect.

SixOfWands wrote:
So if can't stop accidental drownings, shouldn't try to stop accidental death from firearms?

Did you know that most children who die in car crashes are properly restrained? Why bother with car seats or seat belts?

Gunshot wounds are the 3d leading cause of death of children in the US, behind non-firearm accidents (including drowning) and cancer. We can't cure cancer, let's not worry about the guns.

And there is so much we can do to prevent accidental shootings. One poster repeatedly mentioned her gun safe that opens only with her hand print. Impressive. But we don't require them. Nor do we require that people pass safety exams. Texas, for example, has no licensing requirements for guns. Why don't we require gun owners to be as proactive and safe as that poster?

First, approximately half the states already have laws regarding how guns may be stored in homes where children might be expected to be present, and the benighted NRA yammers away endlessly on best practices. I haven't been able to find any statistics from a reliable source regarding whether storage laws have had an impact on rates of gun accidents.

Regarding other causes of accidental fatalities, I think you're missing my point. I am not arguing to table gun discussions until every other problem in the world has been solved. I am pointing out that concern over child safety is a specious argument.

Which is where the comparisons come into play. Drowning claims the lives of approximately twice or more (depending on the age) kids than guns. So I would expect anyone who cares passionately about saving children's lives to be quite concerned about pool safety. However, I have seen absolutely no evidence of that. On the contrary, I've always been treated like a nut job when I asked whether pools had VGBA-compliant equipment or whether lifeguard certification had been verified.

A parent who allows her child to go swimming without asking about VGBA-compliant equipment, lifeguard ratios and qualifications, and when the pool was last inspected for safety compliance is no different than a parent who is careless about storing a gun or not using a carseat.

Your reference to Smith & Wesson's experience in producing smart guns left out one crucial detail: their actions came in response to proposed gun control legislation -- not consumer-driven demand. This is the cost of politicizing the issue excessively and demonizing the NRA.

At this point, the NRA would probably oppose chocolate if the government said that gun owners were required to keep a candy bar in their homes at all times. Not because they're stupid, callous, or crazy, but because the NRA-ILA sees every government action as the thin edge of the wedge to ultimately outlaw the private ownership of weapons. Why? Because that's what a lot of people who've urged gun control over the years say they want. Even on this thread, many posters have communicated the position of, "Guns serve no useful purpose but if we can't overturn the 2A, let's render it meaningless through regulation."

As long as that is a strong theme among anti-gun activists, the NRA is not going to see so-called common sense efforts as benign. Unfortunately, they're probably right,
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 7:06 pm
Fox quote:
As long as that is a strong theme among anti-gun activists, the NRA is not going to see so-called common sense efforts as benign. Unfortunately, they're probably right,

Unfortunately this is the political climate that we are in and this extreme polarization has been accelerated and facilitated by Facebook. For example, with regards to something like Confederate statues, there are all types of compromise possible,but those on the extreme right want none of those compromises and will travel to protest the removal of statues that they have never seen before and the left want all of statues removed; even those who have valid historical value.

I have seen people who want to make it illegal for a private citizen to own any type of firearm and when someone comes from that far to the left of the argument, the other side counters with something very far to the right.

Part of the problem that Democrats are having at the moment is defining how progressive that they are and Republicans are trying to figure out how conservative to be. Unless each group can reach for a middle, the polarization leads to no positive action being taken.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 7:18 pm
Fox wrote:
First, approximately half the states already have laws regarding how guns may be stored in homes where children might be expected to be present, and the benighted NRA yammers away endlessly on best practices. I haven't been able to find any statistics from a reliable source regarding whether storage laws have had an impact on rates of gun accidents.

Regarding other causes of accidental fatalities, I think you're missing my point. I am not arguing to table gun discussions until every other problem in the world has been solved. I am pointing out that concern over child safety is a specious argument.

Which is where the comparisons come into play. Drowning claims the lives of approximately twice or more (depending on the age) kids than guns. So I would expect anyone who cares passionately about saving children's lives to be quite concerned about pool safety. However, I have seen absolutely no evidence of that. On the contrary, I've always been treated like a nut job when I asked whether pools had VGBA-compliant equipment or whether lifeguard certification had been verified.

A parent who allows her child to go swimming without asking about VGBA-compliant equipment, lifeguard ratios and qualifications, and when the pool was last inspected for safety compliance is no different than a parent who is careless about storing a gun or not using a carseat.

Your reference to Smith & Wesson's experience in producing smart guns left out one crucial detail: their actions came in response to proposed gun control legislation -- not consumer-driven demand. This is the cost of politicizing the issue excessively and demonizing the NRA.

At this point, the NRA would probably oppose chocolate if the government said that gun owners were required to keep a candy bar in their homes at all times. Not because they're stupid, callous, or crazy, but because the NRA-ILA sees every government action as the thin edge of the wedge to ultimately outlaw the private ownership of weapons. Why? Because that's what a lot of people who've urged gun control over the years say they want. Even on this thread, many posters have communicated the position of, "Guns serve no useful purpose but if we can't overturn the 2A, let's render it meaningless through regulation."

As long as that is a strong theme among anti-gun activists, the NRA is not going to see so-called common sense efforts as benign. Unfortunately, they're probably right,


Nice to meet you.

I'm fanatical about pool safety. I pulled my kids out of a local camp because the lifeguards weren't qualified. Even with qualified lifeguards, at our local pool, I never let my kids be more than a few feet from me until they were strong swimmers, and even after that, I would watch them like a hawk from further away. I've argued ad nauseum with people who have backyard pools that I feel aren't adequately supervised or protected. My husband had to stop me from purchasing a pool alarm for one couple and leaving it on their doorstep. (But between you and me, I'll probably do it next summer.) I lost a friend after her daughter was fired as a lifeguard for inadequately supervising swimmers, and I agreed that this was appropriate. I will, however, confess that I don't usually ask about drain covers.

I also didn't allow my kids near backyard trampolines unless there was a fence, I knew it was properly maintained, and only one kid at a time. Someone once mentioned the possibility of a child who was not even mine "sharing" a seat belt; I've never since allowed my kids in her car. And don't even start with me about bike helmets.

Yes, I am a party pooper.

In any case, though, people tend to have their personal causes. I see no reason why choosing gun safety as a cause over, say, how unsafe it is to use a blech over a 3-day chag makes one disingenuous. People only have so much energy. And there was no pending legislation at the time of the S&W boycott. Smart gun technology was in its infancy. S&W was trying to settle litigation, and agreed to certain limitations. But the NRA fomented a boycott, because it did not want S&W agreeing to those safety features. (Some of the things that the NRA was horrified by -- by its own account -- consumers would not be able to buy more than one handgun in a 14-day period; would not be able to buy firearms without passing a safety test; would be prohibited from buying a handgun that did not meet accuracy standards).


Where I do agree with you, and the point I've tried to make all along, is that "the NRA would probably oppose chocolate if the government said that gun owners were required to keep a candy bar in their homes at all times .... because the NRA-ILA sees every government action as the thin edge of the wedge to ultimately outlaw the private ownership of weapons." And that's the crux of the issues. The NRA objects to every rule, regulation, and restriction, however reasonable. It claims that any restriction is a prelude to confiscation. Its clearly not. I don't support wholesale gun confiscation. But I do support sensible legislation that the NRA opposes. And the NRA's steadfast opposition to ANY regulation has ensured that will not happen.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 7:31 pm
southernbubby wrote:
Unfortunately this is the political climate that we are in and this extreme polarization has been accelerated and facilitated by Facebook.

ITA. I actually don't blame Facebook as much as I blame the 24/7 TV news channels -- every single one of them.

Most Imamothers are probably too young to remember, but there was a time when TV news was limited to 1 hour every evening: 30 minutes of national news hosted by Walter Cronkite, et. al., and 30 minutes of local news. Newspapers provided more, of course, but even in times of national crisis, news was a quiet, stately transmission of information, not the pumped-up, hyper-frenetic, visually-assaulting experience that it is today.

I don't mean to sound curmudgeonly. It was not a perfect system. And maybe I'm just dreading spending tonight at my elderly parents' home, who leave on Fox News 24 hours a day. At least Bill O'Reilly is no longer there to yell at me all evening. I mean, I'm pretty conservative as it is; why did I need this man yelling at me?

But the focus of 24/7 news outlets means that every single issue has to be spun into some kind of "man bites dog" extravaganza, complete with commentary by experts on men, experts on dogs, experts on biting, and whatever other experts can be rounded up. And for "balance" a resident commentator who is either rabidly pro-biting or rabidly anti-biting must be trotted on to argue with a panel. Then a few people have to come on and complain that men hardly ever bite cats. Is that a problem with the men or with the cats? How can we live in a society in which men bite dogs but not cats!?

Really, I'm convinced that football fans couldn't care less who stands, kneels, sits, or does jumping jacks during the national anthem. They're not attending or watching games because they're already getting their fix of gratuitous violence from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and whoever I'm leaving out.

It's not that Americans have a history of civilly debating matters of substance. We don't. The political campaigns of the past make the current climate seem downright timid. It's not that things are necessarily worse. They're just louder. Especially if you have elderly parents who turn up the volume to ear-scorching.
Back to top

amother
Cerise


 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 7:42 pm
Fox wrote:
lost me on this. The only weapon I'm aware of that could create 600 casualties in under ten minutes would be a bomb. I know more about guns than explosives, but I'm pretty sure that it's not easy to reliably make an explosive of that size using legally-obtained materials.


I didn't see this addressed in this thread so I wanted to comment on it. I assume the previous poster was referring to the Las Vegas shootings. Granted, there were "only" 594 people killed or wounded, but 600 seems a reasonable figure to use for rounding.

Wikipedia sums it up:

[quote="wikipedia]On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 546 injured. Between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel. About an hour after Paddock fired his last shot into the crowd, he was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....uote]


Edit: I'm only hiding behind amother because someone in real life (not a member here) found out my identity and this is a public thread.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 09 2017, 9:19 pm
Fox quote:
Really, I'm convinced that football fans couldn't care less who stands, kneels, sits, or does jumping jacks during the national anthem. They're not attending or watching games because they're already getting their fix of gratuitous violence from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and whoever I'm leaving out.

The NFL has lost some fans who may have switched to college football and possibly because of kneeling during the national anthem. There are loads of empty seats at the games, however, and while no one could prove the reason for the lack of interest, apparently the fans are not in favor and often boo the players when the kneel. It is basically one culture that can't understand or accept the other.
Back to top
Page 6 of 7   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Anywhere to buy at this point a large isreali style toy gun
by amother
7 Thu, Mar 21 2024, 10:21 pm View last post
[ Poll ] S/O have you called Poison Control 69 Wed, Mar 20 2024, 9:24 pm View last post
Purim-self control
by amother
3 Mon, Mar 18 2024, 10:43 am View last post
Sleeve surgery and birth control
by amother
10 Thu, Mar 07 2024, 12:45 am View last post
Tummy control slip dress
by amother
1 Wed, Feb 28 2024, 4:34 pm View last post