Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 125

Thread: What's your idea's about crime control

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    What do you think about crime control?

    Do we need tougher laws for those that would do harm to others?

    Or do you think that the system is just fine?

    I think things are way out of control. Multiple felons loose in our country free to do what they may with little to worry about. Stay in jail for a while get rested up free everything and then set loose ready to create mayhem.

    I think jail should put these people to good use doing things in our society as they are able. If you aren't a violent criminal we'd use the resources to good use. Every day you get to go out to some sort of job that needs to be done that nobody wants to do.

    You do this job with no money to you personnally but the bussinesses that use whatever skills you are wiling to provide. The company that gets to use these skills pays into the justice system at market rate. And they provide you with something to eat while you are under there supervision.

    At the end of the day the company provides transportation back to jail where you stay until the next day.

    After you have done your time you are free to leave. If you did a good job and the company liked the work you did they can hire you, just like anybody else.

    Now, if you are a violent criminal thing are much worse since you can't be trusted.
    Jail time is the maximum, no oppertunity to get a skilled job. You have to do the very worst job with very strict supervision. And if you ever get out of jail you still owe restitution to the family that you perpetrated that violent crime against.

    If convicted of a second violent crime the penalty is death. No third chance! You have proven to society that you are not worth it's time money or effort.

    As far as the judicial system, there is NO plea bargaining for violent crimes. Maximum sentences with no early parole.

    If I missed anything point it out and we can discuss it.
    But I do believe that we need to be much tougher then we are now on criminals.

    And the justice system with revolving doors for violent criminals must stop.

    These are my thoughts.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    .


  3. #3
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    I think public hangings would help, not right away, but very soon after a few swing.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    I am the father of 5 grown children.

    When our children were young, my wife would complain to me that they would mind me better than they would mind her.

    This was true. It was also true that I rarely had to discipline them.

    My wife is a wonderful kind loving person.

    I asked my children why this was true. They told me the following.

    "Dad we don't want to be disciplined by you. We know exactly what will happen with you and we don't want it. With Mom it is different. It she gets after us, usually she doesn't do much, but sometimes she does. To us its worth the risk."

    My discipline was swift, consistant, and decisive.

    My wife's discipline was slow, inconsistant and variable.

    We need my mode of discipline, on a national level.

    Tarzan

  5. #5
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    We need my mode of discipline, on a national level.
    Water Boarding?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    I don't think the prison system or "crime control" can be dealt with until laws are dealt with to properly and appropriately dictate what is and is not a crime.

    I want murderers and rapists killed swiftly. I want thieves in jail working hard labor to pay back their victims with interest, including all court costs and the costs to house them in a prison.

    But that's pretty much the extent of it. People should not be sitting in jail because they enjoy getting high, gambling, selling sexual services, or owning guns that the BATFE doesn't like.

    Until we reform our laws and get rid of these victimless crimes, I cannot back a politician or organization who claims to be "tough on crime" because that usually means tough on freedom. Therefor living in the world we do, I would rather have more murderers and rapists on the streets due to a lax punishment system if it means that I and many others are less likely to sit in jail for exercising our freedoms. After all, I have taken the initiative to protect myself. I value freedom more than security.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    .

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    I don't think the prison system or "crime control" can be dealt with until laws are dealt with to properly and appropriately dictate what is and is not a crime.

    I want murderers and rapists killed swiftly. I want thieves in jail working hard labor to pay back their victims with interest, including all court costs and the costs to house them in a prison.

    But that's pretty much the extent of it. People should not be sitting in jail because they enjoy getting high, gambling, selling sexual services, or owning guns that the BATFE doesn't like.

    Until we reform our laws and get rid of these victimless crimes, I cannot back a politician or organization who claims to be "tough on crime" because that usually means tough on freedom. Therefor living in the world we do, I would rather have more murderers and rapists on the streets due to a lax punishment system if it means that I and many others are less likely to sit in jail for exercising our freedoms. After all, I have taken the initiative to protect myself. I value freedom more than security.
    In your opinion.... drugs, gambling, prostitution are not crimes against society carrying a punishable consequence?

    First you say you want murderers and rapists killed swiftly, but you would be willing tohave more murderers and rapists on the streets if you had the freedom to do drugs, cavort with hookers, and use your machine guns without prejudice?
    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The first statement was what the punishments should be if our laws recognized freedom and did not try to legislate victimless personal behavior. However before we work on harsher punishments for crimes that do have victims, we must get rid of the crimes that do not. Any push for harsher punishments for criminals in general results in harsher punishments for crimes which have no business being illegal in the first place.

    Freedom comes first. Once our laws recognize and protect freedom and liberty, then we can work on making harsher punishments for those who commit crimes that infringe on someone else's liberty. But in the interim, I am willing to live in a more dangerous world where no crimes are punished adequately, than live in a world where exercising personal freedom is punished severely.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    .

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Okay, lets make sure we're on the same page here. I am not in favor of no government or no criminal punishment for people who are violent or dangerous. What I am against is the legislation of personal non-violent behavior that has no effect on another person.

    For this reason I cannot support a blanket "tough on crime" approach. Criminal law must be reformed first. Until laws are reformed to protect citizens rather than regulate their personal behavior, I will not support harsher punishment for the broad term "felonies".

    Someone who chooses to smoke an herb that a politician does not like should not sit in jail for 20 years or more. And if insuring that mans freedom means that more violent criminals are on the street, than I will live with that. I do not depend on the government to protect me from such violent persons anyway, I take that initiative myself.

    Supporting tougher punishments for crimes, or even felonies in general means that more people will be facing more punishments for their personal decisions that have no business being legislated. Just as one absurd example since my constant reference to drugs will have some dismissing me as a pot head, in Texas was recently (in this decade) made illegal for a husband and wife to have consensual anal sex. As long as any form of government thinks what goes on in my home is their business I will not support sever criminal punishments.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    .

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    I commend your enthusiasm for freedom, but I do not agree with you. I notice you are 20 years old. That says alot. I'm 58 now, graduated from a military academy, served my country in the US Army in wartime, raised a family, and finished up a career flying jet aircraft for 30 years.

    We (you and me) represent different cultures and will make decisions based on life's experiences. I suspect when you get some more experience you will become somewhat more conservative in your thinking. Right now I'll bet you might even be an Obama supporter. I'm not.

    Have a good day. I don't have any more to contribute to this. Thanks for your posts.
    I'm closer to your age but I agree with the previous poster. If the government wants to get involved in victimless crimes it shouldn't include jail time and money out of my pocket to keep them there.

    They should do like they do with alchohol. Legalize it and tax it hard. I don't mind regulations on any of that stuff. Prohibition has shown that if you make it legal then the violence that goes with it goes way down. Especially drugs. Most of the murders being commited these days is over drugs and it being illegal.

    Prohibition didn't work for booze and it's not working for pot, coke and heroin. Wasn't to far back in time that those WERE legal. Sometime around the 30's it changed. Since whites weren't doing those drugs they didn't care if you jailed blacks.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I really don't care that anyone wants to fry thier brain with drugs or alcohol, have anal sex or any other victimless crime. However I do object to those who say it if fine do drive doen the highway drunk out of you mind as long as you don't have an accident. But if you do have an accident and kill someone the you should fry for that.

    It was a few months ago that on my way to work one morning I came up behind a driver that was, to put it mildly, DRUNK. I wound up following him for about 4 mile because I was scared to try and pass him. He was constantly running off both sides of the road, and ran several oncoming cars off the road. He was truly a traffic hazard. I finally picked up my cell phone to call the police as he turned off into his driveway. When he did he ran into the ditch, backed up and finally made it into his yard. Now I learn that he did nothing wrong bvecause he didn't hit anyone.

    If you want to ride your motorcycle witout a helmet or not wear you seatbelt then by all means do it. If you want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute then go to it. But don't expect me to pay your hospital bills when you get injured or support your family because you are no longer able to support your five children.

    There are personal rights but there is also a thing called crime prevention. If it takes locking up 100 drunk driversthat haven't hit someone yet to keep from killing that one 2 year old then I am all for it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I really don't care that anyone wants to fry thier brain with drugs or alcohol, have anal sex or any other victimless crime. However I do object to those who say it if fine do drive doen the highway drunk out of you mind as long as you don't have an accident. But if you do have an accident and kill someone the you should fry for that.

    It was a few months ago that on my way to work one morning I came up behind a driver that was, to put it mildly, DRUNK. I wound up following him for about 4 mile because I was scared to try and pass him. He was constantly running off both sides of the road, and ran several oncoming cars off the road. He was truly a traffic hazard. I finally picked up my cell phone to call the police as he turned off into his driveway. When he did he ran into the ditch, backed up and finally made it into his yard. Now I learn that he did nothing wrong bvecause he didn't hit anyone.

    If you want to ride your motorcycle witout a helmet or not wear you seatbelt then by all means do it. If you want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute then go to it. But don't expect me to pay your hospital bills when you get injured or support your family because you are no longer able to support your five children.

    There are personal rights but there is also a thing called crime prevention. If it takes locking up 100 drunk driversthat haven't hit someone yet to keep from killing that one 2 year old then I am all for it.
    I agree with you 100% What you do to yourself shouldn't be illegal as long as it doesn't put others lives in danger.

    One of the departments I worked in had a cdl driver that would clip parked cars with a trailer making right hand turns. Never tested positive but they kept putting him behind the wheel.

    Driving puts lives in danger, weather sober or drunk. But if you want to get drunk stay home or walk, call a cab. It's just so irresponsible.

    Same for guns in bars. Legal in this state but just not a good idea. People tend to loose control with booze.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    I commend your enthusiasm for freedom, but I do not agree with you. I notice you are 20 years old. That says alot. I'm 58 now, graduated from a military academy, served my country in the US Army in wartime, raised a family, and finished up a career flying jet aircraft for 30 years.

    We (you and me) represent different cultures and will make decisions based on life's experiences. I suspect when you get some more experience you will become somewhat more conservative in your thinking. Right now I'll bet you might even be an Obama supporter. I'm not.

    Have a good day. I don't have any more to contribute to this. Thanks for your posts.
    I will admit that I do not have as much life experience as you do. I can also see how growing up in the 60s and 70s could make you hesitant to see any legitimate argument from someone who believes drugs should be legalized. You're probably thinking of me as some modern day hippy who does nothing but run around with legalize it signs.

    As for Obama, where out of left field did you pull that from? I've tried to be respectful while disagreeing with you, but when you say something like that it proves your inability to research or perform any type of deductive reasoning. I don't know what I've posted on this thread that could possibly indicate that I support Obama, but obviously you were able to look at my profile and view my age, if you had looked at my other posts it would be fairly clear that I am very conservative (whom there are currently none running with the prospect of winning).

    Obviously discussing this issue further with you will get you nowhere because in your mind everyone who disagrees with you is some stoner hippy. Just for your information, not that it's any of your business: I am 20 years old, I am married with a 5 week old son, I am a student working toward my engineering degree, and I am employed full time as a computer technician. I may not have as many years under my belt, but I do have a good bit of life experience and I am certainly not the everything handed to me, carefree, party hard, 20 year old you probably think I am.

    PT111 wrote:
    I really don't care that anyone wants to fry thier brain with drugs or alcohol, have anal sex or any other victimless crime. However I do object to those who say it if fine do drive doen the highway drunk out of you mind as long as you don't have an accident. But if you do have an accident and kill someone the you should fry for that.

    It was a few months ago that on my way to work one morning I came up behind a driver that was, to put it mildly, DRUNK. I wound up following him for about 4 mile because I was scared to try and pass him. He was constantly running off both sides of the road, and ran several oncoming cars off the road. He was truly a traffic hazard. I finally picked up my cell phone to call the police as he turned off into his driveway. When he did he ran into the ditch, backed up and finally made it into his yard. Now I learn that he did nothing wrong bvecause he didn't hit anyone.

    If you want to ride your motorcycle witout a helmet or not wear you seatbelt then by all means do it. If you want to jump out of an airplane without a parachute then go to it. But don't expect me to pay your hospital bills when you get injured or support your family because you are no longer able to support your five children.

    There are personal rights but there is also a thing called crime prevention. If it takes locking up 100 drunk driversthat haven't hit someone yet to keep from killing that one 2 year old then I am all for it.
    This is my personal position that has the most objection, and I can agree to disagree on it but do let me explain myself. Like gun control, legislation against drunk driving is extremely emotionally driven.

    In the case of the story above, the person was "running people off the road" as well as obviously making improper lane changes, that in and of itself is a traffic crime worthy of being pulled over and likely arrested. The fact that he was impared may add to the sentance, but there is already an existing traffic crime. That example does nothing to prove your case.

    Legislating blood alcohol content while driving is essentially arresting someone because of the future possibility that they may commit a crime. I see it as no different than someone saying that anyone with a gun should be arrested because they could be about to comitt a crime. What if your statement was changed to "if it takes locking up 100 gun owners that havent shot someone yet to keep from killing that one 2 year old then I am all for it." You are suggesting legislating a behavior because of the fact that it could cause a danger to others, we as OCers make that same decision every time we OC. Yes I recognise that the odds of an OCer causing a shooting are much less than the odds of a drunk driver causing an accident, but I still do not believe that the ends justify the means.

    Also consider where drunk driving legislation has gotten us. Because of people like you, who are more conserned with public safety than civil rights, the supreme court has ruled that any police department can choose to block off a road and essentially perform a terry stop on every single car without any probable cause, forcing the citizenry to prove their innocence or be faced with a drunk driving charge.

    Just look at how many laywers are out there who specialize in just the defense against drunk driving charges. Ask them how many cases they take on where the driver was actually a danger on the road. I have a family member who does this for a living and he has related stories of people being arrested for sleeping in their cars drunk with the engine running so they could have heat. It's gotten way out of hand, police officers now routinely pull over someone with a false charge of a tial light being out so they have an excuse to smell your breath and try to catch you on this bs charge.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    .

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    Hey... I wasn't going to respond, but this is way over the top. Let's see if I have most of this in context...

    ASFORMEwants....

    Loosen the law so that murderers and rapists can get a break becauseASFORME would like to smoke dope, run with hookers, and play with machine guns without consequence....
    In this country we have a mash up of laws designed to protect the innocent mixed with laws designed to control behavior that certain people just don't like. I think we need a better definition of what a "criminal" is before we decide how to deal with them. Right now a criminal is someone who does something the politicians don't like. I realise that having lax punishments for violent criminals is dangerous, but as anyone else who owns a gun, I never had full faith in the government to protect me from such people anyway, I took the initiative to protect myself.


    At the same time the government (and National Guard) is not something ASFORME wants because they are building satellites??? ASFORME doesn't want to be an LEO because LEO's arrest folks that break laws that ASFORME doesn't agree with.
    I do not want to be part of America's nation building, nor do I want to be part of enforcing any of the number of unconstitutional and unnecessary laws that are so prevelant in this country.


    And finally.... ASFORME thinks it's ok to break the law and drive drunk as long as you don't have an accident.
    Try reading, I did not say I think it's okay to break the law, I said that I do not believe the law should exist in the first place. I also didn't say that an accident was required, lane change violation, legitimate reckless driving charges or any number of actual moving violatinos that indicate an immediate danger are sufficient.


    Hey ASFORME... how often do you OC?
    Every day.


    How often do you smoke pot and/or do drugs and drive under the influence?
    Never have, but just because it's not something I do does not mean I think it should be illegal.


    You aren't gaining any popularity as the DE OC poster child. I wonder what law enforcement and others think when they read posts like this? I know they read this forum because we discuss it.
    That's good, because I live in Virginia. I simply thought this was an interesting thread that deals with things mostly on the federal level. Also I do not live in fear of law enfocement as I am doing nothing wrong. Supporting freedom is not wrong. I support freedom, even if I don't exercise the rights I defend.


    This is the kind of crap that hurts the mission.
    What do you care about "the mission" anyway? From your previous posts you make it clear that you think OC is confrontational and unnecessary anyway. I OC for three reasons, I dont have a CHP, It's more confortable, and I get to find out what businesses think about my RKBA so I can decide if I will patronise them further. Any "mission" of giving a good reputation to gun owners is secondary, though I do always conduct myself professionally and cordially whether or not I am carrying. Unlinke those who insist on painting people with broad generalizations and stereotypes and trying to use their age to indicate credibility before throwing insults when their arugments fall apart.

    I don't think the horse can be any more dead, as most of what I have written is simply a rehash of what's been said before. I enjoy intellectual debates, so if you can get your emotions under control and bring a valid point instead of resorting to personal attacks I would be happy to discuss it. Until then I'm out.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    I agree 100% with asforme. If you don't harm anyone and aren't a direct threat, you should be free to do as you wish. Laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. only serve to generate revenue and punish the innocent. Beyond that, laws against these things increases violent crimes by creating a black market for prohibited items and activities. Additionally, it gives police too much power and too little oversight because there need be no victim to press charges against the person being accused of a crime.

    Laws against victimless crimes and arbitrary laws such as blood alcohol limits, drivers licensing, etc. violate the very foundation of freedom that this country was founded upon.

    And, for the record, I'm 34, a non-smoker, non-drug user who rarely drinks and never drives drunk.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    asforme is simply using sound liberterian philosophy.

    If you read carefully,you'll see he did not say violating any law was OK.

    Causing another car to swerve off the road is a crime, regardless of whether you were chemically impaired when you caused it.

    Anytime your actions adversely impact another you have exceeded the bounds of acceptable action.

    If your actions, regardless of what they are, do not cause someone else harm against their will then you have not committed a crime (in some other, far away, more perfect union).

    Just as being drunk/high is not a legal defense for murder. It may impact the penalty phase but it doesn't determine if you committed a crime.


    I agree.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    If you think about it, this:

    asforme wrote:"tough on crime" because that usually means tough on freedom Therefor living in the world we do, I would rather have more murderers and rapists on the streets due to a lax punishment system
    "
    Is simply a parphrase of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote; "[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    Possibly combined with Blackthorne's "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

    There are thousands of years worth of quotes along these lines. And they are all correct.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    Blackthorne is the first thing I thought of as well.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Exactly. This argument goes to very heart of individual liberty.

    Suppressing the actions of others because they may be risky (according to the currently elected majority) is prejudice.

    Actions that actually harm others, on the other hand, should be punished swiftly, consistantly, and firmly.

    Perhaps our entire library of laws could be replaced with "If its not yours don't touch it."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    Exactly. This argument goes to very heart of individual liberty.

    Suppressing the actions of others because they may be risky (according to the currently elected majority) is prejudice.

    Actions that actually harm others, on the other hand, should be punished swiftly, consistantly, and firmly.

    Perhaps our entire library of laws could be replaced with "If its not yours don't touch it."
    Great discussion Guys! This is what I was looking for!

    As far as the drunk diving goes I think that doing so DOES show irresposibilities that should have your priveledge to drive revoked.

    Thanks!

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Hawker wrote:
    You aren't gaining any popularity as the DE OC poster child. I wonder what law enforcement and others think when they read posts like this? I know they read this forum because we discuss it. This is the kind of crap that hurtsthe mission.
    Just bear in mind that he's not from DE (nor are most of the people chiming in on this)... this is more of a general discussion topic that probably should've been posted elsewhere.

    That being said, corrections in America is still in a sad state -- over-run prison population, poorly trained and poorly paid corrections officers, and the lack of consistent sentencing significantly contribute to the state of crime in Delaware/America.

    More community-based sentencing options for non-violent, first time offenders need to utilized because, face it, political and socioeconomic circumstances will lead to recidivism for a good number of the prison population. At this point it all becomes a vicious circle that becomes very hard to escape... Assuming that a statistically significant portion of criminals on the streets are re-offenders, then it would seem a natural conclusion that a focus on the ex-convicts' reintegration into society is going to play a large part on reducing future crime.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    If you think about it, this:

    asforme wrote:"tough on crime" because that usually means tough on freedom Therefor living in the world we do, I would rather have more murderers and rapists on the streets due to a lax punishment system
    "
    Is simply a parphrase of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote; "[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    Possibly combined with Blackthorne's "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

    There are thousands of years worth of quotes along these lines. And they are all correct.
    But what if rather than the one innocent not suffer the one innocent dies. You argument right there is contradictory in that allowing those ten to go free will just as easily result in the one innocent suffereing as it will in one innocent not suffering.

    Or are you saying that it is OK to allow people to drive drunk and kill someone as long as we don't stop any innocent non-drunks.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •