It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,368

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Full Story

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102904 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing the vidoes show is that someone has discovered a way to pull the trigger on a semi-auto rifle faster than just using their finger alone. It is still one round fired for each squeeze of the trigger, no matter how many times you claim the contrary. They are NOT firing in full-auto. Period.
Alright, this is getting pretty sad now...

Once AGAIN (and for the LAST time solely for YOUR sake), it was insisted that a semi-automatic weapon could NOT be/was incapable of being fired in a manner similar to that of an automatic weapon.

Literally EVERYONE insisted the same as you, that an AR-15 was capable of firing only one round per triggering...All I had to do was prove otherwise, which I have.

It's a done and dusted matter at this point, give it up already, hell, even I'm starting to feel sorrow for you, SHEESH!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102905 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
You say "enclave", I say 'entity', you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.
Inconsequential semantics really, it's just good to see that we've had a meeting of the mind.
That is why the Democrats Like Dianne Feinstein keep referring to District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS case because Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats that align with her Ideology know that the District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS case pertains to Federal Enclaves and not the States which is why she doesn't bring up the McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS case which has to do with the States and is the case that incorporated the 2nd amendment down to the State level which is why the Democrats like Dianne Feinstein refuse to acknowledge the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 which before the 2010 Ruling in McDonald v. Chicago the 2nd Amendment did not pertain to the States which was correct because of the 14th amendment which stripped the Bill of Rights from States and why the say the 14th amendment is flawed which the SCOTUS has had to use the Incorporation Clause of the 14th amendment to incorporate all the US Constitution's Bill of Rights down to the State Level and the 2nd Amendment was the last one in 2010.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102906 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And this reply, although lengthy and eloquent, didn't say a damn thing. IOW...nothing but a lot of hot air. You should be a politician.
And that, friend, is the whole point of this conversation, i.e., I've actually said quite a lot that served to cover every point of your contention(s), and then some, yet you lacked the educational/intellectual acumen to understand.

You see you have, by your own admission and interactions in this discussion, demonstrated a certain degree of ineptitude to participate in discussions covering mature, academic subject matter such as Constitutional sub-thematics.

In otherwords, this sort of subject matter is (well) beyond your comprehensive ability to intelligently discuss and so, you should avoid it at all cost in order to avoid unintentionally revealing your unmistakable ignorance.

Just looking out...Think about it.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102907 Mar 22, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>That is why the Democrats Like Dianne Feinstein keep referring to District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS case because Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats that align with her Ideology know that the District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS case pertains to Federal Enclaves and not the States which is why she doesn't bring up the McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS case which has to do with the States and is the case that incorporated the 2nd amendment down to the State level which is why the Democrats like Dianne Feinstein refuse to acknowledge the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 which before the 2010 Ruling in McDonald v. Chicago the 2nd Amendment did not pertain to the States which was correct because of the 14th amendment which stripped the Bill of Rights from States and why the say the 14th amendment is flawed which the SCOTUS has had to use the Incorporation Clause of the 14th amendment to incorporate all the US Constitution's Bill of Rights down to the State Level and the 2nd Amendment was the last one in 2010.
Uh, you do realize that the Federal Courts are THE legislatures "law of the land" who have the final, penultimate say in all matters of legalese, do you not?

Realize that the Constitution is THE "law of the land" by which ALL legal precedent is penned and set and by which ALL states MUST abide, don't you?

I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS? Afterall, does not the legal process both start, and end, with the Supreme Court of the United States?

SHEESH people, I mean, SERIOUSLY?!?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102908 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, you do realize that the Federal Courts are THE legislatures "law of the land" who have the final, penultimate say in all matters of legalese, do you not?
Realize that the Constitution is THE "law of the land" by which ALL legal precedent is penned and set and by which ALL states MUST abide, don't you?
I mean, isn't it OBVIOUS? Afterall, does not the legal process both start, and end, with the Supreme Court of the United States?
SHEESH people, I mean, SERIOUSLY?!?
When the SCOTUS issues a ruling on a lower Federal Court ruling then it becomes the Law of the Land but if the SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal from a lower Federal Court's ruling from the Federal Courts of Appeals District that the lawsuit was filed, it only affect the Federal Courts of Appeals district where the law was challenged I will give you an example & scenario if the SCOTUS case of McDonald v. Chicago of 2010 was refused to be heard by the SCOTUS it would have only affect the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals District which only would affect Illinois, Indiana, & Wisconsin and no other state which is how the Federal Court System works.

http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx

Understanding Federal and State Courts

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#102910 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, this is getting pretty sad now...
Once AGAIN (and for the LAST time solely for YOUR sake), it was insisted that a semi-automatic weapon could NOT be/was incapable of being fired in a manner similar to that of an automatic weapon.
Literally EVERYONE insisted the same as you, that an AR-15 was capable of firing only one round per triggering...All I had to do was prove otherwise, which I have.
It's a done and dusted matter at this point, give it up already, hell, even I'm starting to feel sorrow for you, SHEESH!
You haven't proved a damn thing.

You REALLY don't understand a thing about firearms do you? For a semi-auto firearm to fire LIKE A FULL-AUTO FIREARM, a modification (a physical change) must be made to the sear (a little mechanical device inside the firearm.....it must be machined). Doing so will allow the firearm to fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. That is, you pull the trigger and don't release it.(you following this so far?) Without modifying that sear, and AR-15 will only fire once with a single trigger pull. Period. It may LOOK like the AR-15 is firing in full-auto, BUT IT IS NOT. The trigger is simply being pulled in a very rapid manner. You get that, Mr. Pseudo-Intellectual? Is that simple enough for you?

Now you are correct. I am done with this. I may be just a blue collar worker worker from the Mid-Atlantic, but I know how a firearm functions. Come on back when you want to get some good ol' down home learnin'.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#102911 Mar 22, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
"No one can take it from you."
Don't take things for granted. Governments have been taking freedoms away for centuries. That's their nature.
NO. The government is not attacking or removing your freedoms they are attempting to remove your legal rights....A RIGHT is a legal, moral, or social claim that
people are entitled to, primarily from their
government. A legal right is something that
cannot be given to you one time and then denied
another time. If you have a legal right, then some
other person has a legal duty to see that this right
is honoured. If it isn't, you can rely on the law to
see that something is done about the matter.
A FREEDOM is the right to conduct one’s affairs
without governmental interference. Unlike a right,
no one has a duty to oversee or enforce this
freedom. The government, however, still has an
obligation not to unduly limit individual freedoms.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102912 Mar 22, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>When the SCOTUS issues a ruling on a lower Federal Court ruling then it becomes the Law of the Land but if the SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal from a lower Federal Court's ruling from the Federal Courts of Appeals District that the lawsuit was filed, it only affect the Federal Courts of Appeals district where the law was challenged I will give you an example & scenario if the SCOTUS case of McDonald v. Chicago of 2010 was refused to be heard by the SCOTUS it would have only affect the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals District which only would affect Illinois, Indiana, & Wisconsin and no other state which is how the Federal Court System works.
http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx
Understanding Federal and State Courts
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/...
I don't understand the point of your input here, let alone your repeated referral to McDonald, inasmuch as NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT RESTRICTING ANYONE'S RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS (handguns in the home in the case of McDonald), NO ONE! And I am not in need of a dissertation on the judicial process....

The ONLY point of contention under debate, other than the fleeting peripheral issue addressing the firing capability of semi-auto weaponry ( >AV< ), is whether or not a member of the general public-at-large has any entitlement, Constitutional or otherwise, to possess damn near any type of firearm they might desire/feel/believe they do which, as it turns out, we don't, be it real, imagined or implied.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#102913 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I basically consider ANY response to a debate as a positive, be it for or against, in that the issue is still being discussed with all sides contributing to the debate, which is a good thing because every perspective deserves a voice much as every person deserves an opportunity to voice their perspective.
The important thing is that people are participating and, because as long as an issue is being discussed, there is always an opportunity for a mutually beneficial resolution, or at least a tolerable one.
I will have to remember that logic when the pollies spend their lives articulating and honing their speil, where a debate is just another way of manipulating the people, whether that be in a presidential debate or one where a government can front the UN with lies to manipulate a war. Talking debating only works with heads of countries that are reasonable and are willing to adhere to the rules and that means 1: use honest speak and 2: never lie or try to manipulate with an event to alter or attain a goal. In order to debate about guns "ALL people" must be educated enough to understand that there are two sides of the coin and use rational logic to come to either a compromise or concede that the other party has a point. A debate cannot be argued on emotional and illogical rhetoric to achieve a reasonable and logical outcome, in other words you are pushing shit uphill in a debate with Americans about guns(that is understood) but someone has to start in order to see change occur for the betterment of reason and to save the lives, then others must pick up the baton and keep it moving forward, such is the hard yakka for the enlightened few to care enough to educate the ignorant and stupids of this world, so that we can all simply live in a better world.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102914 Mar 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't proved a damn thing.
You REALLY don't understand a thing about firearms do you? For a semi-auto firearm to fire LIKE A FULL-AUTO FIREARM, a modification (a physical change) must be made to the sear (a little mechanical device inside the firearm.....it must be machined). Doing so will allow the firearm to fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. That is, you pull the trigger and don't release it.(you following this so far?) Without modifying that sear, and AR-15 will only fire once with a single trigger pull. Period. It may LOOK like the AR-15 is firing in full-auto, BUT IT IS NOT. The trigger is simply being pulled in a very rapid manner. You get that, Mr. Pseudo-Intellectual? Is that simple enough for you?
Now you are correct. I am done with this. I may be just a blue collar worker worker from the Mid-Atlantic, but I know how a firearm functions. Come on back when you want to get some good ol' down home learnin'.
I, too, was once a blue collar worker...once, but I kept my arse in school and got all educated and such and, well, you can likely figure out the rest for yourself.

But, yeah, I'm bored, but then, circular arguments that monotonously meander round and around and around endlessly all trance like with no end in sight typically do bore me.

Remember...I did warn you.

Nice conversing with you, apologies if I've made you feel inadequate as that was not my intent. I wanted only to educate your ignorance so that you could be more so informed in your future discussions on these matters, that is all.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#102915 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
p.s. The Wiki really isn't your friend...
Just saying.
All information is your friend, it is how you interpret it's meaning that is relevant.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102916 Mar 22, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I will have to remember that logic when the pollies spend their lives articulating and honing their speil, where a debate is just another way of manipulating the people, whether that be in a presidential debate or one where a government can front the UN with lies to manipulate a war. Talking debating only works with heads of countries that are reasonable and are willing to adhere to the rules and that means 1: use honest speak and 2: never lie or try to manipulate with an event to alter or attain a goal. In order to debate about guns "ALL people" must be educated enough to understand that there are two sides of the coin and use rational logic to come to either a compromise or concede that the other party has a point. A debate cannot be argued on emotional and illogical rhetoric to achieve a reasonable and logical outcome, in other words you are pushing shit uphill in a debate with Americans about guns(that is understood) but someone has to start in order to see change occur for the betterment of reason and to save the lives, then others must pick up the baton and keep it moving forward, such is the hard yakka for the enlightened few to care enough to educate the ignorant and stupids of this world, so that we can all simply live in a better world.
That is the objective, to keep the lines of communication open, the knowledge and ideas flowing, hopefully in a linear direction marked with high points of mutual consensus so that real resolutions based upon informed decisions can be made that serve to further our ethical goals and cultural ascension, afterall, each generation are but the stewards of the next and we've all the ability to realize a legacy by what we leave behind for those that are to follow after us.

And, hell, we've not any right to b1tch about anything if we don't participate, if we don;t contribute, if we don't try.

Thanks for noticing.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102917 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand the point of your input here, let alone your repeated referral to McDonald, inasmuch as NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT RESTRICTING ANYONE'S RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS (handguns in the home in the case of McDonald), NO ONE! And I am not in need of a dissertation on the judicial process....
The ONLY point of contention under debate, other than the fleeting peripheral issue addressing the firing capability of semi-auto weaponry ( >AV< ), is whether or not a member of the general public-at-large has any entitlement, Constitutional or otherwise, to possess damn near any type of firearm they might desire/feel/believe they do which, as it turns out, we don't, be it real, imagined or implied.
the City of Chicago and Illinois restricted individuals 2nd amendment rights by telling them what kind of guns they could have.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102918 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand the point of your input here, let alone your repeated referral to McDonald, inasmuch as NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT RESTRICTING ANYONE'S RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS (handguns in the home in the case of McDonald), NO ONE! And I am not in need of a dissertation on the judicial process....
The ONLY point of contention under debate, other than the fleeting peripheral issue addressing the firing capability of semi-auto weaponry ( >AV< ), is whether or not a member of the general public-at-large has any entitlement, Constitutional or otherwise, to possess damn near any type of firearm they might desire/feel/believe they do which, as it turns out, we don't, be it real, imagined or implied.
What you are saying is the same argument that City of Chicago said and did in 1982 that the public-at-large has no entitlement or Constitutional or otherwise right to possess hand guns which was the issue in McDonald v. Chicago and was found Unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and why I keep referring to the SCOTUS case of McDonald v. Chicago .

Cause of the Case

Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76 year old (in 2010) retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971. McDonald decried the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His lawn was regularly littered with refuse and his home and garage had been broken into a combined five times, with the most recent robbery committed by a man McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood. An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun. As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit which became McDonald v. Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#102920 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
No! It is a SEMI-automatic AR-15, exactly the very same type of military grade/assault style weapon used in the recent slayings.
Please go back and reread the info contained in the links I've posted, perhaps a bit slower this time"?"
<quoted text>
The links to the videos I've posted portraying various individuals demonstrating the firing capability of the AR-15, I feel, more than adequately serves to provide irrefutable proof that a SEMI-automatic weapon can be made to fire just as rapidly as a fully automatic weapon.
I'm sure that I can scrounge up some more videos if you'd like as there are more than a few people out there in the World who are more than willing to show off their shooting/firing prowess, and you don't even have to ask!
<quoted text>
Alas! A meeting of the minds! Well, on one issue anyway.
<quoted text>
I referenced the Bush era faux pas (under which we are STILL suffering) as a means of providing evidence to support my contention that the NRA was now employing the very same tactics of LYING, fear mongering, distortion of the facts, and baseless propaganda to forward their agenda.
<quoted text>
No harm, no foul!
<quoted text>
See ya when ya get back, I'll be around some time or another I'm sure.
The civilian modified AR-15 is a semi automatic. It only fires a single shot for every trigger pull. I believe the caliber is .223 as opposed to a .556 military grade caliber. The military weapon can fire auto or semi auto.

You need an auto sear to make it automatic. I'm pretty sure the receiver or the bolt carrier in the civilian model is milled differently so that they can't be interchanged.

I don't now what lies the NRA is telling. I don't belong to them. In any case, they are a civilian organization, not the government. As long as the NRA brings suit against the government when it attempts to infringe on rights, I don't have a problem with them. No one can force one to purchase a gun. The government can certainly force one away.

There has been a few government faux pas. Mine was the Gulf of Tonkin lie.:-) No, I don't trust the federal government at all.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#102921 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
No! It is a SEMI-automatic AR-15, exactly the very same type of military grade/assault style weapon used in the recent slayings.
Please go back and reread the info contained in the links I've posted, perhaps a bit slower this time"?"
<quoted text>
The links to the videos I've posted portraying various individuals demonstrating the firing capability of the AR-15, I feel, more than adequately serves to provide irrefutable proof that a SEMI-automatic weapon can be made to fire just as rapidly as a fully automatic weapon.
I'm sure that I can scrounge up some more videos if you'd like as there are more than a few people out there in the World who are more than willing to show off their shooting/firing prowess, and you don't even have to ask!
<quoted text>
Alas! A meeting of the minds! Well, on one issue anyway.
<quoted text>
I referenced the Bush era faux pas (under which we are STILL suffering) as a means of providing evidence to support my contention that the NRA was now employing the very same tactics of LYING, fear mongering, distortion of the facts, and baseless propaganda to forward their agenda.
<quoted text>
No harm, no foul!
<quoted text>
See ya when ya get back, I'll be around some time or another I'm sure.
P.S.
Changing a gun to an automatic is against the law. In essence, you are assuming a lawful person who purchased a semi auto legally is going to break the law by modifying the gun.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102922 Mar 22, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
P.S.
Changing a gun to an automatic is against the law. In essence, you are assuming a lawful person who purchased a semi auto legally is going to break the law by modifying the gun.
Exactly.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#102923 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Air travel IS the fastest form of transportation, and it's not my fault that you live in Jersey, a place not even a terrorist would want to visit, lol!
<quoted text>
The point is that were they (military grade, assault style weaponry) not available to the general public-at-large, neither you, I, nor any terrorists, would be able to get our/their hands on them...It's really just THAT simple!
<quoted text>
There is NOTHING "natural" about the manufacture and production of armament/firearms, and no one is attempting to 'rewrite the Constitution', only clarify its' true.actual provisions as a means of dispelling all of the confusion its' being misconstrued has, and is, causing much to the detriment of our societal well being.
Welcome back BTW.
Ah, but there are terrorists here, my friend.:-)

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/judg...

Beware of the pizza delivery man. Notice how they entered the country through the Mexican border. There was another separate local plot recently in North Jersey, two men arrested.

Terrorists would have weapons. We have a very porous southern border. The general public would be disarmed. There would be absolutely no problem arming terrorists in the US.

You keep indicating "military grade." The civilian model is similar in appearance only. They are milled differently, the ammunition caliber is different. The average semi auto hunting rifle is far more lethal and accurate. There is also a semi automatic shotgun available.

A natural right is something afforded to all sovereign human beings to live with dignity as individuals and free from oppression by others and government. You're are focused on an object that an oppressor may possess. It would be prudent to equally arm yourself.

It's not the object itself, but the ability to protect yourself and family, and in the case of the LA riots, your property.

Constitutionally, the federal government can't prevent one from keeping and bearing arms. The states can [regulate] the use of those arms. The problem arises when the scope of the federal government goes beyond regulating interstate commerce and taxation.

No one is against state run background checks, I think. My state goes beyond to include mental records and state arrest checks. The federal government already makes its data base available as with stolen cars, etc.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#102924 Mar 22, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
NO. The government is not attacking or removing your freedoms they are attempting to remove your legal rights....A RIGHT is a legal, moral, or social claim that
people are entitled to, primarily from their
government. A legal right is something that
cannot be given to you one time and then denied
another time. If you have a legal right, then some
other person has a legal duty to see that this right
is honoured. If it isn't, you can rely on the law to
see that something is done about the matter.
A FREEDOM is the right to conduct one’s affairs
without governmental interference. Unlike a right,
no one has a duty to oversee or enforce this
freedom. The government, however, still has an
obligation not to unduly limit individual freedoms.
Ahomana, one can't have freedom without rights. The bill of rights aren't a legal entity. They are considered natural and the government can't take them away. Not quickly anyway. It's the old boil the frog slowly scenario.

The government has a duty and obligation to protect its citizens from invasion and crime, not individual freedoms. One's freedoms can certainly be limited when one commits a crime.:-) Let's see, who determines what a crime is?:-)

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#102925 Mar 22, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the objective, to keep the lines of communication open, the knowledge and ideas flowing, hopefully in a linear direction marked with high points of mutual consensus so that real resolutions based upon informed decisions can be made that serve to further our ethical goals and cultural ascension, afterall, each generation are but the stewards of the next and we've all the ability to realize a legacy by what we leave behind for those that are to follow after us.
And, hell, we've not any right to b1tch about anything if we don't participate, if we don;t contribute, if we don't try.
Thanks for noticing.
Well keep up the good work and good luck to you, as you have your work cut out for you on this forum.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pig's Mutilated Carcass Scattered Outside Austr... 10 min Muslim Mom 27
Denis Napthine begs for votes! 24 min Abbott loves pedo... 8
^^^ I'LL PUNCH JESUS in A - 1 by 1 - SINGLE COM... 29 min Grassclipper 3
Proof Tony Abbott's gay! 31 min Conga line suckhole 11
Should all Coloured people unite against White ... 1 hr Mike 2
Is Australia A Police State/ Nanny State? (May '13) 1 hr Adam 354
'Clean-up' concluded; Several errors detected. 1 hr SnyffMyPhartz 1
Canada is going to become a Indian country 10 hr Rana Rajvirsinhji... 318
South Australian firm DROPS Halal Accreditation! 10 hr Muslim Mom 91
WAR India v Australia, who will win? 11 hr Rana Rajvirsinhji... 8,651
Australia shuts door on asylum-seekers in Indon... 12 hr just me 160

Australia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE