• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social media password, search history could be required before buying firearm in NY

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
40,546
Reaction score
46,973
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny

New gun legislation proposes that anyone who wants to buy a firearm would need to submit their social media profiles and search history for review before buying a gun in New York.

Officials would be able to review up to three years worth of search history.

The bill was drafted by state Senator Kevin Parker and Brooklyn borough President Eric Adams.

While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.

IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY SOCIAL MEDIA
55 ACCOUNT OR SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY OF AN APPLICANT PRESENTS ANY GOOD CAUSE
56 FOR THE DENIAL OF A LICENSE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL, AFTER
S. 9191 3
1 OBTAINING THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS
2 SECTION, AND OBTAINING ANY LOG-IN NAME, PASSWORD OR OTHER MEANS FOR
3 ACCESSING A PERSONAL ACCOUNT, SERVICE, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
4 DEVICE NECESSARY TO REVIEW SUCH APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AND
5 SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY, REVIEW AN APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR
6 THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR
7 AND INVESTIGATE AN APPLICANT'S POSTS OR SEARCHES RELATED TO (I) COMMONLY
8 KNOWN PROFANE SLURS OR BIASED LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE THE RACE, COLOR,
9 NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, GENDER, RELIGION, RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, AGE,
10 DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF A PERSON; (II) THREATENING THE
11 HEALTH OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON; (III) AN ACT OF TERRORISM; OR (IV)
12 ANY OTHER ISSUE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. FOR THE
13 PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, "SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS" SHALL ONLY INCLUDE
14 FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT, TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM, AND "SEARCH ENGINE" SHALL
15 ONLY INCLUDE GOOGLE, YAHOO AND BING. Upon completion of the investi-
16 gation, the police authority shall report the results to the licensing
17 officer without unnecessary delay.

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,694
Reaction score
11,070
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
It's fine because, according to many here...you don't need a gun anyway.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
If it passes it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. The most they should be able to do in that regard is view their public pages.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,551
Reaction score
29,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?

If this nonsense ever passes and becomes NY law, I hope there is some state citizen or group who cares enough about the 2nd Amendment to challenge this in court.

Some people just don't seem to understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,524
Reaction score
40,164
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?

Hmm... could my posting as Totally Texas White Trailer Trash & my zip code be considered inappropriate?

The idea that some (anonymous?) "investigating officer" could remove someone's constitutional rights based on "some issue" that they (alone?) may have with that person's internet "searches related to..." history is beyond insane. That is not merely an invasion of privacy - that is violating one's right to due process of law.

What, exactly, is the nonsense about "with the applicant's consent" if it is required for a gun purchase? That is much like saying that federal income taxes are due only from those employees who "consent to have them withheld by their employer".
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,524
Reaction score
40,164
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If it passes it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. The most they should be able to do in that regard is view their public pages.

Not even that would serve as due process of law - the constitutional requirement to remove someone's 2A rights. That is even more silly than saying that one must provide a "good" reason to buy/carry a gun.
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
33,495
Reaction score
11,147
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
Well, at least they're not requiring a semen sample. . .yet.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Not even that would serve as due process of law - the constitutional requirement to remove someone's 2A rights. That is even more silly than saying that one must provide a "good" reason to buy/carry a gun.

That makes me think of something. It would NOT be a violation for them to view his public social media pages. It WOULD arguably be a violation of his rights if they REFUSED the sale based on the public social media pages. But then does that mean if law enforcement comes across such a post saying they are going to kill a bunch of people, that they can’t prohibit the sale?
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,116
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
It sounds like a big F that.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,524
Reaction score
40,164
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That makes me think of something. It would NOT be a violation for them to view his public social media pages. It WOULD arguably be a violation of his rights if they REFUSED the sale based on the public social media pages. But then does that mean if law enforcement comes across such a post saying they are going to kill a bunch of people, that they can’t prohibit the sale?

Yes, that exactly what "due process of law" means. You are not presumed guilty simply because officer Joe thinks that you posted a threat on social media or searched the internet for "guns used by famous mass shooters". Only if one was convicted of a (felony?) crime, or (formally) adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others, can some of their constitutional rights be taken.
 
Last edited:

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes, that exactly what "due process of law" means. You are not presumed guilty simply because officer Joe thinks that you posted a threat on social media or searched the internet for "guns used by famous mass shooters". Only if one was convicted of a (felony?) crime, or (formally) adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others, can some of your constitutional rights be taken.

Ok, so,would it be unconstitutional to detain two high school boys that were overheard discussing their plans to shoot up their school?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,524
Reaction score
40,164
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok, so,would it be unconstitutional to detain two high school boys that were overheard discussing their plans to shoot up their school?

Probably not, but based on that alone they could not be banned from buying a gun later (when they are old enough to do so). Arresting someone for "probable cause" is not the same as sentencing them to not having 2A rights. This proposed law is simply making it unnecessary to prove anything in court - if the "investigator" (officer Joe?) doesn't like your internet search history or you refuse to consent to its review then you are being denied a basic constitutional right with absolutely no arrest, trial or conviction being required.
 

Anarchon

Resident Voluntaryist
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
425
Location
Rent-free in your head
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Damn...I've never had a social media account. I wonder if they'd still let me buy a gun?
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
21,083
Reaction score
9,992
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This piece of crap bill is so unconstitutional.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Probably not, but based on that alone they could not be banned from buying a gun later (when they are old enough to do so). Arresting someone for "probable cause" is not the same as sentencing them to not having 2A rights. This proposed law is simply making it unnecessary to prove anything in court - if the "investigator" (officer Joe?) doesn't like your internet search history or you refuse to consent to its review then you are being denied a basic constitutional right with absolutely no arrest, trial or conviction being required.

Ok, so what if the law gave police an option? If a person applies to buy the gun, they check his his public pages and see violent threats. Law enforcement then either has to authorize the sale OR dispatch a unit to detain and investigate him just like they would if we overheard him talking of such an attack? So he wasn’t technically denied the purchase, he was just detained for the online threats before the approval/disapproval was issued. :)

Would that pass Constituional scrutiny in your book?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,524
Reaction score
40,164
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Damn...I've never had a social media account. I wonder if they'd still let me buy a gun?

Nope, unless you could prove to their satisfaction that you never did an internet search either.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,524
Reaction score
40,164
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok, so what if the law gave police an option? If a person applies to buy the gun, they check his his public pages and see violent threats. Law enforcement then either has to authorize the sale OR dispatch a unit to detain and investigate him just like they would if we overheard him talking of such an attack? So he wasn’t technically denied the purchase, he was just detained for the online threats before the approval/disapproval was issued. :)

Would that pass Constituional scrutiny in your book?

Hmm... like you are doing now? ;)
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.

A portion of the proposed legislation:
IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY SOCIAL MEDIA​
55 ACCOUNT OR SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY OF AN APPLICANT PRESENTS ANY GOOD CAUSE​
56 FOR THE DENIAL OF A LICENSE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL, AFTER​
S. 9191 3​
1 OBTAINING THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS​
2 SECTION, AND OBTAINING ANY LOG-IN NAME, PASSWORD OR OTHER MEANS FOR​
3 ACCESSING A PERSONAL ACCOUNT, SERVICE, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS​
4 DEVICE NECESSARY TO REVIEW SUCH APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AND​
5 SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY, REVIEW AN APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR​
6 THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR​
7 AND INVESTIGATE AN APPLICANT'S POSTS OR SEARCHES RELATED TO (I) COMMONLY​
8 KNOWN PROFANE SLURS OR BIASED LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE THE RACE, COLOR,​
9 NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, GENDER, RELIGION, RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, AGE,​
10 DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF A PERSON; (II) THREATENING THE​
11 HEALTH OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON; (III) AN ACT OF TERRORISM; OR (IV)​
12 ANY OTHER ISSUE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. FOR THE​
13 PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, "SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS" SHALL ONLY INCLUDE​
14 FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT, TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM, AND "SEARCH ENGINE" SHALL​
15 ONLY INCLUDE GOOGLE, YAHOO AND BING. Upon completion of the investi-​
16 gation, the police authority shall report the results to the licensing​
17 officer without unnecessary delay.​

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?

Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.

The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.

Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,886
Reaction score
7,764
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.

The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.

Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?

As long as we ban them from voting also
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,664
Reaction score
6,696
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.

The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.

Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?

Who gets to decide on someone's personality?
 

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
10,517
Reaction score
7,316
Location
Home
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If it passes it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. The most they should be able to do in that regard is view their public pages.

Pretty much the above....it'll be DOA in the courts if it should actually make it through legislation.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.

The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.

Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?

Who gets to decide on someone's personality?
Insofar as you need to ask, obviously not you....
 

Into the Night

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
8,009
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?

It sounds like NY wants to violate law to enforce the law. Do they not realize that it is against contract to reveal your password to someone else? Do they not realize they can't force this? Do they not realize there is such a thing as a black market?
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny



While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.

Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.



https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191

Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?

So the new "reasonable", "common sense", and any other idiotic misnomers of "gun safety" laws is to trample on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. :doh Yeah that will finally solve the problem
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
40,546
Reaction score
46,973
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It sounds like NY wants to violate law to enforce the law. Do they not realize that it is against contract to reveal your password to someone else? Do they not realize they can't force this? Do they not realize there is such a thing as a black market?

So the new "reasonable", "common sense", and any other idiotic misnomers of "gun safety" laws is to trample on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. :doh Yeah that will finally solve the problem

The terms "reasonable gun control" and "by any means necessary" are pretty much interchangeable in the gun grabber lexicon. You have to understand that a great number of people in that camp simply don't believe that individual rights exist. They tend to see the world strictly in terms of communal controls which they perceive as being necessary to achieve a specific outcome. Individual rights are anathema, even dangerous, to such a world view.
 
Top Bottom