• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

First Traffic Stop With a Gun on my Hip!

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
I was going to point out that yes, it's not necessary to ask for license and registration to give a "warning", and I've been pulled over to be given a warning without being asked for documentation, but nothing says that was the officer's original intent. Is a broken headlight not a ticketable offense? I was going to make the statement that the officer may have decided on the warning after stopping M-T because he's just such an all around cool frood who knows where his towel is. But then I realized who I'd be talking to and will opt instead to spend my time chatting up this sexy brick wall over here. I'm sure I just need to buy it one more round of drinks.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
(btw... driving isn't a right... it is a privlege and regulated by law)

orly_bush.jpg

NINTH AMENDMENT: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not quite sure where you and others get this silly idea that driving is a privilege. Just because it may be treated as such by overreaching government officials does not make it so.
 

NavyVA

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
58
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
View attachment 8244



Not quite sure where you and others get this silly idea that driving is a privilege. Just because it may be treated as such by overreaching government officials does not make it so.

MIB, Have you ever known a person to receive a driver license without initially passing a written and driving exam? No? Me neither, which makes it a privilege and not a right. The fact that I don't have to have a license in order to own a gun, makes it my right. You are required by law to legally have a drivers license in order to legally drive. But you know that, I think you just like arguing... If driving was a right, then why is there an age limit? My 14 year old daughter would be driving, and hitting everything...
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
MIB, Have you ever known a person to receive a driver license without initially passing a written and driving exam? No? Me neither, which makes it a privilege and not a right.

Oh, I see now. Thank you for giving me this extremely simplistic way to determine whether or not something is a right. So, let me get this straight: if the government makes rules about something, it is a privilege and not a right. Wow, that makes everything so much simpler. :rolleyes:

The fact that I don't have to have a license in order to own a gun, makes it my right.

So, if the government passed a law tomorrow that you did need a license, would you no longer have the right to own a gun?

Actually, in some states, you do need a license to own a gun. Does that make it not a right? In some states, one must have a license to carry, whether openly or concealed. Does this mean that we don't have a right to bear arms?

You are required by law to legally have a drivers license in order to legally drive.

Ummm...ok. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

But you know that, I think you just like arguing... If driving was a right, then why is there an age limit? My 14 year old daughter would be driving, and hitting everything...

There is a federal minimum age to possess firearms.

I rate your effort at a D, with a fail factor of 95%.

P.S.: You must have gotten your constitutional law degree in the same class as Barack Hussein Obama. A regular Thomas Jefferson-esque scholar, right here.

:D
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP So, let me get this straight: if the government makes rules about something, it is a privilege and not a right.

+1

I once bought into the government line that driving is a privilege. Bought it hook, line, and sinker because a government teacher said it was so. Because I never evaluated for myself whether it was so. I just adopted the statement as true. Then, a few years ago, I started seriously learning about rights.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. Government passing this or that restriction or regulation does not, cannot, change a right into a privilege.

In his 2nd Treatise on Government (1689), John Locke discusses and explains rights. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is all from Locke; a little bit is actually word-for-word Locke.

Later in life, John Adams remarked that the principles in the second paragraph were already trite at the time Jefferson wrote the Declaration, meaning they were broadly well-known. Thus Jefferson's phrasing, "self-evident". Practically everybody knew Locke's main ideas and understood them. For a solid grounding in rights, read Second Treatise. It is available on the web. Also in bookstores. If you just don't have time for a full reading, then at least read a cliff-notes version. It really is that important.

Back to turning rights into privileges. People can argue all day whether God gives rights, whether there is a god, yada, yada, yada. First, Jefferson said "creator" not god. "Creator" can be whatever creative agency or agencies creates people. The crucial, essential, cannot-be-removed element is that the person exists. By whatever agency he was created, he was created, and by that creation, now exists. The mere fact that he exists gives him those certain unalienable rights. Unalienable means they cannot be separated from him. He cannot even give them away. He can temporarily waive one or more. But, he cannot rid himself of it. Thus, no matter by what specious reasoning or specious justification, government cannot erase a right from a person.

Legal recognition of rights--that is to say people fighting for and dying for and demanding government recognize and respect certain rights--is a limitation on government action. Rights restrict government. That is one of their primary purposes--restrict government. If government can legitimately turn a right into a privilege, then there is no restriction on government. Thus, another reason government cannot turn a right into a privilege.

The right to move about, to travel is essential to living. Neither it, nor its subsidiaries, can possibly be a privilege.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. Government passing this or that restriction or regulation does not, cannot, change a right into a privilege. All government can do is recognize or fail/refuse to recognize rights. Also, lets take another look at that line in the Declaration where governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice it does not say all powers. Only the just powers. Not even whatever power the people want to give it. Only the just powers. There is no possible way turning a right into privilege is a just power.
 
Last edited:

NavyVA

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
58
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
So, if the government passed a law tomorrow that you did need a license, would you no longer have the right to own a gun?

Please don't base your comment on assumptions. You know what happens if you assume! Please show proof to your arguments, as I have done below.

Actually, in some states, you do need a license to own a gun. Does that make it not a right? In some states, one must have a license to carry, whether openly or concealed. Does this mean that we don't have a right to bear arms?

You absolutely do not need a license in any state to own a gun. You may need a permit to purchase, that is not a license to own.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits


There is a federal minimum age to possess firearms.

I rate your effort at a D, with a fail factor of 95%.

P.S.: You must have gotten your constitutional law degree in the same class as Barack Hussein Obama. A regular Thomas Jefferson-esque scholar, right here.

:D

I believe what you meant to state is there is a minimum age to purchase, not possess. If there is such a law that states the age to possess, please note it in your upcoming comments. Here is my link of example of proof as far as age goes.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.7

Like I said, you just like to argue until everyone else gives up. I respect your willingness to debate, but get your facts straight.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Please don't base your comment on assumptions. You know what happens if you assume! Please show proof to your arguments, as I have done below.

I don't need to assume your ignorance, as you provide ample evidence yourself, as I will demonstrate below:


You absolutely do not need a license in any state to own a gun. You may need a permit to purchase, that is not a license to own.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits

http://www.nyfirearms.com/blog/nys-gun-laws/
Possession – Handguns
A license is needed to possess a handgun in one’s home or place of business. Application is made to the licensing officer of the city or county where the applicant resides, is principally employed, or where his principal place of business as a merchant or storekeeper is located. An alien may obtain a pistol license if he or she meets these requirements. The determination whether to grant the license is completely within the discretion of the licensing officer. However, the licensing officer must state specifically and concisely in writing the reasons for a denial. A denial can only be overturned in court if the denial is shown to be arbitrary and capricious.

I believe what you meant to state is there is a minimum age to purchase, not possess. If there is such a law that states the age to possess, please note it in your upcoming comments. Here is my link of example of proof as far as age goes.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.7

U.S.C. 922(x)
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess - (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.


. . .

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term "juvenile" means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

Like I said, you just like to argue until everyone else gives up. I respect your willingness to debate, but get your facts straight.
How's that crow tasting right about now? Is it done enough, or do we need to put it back on the barbecue for some more roasting?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Please don't base your comment on assumptions. You know what happens if you assume! Please show proof to your arguments, as I have done below.



You absolutely do not need a license in any state to own a gun. You may need a permit to purchase, that is not a license to own.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits




I believe what you meant to state is there is a minimum age to purchase, not possess. If there is such a law that states the age to possess, please note it in your upcoming comments. Here is my link of example of proof as far as age goes.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.7

Like I said, you just like to argue until everyone else gives up. I respect your willingness to debate, but get your facts straight.

I'm not so sure he's the one who wants to argue. I notice that you picked apart where you though his facts were skewed; but carefully overlooked where he was dead on. He nailed one fact exactly--the one about some states having a license to carry open or concealed. Even if his facts are skewed, the principle, if valid, would still hold. The principle, any principle, does not fall apart because the promoter gets a few facts wrong or skewed. A reader genuinely interested would be quite happy to temporarily overlook some skewed or wrong facts while evaluating the principle. But, someone who wants to argue, not so much.
 
Last edited:

NavyVA

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
58
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
+1

I once bought into the government line that driving is a privilege. Bought it hook, line, and sinker because a government teacher said it was so. Because I never evaluated for myself whether it was so. I just adopted the statement as true. Then, a few years ago, I started seriously learning about rights.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. Government passing this or that restriction or regulation does not, cannot, change a right into a privilege.

In his 2nd Treatise on Government (1689), John Locke discusses and explains rights. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is all from Locke; a little bit is actually word-for-word Locke.

Later in life, John Adams remarked that the principles in the second paragraph were already trite at the time Jefferson wrote the Declaration, meaning they were broadly well-known. Thus Jefferson's phrasing, "self-evident". Practically everybody knew Locke's main ideas and understood them. For a solid grounding in rights, read Second Treatise. It is available on the web. Also in bookstores. If you just don't have time for a full reading, then at least read a cliff-notes version. It really is that important.

Back to turning rights into privileges. People can argue all day whether God gives rights, whether there is a god, yada, yada, yada. First, Jefferson said "creator" not god. "Creator" can be whatever creative agency or agencies creates people. The crucial, essential, cannot-be-removed element is that the person exists. By whatever agency he was created, he was created, and by that creation, now exists. The mere fact that he exists gives him those certain unalienable rights. Unalienable means they cannot be separated from him. He cannot even give them away. He can temporarily waive one or more. But, he cannot rid himself of it. Thus, no matter by what specious reasoning or specious justification, government cannot erase a right from a person.

Legal recognition of rights--that is to say people fighting for and dying for and demanding government recognize and respect certain rights--is a limitation on government action. Rights restrict government. That is one of their primary purposes--restrict government. If government can legitimately turn a right into a privilege, then there is no restriction on government. Thus, another reason government cannot turn a right into a privilege.

The right to move about, to travel is essential to living. Neither it, nor its subsidiaries, can possibly be a privilege.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. Government passing this or that restriction or regulation does not, cannot, change a right into a privilege. All government can do is recognize or fail/refuse to recognize rights. Also, lets take another look at that line in the Declaration where governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice it does not say all powers. Only the just powers. Not even whatever power the people want to give it. Only the just powers. There is no possible way turning a right into privilege is a just power.

Sorry, I disagree about the right vs. privilege argument. Note examples of proof:
http://driversed.com/teen-drivers-education/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
http://www.proenglish.org/blog/399-driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.html

Then again, section 12 of the following could be the key to the right to drive regardless of a license:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

Honestly, I don't think anyone knows, because there have been court cases where both choices have won.
 

NavyVA

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
58
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
I'm not so sure he's the one who wants to argue. I notice that you picked apart where you though his facts were skewed; but carefully overlooked where he was dead on. He nailed one fact exactly--the one about some states having a license to carry open or concealed. Even if his facts are skewed, the principle, if valid, would still hold. The principle, any principle, does not fall apart because the promoter gets a few facts wrong or skewed. A reader genuinely interested would be quite happy to temporarily overlook some skewed or wrong facts while evaluating the principle. But, someone who wants to argue, not so much.

Citizen, there was no argument about open carry or concealed carry anywhere in my discussions. I just believe that if you going to post comments and base them as facts, you should at least share the information that made your comment factual. If it's opinion, so be it. But if it's fact, don't just blurt out something without references as proof. That's all I'm saying.
 

NavyVA

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
58
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
I don't need to assume your ignorance, as you provide ample evidence yourself, as I will demonstrate below:








U.S.C. 922(x)



How's that crow tasting right about now? Is it done enough, or do we need to put it back on the barbecue for some more roasting?

Allow me to add the important information under U.S.C 922(x) that you left out:

(3) This subsection does not apply to -
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a
juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition
by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and
used by the juvenile -
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or
farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile
(or on property used for ranching or farming at which the
juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee,
is performing activities related to the operation of the farm
or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction
in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent
or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local
law from possessing a firearm, except -
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded
handgun in a locked container directly from the place of
transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause
(i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of
that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly
from the place at which such an activity took place to the
transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as
described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a
handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the
juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction of
an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law
from possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the
juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in the
possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed
with a handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of
a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile
taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an
intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in
which the juvenile is an invited guest.
(4) A handgun or ammunition, the possession of which is
transferred to a juvenile in circumstances in which the transferor
is not in violation of this subsection shall not be subject to
permanent confiscation by the Government if its possession by the
juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct of
the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner when such
handgun or ammunition is no longer required by the Government for
the purposes of investigation or prosecution.

Oh, you left this out of your quote for New York as well:

Possession – Rifles and Shotguns

There is no state license requirement for the possession of a rifle or shotgun, so long as the rifle has barrel(s) at least 16 inches in length and the shotgun has barrel(s) at least 18 inches in length.

It is unlawful for any person convicted of a felony, other serious offense, or who been certified as not suitable to possess a rifle or shotgun (mentally incompetent) to possess a firearm.

Generally, it is unlawful for anyone under the age of 16 to possess any firearm; however, a rifle or shotgun may be possessed by a person between 12 and 16 who is engaged in target shooting on a range supervised by a military officer, certified instructor, or a parent, guardian or a person over the age of eighteen designated in writing by such parent or guardian provided the adult has a hunter safety certificate.

It is unlawful to possess 20 or more firearms as defined under NY law outside one’s home or business.

You can continue...
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Allow me to add the important information under U.S.C 922(x) that you left out:

You can continue...

So, I've smoked all of your other fallacious arguments. Now let me demolish the last, and bring it back full circle to driving.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be that in some states in which the minimum age to obtain a driver's license is 16, younger drivers could obtain one if they could prove hardship, or need because they worked in agriculture. Despite exceptions, the minimum age to drive is still considered 16. In the same way, just because a juvenile may be able to possess a handgun under an exception, does not mean that citizens under the age of 18 may possess handguns as full and free citizens.

Now that you have been thoroughly flogged, get back on your boat and sail far, far away, swabbie.
 

NavyVA

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
58
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
So, I've smoked all of your other fallacious arguments. Now let me demolish the last, and bring it back full circle to driving.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be that in some states in which the minimum age to obtain a driver's license is 16, younger drivers could obtain one if they could prove hardship, or need because they worked in agriculture. Despite exceptions, the minimum age to drive is still considered 16. In the same way, just because a juvenile may be able to possess a handgun under an exception, does not mean that citizens under the age of 18 may possess handguns as full and free citizens.

Now that you have been thoroughly flogged, get back on your boat and sail far, far away, swabbie.

Still trying to figure out what you've smoked. Like I said, please provide a link for proof. Anyway, I'm no longer required to sail away, as I've retired my service to the country. No argument point, but have you served?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Sorry, I disagree about the right vs. privilege argument. Note examples of proof:
http://driversed.com/teen-drivers-education/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
http://www.proenglish.org/blog/399-driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.html

Then again, section 12 of the following could be the key to the right to drive regardless of a license:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

Honestly, I don't think anyone knows, because there have been court cases where both choices have won.

Excuse me? You want to wait around for the government (in the form of the courts) to tell you what your rights are? Really?

And, in a situation where courts have disagreed, you think free men, people capable of thinking for themselves, cannot know what their rights are?

Oh, my.

Alas, those were rhetorical questions. It is plain from the most recent set of posts that you really do think government is the one who decides whether rights exist, how those rights are contoured, and whether some are privileges. Despite clear explanations from me, you went on to cite examples of government saying such-and-such is a privilege. You clearly rely on government saying so. When just as clearly, MIB and I have been saying that just because government says so doesn't make it so. You're not even arguing against the same thing we are. We never said the government didn't say so. We said the government is lying (in so many words).

So, you just go right ahead relying on the government to do your thinking for you. And, go right ahead arguing against something MIB and I were not saying (strawman argument). While you may or may not be capable of seeing what's been going on, I'm sure most the rest of the readers are.
 
Last edited:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Now that you have been thoroughly flogged, get back on your boat and sail far, far away, swabbie.

Howdy!
First of all, you don't get much need of boats around these parts because Colorado is a land locked state!
Second, unlike yourself, Navy is a citizen of Colorado. Ergo, more than welcome on the Colorado board.
Thirdly, you seem utterly incapable of a civil discourse without name calling and insults, which are both unwelcome and unnecessary.
Finally, this thread has gone far afield from the original purpose of the post.
Ergo, this is now a hijacked thread.

Please present your facts and opinions in a manner appropriate to civil discourse, and stow the flaming of others.

Thank you in advance for your forthcoming cooperation.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Howdy!
First of all, you don't get much need of boats around these parts because Colorado is a land locked state!
Second, unlike yourself, Navy is a citizen of Colorado. Ergo, more than welcome on the Colorado board.
Thirdly, you seem utterly incapable of a civil discourse without name calling and insults, which are both unwelcome and unnecessary.
Finally, this thread has gone far afield from the original purpose of the post.
Ergo, this is now a hijacked thread.

Please present your facts and opinions in a manner appropriate to civil discourse, and stow the flaming of others.

Thank you in advance for your forthcoming cooperation.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

Cry me a river.

First, I care not.
Second, welcome to the internet, and OCDO specifically. You will find that through an amazing technological breakthrough, people from ALL OVER THE WORLD can comment on threads in any subforum.
Third, if someone chooses to remain willfully ignorant in the face of cites to plain-letter law, and repeated hoists a sign announcing such ignorance to the world, don't get mad at me for calling a spade a spade.
Finally, the original thread wasn't even that good, and full and free debate was already had about your choice to voluntarily inform an armed stranger about your personal property.

My facts need no presentation, and my opinions (almost always) are backed up by cites. If someone's precious little feelings can't handle the truth, that's just too bad.

Sorry, I just don't play the liberal game of pretending we live in a fantasy world where no one should ever get their feelings hurt.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Cry me a river.

First, I care not.

Howdy Again!
Obviously you do not care. That is evident for anyone who reads your posts with complete lack of civility or reasonable decorum. It is obvious that you do not respect other members, nor extend even common courtesy. It appears your only interest in being part of a forum is to wear a chip on your shoulder and look to start flame wars.

That is contrary to the purpose of this forum. It is stated clearly enough in the forum rules.
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

A request that you treat others with a modicum of dignity only results in the same disrespect and insulting drivel.

Yes, you do not care. That is obvious.

We Coloradoans and folks from around the country who visit our board are going to fix that!
We shall see how long it takes for you to get the hint.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
That is contrary to the purpose of this forum. It is stated clearly enough in the forum rules.
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc).

It does not appear that "ignorant people" are a protected class under the rules.

Can you please point out where I bashed anyone based on, "race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc)?"
 
Last edited:
Top