NGR: Be careful going to Rio Tinto. RSL apparently bans historical American flags

Discussion in 'LA Galaxy' started by Bilgediver, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's an endorsement for the electoral college, which elected the current President in contradiction to the majority vote. To that extent, I agree -- our poor democracy is a feature of the system the Framers designed, not a bug. Like Plato, the Framers were elites who, at best, overlooked the common man and at worst fiercely and consciously distrusted them in the shaping of their respective Utopias. Plato's Republic was a caste system, after all.

    But -- I won't even argue representative democracy vs. direct. I think the issue is we increasingly have neither when it comes to most situations that govern our day-to-day lives. IMO, this would've been as the Framers designed it, given they were businessmen who were significantly concerned with intrusion from Britain on matters like taxes or abolition, which was being implemented in the other colonies. So they'd have been naturally suspicious of something we might want a governing entity shaped by the will of the people to do, like enforce anti-slavery or child labor laws.
     
    73Bruin and TrickHog repped this.
  2. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Great post. What I'd add is the decline of quality news sources (like Citizens United decision) is the outcome of legislation eliminating requirements for non-profit, public affairs programming, making it harder for independent outlets and made it easier for media companies to consolidate across platforms, leading to an explosion of Right Wing talk radio, books, etc in the 90s. These are all things that've weakened our democracy over the last few decades. IMO, shrinking the government is also a tactic that has weakened our democracy:

    For instance, regulating the public airwaves to ensure a free press is something you might feel the government has a role in doing for the public good, but Ronald Reagan, like the Founders who foresaw the government meddling in the extremely lucrative enterprise of slavery, argued for smaller government and greatly abridged the government's ability to regulate that public asset. The result is we have 4-5 giant media conglomerations who do far more to control what you see and hear than the government does. So I'm okay with limiting the government in principle, as long as we agree to similarly limit the size of firms, which, unlike governments, are inherently non-democratic (OR, of course, we democratize them).

    I'd argue that our current problems are not ones of government overreach but the opposite; our government is probably the weakest its ever been as a legislative body and implementer of law, but also as a force for economic resuscitation and social welfare. Reagan was largely successful in demonizing government and both Democrats and Republicans have been complicit in weakening it along those fronts over the last couple decades (Clinton killed welfare, and deregulated the banks and telecomm industries). We live in a tyrannical cyberpunk future where most of the calls you get in a day are from robo-telemarketers, your doorbell spies you, and every other week your private information has leaked by your bank or a company you shopped with or a credit agency. The government isn't doing that to you; in bygone days it would've played a role in creating and enforcing the rules to protect us from this kind of predation. The kneejerk to blame "big government" shows how successful Reagan was.

    But to the point -- I say "polarization" and bad news sources are a symptom of poor democracy. All media doesn't have to be for-profit, just like the Internet doesn't have to be monopolized by Google, Facebook and Amazon and driven by privacy-intruding ad-revenue. Every media property doesn't have to be owned by Disney. But even when people overcome all that and do agree on something, it is not implemented or carried out be elected officials.
     
    Geneva, FlapJack, TrickHog and 2 others repped this.
  3. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    US/UK dual citizen in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Unless you're prepared to regress to your 11 year old self, the rivalry forum is not a good place.
     
    hav77, TrickHog and The Cadaver repped this.
  4. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    US/UK dual citizen in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Wow. This is some of the most intelligent, reasonable political discourse I've read anywhere for quite some time.

    I mean this sincerely: I've always felt at ease posting on this section of Bigsoccer but I'd assumed that on some level it's because we typically agree on Galaxy matters. Drama and full out flaming arguments are a rarity. This thread however, goes to show that we've really got a great group of people here.

    Kudos.
     
    skydog, 7E23, hav77 and 4 others repped this.
  5. cleschke

    cleschke Member+

    Aug 16, 2004
    Fullerton, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was thinking that too. A lot of the folks in here are pretty bright people. This thread has made for an interesting read. Even the points I disagree with are being presented in a manner which allows me to understand the perspective from which that person is coming.
     
    skydog, hav77, FlapJack and 2 others repped this.
  6. TrickHog

    TrickHog Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 14, 2002
    Los Angeles, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm posting just to bring down the IQ level in this thread to a more manageable level...
     
    7E23, ragbone, hav77 and 1 other person repped this.
  7. 73Bruin

    73Bruin Member+

    Jul 12, 2008
    Torrance, California
    I have to comment on the gun control aspect of this thread.

    The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    There are two ways to look at this. See:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

    What is interesting is that the current SCOTUS, carved out an exception recognizing the old standard that said a sawed off shotgun did not have a law-abiding purpose and could be regulated. The clear implication being that there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that protects one's right to own assault weapons (AK46, AR15's, etc) as long as some legislative branch has the guts to regulate their ownership.
     
  8. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For the record, I didn't attribute the cause to Democrats or Republicans; I was just using it as an example of policy that nobody seems to popularly support.

    Sticking to my original thesis, that the chief problem is a weak democracy: I don't have a strong opinion about gun control, but I feel confident saying that an armed citizenry has not done much to ensure the quality of our democracy or helped people retain their civil liberties / rights. But that is because the idea of armed peoples keeping the government honest is mostly a fiction to begin with.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to engage in a protracted debate about guns. It was just intended to be an example. It seems like a topic you know a lot about and I don't, frankly. I didn't state that I was for banning guns; I stated what I knew to be true, which is based on polling a majority of Americans favor limits on what a laymen like me would consider highly lethal guns. The fact that the latest of two bills to limit high-capacity firearms was passed by a majority of California voters proves that point; the case was overturned after the NRA sued the attorney general, not because of a ground swell of popular opposition.

    Agree on the point with unions. In terms of the 2nd amendment and tyranny, some of the bloodiest wars in US history were the labor wars and strikes of the 1800s.
     
    Vindo310, 73Bruin and FlapJack repped this.
  9. FlapJack

    FlapJack Member+

    Mar 3, 2006
    Los Angeles
    #34 FlapJack, Sep 9, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
    Just had to comment on this which is something I've always felt was blatantly obvious, but somehow doesn't seem to come up in gun rights discussion as often as it should, or perhaps is something that modern private "militia" men or women don't believe is obvious. That is, if the federal government wanted to take your house, your land, your car, or your dog, a gun isn't going to be much use in the long run. You'd do better to have a good lawyer or live in a state with strong state rights and a good legal representation. Also have a lot of money might help. And more realistically it won't be the federal government - it will be some corporation backed by an incredible army of lawyers, lobbyists, government, and 1%ers using the US dollar to get your house, your land, your car, or your dog. But if owning a gun helps you sleep, I guess I'm OK with that. Though, I would prefer if would keep your gun out of densely populated public gatherings as well as the hands of any unstable family members. And if you are harboring feelings of depression, anger, or just feeling generally put upon by "the man" you might consider giving up your gun and getting a 2nd dog (if the government hasn't taken your first one yet). Note that I am not a licensed therapist or statistician, but as far as I know death by dog is far less likely than death by firearm.
     
    MPNumber9, TrickHog and cleschke repped this.
  10. FlapJack

    FlapJack Member+

    Mar 3, 2006
    Los Angeles
    I was just impressed with the use of italics, bolds, and hyperlinks (in this thread). :oops:
     
    TrickHog and generaladmissision18 repped this.
  11. hav77

    hav77 Member+

    May 31, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Have wondered about what would really happen the day the government comes for our guns. Like wars, in order to win, you need boots on the ground. The boots on the ground are police and military who are supposed to be us, our brothers and sisters. Based on my experience of the people I know personally and what I've come across, the most ardent 2nd Amendment supporters are police and military. Of the several I've asked, none said they would follow orders if the order was simply a blind order to take away the citizenry's guns. In terms of this type of tyranny, the government is powerless in a way. If a group gets their guns taken en mass, it's more than likely than not that they were in the wrong and gave real cause. But i guess this argument only holds water assuming that the people in the police and military are truly just and not prejudiced against any one group.
     
  12. 73Bruin

    73Bruin Member+

    Jul 12, 2008
    Torrance, California
    I think your statement while generally true when you refer to find as a collective, is not so true when it comes to assault weapons. Personally, I think that outlawing ammunition would be a faster path to reducing gun violence.

    BTW, AR15s modified with a bump stock or similar device can easily exceed a fire rate of 100 rounds per minute possibly into the 500 or more range. Killing 100 people in a minute is certainly possible in a target rich environment. The shooter in Las Vegas had 14 modified AR15s in his hotel room.
     
  13. Vindo310

    Vindo310 Member+

    Mar 19, 2009
    South Bay LA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I hope you guys aren’t bothered that I’m talking about guns too much in this thread. I respect everyone’s opinions here and I can’t expect everyone to think the way I do. And like someone said earlier in the thread I am also impressed with how smart and polite you guys are too.

    Yes SCOTUS has ruled that limitations on the second amendment are legit. I think they are wrong about that as the phrase is added “shall not be infringed” but I can also see that that would not work in modern society with nuclear weapons.

    You know my biggest problem in the whole gun debate thing is not that people don’t like guns or they think the second amendment is outdated. It is that the people calling for bans on certain guns don’t understand what they are asking to be banned.

    Bruin you bring up “assault weapons” but assault weapons are already nearly illegal. To get an assault weapon you would have to do extensive paper work and background checks with the ATF and if you got cleared which very very few do you could spend the $20k to buy an assault weapon if you could find one for sale. You are better off joining the military if you want to use an assault weapon.

    An AR15 is not an assault weapon. There is exactly nothing that differentiates it from any other gun. It is semi-automatic which means one pull of the trigger equals one round spent. All that semi-automatic means is that once the first round is shot some of the gas cycles back through the gun pushing the bolt back, opening the chamber and then a spring pushes the bolt forward and in the process “automatically” loads the next round. Now you need to squeeze the trigger again for another shot.

    So I understand if people just don’t like guns but what I don’t understand is how everyone is so hung up on specific guns that are the same as any other. AR15’s get a bad rap because sometimes idiots use them to do bad things. But it isn’t because there is something about the gun that makes it easier to kill with. They just happen to be by far the most popular rifle sold.

    On top off that rifles are used in so few homicides it is ridiculous. More people each year are bludgeoned to death by fists in the US than killed by any rifle let alone an AR15. Rifles make up something like 3% of all gun related deaths.

    I just suggest people look into what they are trying to ban. Go to a shooting range and rent an AR15 and then rent a Mini14. The only thing different is how it looks. It would be like banning a Carolla but being cool with Accords.
     
    The Cadaver and barroldinho repped this.
  14. Vindo310

    Vindo310 Member+

    Mar 19, 2009
    South Bay LA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I’ll keep this short. I just wanted to say I thought this was a good discussion. I agree with you that people are most likely not going to rise up against the government with firearms no matter how much they overstep.

    But it is wrong to say that the second amendment has not helped people retain their civil liberties/rights. Look up Robert Williams who was an NAACP leader who applied to the NRA for a rifle club in the early 60’s to protect his community from Klan attacks. Those rifle clubs that the NRA set up were also used by black communities in the south to surround polling places so they could vote without fear of the Klan. There is some stuff that the NRA has done wrong but like the ACLU they have been a champion of civil rights for Americans.

    About the polling stats my point was just that who actually answers polls? I have never answered one in my life. If someone asked me to tell them who I was going to vote for and what I thought about a subject I would tell them to kick rocks.

    The bills were passed by a majority of California voters. Not a majority of Californians. And the law was actually yes overturned by a groundswell of popular opposition. Maybe not a majority of Californians but enough people working together to try to keep the government honest. That lawsuit I believe was the NRA in conjunction with Michel and Associates(based out of Long Beach) and CGF. CGF is the Calguns Foundation which is just a message forum like this one and the users donate money and bring suits against illegal legislation. It’s like if BigSoccer sued the USSF for sucking. Haha

    Anyway thanks for indulging me.
     
    barroldinho and MPNumber9 repped this.
  15. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #40 MPNumber9, Sep 10, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    A quick digression: The Maastricht Treaty and the European Union

    This is not necessarily an argument for or against direct democracy, but it's a good point to show that my main thesis, that our democracy isn't very good, doesn't just apply to the US. Blue collar Brits got a lot of heat for the Brexit vote but -- does anyone remember the vote to ratify the Maastricht Treaty that established the EU? I ask, because establishing a monetary union in Europe was a predictably terrible idea, particularly for the vast majority of working Europeans.

    The concept of establishing a monetary union is to make it easier for labor and capital to flow between regions. This is great if you have a business; you can shop around for labor and capital in the cheapest country in the union and easily up and move to wear you get the best deal. It's also not that bad if your member states are culturally homogenous, as in the US -- relocating from California to Maine for a better job / lower cost of living is doable. But if you're a factory worker in Manchester, it's not like you can easily relocate to Florence or Athens where the factory you used to work for is now sourcing cheaper labor. Or that you'd want to to begin with. Taking away a country's monetary sovereignty eliminates the governments most powerful tools to fix its economy. It also forces all countries' labor forces to compete to attract firms that can shop for workers across borders, driving global wages down. Great deal for European businesses; a bad deal for most Europeans.
     
    skydog and TrickHog repped this.
  16. TrickHog

    TrickHog Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 14, 2002
    Los Angeles, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We have the most smartestest posters on BigSoccer. Just gonna say it out loud...
     
    MPNumber9 repped this.
  17. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Another digression: The 2nd Amendment

    This is not an argument for or against gun control, but I feel confident saying the 2nd amendment is probably the least important right in guaranteeing a strong democracy, for reasons that are obvious when you think about it (forceful coercion at gunpoint is sorta the antithesis of democracy, right?). The most obvious evidence is that we're a pretty well-armed populace already, but we still surrendered civil liberties to the Patriot Act, for example.

    I think it's a notion rooted in a kind of Hollywood idea of what a "Government Takeover" looks like; someone pushes a button and there's jackboots on main street and giant red banners that unfurl from buildings. Reading how authoritarian regimes actually come to power is instructive here -- it's subtly and incrementally over years. By the time the Nazis marched anywhere, they were welcomed. They did not disarm average Germans; in fact they expanded gun rights -- just not for Jews.

    My own opinion is the Founders were primarily men of capital, who'd have been fiercely distrustful of the common man (who couldn't even vote at the ratification of the Constitution). Even taking the most typical view that the Founders were visionaries who carefully crafted the checks and balances of one the world's first republics (which I also believe is true) -- would they really have built in an escape clause where citizens could take up arms, form a militia, and override all of that if they didn't like whoever was in charge and deemed it tyrannical? I think that could not have been their intent.
     
    skydog repped this.
  18. ragbone

    ragbone Member+

    Sep 2, 2005
    Santo Tomas, Batangas, Philippines.
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It doesn't help when he says the stuff he says in THAT voice.
     
  19. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fair enough on both points. Especially your point about the NRA is a good one; I didn't know that.

    To my point however -- which I don't think contradicts yours at all -- the NRA is not the institution it once was and is as we speak literally self-imploding under its own corruption. It, like many political entities, have abandoned the majority of its members and relies on most of its funds from big money donors. For instance, the NRA's support for American gun owners today (just like the law itself on the matter) is very racialized.

    And that's not me picking on the NRA or the "the Right"; it's a thing across the board. Citizen United created a system where even an earnest dealer would have a tough time being viable without attracting funds from the wealthiest people / most moneyed institutitions. And those people aren't evil, but what's good for them and their companies is not always good for the vast majority of us who, ultimately, just want to eke out an existence with dignity.
     
    Geneva, barroldinho, skydog and 2 others repped this.
  20. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    US/UK dual citizen in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I remember us going in, though I was just 14 at the time. But there was no public referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in the UK. It was a Parliamentary decision (just as the decision whether or not to leave should have been - this is precisely the type of complex situation you have an elected government for).

    The UK also opted out of the single currency.

    The free movement of labour actually was/is beneficial to a great many people. I've worked for a couple of engineering firms in my time (I'm not an engineer myself) and in that type of field, there are ample employment opportunities abroad. The EU streamlined the process for seeking and obtaining those jobs within Europe.

    There are pros and cons to the whole thing, though I'm not an expert. On one hand, you had much more open trade. On the other, the recession saw the EU community forced into propping up the stragglers (Germany playing a particularly prominent role).

    To my mind (again, no expert) it's not that the EU is a fundamentally terrible idea. It's more about the execution. That's why, despite not being enamored with the it, I wanted to remain. Whatever the issues, it's far better IMO to be involved and in a position to have an influence than being on the outside looking in.
     
    MPNumber9, 73Bruin and TrickHog repped this.
  21. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're right and I misspoke; my point wasn't to paint the EU as a fundamental evil and I overstated that point. I'm glad you chimed in, as someone with first-hand experience.

    To expand on the point a little, there were serious red flags about the viability of the EU that any first year economist would've been able to point out. The circumstance of Germany, a relatively austere and economically advantaged country, becoming a creditor to the rest of Europe was extremely predictable, for example. So it raises questions to me about who the policy was designed to benefit*, which I can't speak to in experience. But I compare it to NAFTA, which was similarly pushed by a coalition of big businesses around the same time and has had costly, negative long-term effects for both American and Mexican workers by forcing them to compete across borders. IMO, Free Trade Deals typically weaken democracy, by weakening / erasing the sovereign laws states have in place to regulate businesses and protect their workers.

    *(I've heard it remarked by the more cynical that thanks to the EU Germany has finally conquered all of Europe, without firing a single bullet. There was a scandal a few years ago when the German members of the central bank were overheard joking about which of the Greek islands they were going to get, since the country would be forced to give them up for pennies on the dollar to pay off its debts -- which was only partially untrue.)
     
    barroldinho and TrickHog repped this.
  22. 73Bruin

    73Bruin Member+

    Jul 12, 2008
    Torrance, California
    I am familiar with guns, my father was a WWII vet and a deer hunter. Besides his Winchester 30-30, he had a Swiss version of the Luger, a couple of revolvers and a semiautomatic rifle. He made sure, I was qualified on all of them. By the time I was 11, I had my own single shot 22 rifle. We were both NRA member in the 60s. I have a cousin who was a rancher and nephews who hunt deer and hogs. I have no desire to prohibit weapons designed for personal protection or hunting. However, I do have a problem with weapons of war and every Tom, Dick and Harry being able to purchase one. Your claim that the AR-15 is like every other semiautomatic rifle is misleading and I am sure you know that with your bogus comparison to a mini14 (a modified M14, reworked to use the same 223 round).

    The current AR-15 is just the "civilian" semi automatic version of the M16. It still features a round designed to puncture a M1 helmet at 500 yards and do massive damage upon impact. It can easily be modified back into what is effectively a selectable automatic via a bump stock (as can the mini14). Now that bump stocks are illegal, it can still be legally modified with a double trigger into a weapon capable of shooting over 100 round per minute. Regardless of its rate of fire, it was and remains a weapon designed to kill multiple people in a short period of time. I fail to see a legitimate use for it as a game hunting rifle and it's complete overkill for varmint hunting.
     
  23. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    US/UK dual citizen in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    So being very naive about guns, what's the licensing and purchase process like? is it similar to getting a drivers license, in that you need to demonstrate competency? Does licensing involve background checks?

    I read that there are quick background checks when you buy one, though I also read claims that these are somewhat shallow and flawed but then those are usually from people advocating tighter gun control.

    I do know that the UK has a lower homicide rate and after the Dunblane Massacre, tighter restrictions were put in place. I've only heard of one mass shooting there since.
     
    TrickHog repped this.
  24. skydog

    skydog Member+

    Aug 1, 1999
    Durham, NC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    #49 skydog, Sep 11, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    Another factor behind the rapidly growing popularity of AR15's is profit. Big surprise, right? From fortune Magazine website https://fortune.com/2018/06/20/why-gunmakers-would-rather-sell-ar-15s-than-handguns/:

    In 2006, two years after the ban expired, the number of modern sporting rifles sold in the U.S. jumped to 398,000. By 2016, the last year for which NSSF data is available, more than 2.3 million new weapons in the style of the AR-15 were introduced into the civilian marketplace. “This has become America’s rifle,” said Bazinet.

    “Once the expiration lapsed, the market absolutely exploded,” Dionisio said. “It went from virtually zero to 70 percent” of the market for modern sporting rifles.

    “You can add these attachments, trick them out, customize them.”

    The popularity of the AR-15 style has been a coup for gunmakers. Not only are these firearms relatively easy to manufacture and higher-priced, they have the virtue of what Dionisio calls the “Mr. Potato Head effect,” allowing for endless consumer customization with grips, optics, sights and more—all for an additional price.

    The website for national outdoor-gear retailer Cabela’s Inc. features a section devoted to AR-15 parts and accessories, listing more than 190 items. Prices range from $4.99 for a wedge that prevents rattling to $699.99 for an upper receiver, which houses the firing mechanism.

    “You can add these attachments, trick them out, customize them,” Dionisio said. “Those are very high-margin.”

    The AR-15 and its rivals mirror the individual choice that Americans consumers have come to expect in technology products. And permitting a deeper degree of consumer choice has become an increasingly important tool for manufacturers, who have become more focused on sales to “super-owners,” the 3 percent of American adults who own an average of 17 firearms each.
    I've personally observed this effect. I often visit family in Texas over the holidays. For decades my niece and her husband owned maybe a total of four or five handguns and rifles, as did most Texas households when I grew up there. Buying a new hunting rifle didn't happen that often and was something to be excited about. But then the "Obama is going to take your guns away" scare took root and by my last visit they had 15-20 firearms including a dozen or so different AR-15 style weapons, scopes, silencers, etc. all purchased within the past few years. I know because we spent two days shooting them. There was probably $20k ish worth of weapons and paraphernalia and many of their friends weren't far behind on that count.
     
    73Bruin and TrickHog repped this.
  25. skydog

    skydog Member+

    Aug 1, 1999
    Durham, NC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    In NC pretty much anyone can go to a WalMart or similar and buy a rifle or shotgun within a half hour. Pistols require more thorough background checks I believe. Also in my particular county we are supposed to get a permit from the Sheriff's office for handguns but that law is often ignored.
     

Share This Page