Comment on Entry: Hope Backs Universal Background Check Bill, authored by pudge
1. Hmmmmm, to me encountering a bit more hassle in making a gun purchase/sale is an inconvenience, that if in fact it helps even a little -keep guns out of hands they shouldn't be in, doesn't bother me. :) [If it's simply symbolism over substance, then I would be pissed...obviously 'objective' measurement of it's 'effectiveness' is a must]

Posted by Duffman at February 11, 2013 07:40 AM
2. In response, we are seeing a new trend -- don't "ban" guns, but make it so costly, burdensome, and fraught with legal risk of an innocent mistake that otherwise law abiding citizens "voluntarily" disarm.

They think we're stupid. Too many are. And will suffer the consequences.


***

They say it takes 30 days to break a habit. I can't think of a better time than the advent of Lent to do so. It's been an interesting 13 yrs at Sound Politics.

***

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at February 11, 2013 07:53 AM
3. Rags, be well!

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 07:55 AM
4. Duffman: I won't even consider whether it would "bother me" if "it helps even a little," until I have reason to think that it would help "even a little."

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 07:56 AM
5. Methinks the right should take its own statement on other policies to heart "If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have a problem." Background checks can be done quickly (ala instant credit checks), by private party, and no tie to gun actually bought. Any other lunacy by the gun-freaks is hyperbole.

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 11, 2013 08:05 AM
6. Adios, rags...I don't think you'll regret it. :)

Posted by Duffman at February 11, 2013 08:14 AM
7. Best to you Rags, but be sure to concider how your actions will effect the rest of us. I get a-lot out of what you write.

Posted by Moondoggie at February 11, 2013 08:25 AM
8. notamused: Methinks the right should take its own statement on other policies to heart "If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have a problem."

I am on the right, and that is not my statement. Your straw man/red herring carries no weight here.


Background checks can be done quickly (ala instant credit checks), by private party, and no tie to gun actually bought. Any other lunacy by the gun-freaks is hyperbole.

Background checks:

a. cost money
b. are prone to error
c. tell the government you are trying to buy a gun (not necessarily, but that is how it will almost always be done)

These may be small infringements of our rights, but they are infringements nonetheless, and therefore you need a strong argument to get us to accept it, and so far, you do not.

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 08:26 AM
9. If RagnarDanneskold considered your need to get something out of what they write, over their needs to leave the site, then they would be unworthy of their chosen name. :-)

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 08:27 AM
10. Wish you well, Rags. Your tenacity will be missed. Return if & when you see fit.

There are often times when arguments from leftists, a majority of which are strawmen/red herring or obfuscatory can be adequately addressed with a direct and concise, albeit brief reply.

Posted by KDS at February 11, 2013 09:04 AM
11. From your post, it is clear that Westneat is not a deep thinker. The unintended consequences were not adequately considered by Rep. Hope in sponsoring this poorly written bill. Will this matter enough for it to be defeated ? Time will tell.

Posted by KDS at February 11, 2013 10:04 AM
12. Another lying politician promoting a registration scheme for guns. These morons don't even try to suggest that their schemes address a problem in society.
One more reason not to contribute to the Republican party.

Posted by JB at February 11, 2013 10:09 AM
13. Pudge @8
You may not have stated it, but it is a common reframe from the right on other topics. Don't flatter yourself that you speak for all on the right.

Background Checks
a. Cost Money (how much depends on implementation, it also costs money not doing them -- i.e., cleanup from messes where those who shouldn't have guns have them, like felons -- how much would it cost to go through and clean up this mess?)
b. Prone to err (issue with implementation and not a reason why they aren't a good idea -- if we didn't do all things that are prone to error, that list would be long -- should we not issue drivers licenses because they are prone to error, how but issue loans because credit checks can be prone to error)
c. tells the government ... (not the least, who says the government has to be involved except to set up the regulations governing the industry? Does government perform credit checks? Also, who says what you are buying has to be part of the background check? Does a background check for an apartment record which apartment you are checking into or is done by the government? No. This is NRA hyperbole to believe this crap).

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 11, 2013 11:21 AM
14. "Washington IState Constitution: Article I, SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Impair is defined as: "effect on, damage, harm, diminish, reduce, weaken, lessen, decrease, impede, hinder, hobble; undermine, compromise; formal vitiate. ANTONYMS improve, enhance."

It is accurate to state that every bill now pending in the legislature concerning limitations on gun ownership is unconstitutional because each bill will impair the ability to own and bear arms for self-defense.

Posted by Paddy at February 11, 2013 12:19 PM
15. I am not sure that exempting family members from background checks is a good thing. The Columbine murderers and Adam Lanza used their parents weapons. As did the guy who murdered his parents in Texas the other day. We often tend to cut our crazy family members a little to much slack.

How many times have we heard this. "Yes he drinks too much, and he should probably take his medication but he's really a sweet guy."

So background checks for everyone, ideally everyone would meet the CPL requirement.

Posted by ExPatBrit at February 11, 2013 12:29 PM
16. Background checks should theoretically not be a problem, but the problem is they are not ideally administered and we do not live in an ideal world.

@15 - Did you realize that in the case of Colombine and Newtown, the perpetrators either stole or took them to use, unknowing to the owner?

How would these additional background checks as outlined in this bill help the safety of the public if there was no sale of the weapons to the perpetrator(s) ?

@13 - You are obfuscating the real issue with your weak rebuttal to the 3 points, which is you side with the "Cease Fire" and are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment.

Posted by KDS at February 11, 2013 12:43 PM
17. Paddy @14
RCW 9.41.040 already spells out who cannot be in possession of a firearm. Are you saying this law is unconstitutional? If so, then your argument should be about this law. Requiring a background check doesn't have to deal with whether you can own a gun or not, but it has to deal with whether the seller can sell you the gun or not, and whether they are liable if they sell you one and you are not supposed to have one. They are two different issues. Should felons be allowed to own guns in each and every instance? Is RCW 9.41.040 wrong?

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 11, 2013 12:50 PM
18. Pudge writes
"But like Westneat, he thinks the bill will help keep guns out of the hands of felons. I don't believe that, and I see no serious argument or evidence for that. Those felons are already violating the law if they are buying guns at all, and while this law would also make the seller culpable, there's no reason I can see to think that sellers for these felons wouldn't still exist, and be relatively easy to find."

Easy to prove or disprove. All Westneat has to do is search public records for convictions regarding "illegal possession of a firearm." If the felon couldn't own guns due to conviction, then they needed to get the gun from somewhere, unless they also stole it, which would be a second crime. Therefore, one could filter the first total and rule out incidents where the felon was also charged with stealing the gun.

Posted by just saying at February 11, 2013 01:01 PM
19. The problem, of course, is that leftists like Hope, Weastneat, and clown here are all confusing "motion" with "action."

Hope and his colleagues are knee jerking all over the place to do SOMETHING as a result of Sandy Hook.

That this bill, had it been fully implemented, would have made no difference in Sandy Hook is the thing.

That this bill would do nothing to improve the security of soft targets like schools is the thing.

That this bill punishes those of us who follow the law for the actions of those who break the law is the thing.

That this bill will make no impact on street sales where guns are sold to those who are not supposed to have them (Felons, for example) is the thing.

That this bill will do nothing to stop anyone from, say, buying a gun in Oregon or Idaho without undergoing this nonsense is the thing.

This bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except to increase the bureaucracy (always a democrat goal) and provide revenue to the state (always a democrat goal) while making it more difficult for those who obey the law to purchase weapons.

It's difficult to see where THAT isn't the real goal of this idiocy: and why would government want it to be more difficult for the law-abiding to buy weapons?

We have a Constitution. It sets limits on government. This bill cavalierly violates those limits.

Those who obey the law will suffer. Those who break the law won't even notice... or care. And it seems to me that government's priorities are just the tiniest bit screwed up here.

This law accomplishes nothing except to make the RINO's visible. And we're watching.

Posted by Hinton at February 11, 2013 01:18 PM
20. Speaking of checks. How in the heck did this EX-LAPD offiecr get past his phyc test. From all the info coming out. This guy has had problems for awhile.
Even his ex-girl friend said he's nuts and dangerous.
The gov is great at passing laws. If they really work on not is another story.

Posted by Medic/Vet at February 11, 2013 01:33 PM
21. So, the background check process doesn't work right, therefore, we shouldn't have it. So, does the same logic apply to credit checks?

Millions of credit reports have errors

Posted by say what at February 11, 2013 02:44 PM
22. I have an acquIntance who has the machine platform to make 1911 .45 auto. All it takea is the computer instructions (available on the Internet) and the steel stock to put in the lathe.

These background checks will be less than successful.

Posted by Ten years After at February 11, 2013 02:49 PM
23. I have an acquIntance who has the machine platform to make 1911 .45 auto. All it takea is the computer instructions (available on the Internet) and the steel stock to put in the lathe.

These background checks will be less than successful.

Posted by Ten years After at February 11, 2013 02:49 PM
24. I have an acquIntance who has the machine platform to make 1911 .45 auto. All it takea is the computer instructions (available on the Internet) and the steel stock to put in the lathe.

These background checks will be less than successful.

Posted by Ten years After at February 11, 2013 02:49 PM
25. Hey great idea. Let's try still another variation of something that's been tried numerous times and expect a different result.

Someone please explain how incremental gun grabbing is different than banning alcohol. And then explain how limiting/preventing firearms for law abiding citizens will end up with a different result than prohibition? How did that work out for you? In what practical ways is gun running different than rum running?

It's oddly funny how the evolved and enlightened accuse their opponents of shallow thinking.

Posted by scott158 at February 11, 2013 03:32 PM
26. It's just another proposal for Taking Names to add to the great database which shall live forever, useful to no one but the ultimate confiscators.

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive at February 11, 2013 04:13 PM
27. @26
False. The current system being used, by law, does not keep permanent records of background checks. This is another NRA hyperbole.

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 11, 2013 04:21 PM
28. @27 - Prove it !

Posted by KDS at February 11, 2013 04:26 PM
29. notamused: You may not have stated it, but it is a common reframe from the right on other topics. Don't flatter yourself that you speak for all on the right.

You have it perfectly backward. You were commenting on my post, not on "the right's" post. So you were arguing against a "reframe" that had, until you introduced it, nothing to do with this discussion. You were introducing, as I said, a straw mand / red herring.


a. Cost Money (how much depends on implementation, it also costs money not doing them -- i.e., cleanup from messes where those who shouldn't have guns have them, like felons -- how much would it cost to go through and clean up this mess?)

You're confused. The question of cost, in the way I introduced it, is absolute, and not in reference to "the cost of not doing them." I was simply pointing out that because there is a cost, therefore you need to justify it with evidence.


b. Prone to err (issue with implementation and not a reason why they aren't a good idea

Again, I was not saying it is not a good idea: I was saying because they are prone to error, therefore you need to justify it with evidence.


c. tells the government ... (not the least, who says the government has to be involved except to set up the regulations governing the industry? Does government perform credit checks? Also, who says what you are buying has to be part of the background check? Does a background check for an apartment record which apartment you are checking into or is done by the government? No. This is NRA hyperbole to believe this crap).

Um.

Uh.

It would help if you knew something about the topic before discussing it. Seriously. The background checks in this bill (which I linked to) are from the jurisdiction of the seller or buyer -- via the police department or sheriff's office -- and include a federal check. And it's explicitly a firearms check, since firearms checks are unique.

So while it doesn't include the specific firearm you're buying, it tells the government that you are, almost certainly, trying to buy a firearm.

So who says the government has to be involved other than regulating the industry? This bill, and every other similar bill at both the state and federal levels.

Seriously, just stop until you inform yourself.

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 05:00 PM
30. ExPatBrit: I am not sure that exempting family members from background checks is a good thing. The Columbine murderers and Adam Lanza used their parents weapons. As did the guy who murdered his parents in Texas the other day. We often tend to cut our crazy family members a little to much slack.

You're not making an argument here. First, those parents did not sell their guns to their kids. Second, even if they did, unless they would have failed a background check, then those sales would've gone through anyway. And if they would have failed a background check, then the sale would be illegal today, without any change to the law, because you cannot sell a firearm to someone whom you have reason to believe would fail a background check.

So unless you don't know your family member -- and who would sell a firearm to an immediate family member they don't know? -- and are unaware that they would not pass a background check, sales to those family members are simply already covered by existing law.

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 05:07 PM
31. @28
With the current NCIS process, after background check has been completed:
Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.
Like I stated earlier, there is no reason why this process needs to be run by federal or state govt. The govt would set regulations, like data privacy, use, and retention/destruction policies, but a certified, private party service could run the business. It is no different than credit or other background checks currently being done. Why the right continues the hyperbole instead of proposing a private alternative is not for me to answer.

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 11, 2013 05:08 PM
32. notamused: Like I stated earlier, there is no reason why this process needs to be run by federal or state govt.

Other than that proposed bill requires it explicitly? There's also the fact that a private group cannot get access to the data.


The govt would set regulations, like data privacy, use, and retention/destruction policies, but a certified, private party service could run the business.

How would it get the data?


It is no different than credit or other background checks currently being done.

So a private business is going to have the data about who has been convicted, and what the terms of release are, and who has been adjudicated mentally defective, etc. For all the jurisdictions of all 50 states and the territories and, of course, the federal government.

The federal government itself cannot even reliably keep all this data up to date. Obama had to write several executive orders just to get his employees to come up with ways to try to get more data into the federal system, because of the complicated issues involved. How do you expect a private organization, which won't be able to get most of this data, to do this?

You're just making no sense.

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 05:15 PM
33. say what: So, the background check process doesn't work right, therefore, we shouldn't have it.

No one said that. Please learn to read.

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 05:16 PM
34. Pudge,
You must think that there this vast array of data that is needed. Businesses today already get their background check information, including felony information, through private clearance agencies. . They don't have to go through the hoops you discuss. We aren't talking conducting security clearance level of background checks. That would be overblown. The biggest hurdle will be verifying who the person is. They would need an official ID.

Private companies already get most of the necessary information to perform a simple background check and the govt can provide the rest via OData service layer with secure certified access to such companies. Those companies, yes, would be required to abide by privacy and data handling regulations, but private business are already cleared everyday to handle this information. We are not talking about active criminal investigation information. We are talking about post conviction information, most of which is in public domain. Today one can search public court records for cases by name. As more of the court data gets digitized, this will get better for searching.

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 11, 2013 08:59 PM
35. notamused: You must think that there this vast array of data that is needed.

Yes, because I understand the issues involved.


Businesses today already get their background check information, including felony information, through private clearance agencies.

And it is less reliable, less current, and less comprehensive than government is capable of.


They don't have to go through the hoops you discuss.

Right, because they don't have the same data needs.


Private companies already get most of the necessary information to perform a simple background check and the govt can provide the rest via OData service layer with secure certified access to such companies.

So you admit you were wrong. Thanks.

Posted by pudge at February 11, 2013 10:34 PM
36. I wonder why the left is all OK with a cost to exercise our 2A right, but howls in pain when any potential cost for getting a state issued ID rears its head regarding exercising your vote...

Not all rights are equal, apparently!

Posted by Shanghai Dan at February 12, 2013 03:55 AM
37. @36 - You just acknowledged the 1200 # elephant in the room. Canada went through a similar exercise in trying to register all guns and are warning us that the next step after registration is to incrementally start confiscating them.

The left, when in charge ALWAYS implements these measures incrementally. It is analogous to placing a frog in the pan of water and incrementally cranking up the heat until the frog is cooked. A cooked frog represents a totalitarian government. A pushback against these tactics by the leftwing progressivists are mandatory if we are to maintain our 1st, 2nd and all other amendment freedoms.

Posted by KDS at February 12, 2013 07:29 AM
38. Pudge @35
You seem to think that a different set of questions need to be answered in a background check for guns, which is why you insist such detail for data. I do not believe that needs to be the case. For felony information, most all the information is available, today in court records and is already retrieved by private companies, such as Intellius. You can also do a search in Washington state court system for felony convictions. Providing an OData layer of this same information, with proper security in place and use agreements by the companies that use them would provide the information needed to answer the question does the buyer have any felonies in their background that disqualify them for purchase and if the courts have issued an order reinstating their rights. This last part may need a new court order form to make query to the court systems work. You seem to think one needs to go through an extensive background check that requires law enforcement research. Why? That seems a waste of money to answer simple question of whether the buyer is disqualified due to past criminal history (i.e., specific felony convictions). The pool of people that are disqualified is a lot smaller than the entire population. The data system doesn't have to hold records on everyone. It only has to interface with court records, which are already being digitized and made available to the public (along with maybe one additional court form for reinstatement of rights).

Of course, I am not sure why you are arguing this piece. I get a feeling that you disagree on the principal, so it doesn't matter the implementation of the system. You don't want it period. At least that is my impression.

Posted by notamusedbyright at February 12, 2013 08:09 AM
39. notamused: You seem to think that a different set of questions need to be answered in a background check for guns, which is why you insist such detail for data.

To be fair, the only reason I think that is because I am aware that federal law very clearly says so.


I do not believe that needs to be the case.

Right. Like I've been saying, you don't know what you're talking about.


Providing an OData layer of this same information, with proper security in place and use agreements by the companies that use them would provide the information needed to answer the question does the buyer have any felonies in their background that disqualify them for purchase and if the courts have issued an order reinstating their rights. This last part may need a new court order form to make query to the court systems work.

Your claim was that government does not have "to be involved except to set up the regulations governing the industry." Now you're admitting you were wrong -- that government has to actually be involved in actively providing the information, on demand -- but pretending you were right. Please stop doing that.


You seem to think one needs to go through an extensive background check that requires law enforcement research.

No. I think -- because I understand the issues -- that information that only government has access to is required for the task (and even then, as Obama recognized in his many executive orders a few weeks ago, there are significant gaps).


That seems a waste of money to answer simple question of whether the buyer is disqualified due to past criminal history (i.e., specific felony convictions).

Except that is NEVER the question. It's not even PART of the question. It's never "specific felony convictions," but all felony convictions. It's also whether you are a fugitive, even for a misdemeanor. It's also whether you've been found guilty of using a controlled substance, been found mentally defective, been committed to a mental institution, are an illegal alien, have been discharged dishonorably from the Armed Forces, have renounced your U.S. citizenship, is subject to a restraining order against a partner, or have been convicted of certain misdemeanor charges.

And then there's the fact that despite all of the above, you can get your gun rights restored under some conditions.

Some of this information is easily available to the public. Some is certainly not. Please stop pretending you understand the issue. You clearly do not. And while that may not have been clear to you, it should have been clear to you that you might not understand it. Since you had no evidence that the longstanding requirements for background checks are as simple as you believed they could be, you should not have assumed that they were actually that simple. They aren't, and never have been.


It only has to interface with court records

False. Again: you just don't know what you are talking about, and you should really stop pretending that you do.

Posted by pudge at February 12, 2013 08:41 AM
40. @38 - with all due respect, kindly stop clogging this thread with unsubstantiated stuff that is half true. Go play on Goldstein's fantasy blog.

In rereading your comments and Pudge's rebuttal, it is apparent that you are trying to push your leftwing agenda absent of important facts and consequence.

Posted by KDS at February 12, 2013 09:02 AM
41. @38 - If you choose to continue commenting, kindly bring some salient facts to the debate for a change instead of your biased half truths. (BTW, everyone's half truths are biased)

Posted by KDS at February 12, 2013 09:13 AM
42. notamusedbyright: No, RCW 9.41.04 is a rational compliment to the constitutional right to bear arms. Felons and adjudicated mentally ill persons have forfeited their right to bear arms or are disqualified because of the danger they pose to the public.

Posted by Paddy at February 12, 2013 11:42 AM
43. "...and while this law would also make the seller culpable, there's no reason I can see to think that sellers for these felons wouldn't still exist, AND BE RELATIVELY EASY TO FIND."

Isn't that the real point? Throw some of these sellers into jail for a good long while and before long, they won't be easy to find.

If you shoot like you reason, people really do have nothing to fear from you.

Posted by Angelus Novus at February 13, 2013 09:48 AM
44. novus: huh. So you're saying that people who illegally sell firearms won't be easy to find if we put them in jail.

But they are easy to find, for criminals, now. Not private sellers who might possibly and unknowingly sell to an illegal buyer (which does not violate the law), but people who sell illegal guns, or sell illegally, to illegal buyers. These are people who, mostly, are breaking the law now.

And you think changing the law will suddenly make them scarce.


Twenty points higher than me? Thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?

Posted by pudge at February 13, 2013 09:53 AM
45. @43 - "Isn't that the real point? Throw some of these sellers into jail for a good long while and before long, they won't be easy to find."

Nope, just your red herring that makes little sense and is based on your biased random evidence. Hopefully you don't have a gun that fires real bullets.

How come you and notamusedbytheright aren't over at HA.org with Mike BS and the rest of the contingent of statist trolls who show up in mobs ?

Posted by KDS at February 13, 2013 10:05 AM
46. I want Chicago's gun control policies. Can we get them? I think we need to have very strict gun laws that lead to more gun violence. Why can we have 500+ murders? That would be good for the environment and reduce overcrowding. Also, we can see more minorities be killed, hopefully including more black on black crime, and ensure the surfs vote for D's because they will tell them government will keep them safe.

Everyone knows Obama (Mr. & Mrs.), Jarret, Emanuel and other Dems are the ones to follow and their plans/laws/rules bring all these great community benefits. So let's get on board, Seattle wants to be a Progressive beacon and be on the cool list too. (sarc off)

Posted by Dengle at February 13, 2013 10:47 AM
47. Someone calling themselves "Roger Rabbit" posted a comment. I don't think for a second it was actually R.R. -- who I've banned for abuse -- who wrote it, because it's so completely stupid it can only possibly be a parody of a leftist, not an actual leftist.

I would not post this comment if I thought there was any chance R.R. actually posted it, since he wouldn't have a chance to respond to any responses, but since clearly this comment is not at all serious and it can't be him, here is what it said.

So, pudge, you think the next Adam Lanza should be able to get a gun from his mother without a background check? The next Christopher Dorner should be able to buy a gun from his father without a background check? I'm not real comfortable with this concept. You might be okay, your father and brother might be okay, but someone else out there might have a son or a brother who isn't okay.

Not even a hardcore insane leftist like R.R. could think that background checks would have stopped a son from stealing his mother's gun and killing her with it, or prevented an ex-cop with no restrictions on purchasing guns from buying a gun from any dealer or private seller.

So I don't know who there is pretending to be Roger Rabbit, but kudos for the entertaining parody.

Posted by pudge at February 13, 2013 09:43 PM
48. My educated guess is that the Roger Rabbit impostor was likely a very small person and insane leftist, specifically the clown who posts as "Doctor Steve"

Posted by KDS at February 13, 2013 10:22 PM
49. How about HB 5737. Can't we just go after criminals and not assume all gun owners are criminals?

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/17/seattle-senate-bill-includes-home-inspection-as-part-of-gun-control-measure/

Posted by Marmstro at February 17, 2013 02:48 PM
50. isabel marant dicker boots bye-bye painful breakfast sunny cartoon generation wine Friday shock fuel
isabel marant sneakers Wales peace of guard FALSE cure whistle downtown tower postman
isabel marant sale Britain blue open eighth modal string avenue fly anything society
etoile isabel marant bat sure brain magic fortune you pupil lecture non-white sandwich
http://isabelmarantsneakers102.webs.com coloured rocket harvest http://isabelmarantsneakers123.webs.com chalk gram

Posted by RowoccanceRed at February 18, 2013 09:50 AM
51. isabel marant sneakers sale it form length researcher saying whichever bank wash smoker fool
isabel marant sneakers bread reduction owner motor training bean cry agree aid surface
Isabel Marant Dicker Suede Ankle Boots park except spoken really today serve basic greatly wrong cough
isabel marant dicker boots deserted January passive obey container say photocopier engine aunt supermarket
http://isabelmarantsneakers106.webs.com sand nearly level http://isabelmarantsneakers102.webs.com encourage generally

Posted by mumeffony at February 18, 2013 03:16 PM
52. buy isabel marant boot pronounce dinner clear sixteen leg delivery sentence possession possible
isabel marant sneakers term you wonder singer e.g. wealthy once deer we technique
isabel marant sale pleasant dirt o'clock banker eighth bamboo technique deer India steadily
isabel marant ankle boots islander section sight possibility brotherly welcome among seven whose difficult
http://isabelmarantsneakers104.webs.com etc fiercly careless http://isabelmarantsneakers120.webs.com supporter child

Posted by domsIdoth at February 18, 2013 04:17 PM
53. isabel marant wedge sneakers hurriedly salesman thirtieth worm high-rise finally jumper wonderful dislike housework
isabel marant sneakers broadcast hire confuse dirty rich no track by rescue greatly
isabel marant either charge chemist scarf quarter worldwide post somewhat outside imperialist
isabel marant online understand Florida seal mobile deed visitor respect hire lawyer select
http://isabelmarantsneakers110.webs.com cross certain institute http://isabelmarantsneakers109.webs.com thirst thunder

Posted by Lipsypeswicle at February 18, 2013 04:30 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?