Gov. Rick Perry Indicted On Felony Charges
|
Gov. Rick Perry indicted on felony charges
That's always going to be an issue and there's no way to fix it without fascism, as you never know who the offenders are until they commit a crime, and you never will know.
Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » edit: using your own example, gun shows: by placing that limitation a 19 year old then couldn't purchase a hand gun, which is unconstitutional, as it is his right to own one, as the unconstitutional organization known as the ATF enforces unconstitutional restrictions of purchases of handguns by legal adults. I actually agree with this, I don't believe any rights should be contingent on an age over 18. Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » limiting things like gunshow exemptions Ah the good old gunshow loophole myth. :D First of all, new firearms, being sold by an FFL to a customer at a gunshow are ALWAYS subject to background checks. PRIVATE (person to person, non-FFL) firearms sales are not. But why would that matter, because you can buy a firearm in a private transaction from Craig's List any day without a background check anyway. I don't get why it's suddenly a huge "loophole" if you're at a gunshow, instead of at a seller's home, a wallmart parking lot, or any other place. It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective. Background checks are just one more way for the government to get another 30 bucks off its citizens. Lots of stuff is like that, but the biggest issue with background checks is that they don't work. Statistically, the vast majority people who commit mass murders would pass the current background standards. Perhaps we should work on that instead of trying to pass MORE rules and regulations THAT WILL NOT WORK. "But that is not the way the liberal mind works is it." Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » edit: using your own example, gun shows: by placing that limitation a 19 year old then couldn't purchase a hand gun, which is unconstitutional, as it is his right to own one, as the unconstitutional organization known as the ATF enforces unconstitutional restrictions of purchases of handguns by legal adults. I actually agree with this, I don't believe any rights should be contingent on an age over 18. Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » limiting things like gunshow exemptions Ah the good old gunshow loophole myth. :D First of all, new firearms, being sold by an FFL to a customer at a gunshow are ALWAYS subject to background checks. PRIVATE (person to person, non-FFL) firearms sales are not. But why would that matter, because you can buy a firearm in a private transaction from Craig's List any day without a background check anyway. I don't get why it's suddenly a huge "loophole" if you're at a gunshow, instead of at a seller's home, a wallmart parking lot, or any other place. It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective. Background checks are just one more way for the government to get another 30 bucks off its citizens. Lots of stuff is like that, but the biggest issue with background checks is that they don't work. Statistically, the vast majority people who commit mass murders would pass the current background standards. Perhaps we should work on that instead of trying to pass MORE rules and regulations THAT WILL NOT WORK. "But that is not the way the liberal mind works is it." That's been exactly my point since the beginning of the discussion, but you can't even mention regulating people's access to weapons without gun nuts blowing a gasket. Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Odin.Jassik said: » It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective. Completely locking down private sales, (like they are over here in Belgium where I live), requires strict registration of every firearm from the point it's manufactured, shipped to a gunshop, sold to it's first owner, transferred to another person by the first owner, etc, up to the point it is destroyed. At which point it's processed as such in the registration system. Replacement of vital parts like a barrel requires additional registration of said parts. All that is fine and dandy, but it can never work in a country where there are already around an estimated 500 million unregistered firearms in circulation, and where such stringent gun control measures would be a huge violation of the 2nd amendment.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » edit: using your own example, gun shows: by placing that limitation a 19 year old then couldn't purchase a hand gun, which is unconstitutional, as it is his right to own one, as the unconstitutional organization known as the ATF enforces unconstitutional restrictions of purchases of handguns by legal adults. I actually agree with this, I don't believe any rights should be contingent on an age over 18. Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » limiting things like gunshow exemptions Ah the good old gunshow loophole myth. :D First of all, new firearms, being sold by an FFL to a customer at a gunshow are ALWAYS subject to background checks. PRIVATE (person to person, non-FFL) firearms sales are not. But why would that matter, because you can buy a firearm in a private transaction from Craig's List any day without a background check anyway. I don't get why it's suddenly a huge "loophole" if you're at a gunshow, instead of at a seller's home, a wallmart parking lot, or any other place. It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective. Background checks are just one more way for the government to get another 30 bucks off its citizens. Lots of stuff is like that, but the biggest issue with background checks is that they don't work. Statistically, the vast majority people who commit mass murders would pass the current background standards. Perhaps we should work on that instead of trying to pass MORE rules and regulations THAT WILL NOT WORK. "But that is not the way the liberal mind works is it." That's been exactly my point since the beginning of the discussion, but you can't even mention regulating people's access to weapons without gun nuts blowing a gasket. You have never said "hey guys we should work on the laws we have, without imposing on law abiding citizens constitutional RIGHT to own firearms and cannons and tanks and rocket launchers" Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Correlation is not causation. You would likely be just as safe if nobody had guns, the point is that you feel safer. People like to quote crime statistics to support their point of view on guns, but places with very limited access to firearms lie at both extremes. Places where guns are almost non-existent for the public can have outrageous violent crime or next to none. Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? It has nothing to do with it being at a gun show though. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » edit: using your own example, gun shows: by placing that limitation a 19 year old then couldn't purchase a hand gun, which is unconstitutional, as it is his right to own one, as the unconstitutional organization known as the ATF enforces unconstitutional restrictions of purchases of handguns by legal adults. I actually agree with this, I don't believe any rights should be contingent on an age over 18. Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » limiting things like gunshow exemptions Ah the good old gunshow loophole myth. :D First of all, new firearms, being sold by an FFL to a customer at a gunshow are ALWAYS subject to background checks. PRIVATE (person to person, non-FFL) firearms sales are not. But why would that matter, because you can buy a firearm in a private transaction from Craig's List any day without a background check anyway. I don't get why it's suddenly a huge "loophole" if you're at a gunshow, instead of at a seller's home, a wallmart parking lot, or any other place. It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective. Background checks are just one more way for the government to get another 30 bucks off its citizens. Lots of stuff is like that, but the biggest issue with background checks is that they don't work. Statistically, the vast majority people who commit mass murders would pass the current background standards. Perhaps we should work on that instead of trying to pass MORE rules and regulations THAT WILL NOT WORK. "But that is not the way the liberal mind works is it." That's been exactly my point since the beginning of the discussion, but you can't even mention regulating people's access to weapons without gun nuts blowing a gasket. You have never said "hey guys we should work on the laws we have, without imposing on law abiding citizens constitutional RIGHT to own firearms and cannons and tanks and rocket launchers" Siren.Instant said: » Odin.Jassik said: » It's just an example, I stated that private party sales were my biggest concern earlier in the thread. Gunshow exceptions aren't loopholes, it's just strange that professional merchants and private parties play by different rules in a common venue of commerce. Background checks are a joke, and largely ineffective. Completely locking down private sales, (like they are over here in Belgium where I live), requires strict registration of every firearm from the point it's manufactured, shipped to a gunshop, sold to it's first owner, transferred to another person by the first owner, etc, up to the point it is destroyed. At which point it's processed as such in the registration system. Replacement of vital parts like a barrel requires additional registration of said parts. All that is fine and dandy, but it can never work in a country where there are already around an estimated 500 million unregistered firearms in circulation, and where such stringent gun control measures would be a huge violation of the 2nd amendment. Cradle to grave legislation is in place for all kinds of things, that's not to say that it should apply to firearms, but it's ridiculous to say it never works. And I wouldn't expect to outlaw private sales, but if there were an accountability built into selling weapons to private parties, people would think twice about the person they're doing business with. Odin.Jassik said: » What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? Like I explained, it doesn't matter that he's at a gunshow, a wallmart parking lot, parked in front of your house, at a friends house or at a BBQ with friends. What matters is that it's a private sale of a pre-owned firearm. You are legally allowed to sell any of your owned firearms to any private party. Naturally if you're smart, you have the buyer sign a document wherein he states not to have a criminal record and that he is buying the firearm in good faith. If he lies, then he is committing a crime, not the seller. Private citizens have no means to conduct their own background checks into other private citizens (for good reason, imagine the privacy concerns :x), and as such are not legally obligated to do so before proceeding to sell a firearm to someone else. As for accountability, if you skip the precautions I spoke of, you could be charged for selling firearms to a convicted fellon...
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Correlation is not causation. You would likely be just as safe if nobody had guns, the point is that you feel safer. People like to quote crime statistics to support their point of view on guns, but places with very limited access to firearms lie at both extremes. Places where guns are almost non-existent for the public can have outrageous violent crime or next to none. People like you actually think its possible for "nobody" to have guns. Its beyond laughable. Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? It has nothing to do with it being at a gun show though. Gun shows are a venue of mass commerce. Lots of buyers and sellers congregate in one place. Why should only the professional selllers be accountable? So let's ban gun shows? GOOD LUCK.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Correlation is not causation. You would likely be just as safe if nobody had guns, the point is that you feel safer. People like to quote crime statistics to support their point of view on guns, but places with very limited access to firearms lie at both extremes. Places where guns are almost non-existent for the public can have outrageous violent crime or next to none. People like you actually think its possible for "nobody" to have guns. Its beyond laughable. When did I say that it was possible for nobody to have guns or that I would even champion it? I own guns you moron. Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? It has nothing to do with it being at a gun show though. Gun shows are a venue of mass commerce. Lots of buyers and sellers congregate in one place. Why should only the professional selllers be accountable? They shouldn't be held accountable it's against the 2nd amendment. But liberal feel good law makers stuck in rule to yet again take away from our basic rights. Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Correlation is not causation. You would likely be just as safe if nobody had guns, the point is that you feel safer. People like to quote crime statistics to support their point of view on guns, but places with very limited access to firearms lie at both extremes. Places where guns are almost non-existent for the public can have outrageous violent crime or next to none. People like you actually think its possible for "nobody" to have guns. Its beyond laughable. When did I say that it was possible for nobody to have guns or that I would even champion it? I own guns you moron. Right there second sentence. /facepalm I'll even bold it for you! Bahamut.Ravael said: » So let's ban gun shows? GOOD LUCK. No, establish universal standards for accountability. Limit the amount of weapons that an individual can purchase and sell in a given period without scrutiny. If you want to own 50 guns, that's fine, but why is a guy buying an arsenal or trafficing hundreds of weapons not under the same scrutiny as the companies that sell weapons professionally? Why is a widower under the microscope while unstable people are allowed to purchase any amount of firearms with none? Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Correlation is not causation. You would likely be just as safe if nobody had guns, the point is that you feel safer. People like to quote crime statistics to support their point of view on guns, but places with very limited access to firearms lie at both extremes. Places where guns are almost non-existent for the public can have outrageous violent crime or next to none. People like you actually think its possible for "nobody" to have guns. Its beyond laughable. When did I say that it was possible for nobody to have guns or that I would even champion it? I own guns you moron. Right there second sentence. /facepalm I'll even bold it for you! Do I need to get you the definition of "hypothetical"? Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » So let's ban gun shows? GOOD LUCK. No, establish universal standards for accountability. Limit the amount of weapons that an individual can purchase and sell in a given period without scrutiny. If you want to own 50 guns, that's fine, but why is a guy buying an arsenal or trafficing hundreds of weapons not under the same scrutiny as the companies that sell weapons professionally? Why is a widower under the microscope while unstable people are allowed to purchase any amount of firearms with none? The widower shouldn't be under the microscope. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? It has nothing to do with it being at a gun show though. Gun shows are a venue of mass commerce. Lots of buyers and sellers congregate in one place. Why should only the professional selllers be accountable? They shouldn't be held accountable it's against the 2nd amendment. But liberal feel good law makers stuck in rule to yet again take away from our basic rights. What part of the 2nd amendment says that you can't be held accountable for selling a weapon with a reasonable suspicion it would be used to harm someone? Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? No need to imagine it, they do it all the time around where I live. Guess what.. I have my door unlocked when i go to bed and can actually walk around in the middle of the night in the darkest corner of town and not even worry about getting shot or mugged. Funny how that works isn't it... Correlation is not causation. You would likely be just as safe if nobody had guns, the point is that you feel safer. People like to quote crime statistics to support their point of view on guns, but places with very limited access to firearms lie at both extremes. Places where guns are almost non-existent for the public can have outrageous violent crime or next to none. People like you actually think its possible for "nobody" to have guns. Its beyond laughable. When did I say that it was possible for nobody to have guns or that I would even champion it? I own guns you moron. Right there second sentence. /facepalm I'll even bold it for you! Do I need to get you the definition of "hypothetical"? Nice back pedal. Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » It's not strange at all, and background checks only work if they're flagged, the joke is there's a lot of frustration for legal purchases on false flags. What's strange is that the rules are inconsistent. A legitimate registered merchant is required to adhere to them, but 10 feet away, a guy selling basically the same product isn't required to. But because it's at a "gun show" it's fine. Can you imagine if people were allowed to setup a picnic table in the parking lot of a gun shop and sell weapons to anyone without accountability? It has nothing to do with it being at a gun show though. Gun shows are a venue of mass commerce. Lots of buyers and sellers congregate in one place. Why should only the professional selllers be accountable? They shouldn't be held accountable it's against the 2nd amendment. But liberal feel good law makers stuck in rule to yet again take away from our basic rights. What part of the 2nd amendment says that you can't be held accountable for selling a weapon with a reasonable suspicion it would be used to harm someone? The SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » What part of the 2nd amendment says that you can't be held accountable for selling a weapon with a reasonable suspicion it would be used to harm someone? We all know how well law enforcement bends "reasonable suspicion". What part of the 2nd regulates who is "sane enough"? Who appoints these decision makers? How are the shrinks picked, based on what criteria? Can you choose which shrink evaluates you? How unbiased are these shrinks? Will they get paid by the anti-gun Obama administration? Setting up gun control, in a country that has very little of it and an extreme amount of weapons already unregulated is not a simple feat... You would run into the shall not be infringed part of the 2nd nonstop, and for good reason.
[+]
Oooh, rights are absolute now? Brb, ritual human sacrifice.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Oooh, rights are absolute now? Brb, ritual human sacrifice. How you gonna capture a human to sacrifice when you don't have a gun and he does? Altimaomega said: » Nice back pedal. It was posed as a hypothetical, the giveaway would be that it started with "if". And again, "infringed" in legal terms is different than the dictionary definition, as I've explained in detail many times. They key words are "least restrictive means". Here's a good example for ya... Quote: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Stop and identify laws directly violate the 4th amendment, however, in pursuance of enforcement of the Patriot Act, the "least restrictive means" ruling allows them to enact these kinds of laws. Quote: Least-restrictive-means test refers to a general rule requiring a governmental regulation to be framed in such a manner that it provides protection to individual civil liberties. However, if there is a legitimate governmental purpose to be achieved, the test permits a government regulation to be restrictive. The least-restrictive-means test is appropriate in cases where there is conflict between state regulations and constitutional clauses. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Oooh, rights are absolute now? The right to pursue freedom and the right to protect your life and the life of those dear to you are natural rights you're born with. They're not given to you by any governing body, nor can they be taken away. Governments can try to regulate some of them, but when they try to strip too many from the people entirely, revolution is never far around the corner. Americans are not new to this concept, which was last applied around 1776 if I recall correctly.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.