“While rioting by a very small percentage of protestors does a disservice to the memory of Michael Brown and the cause of saving black lives or preventing future Fergusons . . .” Yeah, right.
A small percentage of the “protestors” rioted in Ferguson, setting more than 25 buildings ablaze and looting an equal number of stores. In fact, more than 100 cars idled in front of Toys R Us on the night of the non-indictment, waiting for someone to cast the first brick. Ferguson’s destruction was about rioting like surfing for pictures of Barbara Palvin is about researching Hungarian history.
Anyway, huffingtonpost.com writer H. A. Goodman is headed in the right direction . . .
there are legal and more effective ways to solve our nation’s moral conundrum pertaining to racial profiling, police brutality, and issues related to the deaths of unarmed citizens.
No, I’m not advocating armed insurrection. My name isn’t Cliven Bundy. Furthermore, I’m in no position to tell anyone how to live their lives and the ideas presented here relate to the belief that if one American community is experiencing an injustice, then it’s incumbent upon all American to try and find a solution.
Yes, yes . . .
To be clear, I’m not really a gun person. I’ve written before about how we’d already be fighting another major war if school shootings were done by terrorists, and how gun rights advocates are fooling themselves by furthering the notion that armed civilians could overthrow the government. I just don’t see the Tea Party ever waging an effective battle against the United States Armed Forces. Furthermore, I believe the arguments promoting a warped interpretation that Hitler and Stalin committed their atrocities because of an unarmed citizenry makes a mockery of history.
I’m anti-gun. Got it. And . . . ?
Propaganda relies on a distortion of history that furthers a political agenda; telling people that Hitler’s rise to power was due to a lack of gun ownership is a prime example. It took the combined might of the U.S., USSR, Great Britain, and others to defeat the Nazis, so I doubt Charleston Heston’s shotgun would have prevented the Holocaust or saved the globe from WWII.
Oy vey. Right. The Jews were killed by an idea, not people with guns. Come on bro’, get on with it . . .
1. Openly carrying a gun legally (in an open carry state) is a public display indicating that an individual does NOT have a criminal record. This alone undermines the basis behind racial profiling.
Wait, what? Has H. A. ever heard of [non-permitted] Constitutional Carry? In those states anyone can carry a gun! Before you scream that I’m giving ammo to the antis, let’s face facts: anyone can carry a gun now, whether they live in an open carry state or not. They can do it . . . wait for it . . . illegally. So, while I love me some open carry, H. A.’s number one reason makes me wonder if his initials stand for the rear portion of a horse’s anatomy.
2. The epidemic of disproportionate force utilized against black men in America warrants an alternative, and legal, solution to this problem.
Epidemic? Disproportionate? Against black men? Most black men who die from “gun violence” are killed by other black men with firearms (e.g., gang bangers banging) or by their own hand. Oh, I forgot, we’re reading a professional race card player. Anyway, this isn’t so much a reason as an explanation why black Americans need a reason to open carry.
There are so many more instances of unarmed black males shot by police that there simply isn’t enough room in this article to continue. Therefore, regardless of your view of gun ownership, the predicament faced by African-Americans warrants a serious look at whether or not openly carrying a weapon will save black lives.
Let’s cut H.A. some slack here. His main point – that police are less likely to F up a man openly carrying a firearm – is valid. We, the multi-racial, multi-creed, couldn’t-give-a-damn-about-someone’s-sexual-orientation gun owners of America welcome H. A. to the fold. FINALLY.
3. The vast majority of African-American men will never commit a crime, so it’s time America realizes this fact. If openly carrying a gun will help our country overcome centuries of prejudice pertaining to skin color, then it’s an option that should be pursued . . .
(I)f carrying a weapon will serve a sign to others that a particular citizen has never been in trouble with the law, that he or she should be addressed with courtesy and respect, and that this citizen could protect himself if his Constitutional rights are violated, then why on Earth don’t we look at this option?
Oh man is he gonna be crucified by his pals on the left. Sorry to say it, but the PoTG (People of the Gun) might also take exception to his screed.
H. A.’s insistence that open carry is about signaling The Man that blacks don’t have a criminal record indicates the writer’s underlying subservience to the state. Americans are innocent until proven guilty. All police should assume this unless they have direct, justifiable suspicion of the contrary. Blacks shouldn’t have to “telegraph” that they’re law-abiding citizens to anyone, especially the police.
Equally, if H. A. thinks that racist cops will leave a black man alone simply because he’s open carrying, he’s wrong. Oh boy, is he wrong. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: you can be right about something (like open carry) for the wrong reason. H. A.’s on his way to enlightenment. Let’s hope where he leads, others follow.
I don’t get it. Cops hassle lawful, law abiding white open carriers every day. If blacks OC, and if blacks are targeted more than whites, won’t black OCers get hassled by cops more than white OCers? How does that help anything?
Encourage the blacks (and all other races) to OC for whatever reasons they see fit (even misguided ones)…
Let them get hassled by the cops for doing so, and then they’ll start saying “Hey man, this is my RIGHT!”
More people on our side, one way or the other…
Exactly. Anyone who tastes freedom is less likely to easily relinquish it.
I think…that this well meaning white man speaks from such a grand perspective of empathy because delusions run deep past where the light of common sense in its true form can shed light. The entire idea that discrimination can be avoided by exercising rights is good. The idea that exercising a right is complex communique to authority figures is bad.
The sad fact is discrimination is what it is because of unequal treatment. He is suggesting law abiding black people then do unequal behavior of carrying guns, something outside the norm, to signify they are not the same as the criminals that they are already purported to be on sight. So they seek to diffuse being racially profiled by jumping through hoops that have nothing to do with it.
After all, if cops stopped harassing open carriers then any fool would buy a cheap Uncle Mike rig to avoid being hassled about his “gat”.
@Ralph,
Your comment assumes the author understands the issue you just described. He does not, it is a mindless rant — “do something for the children” rant. He has no clue, he wants to stop Black men from being killed by the police. What is left out of the conversation, Black men should stop being thugs and they will not be hassled. The problem of course is, many Black man breaking the law has painted them all in a bad light. Because so many Blacks break the law and are shooting themselves, there is bias. In comes down to the same as it ever was, the Black Community has to stop listening to the Sharpton’s of the world who have lined their pockets with Gold and send their children to private schools while the rest of Black America is used as pawn and left in conditions that perpetuate their problem. Maybe they should look up to Charles Barkley instead of Jackson, Sharpton, Obama and Holder. Putting Cosby current issues, he is still better than Sharpton.
In the end, I get what he is trying to say, but he is clueless to the facts. People get scared of the white guy with gun on his hip, imagine a dozen of Black young men with sideways baseball caps walking in with Glocks on the their hips — Cops will shoot first and ask questions later.
Black should arm themselves however, if for nothing else than to protect themselves from other Black and not the police.
Both Barkley and Cosby have spoken of the Gangsta Culture with its glorification of being a criminal and its collective contempt towards those blacks that try to get a good education or a get a good blue collar job by calling them “being like whitey” or being an “Uncle Tom”.
They have both said, among others like Thomas Sowell; that until the black culture rejects this self-destructive belief system, nothing will change for the blacks in this country, not even Open Carrying a gun.
There are others who have written on this as well, how those blacks who seek to get out of the hood, to educate themselves, to aspire to the American dream, are discriminated against, insulted, and attacked by the hoodlum culture that plagues the inner cities. Funny, there don’t seem to be any proposals as to how to overcome the “you owe me”/ “getting over on the Man” mentality that condemns too many to repeat the mistakes of those who have gone before.
@Mark N It is more akin to the crabs in a bucket metaphor. When one crawls up and almost gets out, the rest latch on and pull them back in. It isn’t “the man” keeping them down, it’s the culture of their community to keep all of them collectively poor and trapped.
a dozen of Black young men with sideways baseball caps walking in with Glocks on the their hips — Cops will shoot first and ask questions later.
IF that ends up being the case in incident after incident then there is indeed institutional racism that must be addressed. I sincerely hope that your prediction would turn out to be mistaken but if it doesn’t then that is a problem with those law enforcement departments and not with the young men merely exercising their rights.
You are undoubtedly correct. It used to be that “open unloaded” carry was legal in California cities and towns–until the open carry advocates made a show of it and the [practice was outlawed. In almost every case, the police response was fast and furious, with multiple units responding to the soccer moms’ frantic “MWG!!!” calls to 911. Lengthy questioning ensued, with demands for ID, questioning as to why they were carrying a gun, computer checks, and searches of weapons to insure that they were unloaded, with firearms often taken to have their serial numbers run. If white males get harassed by police, and since we already know that many black males get harassed for DWB, any police encounter between the police and an armed black man are almost certain to go badly.
You’re missing the real reason for a HuffPo prog to write such an article: it is intended to goad supposedly racist, right-winger gun freaks to respond in shock at the suggestion that (GASP!) black people should open carry firearms – thereby allowing the HuffPo prog types to paint said right-winger gun freaks as racist hypocrites.
Except: those who support gun rights, by and large, support the right of ALL people, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. to keep and bear arms.
Hey Chip, always like your comments man. But this one? Since when have gun owners ever been portrayed as anything OTHER than racist hypocrites?
True. But that doesn’t mean that they won’t try a rope-a-dope to give themselves ammunition for what is an otherwise specious claim.
I think what Chip is saying is that this article was simply the usual exercise in race-baiting, but since the bait was chosen based on a false assumption (a stereotype of gun owners), the bait failed/s.
We can only hope the readers and writer realize this, as it might actually challenge them to re-examine their biases. Unfortunately cognitive dissonance is its own best armor.
Three reasons Black people should open carry firearms:
1) It is their Constitutional right.
2) If they support the second amendment then they are more likely to support all of the Constitution and start voting for Conservatives. We need the black vote to get the Democrats and the RINOs out of office.
3) Black people are disproportionately victims of violent crime in their communities.
3) Black people are disproportionately victims of violent crime in their communities.
Bingo. If anyone truly cares about having fewer black crime victims, and fewer innocent black lives lost to criminals, this would be the issue. But, that’s not the motivating factor for the agitators. Thus, you end up with:
Conservatives: all lives matter. Innocent black people should arm themselves for their own protection against black criminals in their own neighborhoods.
Progressives: black lives matter. We’re going to stomp our feet about the few instances of white people killing black people.
This +9,000,000,000. There was a video that popped up today showing the interaction of a Black guy and a cop. The Black guy was walking down the street when the police officer stopped him because someone in the neighborhood thought that he was suspicious. The source of suspicion? His hands were in his pocket while it is extremely cold outside. That aside, all of this inane madness obfuscates the real issues at hand.
Since the value of drugs is determined by the black market – which is basically a 1000% markup on its real value- would it be fair to say that the cause of all gang and drug violence, in this country, is the United States government which created the market initially with its prohibition? Or would it be the fault of the people who choose to fall into the trap of gangs and drugs for whatever various reasons that can be conjured?
I wouldn’t have called 911 over it myself, but the “source of suspicion” was that he repeatedly walked by a business that had been robbed 7 times, and they thought he was casing the joint.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=892284980805860&set=vb.192816114086087&type=2&theater
I am opposed to the drug war, but I don’t think it excuses gang violence. Drug dealers in the suburbs and in small town America manage to survive without terrorizing their neighbors. We’ve lived over twenty years in a neighborhood with drug dealers, and the amount of violence varies considerable. Specific violent individuals can drive the death and crime rate up tremendously, creating what is effectively a one man crime wave, even though they aren’t doing all the crime. Guys in their gang who were relatively peaceful start pulling stuff they never did before, and many of them never do that sort of thing again once the instigator is removed. Drug dealers can deal drugs without having to “own” the neighborhood; the ones who insist on owning and running the whole neighborhood, and who will resort to violence in order to accomplish that, are the problem.
we can thank the age of information for this and so many others seeing the light and weighing the facts against emotional pull strings.
Offended? Hardly. Do you get offended when your kid takes his first steps, or when you teach him to shoot and he doesn’t hit the target much?
These are the faltering firs steps of someone who has woken up, taken the red pill, and decided to do his own thinking. Is he gonna be sharp at it? No. He’s had decades of educational instruction that only teach him WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think. As you can see, he at least believes that openly carrying a firearm is potentially a law abiding act.
Best thing we can do is have a good, probing talk with him when it comes up. Get him to start asking questions, especially about what he believes, as opposed to question shaped barbs. When the wingdings try to rise up and crucify him for his badthink (and they might), we can always relentlessly mock *them.*
A straight up progressive gun hating liberal advocating open carry…
Checking the temperature in hell, brb
Never has someone been so right and so wrong in the same article.
To flip a favorite saying around here: Terrible landing, great airport.
“The epidemic of disproportionate force utilized against black men in America warrants an alternative, and legal, solution to this problem.”
These people truly do live in a fantasy world of their own creation.
Truly.
Per the FBI UCI statistics, the percentage annually hovers around 93% of black homicide victims who are killed by black assailants.
The FBI data is from 2011, but 83% of whites are killed by whites.
The data for total white and black murders is out of proportion, given that blacks are somewhere around 15% of the total population and the total murders for each is too close to being equal.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6
Check my math: 2630/3172= 0.829
How different it would have been had Brown managed to take officer Wilson’s weapon and kill him with it. It would have been a story for a day, maybe two. No riots, no looting, no businesses burned to the ground. No articles from self-hating white liberal loons, and no calls for violence from race baiting nut jobs like Farrakhan. In short boys and girls, everyone now wailing and gnashing their teeth would not give one shit if Wilson had died and not Brown.
Is there any possible way that Mr. Goodman’s expose is sarcasm?
If his expose is serious, then a (possibly former) gun grabber is tacitly admitting the importance and relevance of open carry. This provides yet another example and reason why open carry is something that we all must do as often as practical.
Nope, note the qualifications. Everything said is said with the implication that it must be done in a way that conforms to statist ideals. The irony is that this is supposed to be an act against the government, done with absolute deference to that same government.
Well, according to FBI crime stats; over fifty percent of murders in the USA are committed by about six percent of the population consisting of black men. That would seem to be a “disproportionate” amount of violence by a very small percentage of the population causing a “disproportionate” response by the police towards that population.
So they are bitching about the law-abiding “many” being disproportionately hassled due the actions of the criminal “few”…. sound familiar?
But yet, when gun owners make this same argument, we’re just being paranoid.
Standing in agreement with one other commentator, I applaud this attempt to understand this issue by this heretofore committed Leftist. A good first try, hopefully to be followed up by additional tries.
I plastered this on my facebook wall. A guy like this might just get some folks questioning, and dare I say it, seeking the truth?
Sad, you don’t recognize the agenda tilt of this angle and actually look for the positive angles? Wow. Mother Jones, a self proclaimed progressive toilet paper, bared the statistics that whites are far more likely to be killed by police than blacks. Stop falling for this agitprop BS.
More whites in total or a higher percentage of whites? There are many times the number of whites than blacks in this country so percentages matter.
Inching closer and closer… The synapses are firing and making connections – some of them a bit odd, I admit – but the flywheel is accelerating. What he fails to fully grasp is this: the message than an open carrier expresses to the world is simply “I refuse to be a victim” (or at least “do not tread on me”). That determination is the first step to Second Amendment enlightenment, and so much more (in my book).
Still can’t believe people posting on this site don’t see the blatant anti gun agenda of this article. Almost funny, but it’s not.
First off This guy suffers from white guilt extremely bad. Second wouldnt you think if the Germans who were anti Nazi had guns maybe it wouldnt of took a combined effort of the worlds super powers to stop ole Adolph.
Any nation is more vulnerable to attack from within. People who believe that citizens can’t overthrow a government due to a disparity in arms fail to understand history and the way militaries function. They have not watched the last decade plus of middle east conflict and they fail to understand one practical benefit to being armed. Even if your opponent is better armed and confident in its victory they must be willing to pay a price. A hundred million men and women woven throughout every level of society with guns and will handily trumps a million troops of uncertain loyalty and an arsenal that largely cannot be used against the enemy.
Allow me to quote the 4th circuit: “More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”
USA v Black, Feb 2013, No. 11-5084
See how that works? the 2A protects the 4th. If more blacks openly carried, it would be a lot less uncommon and scary. Free men have the right to self defense.
The OP gets it right, circuitously. Do police harass legal open carriers? Of course. Then they pay a fine.
The only check against the police is for law abiding citizens to assert their rights.
BTW, I completely disagree about signalling. Since minorities have ceded their constitutional rights, if you see a minority with a bulge, its a criminal. Perhaps criminals can constitutionally open carry, but being a criminal is NOT a default status.
In other words, 1 person carrying a weapon in a sea of people who have ceded their rights is probably signalling a criminal. 1 person carrying in a sea of other people carrying, they blend right in. So then the people need REAL cause of actual criminal behavior to stop you.
He should also do a little research into the historical basis of the whole “carry permit” racket. That is, making sure minorities and others were unarmed while those with the right connections got the wink and nod to go strapped.
Looking at the history of that might make his brain explode, or open his eyes.
I don’t care, I liked the Barbara Palvin analogy
“. . . and how gun rights advocates are fooling themselves by furthering the notion that armed civilians could overthrow the government. I just don’t see the Tea Party ever waging an effective battle against the United States Armed Forces.”
This guy has it exactly backwards. Constitutionally guaranteed gun-rights exist to prevent the government from overthrowing civilians. The 2nd amendment exists to keep the United States Armed Forces from waging effective battle against us—not us waging battle against it. Gun-owning, freedom loving Americans don’t want to overthrow anybody. But we also want to defend ourselves against being overthrown. There’s a difference.
I have to laugh at these ignorant lefties. What makes them think that the Armed Forces would fire on American citizens? Don’t they realize that the military are citizens too? Many of the grievances expressed by Americans today are shared by our service people. I think the government would have a very difficult time convincing our troops to fire on the man in the street.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It required a few years of selective recruiting to build an army of Germans willing to do just that. And you are assuming the “man in the street” is a representation to those soldiers of their America. Not just a representation of some “other”. Remember it took direct orders to make the troops sent into the aftermath of Katrina point their assault weapons down. Everywhere I look I see factions and division. I see people who claim to put the constitution first but instead place it well behind their own bigotry. I see outrage for one deprivation of liberty and tepid responses at best for others. I know any significant portion of a population can remove corrupt government, but I have little faith that will happen. Instead is predict most everyone will chose not to act so long as they are not on the front lines. We will be content to leave our brothers and sisters to stand alone and fall alone afraid to lose what we have. How long before what we fear losing erodes from luxuries like our big homes pensions and clean credit scores to the types of things other people fear losing? Will your grandchildren be unable to act because they fear losing their one room hovel and the rags on their back like certain other people’s?
+1
“I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.”– Jason “Jay” Gould
He’s right because no open carrier ever has been harassed by the police, not even once.
In fact, I’d argue that open carry is a great way to get cops to hassle white people as often as they reportedly hassle African Americans.
At the height of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Alabama changed state law to make it unlawful to transport a handgun in a vehicle without a permit.
Wasn’t that done to insure the safety of the private automobile caravans that made the boycott successful?
The only reason he is suggesting that blacks carry guns is because he thinks that if they do, more white people will push for restrictions on guns.
Someone here with a pulse…..
LOL, and instead of getting commenters on TTAG to “hop to” for gun control against blacks they are all for legal open carry by anyone (more or less)! I think that is the best.
Nailed it.
I like it. The logic on Point Numero Uno is screwy, but I like it when the quiche nibblers are forced to do an about face. More guns for everyone. It’s all good.
Every employee I have had for the past thirty years has carried, though most do not open carry as a habit. Open carry the law in my state, so all can do so without a license or permit. All have permits for concealed carry. Many have lived in the inner city, most were African-American. When I asked they why they carry, all reply, “Protection,” “Safety” or similar.
In Ferguson, and several other inner-city neighborhoods, there is a very high crime rate. Also, many of the people there intentionally dress to look like a criminal (the gangsta look). Then they act surprised when the police treat them like criminals.
Must be some special kind of stupid there…
This guy is nuts. We give every Black Man in the U.S. an “Obama Gun and Holster” to wear as a signal they’ve never been convicted of a felony and are prepared to defend their Constitutional Rights. So, then, every Black Man NOT wearing a gun is a convicted criminal, and that doesn’t constitute “profiling”? C’mon, man!
This is both laughable and sickening at the same time.
Wow saw this on Yahoo. Convoluted reasoning to be sure. I know plenty of white men who have NO problem with it. Like me. And I have to agree(SIGH) with Pg2…
Wow the thoughts that wearing a sidearm openly on your hip = = good citizen.
his huffpo buddies must be self-combusting right now.
“gun rights advocates are fooling themselves by furthering the notion that armed civilians could overthrow the government.”
3% of 317 million is over 9 million and includes a lot of combat veterans, which outnumbers half our active combat-ready military (the other half will be on our side, as they’ll refuse to break their oaths), by, well, a whole fucking lot. Largely unarmed and unorganized rioters caused chaos in Ferguson with nothing substantial done, or able to be done, to stop them. You think Afghanistan was tough? Try fighting a war in Kentucky.
I normally don’t comment. I mainly read to learn and see other peoples thoughts. But as a black man open carry outside of a protest is just a way to get arrested, SWAT’ED, or shot by the police. I know I am seen as a threat first and citizen second. Is it fair?.. no but it is the reality.
Historically black men with guns are not seen in a positive light. I cannot open carry in my state, but right now that is a risk I feel i cannot take.
Plus I don’t want to end up like this guy.
http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2014/09/17/black-open-carry-advocate-arrested-in-detroit-rally-sunday
My first thought was John Crawford III. I don’t know if the cops who shot him were racist, but the nutjob who made the 911 call sure was. When I saw the video the FBI made linking the store camera footage to the 911 call, I ended up literally shaking with rage. Still hope his mischaracterization of what Crawford was doing gets him landed in jail.
OTOH, watching the video that essentially follows Crawford from the parking lot until he gets shot, I was encouraged by the fact that plenty of people saw him wandering around with the “gun” and apparently didn’t think twice about it. The fact that only one idiot called 911 indicates that most people there weren’t racist, or at least weren’t racist enough to feel threatened by a non-threatening black guy carrying a gun.
If that fear wins then freedom loses. Someone had to refuse to go to the back of the bus. Someone had to take a drink from that water fountain. Someone had to eat at that lunch counter. Generally, not exercising the right because one is more afraid of harassment is an acceptance of servitude.
Thanks Brianfor the good idea, even non-developers just like us should pull this particular off of: )This is very important for some sort of multi-international web-site in relation to SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING.
If openly carrying a gun will help our country overcome centuries of prejudice pertaining to skin color, then it’s an option that should be pursued . . .
This must be opposite day. It seems like a case of ‘I’m anti-gun but…’.
I’ve just read a number of comments that appear to be advising against black men open carrying because they are likely to get harassed by law enforcement. Seriously?!?!
If it is likely that they are going to get illegally harassed by law enforcement then that is even more reason for people to carry. We all know that government will continue to push when it receives little or no resistance. As much as the author of the HuffPo article has some screwball reasoning, some of the commenters’ reasoning is almost as screwy. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding but what I understood from some is, “Don’t open carry because the police will harass you as a black man being visibly armed.” Did I get that message right?
He forms the enjoyable and informative articles related to Web Design Company and SEO Company in the UK.
The company can provide online businesses with the means to reach goals and achieve greatly.
asia expert in providing website designing, website development, seo services, website
hosting, digital marketing services and offering professional readymade scripts without any hesitation work and
these Yourneeds.
The whole part about overturning a repressive government is moot. Having firearms in the hands of the good guys(law abiding citizens) who have just taken too much, could mean that certain politicians get targetted successfully, which would be applauded by the fathers of our country. Just read Jefferson and it would be evident. Now, of course they do not want that happenning(it would be very hard, unless it was started from inside…..).
I am not advocating this, it hasn’t gotten bad enough for me, but this is the reason we have gun rights. I can definatly think of a few that I would not cry over, but the current government would make them martyrs.
This gives a website web presence and it gives you a major advantage over your competition. By using the data from Google Adwords, SEO company London experts can match keywords that they want to target and are specific.
While it may take a little while for changes in design culture
to filter out into the more remote regions of the UK, London because of its position as the
capital city gets to see new concepts first, thanks to
a plethora of exhibitions and shows dedicated to web design.
Comments are closed.