ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/22/2018 11:32 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.850 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
07/03/2009 02:15 AM ID: 79448 Permalink   

Arizona Going Back to the Wild Wild West

 

Legislation allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon in bars has passed the Arizona senate 19-8. The bill has now landed on the Governor's desk and will be presumably signed as Governor Jan Brewer is a supporter of gun rights.

The law states that someone can enter a bar in Arizona with a concealed weapon, however they are unable to drink alcohol. "It's very important that criminals are now afraid rather than law abiding citizens," Senator Jack Harper, the bill's sponsor, said.

This proves complicated for people behind the bar as they will either have to check every patron for a concealed weapon or serve drinks unknowingly to people that are carrying weapons.

 
  Source: www.msnbc.msn.com  
    WebReporter: pexa02 Show Calling Card    
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  43 Comments
  
  Interesting subject  
 
I lean more to the prospect of citizens being able to carry concealed weapons but I have yet to hear any feel-good stories about any criminals being thwarted by someone CCW. Anyone? I'd really like to hear one or two.
 
  by: John E Angel     07/03/2009 02:24 AM     
  Guns and booze...  
 
now that will really keep the peace, what a fool that man is.
 
  by: captainJane     07/03/2009 02:40 AM     
  @John  
 
Counties with more easily had CCW permits have lower gun crime rates than in counties with strict regulations. See, Washington D.C. vs. any city in Texas.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   07/03/2009 02:48 AM     
  n/t  
 
Now they are in the same boat as Tennessee. All the states (29?)that have this law are run by hick, hillbilly ignoramuses that don't have enough intelligence to outwit a coal bucket. What is the matter with these stupid morons?
 
  by: Lurker     07/03/2009 03:13 AM     
  @L.C.  
 
Actually, you're quite wrong! Dallas and Houston are right up there with D.C. as the nation's most dangerous cities.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     07/03/2009 03:15 AM     
  @ Lurker  
 
"don't have enough intelligence to outwit a coal bucket."

Ha-ha, that is just brilliant I will remember that one!
 
  by: captainJane     07/03/2009 03:22 AM     
  Damn  
 
Looks like the brain-dead state legislatures have been busy passing these worthless laws. "Forty other states have approved similar measures, according to the National Rifle Association." If they spend as much energy on fixing what's wrong with their states they'd be a whole lot better off. I'm ashamed that I'm living in such an idiotic envirnment.
 
  by: Lurker     07/03/2009 03:22 AM     
  Treating symptoms does not cure diseases.  
 
The problem of gun crime has nothing to do with guns or with concealed handgun licenses. Nor does it have anything to do with carrying a concealed weapon into a bar, a lumber yard, a church, a strip mall or even a school. It has to do with the complete failure of enforcing the laws we already have against crimes of any kind.

I don't know about the rest of you but, if someone I love was killed by another person, the weapon of choice or the amount of alcohol or drugs the offender had consumed would not mitigate the pain of losing that person, nor would it bring them back to life.

Tort has become a convoluted system of greed wherein the only true winners are the arguing council. Logic is cast to the side along with the ideals of personal responsibility and honor that this country was allegedly founded upon.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     07/03/2009 04:44 AM     
  MEH  
 
I'm ashamed I live in the same country with a bunch of pacifists such as yourself. You are so ignorant and full of yourselves that you think that suddenly since someone is carrying a weapon that automatically something negative is going to occur.

I've carried into numerous bars and what a surprise there wasn't a sudden outbreak of violence as a result. People who apply for a CCW permit typically are not the ones that are going to go out and cause trouble. I mean really why would you go apply for a permit just so you can break the law to begin with?

@John:
You comment that you have never heard about any criminals being thwarted by someone with a CCW. You obviously haven't bothered to look because there are plenty. What is hard to find is stories about a situation going sour because of CCW.

You seem to believe if guns were out of the picture that we would live in such a perfect crime-free society. Men were killing men long before gunpowder was invented so what makes you think removing guns from the picture is going to change anything?

Then again clearly guns are the source of all that is evil I mean without guns there would be no drugs, there would be no hate crimes, no poverty, no world hunger, no rainy days, you would never get a hang nail or stub your toe, life in general would be perfect.
 
  by: ronny_cordova   07/03/2009 04:45 AM     
  BAH  
 
90% of you gun toters would be dead before you could get your gun out of your holster if you were ever in a situation where you needed your gun. 8 hours of training really prepares you for the criminal element. Yeah, right. law enforcement officers have years of training and they die all the time. What makes you think your pissy-ass mediocre training will protect you?
 
  by: Lurker     07/03/2009 04:55 AM     
  @ Lurker  
 
I'm glad to know that 'opinion' equates to 'fact' in your mind.

Guns are not a magical device. Guns are not a sword. The one killed by the gun in situations of criminal intent is often the one with the worse luck. It has very little to do with what you're referring to. A police officer's training is often more about knowing when and where is the right time to use the gun, and how to avoid striking targets unintentionally.
 
  by: velger   07/03/2009 05:28 AM     
  @Lurker  
 
I don't mean to post off topic but I'm curious... do you have anything positive to say or any solutions to share for the problems we face?

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     07/03/2009 05:46 AM     
  @ronny_cordova  
 
just for the record, part of the first sentence of my comment was, 'I lean more to the prospect of citizens being able to carry concealed weapons.' I'm a swing vote. I'd just like to hear about some actual events whether it favored those or favored those against. WTH do I google to find these?
 
  by: John E Angel     07/03/2009 05:50 AM     
  @ronny_cordova  
 
I seriously doubt anyone thinks along the lines that getting rid of guns will solve all social issues.
Infact your massively sarcastic approach to the subject shows that you are probably very passionate but also very one eyed about the whole subject, picking and chosing what you want to see.

I live in Australia so i can't comment on the situation in the U.S. with gun laws and how it effects people. What i can comment on is statistics in relation to firearm and non firearm homicides in Australia vs the U.S.

Australia being a country with very strict firearm laws on anything automatic or semi automatic will serve as a good comparison.

On average this is how many people out of 100,000 people will die from a firearm.

Australia: 0.3
United States: 2.97 (3.6*)

On Average this is how many people will die out of 100,000 from NON firearm injuries.

Australia: 1.26 (1.57*)
United States: 1.58 (5.5*)

(* = figures from nationmaster.com, i think those figures are a bit wonky and prefer the UN figures for reliability, which is what the main figures are based on)

So as you can see from the figures the argument that if guns wern't here people would be killing eachother just as much in different ways is pretty much moot. If it were true then Australia would be at like 3-4 for non firearm related homicides.

Any type of explosive projectile weapon makes murder easy.
 
  by: pexa02   07/03/2009 06:39 AM     
  Let's get real  
 
Most of us have probably been in some shady bars before, right? The last thing that environment needs is more guns, legal or illegal. In an environment where judgement is dulled and, let's face it, sexual competition is rampant, the last thing needed is deadly weapons. Again, whether they're legal or illegal.

Another reason this law is utterly stupid is that it does appear require bar personnel to check everyone for a concealed weapon. Now, if there was an anti-smoking law that required bartenders to check each patron for a pack of cigarettes, the same people defending this CCW rule would be howling in protest. But make it a law that allows drunk people to pack heat as they're all trying to hook up with the same woman, and suddenly they're all for it. Crazy.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     07/03/2009 07:33 AM     
  I am done  
 
Shortnews has been probably one of the most liberal news sites I've been to. You suck Obama's cock all day long, of course you would consider gun rights to be a bad thing. I just can't wait until you liberal fags are home invaded and your girlfriends are ravaged by some savage. You would be just wishing you owned a gun and might be able to protect yourself and your family.

/rage
 
  by: thorsblood   07/03/2009 07:40 AM     
  Hey Thor!  
 
What makes your response even funnier is that I do own a gun, it's a Sig Sauer P220, I've talked about that from time to time here. I'm a defender of gun ownership -- it's just stupid to have them in bars.

And another thing (there are so many) that was funny about your post is how I could practically see the spit flying out of your mouth. You got so mad!
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     07/03/2009 08:12 AM     
  It's a bunch of bull  
 
I live in AZ. Not to long ago you use to be able to mix tobacco with alcohol in a bar. They made that illegal. Now guns and alcohol are going mix legally if Jan signs this thing. I'd rather deal with a drunk blowing smoke in my face than waving a gun in my face.

Mixing alcohol with knives, swords, axes, ninja stars, bows, crossbows, nun-chucks and Chuck Norris is still illegal.
 
  by: qhobbes   07/03/2009 08:33 AM     
  @ghobbes  
 
I agree completely. If a responsible friend takes his drunk buddy's car keys away, we shouldn't let drunk people carry guns, for Christ's sake. This is macho-man BS substituted for plain old common sense.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     07/03/2009 08:35 AM     
  @thorsblood  
 
When people don't agree with you, you call them juvenile names and wish they could be the victim of violent crime?

You're no better than the criminals your guns are meant to defend us from.
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   07/03/2009 08:53 AM     
  @HW  
 
Awwww poor baby, did I hit a nerve? What did I say to upset you? the Fag part? you black and sad I brought up obama and I am white? Of are you just being Mr right and being the white knight of shortnews? Take it on the arches and man up.
 
  by: thorsblood   07/03/2009 08:56 AM     
  @Pexa  
 
I'm not going to disagree with your statistics but you also have to take into account the environmental factor into the calculation.

How many major cities are in the US compared to Australia? Large cities in the US are just a festering wound of crime. I'll use Philadelphia for example.

Gangs in Philly play a major role in adding to the gun-related crime rates and until something is done about it nothing is going to get any better. There are places in that city that you can't even walk the streets if you have the wrong color on or you can expect to get a beat down or worse. Even utility workers have to have partners or they risk getting their equipment and vehicles stolen not to mention the possible physical abuse they might encounter.

Let's go about an hour and a half out of Philly into Lancaster. Now you are out into the country and the general population is made up of Amish farmers and laborers. Your crime rate for the area plummets to basically nothing.

Take the area I live in. I'm about 20 minutes from the city of which has quite a lot of crime. You go 20 minutes away and you have the local police force that hasn't had a real crime in years. The last actual police call in this town was probably a good 6 or 7 years ago when some teenagers broke into a store after hours and stole some cigarettes.

My point is people use a general statistic as an example of gun crimes in the US and in wrongly gives the example that crime is rampant all over the country when in fact that is not the case. Would you agree with me saying that Australia has very large tracks of country or rural areas made up of a very loose population?

Compare some crime rates of dense city populations to more rural areas and it will start to paint a picture. And even then you really have to look at the types of people who are living in these areas to get a true idea of how and why these crimes manifest themselves.
 
  by: ronny_cordova   07/03/2009 09:39 AM     
  @Lurker  
 
You put a lot of trust into men and women you don't even know yet in the same hand you are so quick to judge other men and women you don't even know.

What really separates a policeman and just a man? Is it the uniform? Maybe the hat? Or even maybe the badge? Take all of those things away and a policeman is still just a man. Yet for some reason so many people see them as a sort of incorruptible being. Sure they go through training and are told how to act and what to do in situations but it always comes back to the man to decide how he presents himself.

You might have a man who's father was a cop, his grandfather was a cop, and so on. Someone who grew up in the environment, knows the dangers, and is truly dedicated to serving the community. You also might have a man who grew up in an abusive family, lived in a crime-filled neighborhood, and typically had negative encounters with the police. This man through some path winds up on the force years down the road. He doesn't have the positive attitude as the first man nor was he brought up in the same fashion.

Point being, when you call the police for help how do you know which cop will be getting sent out to the rescue? How do you know the officer coming to save you is the most highly trained or qualified? You don't. There are bad cops and there are good cops just like there are good men and bad men.

You comment about my "8 hours of pissy training" despite having no background information of me personally nor did I ever give the impression that an 8-hour training class is going to prepare you for real-life situations. I don't believe it does and that is why I practice combat scenarios several times a month, practice my marksmanship as much as possible, and generally do whatever necessary to prepare myself for the situation if the time comes I need to defend myself or my family. If that isn't enough for you Lurker feel free to tack on 6 years as a Navy SEAL.

 
  by: ronny_cordova   07/03/2009 09:57 AM     
  @John  
 
I wasn't trying to nit-pick at you but you may or may not have seen a recent special 20/20 did and at the end they also made the comment that they couldn't find any evidence of people defending themselves with a legal weapon.

Here is a clip from an old episode of Justice Files that gives a good story of a man defending himself with a CCW:

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: ronny_cordova   07/03/2009 10:00 AM     
  Don't Know Where To Start  
 
CCW permits can be a good thing and if people take proper measures there is nothing wrong with someone owning a gun or guns. That said I do not believe that having guns in a bar is a smart idea by any means. There are may responsible gun owners and there are many that are not. Again I find myself in a middle ground with shades of grey on a subject and see people I really like so far on one side or the other that their judgement seems cloudy (not only on here it is everywhere these days.)


I agree with a few comments here:

qhobbes-"Not to long ago you use to be able to mix tobacco with alcohol in a bar. They made that illegal. Now guns and alcohol are going mix legally if Jan signs this thing. I'd rather deal with a drunk blowing smoke in my face than waving a gun in my face."

bb- His whole reply I am on board with.

ronny-"People who apply for a CCW permit typically are not the ones that are going to go out and cause trouble. I mean really why would you go apply for a permit just so you can break the law to begin with?" I would personally bold and cap the typically.

JohnE-"'I lean more to the prospect of citizens being able to carry concealed weapons.' I'm a swing vote."

Ben-"If a responsible friend takes his drunk buddy's car keys away, we shouldn't let drunk people carry guns, for Christ's sake. This is macho-man BS substituted for plain old common sense."

@pexa-"Any type of explosive projectile weapon makes murder easy."


The rest of the name calling and petty crap is one reason I find myself glad I was gone for awhile. I really think that it is the easy way out to sit here and comment as one side is this or that, thor's ignorant comments support this. If someone tries to force me to take a right or left side I opt for Australia because at least there is a middle there.
 
  by: TaraB     07/03/2009 10:03 AM     
  I'm generally for CCW and will add .....  
 
if drunks shoot it out in the bar and kill each other , it means they cannot be the drunk driver that kills you or someone in your family/circle of friends.
 
  by: xBadMonkeyx   07/03/2009 04:54 PM     
  Common Sense  
 
Look at this in simple terms. People who drink are more likely to get into fights. 90% of the fights I've seen were in bars. Firearms in that environment aren't a good idea. Alcohol and guns just don't mix. It's that simple.

However, if a bar can set rules as to dress code, I'm sure they can set a "no guns allowed" rule. Just because it's legal doesn't mean the bar owner has to allow it.

Also, how easy is it to get the permit?
 
  by: barryman9001   07/03/2009 06:00 PM     
  @xBadMonkeyx  
 
I'm not worried about drunk people with guns shooting each other in a bar. I'm worried about drunk people with guns shooting ME in a bar.
 
  by: barryman9001   07/03/2009 06:02 PM     
  @BB  
 
Nope. I have little hope for the human race. It is circling the drain.
 
  by: Lurker     07/03/2009 06:10 PM     
  I've owned firearms since the age of twelve  
 
The only time I've ever carried a firearm into a bar was when I was in uniform and on duty. No other reason to do that.

I think the people that signed this law into effect are making a poor judgement call to say the least.
 
  by: White Albino   07/03/2009 06:17 PM     
  ...  
 
Bill SB1113 (http://www.azleg.gov/...

While these debates are always fun, under this legislation the establishment can post a "No Firearms Allowed" at entrances and/or next to their operating license. With certain exceptions noted, entering with a gun an establishment with a sign is a class 2 misdemeanor. Drinking alcohol while in possession of a firearm at an establishment without such a sign is a class 3 misdemeanor. There are fines for violation as well.
 
  by: nicohlis     07/03/2009 06:39 PM     
  Yes,  
 
it would be all right if the guests can go into the bars with a weapon but what is then if a guest does not announce he or she has a weapon and drunkenly strats shooting, onto this there were examples at us too.
 
  by: vizhatlan     07/03/2009 09:03 PM     
  @John  
 
The reason you never hear anything about people with CCW's saving peoples lives is the general news media is anti-gun. Why would they ever post positive stories of guns SAVING lives.

Fact of the matter is, it happens every day.

Few months ago, a friend of one of my friends was coming home to his house at about 2a.m., just as he put his key in the door he heard someone say hey, do you know where KVCC collage is? He turned to see two black youngs, one with a gun in his hand. They ordered him into his house but he knew if they got him inside he was a dead man.

Lucky for this friend of my friend, he was carrying a gun. He was a legal CCW holder in our state. He acted like he was going to comply and drew when they let there gaurd down a little and hit the guy who had the gun. The guy he shot got away but the police found him at the local hospital.

The guy who was shot never gave up his friends name though.

Made the news around here.

Then there was another guy who was coming out of Wal-Mart when a 17 year old tried to rob him. He was carrying and exchanged fire with the 17 year old who missed him but he hit the kid. That one made national news.

I agree, while not the best writer, this is an interesting read too.

http://www.amazon.com/...
 
  by: kristmen   07/03/2009 09:36 PM     
  Oh btw...  
 
Oh by the way, my above post...

When I say he "hit the guy", I mean he drew his own gun and SHOT the guy who had the gun.
 
  by: kristmen   07/03/2009 09:37 PM     
  Just as a sidebar...  
 
If someone really wanted someone dead, they'd find a way to do it. Guns are simply a convenient scape goat I fear.

But, you know what scares me more. People being stripped of their 2nd amendment rights. Imagine this, no one has any firearms except the govt. Now that is a horrific thought. What's to stop the govt from subverting the will of the people?

This is what scares me the most about Obama and co. You know what they're proposing? Anyone that is a suspected terrorist will be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights. Not convicted, suspected. Now that completely violates the constitution. No due process, just *poof*, your rights are gone.(http://www.youtube.com/... This is truly why I can't believe anyone would support this man or any govt that would do this.
 
  by: groovedaddy   07/03/2009 11:57 PM     
  @morality  
 
I am a man who believes if something is truly right, it's status as right or wrong should not hinge on the failures of men. That if one truly believes in something, they may die for that belief, without compromise, and they would have lived a good and honorable life. After all, every human will die. This isn't important. How a person lives is what matters.


I know that for a rational and reasonable society to exist, every individual needs to have the right to personal property, and the right to protect themselves. This is fundamentally critical. For if we cannot value the rights of others to keep themselves, then we are essentially ascribing them to be slaves of society.

Society is merely a collection of individuals. As soon as you try to put some "value" of a "people" over an individual, the "people" are no longer free.

I believe it is a great injustice when a majority (or a minority in power) forces its will upon individuals in manners that only apply to personal livlihood.

This trancends "parties" or whatever people try to lump together in politics. This is a fundamental respect of the individual's right to exist by their standards, so long as they do not harm others.

Examples of this are all over in politics, and I find the political system to be a joke because of this. For how can you support one binding, and not another?

Some examples would be:

A woman's right to control her body, to have an abortion if she desires.

A human's right to get high, get drunk, kill themselves, have assisted suicide, anything unhealthy but entirely personal.

An adult's right to have a relationship with another consenting adult, or multitudes of consenting adults, and to engage in their relationship(s) in any manner they agree upon.

And another example would be for a person to be able to carry a gun.

I see these as fundamental rights. Whether or not a woman kills her children or leaves them in dumpsters is not a case against abortion. Whether or not a man gets drunk and kills another man, or ODs, or has their suicide taped and released are not arguments against a person's right to be healthy or unhealthy.

Whether or not a gay man will go to hell, or if a polygamist will take all the hot chicks in town are not arguments against adult relationships.

Taking one thing (an individual's right to chose their path in life) then adding on a criminal act (where a person may hurt someone else, or show disregard for life and put others or even their property in danger) are completely separate issues.

Either we are free to act on our own accord, as free humans we should be, or we are slaves to opinion and emotion. There is a rational boundary, if you hurt another person through reckless or malicious behavior, if you cause damage, these are overt acts that ARE explicitly matters for society. The boundaries are easy to draw, if you get drunk or high, then you can not drive. If you choose to have a child, then you may not harm them, if you want to have sex with multiple partners, you can't be giving them the clap on purpose. And should you choose to be ask ever so nicely to be judged by a sheriff in your county, to be permitted by the United States Government to be able to simply carry a weapon which is your personal right to do so, then you may not just start shooting things or people.

Taking responsiblity from the individual, is literally removing their rights as well. With rights come responsibilities, and you can not have it both ways. You can not tell someone they are simultaneously responsible and unable to act. Every law that is passed taking responsibilities from people, and giving them to the police, and the courts, is a little bit less freedom.

It is a very clear cut philosophy. Freedom or slavery. But you people somehow manage to pick and choose which laws you want enforced to suit your life, your mind, your circumstance. And it is this attitude, that the majority of humans posssess, that is the ultimate failing of humanity. You want freedom, by your personal opinionated standard, and when enough opinions come together, no one is free.
 
  by: promontorium   07/04/2009 07:45 AM     
  @Promo  
 
I couldn't agree with you more.

What gives another individual the right to impose his will upon another? Man is not the right hand of God, let him do the final judgment, not you.
 
  by: ronny_cordova   07/04/2009 04:31 PM     
  @promontorium  
 
Very well said.

I'll add that it really can be redacted down to the issue of private property. Our bodies are our private property just as are our land, cars, guns, etc. If the use of our private property causes no harm to another, then such use is no business of any other person.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     07/04/2009 04:40 PM     
  @BB  
 
I think it goes a bit further than that. Just because something bad doesn't happen one time you do something doesn't mean that action isn't likely to cause harm at some point.

For example -- if the "I didn't hurt anyone" defense is valid, you should be allowed to speed down the wrong side of the street as long as you can swerve around oncoming traffic. You may have done this three times without anyone getting hurt. But can you honestly say that it should be acceptable behavior?

Of course not -- there's too great a risk that someone will get hurt eventually. For that matter, people drive drunk all the time without incident. We don't illegalize this because it *always* leads to harm -- we illegalize it because it's too likely to lead to harm.

That's exactly what I think about a case of carrying a firearm into a bar. It's not always going to lead to someone getting shot, but the risk is too high.

I trust myself to be responsible -- but how can I reasonably trust everyone to do so? That's where we get the notion of public safety. Because certain behaviors pose a threat to everyone else, we don't allow them.

Anyway, I think all this arguing is moot -- I highly doubt many bar owners will be allowing CCW if they're not required to. How many rowdy drunks does a bartender see in a year? a week? I doubt he/she will be electing to put guns in their hands.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     07/04/2009 05:05 PM     
  @Ben  
 
I agree with you. I did not mean to infer that people should be allowed to take actions that put others at obvious risk.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     07/04/2009 06:25 PM     
  @John E. Angel  
 
I'm a concealed carrier in Fla. I think it is a personal choice since the police cannot get to the scene of a crime to prevent it and protect the victim.

You choose to be a victim and hope the assailant can be caught or you choose not to be a victim and defend your self.

As far as stories. You can look for videos on You tube there is one of a woman working at a wal mart when her estranged husband came in began stabbing her and a 70 year old man carrying concealed shot the man saving her life.

Als get your hands on a copy of America's first freedom there are stories every month in their "Armed Citizen" article
 
  by: aaronscottshow   07/10/2009 08:49 PM     
  say, what?  
 
"a 70 year old man carrying concealed shot the man saving her life."

I'm surprised he wasn't arrested and charged for shooting the man. His own life wasn't being threatened. So, a CCW person can just shoot anyone he thinks should be shot and get away with it? I'm sure the woman was grateful, but I thought only law enforcement could shoot someone in that situation.
 
  by: Lurker     07/10/2009 09:50 PM     
  @Lurker  
 
I seem to remember reading sometime back that if someone commits a crime in order to prevent a greater crime, they will be absolved. An example they gave was someone who saw a child being kidnapped and the kidnappers took off in a car with the child and so this someone jumped on a motorcycle and stole it to pursue the kidnappers.
 
  by: John E Angel     07/10/2009 11:07 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com