Whoopi Goldberg: ‘No Reason Anyone Needs an Automatic Weapon’

I love when the uninformed weigh in on gun control because through their ignorance they indubitably hang themselves, rhetorically, in the eyes of any reasonable person. When debating them the best thing to do is allow them to keep talking because eventually they’ll say something so stupid that their argument will be irreparably undermined. In short, you just have to wait for them to put their foot in their mouth.

Recently, “The View” panelist, Whoopi Goldberg went on a rant about “automatic weapons,” and why the government ought to heavily regulate them.

“I don’t understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons,” exclaimed Goldberg. “Automatic weapons, they’re not for hunting. They do nothing — they’re only there to kill. And you’ll notice that a lot of the things that have happened have happened with automatic weapons. When we see that why don’t we say, ‘Who really needs to have one other than people that are at war?’”

Yes, a profoundly ignorant statement. Thankfully, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was there to help set the record straight.

“What we have is not automatic weapons. It’s semi-automatic,” said Paul. “So they fire in a fairly fast sequence, but you can’t pull the trigger and they come like a machine gun. Those are no longer out there.”

Unfazed by her ignorance, Goldberg persisted, “But you know what I’m saying,” she said.

If I was there, I would have stopped right there and said, “No, I don’t know what you’re saying because you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.” But Sen. Paul was a bit more patient.

“What there is, is, there’s a repetitive fire,” explained Pau. “People do hunt with them and people do also shooting and sports shooting and target shooting and things with these guns. Come to Kentucky and I’ll introduce you. There are a lot of people who like and enjoy this as a sport.”

{ 58 comments… add one }
  • Oliver January 22, 2016, 8:52 am

    And I’m sure he bodyguards and security detail are unarmed.

    • JPs Armory February 20, 2016, 1:36 pm

      I really wonder what kind of gun she claims to own. Wouldn’t it be laughable if that gun was a non-revolver type pistol! If Rand had asked her, “what kind of weapon do you own?” if she said a S&W MP or SD, I would have laughed my ass off if then he said “well, by your definition you own an automatic weapon!” That would have been priceless but even asking her in public what gun she owned is objectionable because the Gov doesn’t need to know what guns you own!

  • 3rdAFCrewChief January 22, 2016, 6:50 am

    And this DB admits she owns a gun. Is just a stupid or is her head so far up Obama’s ass that she’s deaf? There is a BAN ON AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!! She keeps referring that no one should own a Fully Automatic weapons.

  • John Doe January 19, 2016, 1:58 am

    If Whoopi owns anything butt a revolver or single shot pistol she herself owns a so called automatic weapon. she should have been asked since she was forth coming on being a gun owner.

  • gunflint January 16, 2016, 7:55 am

    Whoopi is the Black version of Dianne Feinsteer, & just another DemoRatic Socialist PIG.. .

  • Glenn Dixon January 16, 2016, 4:08 am

    And to think Ted Danson rolled over every morning and looked into that woman’s face….uh, that definitely shivers my timbers!

  • Glenn Dixon January 16, 2016, 4:06 am

    And to think Ted Danson rolled over every morning and looked into that woman’s face….uh, that definitely shivers my timbers!

  • ChuckGee January 15, 2016, 9:27 pm

    Why is anyone watching this show? Why does anyone care what this , yet to be institutionalized , moron says.

    • Harlangto January 18, 2016, 5:37 pm

      All those that don’t work or contribute to the well being of our country have all the time in the world to watch this shit and all the other leftist propaganda crap and believe in “Main Street” Obongo – because that is who feeds their fat fucking faces…
      Give up “WELFARE” and then let the fight start.

  • Richard January 15, 2016, 9:06 pm

    I have always liked Whoopi Goldberg but I wish she would get it straight – automatic weapons are assault weapons and they are illegal. There are exceptions to this but to legally have a automatic weapon requires special paper work and fees paid to the BATF. Whoopi stated that she has guns – I would venture to say that some of those guns are semi-automatic hand guns. There are millions of semi-automatic rifles & shotguns in this country used for hunting, competitive shooting and for home protection. Last year 686 deaths/murders (FBI records) were attributed to rifles and shotguns most of which were semiautomatic. The total number of deaths/murders, suicides and accidental deaths by guns was around 30,000. This means semi=automatic rifles and shotguns contributed to 2.2% deaths. You want to confiscate ten’s of millions of guns from peaceful law biding American citizens because of the death of 686 people per years? That is like asking to confiscate all cars that can go faster than the speed limit because over 30,000 people die every year in car accidents. I’m sorry Whoopi and your friends at The View should not be making statements about guns until you know what you are talking about -get the facts straight. They are there for all to see.

  • pete January 15, 2016, 4:36 pm

    This is the wrong site for level-headed reasonableness, but for many folks gun control is not a technical issue where getting every fact or term right is even slightly important – it’s a moral issue to many people, and that grade school / NRA tactic of dismissing the opposing argument because they know less about firearm minutia is tiresome to say the least (“say something so stupid that their argument will be irreparably undermined”). Who cares if the other side gets their terms wrong, if the issue is a moral issue? They want fewer or no quick-firing high capacity guns ’cause those are the ones that mass shooters love to use. Period. And that goal makes sense to a lot of people, a large majority in the U.S.

    • John January 15, 2016, 10:31 pm

      Mass shooters love to use? So do people that want to defend themselves FROM the mass shooters…unfortunately ANY law banning “quick-firing high capacity guns” will only be obeyed by citizens, NOT the criminals, and the citizens that have had enough of meddling with their rights.

      People have also had to use “quick-firing high capacity guns” before…a little history for the younger kids…
      1965 Watts Riots
      1992 LA Riots
      Or more recently during Hurricane Katrina, again with people looting & killing (including police!)

    • Ed January 16, 2016, 12:14 am

      You can’t change the mind of a fool who has no idea they don’t have a clue as to what they don’t know. The world is full of idiots who are so lacking in self-confidence they have the need to tell others what to do in order to build up their own puny lack of brain power.

    • John January 16, 2016, 8:36 pm

      NO ONE needs a AR15.

      Remember the LA Riots or Watts riots? Mobs of people looting & killing.
      Or more recently Katrina, again with mobs looting & killing. People said that they managed to keep looters away, only because they had semi auto’s with large magazines.

      Also we have the Haymarket massacre, Lattimer Massacre, Ludlow Massacre, Bay View Massacre, and the Battle of Athens. Examples go on & on where people needed to defend themselves.

      Some people believe that only police & military should have weapons, but we’re expected to face the same threats WITHOUT THEM!?!?

      Police recently were convicted of murder during Katrina, then back in the day, we had the LA Rampart scandal where 70 police were investigated for everything from drugs, to murder, to bank robbery!
      As for the military, maybe they remember the National Guard being called out to shoot Union organizers back in the day. Or the National Guard that shot & bayoneted college kids during the Vietnam protests? Or more recently the National Guard, during Katrina ready to kill citizens during the illegal gun confiscations?

      Still want only the military & police to have weapons??!

      Sure there’s always going to be a few that will make it look bad, but there is no need to punish the majority of honest gun owners, or pass laws that will make them criminals too.

  • larry January 15, 2016, 4:02 pm

    that stupid has been bimbo can’t stop trying to get noticed… the reason, you dark hole of intellect, is as simple as looking at the fate of countries who had their weapons seized and the 182 million that were slaughtered by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS… TO FIGHT FASCISTS WITH GUNS YOU NEED THE SAME GUNS… THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN TO PROTECT US FROM THE ASSHOLES WHO ARE TRYING TO TELL YOU YOU DON’T NEED GUNS… SHE JUST A LAME ASS, BUTT UGLY FASCIST WANNABE… PATHETIC…

  • Sandman January 15, 2016, 3:53 pm

    Even after he explained what an AUTOMATIC WEAPON is this stupid wanna be insists on using the term AUTOMATIC INSTEAD OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC.
    The Hollywood nuts just don’t understand what they are screaming about and want to deprive you and I from having.
    My gawd–a Browning BAR( not the military version) the Mini 14 , the Garand, the M-1 a1 and dozens of other rifles are semi-auto and have the same ability to fire just as many rounds per second as the SCAREY BLACK GUNS.
    Lets outlaw the scary black guy in the White House from making laws that he is not allowed to do in the first place and stop worrying that some left wing wacky will call you a racist.
    Call me a racist–I don’t care–Im not but I do believe in the law ,the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are for EVERYONE regardless of the race or religion—FOLLOW THE LAW AND DONT ALLOW THE POTUS TO MAKE LAWS THAT HE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALY ALLOWED TO–CONGRESS MAKES THE LAWS–ONLY! AND LAST TIME I CHECK OBAMA WAS NOT THE CONGRESS NOR WAS HE EVER A CONGRESSMAN.

    • Chris Baker January 15, 2016, 10:30 pm

      Actually he did serve a term as a congressman. The senate is part of the congress. The other part is the house of representatives. Sheesh. You can’t fight ignorance if you are ignorant yourself.

  • Carl J January 15, 2016, 3:53 pm

    I hate it when another person tries to tell someone what they need, how to feel or just get over it. A buddy of mind used to say”everybody digs something”. You may not dig (like) what I do and you DO NOT have the right to tell me that I need to stop, how I should feel about it or to just get over it if I am forced to stop it. Sky diviver’s don’t need to jump out of perfectly good aircraft but, they do it anyway. If it is legal let people do what they may.

  • Steve January 15, 2016, 3:50 pm

    All you posters are wasting you’re breath,you think she is going to read you’re rants here? She does not even know this site exists.
    I know you’re relieving you’re stress at this idiot woman. I hope you feel better.

  • Gregg January 15, 2016, 3:45 pm

    It looks like some one from law enforcement, maybe even a ATF agent should take Whoopi and the fine ladies from the View through the process to buy a NFA weapon. Only then, maybe,,, they will know the difference from a Automatic and a Semi Automatic weapon and will realize that we Automatic Weapon owners are not the breed of people she keeps running her mouth about. I bet her local Sheriff won’t sign for here.

  • Richard Hammill January 15, 2016, 2:54 pm

    There is no reason anyone should need or want a “Whooping Goldberg” either

  • John January 15, 2016, 2:28 pm

    ‘NO REASON ANYONE NEEDS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON’
    “NO REASON ANYONE NEEDS A LARGE HOUSE IN BEVERLY HILLS”…
    “NO REASON ANYONE NEEDS A FERRARI”…
    “NO REASON TO HAVE A CLOSET FULL OF SHOES”…
    “NO REASON TO HAVE FLOWERS IN YOUR GARDEN”
    …But we have free will and we choose to have those things…

  • RAM6 January 15, 2016, 12:03 pm

    I know some of you will probably nit pick some of what’s in this post, but here it is as I understand the issue. I posted this the day the President used his “pen and a phone” authority to ramp up his gun control agenda. Insert the name Whoopi Goldberg wherever you see the word Democrat.

    “It seems as though the President and the Democrats are badly misinformed about what it is they are trying to ban. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. Anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon. So let’s be clear (as our CIC is so fond of saying) are we talking about an ax, a knife, a shovel, a tire iron, what? Because all of those can be “assault weapons” when used to assault someone. “Assault” is an action not an object. But they, including any firearm, don’t “assault” anyone, only a person can do that.

    Now there are “automatic rifles”. The one that immediately comes to mind is the M16 which can be fired on full automatic, three shot rounds or semi-automatic. That firearm is illegal for civilians to own. There is an AR15 (which stands for Armalite Rifle, not Automatic Rifle) and looks sorta like the M16 but can only be fired as a semi-automatic and is perfectly legal. For the uninitiated that’s one shot for every trigger pull until the magazine is empty. If we are talking about “automatic” rifles those are already banned unless you complete mountains of paperwork, pass a highly intrusive background check, and pay a ton of money to be eventually approved by the ATF. They are not available for civilian purchase without the above conditions having been met.

    See, gun grabbers don’t even know enough to use the proper nomenclature for what they want to get rid of. They call magazines, clips or vice versa and semi-automatic firearms, automatic. They constantly label semi-automatic handguns as “automatic” because they believe no one should own a hand gun and the term “automatic handgun” is scary to the uninitiated. They don’t know, don’t care, and just want to disarm all of us which will do nothing to prevent criminal armed assault on all of us in the process.

    What they really want to do is scare everyone and then take all firearms so they can control us all far more easily. If you think that’s an exaggeration then check out the many comments on this issue made by the defacto Democrat candidate for President. She’s said on several occassions that the Australian experiment in confiscation and buyback is on her agenda if elected. With 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S. it’s going to be a major undertaking and bound to not be successful, but that doesn’t mean these anti-democratic leftists won’t try.”

    • Gerald January 15, 2016, 12:39 pm

      Sorry to burst your bubble Ram6. “The one that immediately comes to mind is the M16 which can be fired on full automatic, three shot rounds or semi-automatic. That firearm is illegal for civilians to own.” That is just as wrong as what Whoopi said. I own one and bought it legally in Texas. Now it may be illegal where you’re at but it is not an illegal firearm nationwide. I also own a variety of NFA weapons – mostly machineguns or submachine guns, as well as SBR’s and suppressors.

      • Darren January 15, 2016, 1:49 pm

        I think he meant specifically those made after 1986, as he also mentioned that you can buy one if you get a lengthy and intrusive background check. You can’t go out today and buy a brand new M16. That is also why your fully automatic M16, likely cost 5 to 15 times as much as a regular AR15 aside from all of the background checks. Congratulations on owning one of only 182,619 registered automatic firearms. Where he was wrong was he listed all of the possible fire combinations of all M16s instead of listing it as Safe, Semi-Automatic and Automatic(Full or 3-round burst) as to my knowledge, there aren’t ones made prior to 1986 which had all 4 modes.

    • Sandman January 15, 2016, 4:01 pm

      Correction—M-16s are NOT ILLEGAL to own as long as you pay the FFL tax.
      Any person that can legally own a firearm can own an M-16 as long as they want to part with around $16,000 and another $200 for the ATF tax stamp.
      I can only think of cartel members who have automatics that they either got on the black market, from the Mexican military of were part of obamas “fast and furious” screw up that put hundreds of automatics in the hands of drug cartel members who by the way killed ATF and Border Patrol agents———-sooo thank you Obama for making the country safe–you lieing POS

      • Papa smurf January 22, 2016, 4:00 pm

        Someone please tell me “Fast and Furious” was not an intentional FUBAR operation?

  • Pat J January 15, 2016, 11:51 am

    Willful ignorance on arms terms is an open expression of contempt. It’s been explained, it’s been heard. The sides will never meet, but the armed side will eventually be outvoted, and the NRA will be proven prescient. “All gun confiscation schemes begin with reasonable sounding gun laws.” After last year’s expanded background legislation in Oregon, all supporters were giddy about their “good first step”. Fight step fifteen at step one. By numbers, eventually bigger city metrosexuals tell the outlanders how to hunt cougars by initiatives, votes, and political poodles. The same will be enacted with weapons. I’ll be a criminal of conscience, what a term!

  • John Nicholson January 15, 2016, 10:49 am

    If the report is accurate, Rand Paul was wrong also. Last count I heard there’s about a half million(?) registered, legally owned full automatic weapons “out there”. None have been used in any crimes. Not sure what Mr. Paul meant by “no longer out there”. Criminals can still obtain full automatic weapons but mass shootings are almost all committed with non full autos.

  • Steven January 15, 2016, 10:40 am

    Whoopi shit.

  • David Witheld January 15, 2016, 9:59 am

    Well, that settles it. If an expert like Whoopi Goldberg thinks so how can any sane person argue?

  • mark scott January 15, 2016, 9:45 am

    considering black murder rates, one could honestly say disarming blacks is the only meaningful act one could take to curb gun murders, so whoopee and Obama are ignoring the ONE actual problematic element in America and should stfu imho.

    • Nick Muich January 15, 2016, 3:13 pm

      The non-criminal black needs a gun to protect themselves from the criminal black. That would be an infringement on the second amendment. The National Guard confiscated the non-criminal’s guns during Katrina. I don’t think that will happen again.

  • Tony C January 15, 2016, 9:42 am

    I believe we should out law forks, there is no reason people can’t eat with spoons. Forks are very dangerous, you can realy hurt yourself or someone else not to mention butter knives and . Wait a minute never mind, Whoopi your insane girl

  • Bit-Me January 15, 2016, 9:02 am

    One thing for sure Whoopi, after the government takes away all our guns (second amendment) then they will take away your right to free speech (first amendment) and you will have to learn to shut up.

  • Jay January 15, 2016, 8:59 am

    The fact is, stupid people spew stupidity and the other stupid people just lavish it! Why is it the Constitution starts out! “We The People”? It does not say anything about We the government except to limit the governments power! Why is is that these same stupid people scream the loudest for their 1st, 3rd etc…. amendment rights when someone tramples on them, saying they are Individual human rights? Those same amendments they cherish have the exact same two words, “the people” in them, just like the second amendment! The second however adds some very powerful wording, “Shall not be infringed” this alone says no government should be allowed to regulate this right with sly little trickery laws, bit by bit undoing the fringe of dress if you will as example, eating away at it until it no longer is there, then your standing there in your underwear, like government is doing today and in fact has been doing for quite some time! Yet they shout that the second should be regulated for all people who have the same human rights as them because of the actions of a few! Do these people ever consider that a firearm can also be used for good? The second amendment is the most regulated of amendments and its about time we do something to get that fixed, not the other way around!

    • JT January 15, 2016, 10:39 am

      Excellent points. I agree with everything you said.

  • M H January 15, 2016, 8:51 am

    Well, nobody needs a car that goes 195 mph when speed limit is 70, but they sell them all across the country. People should be able to buy & own anything they want as long as they’re responsible owners.

  • Chris Baker January 15, 2016, 8:39 am

    And this is why I won’t vote for Rand Paul. At first he was appeared to be supporting the constitution and how the president is usurping the power of the legislature when he takes these illegal actions, but instead of supporting the constitution when replying to Whoopi he made a statement that was totally not the point. The very first thing he should have said was “Whoopi, do you need those earrings? You DON’T have a constitutional right to wear earrings. On the other hand you do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that according to the constitution, shall not be infringed. That right is far more important than you seem to realize. Yes you own a gun but you don’t even know what the difference is between two different types of weapon. Since you own a gun do you know the first rule of safety about guns and how to use them? Probably not. Do you have the slightest idea why the founders of this country put the second amendment in the bill of rights? If you read their papers, called the federalist papers and truly understood what they were trying to build here, you would be against everything the president is doing.” and so on. Instead he went off on the “oh those were banned long ago” malarkey.
    To me that just shows that he does not understand what the second amendment really says. How is banning a type of firearm not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment doesn’t include anything about “unless they are banned” or “as long as you get permission from the government” or “as long as the government thinks they should be infringed”. No, unless someone can explain to me how banning or restricting or requiring government permission fits into this:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    I will continue to say that “requiring a permit is an infringement. Forbidding certain types of weapons is an infringement. Barring weapons from certain areas is an infringement. The Second Amendment IS my concealed carry permit.” Why is there so much question about what it really says? I think it’s because most politicians are lawyers. I think we should ban lawyers from holding public office.

    • jim January 15, 2016, 9:55 am

      You catch more flies with honey.

      It scares me that you somehow think anyone else on that Republican debate stage has a better grasp or defense of the Constitution compared to Rand.

      • Gerald January 15, 2016, 12:42 pm

        Can you say “Ted Cruz?”

      • Chris Baker January 15, 2016, 10:38 pm

        Easy Peasy… Ted Cruz has won 9 cases before the supreme court of the U.S. I dare say he knows more about the law than 50% + 1 of the SCOTUS, at the very least and far more than Rand Paul.

  • Sam January 15, 2016, 8:30 am

    Says a person that has guarded fence. She did say “ANYONE” fine
    COPS loose the guns. The Great Wisdom of Whoopie Says so.

  • Allen Dean Benge January 15, 2016, 8:09 am

    Whoopi, I have always been a great fan of yours, and I like how you still carry your old welfare card, to remember where you came from.. however, I cannot respect your position on firearms, due to the utter ignorance you showed in the referenced episode. To own an fully automatic weapon, one has to purchase a very expensive piece of equipment, in the range of $2,000 and up, then pay a $200 transfer tax, and wade through mucho paperwork and submit to several background investigations. This has been the case since the national firearms Act of 1934. People who go through all that are not liable to go around committing crimes with automatic weapons, or any other crimes as well. Street criminals would never have the money or the courage to submit themselves to that level of investigation. I have fired automatic weapons as a deputy sheriff, and it is a blast. However, I could never afford to feed a full auto weapon, not even the American 180, a .22 caliber machine gun that is firing the rounds four inches apart down the barrel. The 177-round takes an hour to load, and is gone in less than ten seconds. The AR 15, which is what I think you are talking about is not a full auto firearm. It is a semi-automatic, which means you get one round of ammo for each pull of the trigger. Full auto will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed. Please, do a fan a favor and learn more about firearms. I would suggest front Sight Resort in Pahrump, NV. Dr. Ignatius Piazza offers training that is more complete than any offered by any police department, military or other instructors. I would love to attend, but I could never afford it, So-so Security is rather tight fisted with MY money. Loved you as Guinan and in The Telephone, fantastic one-woman movie.

    • Chris Baker January 15, 2016, 9:49 am

      The national firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional.

  • claude hanks January 15, 2016, 7:35 am

    There’s no reason why anybody needs Whoopi Goldberg!

  • Yepper January 15, 2016, 7:29 am

    Whoopi!!! you say you are a gun owner LMAO, If this is the case what part about SEMI and AUTO don’t you get.

    • Chris Baker January 15, 2016, 8:42 am

      Part of the problem for a lot of people is the term semi-auto. I think it would be a great help if people would use the more correct term “auto-loading” although as stupid as many on the left are they would think the gun went and got the ammo and put the ammo into itself just as we eat our food.

  • Rick A January 15, 2016, 7:15 am

    Some people are very uncomfortable with the fact that the 2nd is not about hunting.

  • Elevator Guy January 15, 2016, 7:01 am

    I think Sen. Paul missed on a golden opportunity.
    “Ms. Goldberg, do you mean to tell me that you are a gun owner, but don’t know the difference between semi-automatic and full-auto?”

  • Dr Motown January 15, 2016, 6:46 am

    She sounds as stupid and disingenuous as the anti-gun trolls who post comments on sites like this. You’ve read their posts too: “I’m a gun owner but there’s no reason to own an AR!” Or, “I love my country too, but I’d register all my guns and convert to ‘smart’ technology if the President demanded it!” Can’t fix stupid, but we need to always call it out when we hear it.

    • Mike T January 15, 2016, 9:48 am

      The said truth is there are many gun owners out there who do support Obama gun control measures and many elitist gun owners (Trap and Skeet) and others who only feel a need for “Their Guns” only.

  • Charlie King1 January 9, 2016, 11:51 pm

    Why do people like Whoopi have a platform to spread stupidity? “Well, you know what I mean.” Go home Whoopi…

    • Helg Saracen January 13, 2016, 6:19 am

      🙂

    • Chris Baker January 15, 2016, 8:52 am

      I think a better question is “why do people who listen to actors about non-acting situations think the actor knows or has a better opinion about things than anyone else?” She’s a good actor but that only means she’s really good at pretending. Nothing else. I really enjoyed watching “The Color Purple” but I would never expect her to have any knowledge beyond what she needs for a particular part. Heh, I went on a solar eclipse tour in 1991 and for some reason the tour company thought it would be a good idea to bring a couple of actors along and have them give talks. So the guy who played Captain Picard, whose name I can’t think of at the moment, and LeVar Burton gave us talks. C.P. showed abysmal ignorance of Astronomy while LeVar gave a interesting presentation. Just as some actors know other things, just like us regular folks, some don’t.

      • Chuck January 15, 2016, 10:51 am

        “I don’t understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons,” exclaimed Goldberg.

        Well, she’s right about one thing: SHE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND. And of course, she refuses to try to understand. Yet, she keeps wanting to run her mouth regarding a topic on which she admits (and demonstrates) no understanding.

    • Robert Brooks January 28, 2017, 5:54 am

      That’s why she is paid so much! It’s very important to ‘someone’ that we all think like her…….
      There’s an entire industry that does the same.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend