Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Our Sport is Under Attack Again

  • 09-08-2019 8:12pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Hi Folks. Some information has come my way regarding changes being introduced by the Minister.
    New Rules Introduced by our minister includes a series of bans: Banning of Certain Firearms The following firearms are prohibited*:
    A. Automatic firearms which have been converted into semi-automatic firearms,
    B. Centre fire semi-automatic handguns which allow the firing of more than 21 rounds without reloading, if: a. a magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds is part of that firearm;
    or b. a detachable magazine with a capacity exceeding 20rounds is inserted into it;
    C. Centre fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which allow the firing of more than 11 rounds without reloading, if: (i) a magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is part of that firearm; or (ii) a detachable magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is inserted into it.
    D. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that can be reduced to a length of less than 60 cm by means of a folding or telescoping stock or by a stock that can be removed without using tools.
    *The Regulations provide for a period of six months until 29 February 2020 to allow for compliance by Registered Firearms Dealers and holders of firearms certificates with the new prohibition. In points B and C above, in most cases this would involve disposing of a magazine whose excess capacity makes the firearm subject to prohibition. Disposal should be by means of export or surrender for permanent destruction to the superintendent of the local Garda District. Likewise, firearms that are now prohibited will need to be exported or surrendered for permanent destruction to the superintendent of the local Garda District within the six months grace period.
    Penalties Subject to the six months exception, any person who acquires or possesses the above prohibited firearms shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable: 
    On summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months or both;  On conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or imprisonment for up to 7 years or both.



    and


    New Rules on storage of ammo and transportation of guns in cars New Storage requirements Statutory Instrument No: 307 of 2009: Firearms (Secure Accommodation) Order 2009 defines the minimum security required for the storage of firearms by holders of firearm certificates.

    In addition to these requirements, the new regulations require the following: Storage of ammunition  When the firearm is not in use, all ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked receptacle that is separate from where the firearm is stored. Transporting firearms or ammunition  When transporting a firearm or ammunition, the firearm must be concealed from view and stored separately from the ammunition.  The ammunition must be stored in a locked receptacle.



    and


    Marking of Firearms  Firearms and essential components imported into the State from a non- EU country or manufactured in the State must be marked without delay and at the latest before placement on the market. Registered Firearms Dealers involved in either the importation from a non-EU country or manufacture of firearms must comply with this requirement;  The essential components which need to be marked in compliance with the requirements of Directive 2017/853 are defined in Article 1 of the Directive as:-  the barrel;  the frame;  the receiver (including both upper and lower receivers where applicable);  the slide;  the cylinder; and,  the bolt or breech block.  Markings must be clear, permanent and unique. The unique marking should be engraved permanently upon the firearm or essential component concerned;  The markings required are set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 on pages 8 and 9 of the attached S.I.  The markings shall be without prejudice to the affixing of the manufacturer’s trademark;  Markings shall be applied to all essential components of a firearm. Where an essential component is too small to be marked, it shall be marked at least with a serial number of an alphanumeric or digital code;  The minimum depth of marking in Ireland is 0.04mm;  The alphabet to be used in Ireland for marking is Latin (A to Z);  The numeral system to be used in Ireland for marking is Arabic (0 to 9)

    Now, I hope I am being fed bullsh1t but given the current climate, I reckon that the PTB might try to bring this in without any consultation.

    I wonder was there any consultation. Did the FCP know about it? Did any other shooting bodies know about it?


«13456712

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭ oldgit1897


    I see it being refererred to as a directive, so this rubbish is from the Eussr ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    oldgit1897 wrote: »
    I see it being refererred to as a directive, so this rubbish is from the Eussr ?

    I think the only thing in the directive is the bit about the markings. There's nothing in any directive about mag capacity and the ammo safe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭ Rifter


    Where did you get this info from Battlecorp?? And from where did they get it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭ oldgit1897


    How on earth, are dealers going to mark components on any firearm ? Most dealers are box shifters with little or no gunsmithing ability ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Rifter wrote: »
    Where did you get this info from Battlecorp?? And from where did they get it?

    Sorry, but I won't reveal my source but suffice to say that I trust them and they aren't the type to peddle bullsh1t.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭ Rifter


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Sorry, but I won't reveal my source but suffice to say that I trust them and they aren't the type to peddle bullsh1t.

    That is fair enough.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    oldgit1897 wrote: »
    How on earth, are dealers going to mark components on any firearm ? Most dealers are box shifters with little or no gunsmithing ability ?

    A big worry for me is if it will apply to existing firearms.

    Or for people who customise their 10/22's.

    If I buy a barrel off a mate who has his licence number on it, it won't match with my licence number. And if I buy the receiver off another mate with a different number, then we are getting into a pile of sh1te.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    a stock that can be removed without using tools.

    er...

    Milwaukee-M18-Fuel-Sawzall-with-One-Key-clearer.jpg

    Makes it easier to remove a stock, but not impossible...

    dsc00550a.jpg

    I managed to remove that stock using nothing but a broken strap :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Hi Folks. Some information has come my way regarding changes being introduced by the Minister.

    Now, I hope I am being fed bullsh1t but given the current climate, I reckon that the PTB might try to bring this in without any consultation.

    I wonder was there any consultation. Did the FCP know about it? Did any other shooting bodies know about it?


    Well if the FCP doesnt know about this then they are utterly useless fuks that should be taken out by us and dumped in the nearest body of water...

    THIS is the EU directive being implimented here in ireland,and dont tell us youwerent warned this was on the way.

    Now break it down
    New Rules Introduced by our minister includes a series of bans: Banning of Certain Firearms The following firearms are prohibited*:

    No they are not..tHe Eu directive allows them in all countries


    A. Automatic firearms which have been converted into semi-automatic firearms
    Yup that was to be expected s that was an EU hot point
    ,
    B. Centre fire semi-automatic handguns which allow the firing of more than 21 rounds without reloading, if: a. a magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds is part of that firearm;
    or b. a detachable magazine with a capacity exceeding 20rounds is inserted into it;

    So IOW it is still legal standard round mag under the EU directive,and even the 20 shot mags are still legal.
    C. Centre fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which allow the firing of more than 11 rounds without reloading, if: (i) a magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is part of that firearm; or (ii) a detachable magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is inserted into it.

    So yeah they are still legal here under the law.With a ten rounder mag

    D. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that can be reduced to a length of less than 60 cm by means of a folding or telescoping stock or by a stock that can be removed without using tools.

    They will have to define this better,as this doesnt say over all length or folded length.

    *The Regulations provide for a period of six months until 29 February 2020 to allow for compliance by Registered Firearms Dealers and holders of firearms certificates with the new prohibition. In points B and C above, in most cases this would involve disposing of a magazine whose excess capacity makes the firearm subject to prohibition. Disposal should be by means of export or surrender for permanent destruction to the superintendent of the local Garda District.

    THIS is now the problem . A challenge can be mounted to this under the Constitution Sect 42 and eU charter of human rights articles five and seven.This is also contary to the EU directive itself that allows for grandfathering of ownership of both mags and firearms in respective EU countries.
    Likewise, firearms that are now prohibited will need to be exported or surrendered for permanent destruction to the superintendent of the local Garda District within the six months grace period.

    As above.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    If it is a transcription of an EU directive, then the Department and Minister is obligated to pass something to give effect to the directive.

    That is not the same thing as passing a poorly drafted - to the point of ridicule - law though.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Well if the FCP doesnt know about this then they are utterly useless fuks
    Much as I dislike quoting a bunch of savages: "if"
    that should be taken out by us and dumped in the nearest body of water...
    For the, I dunno, thousandth time?
    The FCP is the Minister's panel.
    We have no veto over it.
    It's also still the best measure anyone ever managed to get in this country, because it is the Minister's panel.
    THIS is now the problem . A challenge can be mounted to this under the Constitution Sect 42 and eU charter of human rights articles five and seven.This is also contary to the EU directive itself that allows for grandfathering of ownership of both mags and firearms in respective EU countries.
    From a precedent point of view, that'd be an interesting case to take, but every time I ever looked at EU legislation it was explicit that the EU took the view that they were setting minimum standards the member states could not be more liberal than; but that if they wanted to be more conservative in their laws and ban more things, the EU did not intend to block them. I wonder if that principle still applies here, because if so, you'd have a far better chance arguing that the drafting was unfit by way of errors than that it was counter to EU law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Sorry, but I won't reveal my source but suffice to say that I trust them and they aren't the type to peddle bullsh1t.

    I really hope that this is BS,although I dount it as Ireland has to impliment this too under the EU directive,and it looks like they are trying to gold plate some of this legislation too.This is going to the FUN EU and if the mag thing is true we will mount a legal challenge to it in Ireland.


    M
    arking of Firearms  Firearms and essential components imported into the State from a non- EU country or manufactured in the State must be marked without delay and at the latest before placement on the market. Registered Firearms Dealers involved in either the importation from a non-EU country or manufacture of firearms must comply with this requirement;  The essential components which need to be marked in compliance with the requirements of Directive 2017/853 are defined in Article 1 of the Directive as:-  the barrel;  the frame;  the receiver (including both upper and lower receivers where applicable);  the slide;  the cylinder; and,  the bolt or breech block.  Markings must be clear, permanent and unique. The unique marking should be engraved permanently upon the firearm or essential component concerned;  The markings required are set out in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 on pages 8 and 9 of the attached S.I.  The markings shall be without prejudice to the affixing of the manufacturer’s trademark;  Markings shall be applied to all essential components of a firearm. Where an essential component is too small to be marked, it shall be marked at least with a serial number of an alphanumeric or digital code;  The minimum depth of marking in Ireland is 0.04mm;  The alphabet to be used in Ireland for marking is Latin (A to Z);  The numeral system to be used in Ireland for marking is Arabic (0 to 9)

    Yeah to be expected too,as said an EU directive part,and tough sht if Ireland hasnt got any proper gun makesrs.Sort it out yourselves lads is the attitude there.

    New Rules on storage of ammo and transportation of guns in cars New Storage requirements Statutory Instrument No: 307 of 2009: Firearms (Secure Accommodation) Order 2009 defines the minimum security required for the storage of firearms by holders of firearm certificates.

    In addition to these requirements, the new regulations require the following: Storage of ammunition  When the firearm is not in use, all ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked receptacle that is separate from where the firearm is stored. Transporting firearms or ammunition  When transporting a firearm or ammunition, the firearm must be concealed from view and stored separately from the ammunition.  The ammunition must be stored in a locked receptacle.

    THERE is your Irish Gold plating,but it is pretty vauge in interpertation as to what "seperate and locked container" is.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Sparks wrote: »
    Much as I dislike quoting a bunch of savages: "if"

    For the, I dunno, thousandth time?
    The FCP is the Minister's panel.
    We have no veto over it.
    It's also still the best measure anyone ever managed to get in this country, because it is the Minister's panel.

    I mean that if in the sense it has not been brought up by any revelant bodies repersented on the panel ,seeing that this directive has been a hot topic of debate in all firearm forms EU wide,and now they aeacting like headless chickens.THEN I would describe those repersenting us as utterly useless.


    From a precedent point of view, that'd be an interesting case to take, but every time I ever looked at EU legislation it was explicit that the EU took the view that they were setting minimum standards the member states could not be more liberal than; but that if they wanted to be more conservative in their laws and ban more things, the EU did not intend to block them. I wonder if that principle still applies here, because if so, you'd have a far better chance arguing that the drafting was unfit by way of errors than that it was counter to EU la

    Dont look at it about firearms law.Look at it as loss of property that is legal to own pre the directive without compensation.There is specific EU law in the charter for human rights on this.That is wHY the EU specifically put a granffather clause into the directive on converted firearms,as it would have caused chaos in the Czech Republic and in Switzerland.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Apparently the SI was signed on August 2nd but I don't see anything on Irish Statute Book.

    I'm not an expert on the process but does
    anybody know how long it takes a SI to be published/enacted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    A big worry for me is if it will apply to existing firearms.

    Or for people who customise their 10/22's.

    If I buy a barrel off a mate who has his licence number on it, it won't match with my licence number. And if I buy the receiver off another mate with a different number, then we are getting into a pile of sh1te.

    Not really the numbers are traceable back to a previous owner,like the reciver.This is the EUs way of dealing with "ghost guns" and trying to figure out if the parts are comeing from demilled mil surplus guns. Its utter unworkable crap that everyone is kicking up stink across the eU about.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Yeah to be expected too,as said an EU directive part,and tough sht if Ireland hasnt got any proper gun makesrs.Sort it out yourselves lads is the attitude there.

    Our existing Firearms Act, section 3 (12) already says this though and has for quite some time:
    (12) A firearm in respect of which a firearm certificate is granted shall be marked in the prescribed manner with a number or other prescribed identifying mark, and the number or mark shall be entered on the certificate.
    This is giving more detail than just saying "prescribed". So basically, you can't use a permanent marker anymore. Every new law is something to watch closely, but this doesn't at first glance look like the most ridiculous we've ever seen. (Standard caveats about committee stage and amendments obviously still apply)

    THERE is your Irish Gold plating,but it is pretty vauge in interpertation as to what "seperate and locked container" is.

    Worse, section 4(d) would seem to imply we would need *two* gun safes were this passed:
    (d) has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,

    Since secure accommodation was further defined in an SI by referring to how many firearms were owned, and since the idea of how you define what's secure when you store the ammunition separately, there's now a nice chunky gray area right there, induced purely by bad drafting.

    Depending on how you read it, you could be talking about a lockbox in the safe with the rifle; or a whole new gun safe for just the ammunition; or anything on the spectrum in between those two.

    "Needs further work", would be about the most generous assessment here I think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,177 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Sparks wrote: »
    Our existing Firearms Act, section 3 (12) already says this though and has for quite some time:

    This is giving more detail than just saying "prescribed". So basically, you can't use a permanent marker anymore. Every new law is something to watch closely, but this doesn't at first glance look like the most ridiculous we've ever seen. (Standard caveats about committee stage and amendments obviously still apply)

    Yeah but you'll need barrel, receiver, bolt etc marked now.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Apparently the SI was signed on August 2nd but I don't see anything on Irish Statute Book.
    I'm not an expert on the process but does
    anybody know how long it takes a SI to be published/enacted?

    It's a shockingly hazy topic that one. There's nothing on the Department's website, Iris Oifigiuil has nothing from August 9 back to July 12, there's nothing on oireachtas.ie but none of that means it wouldn't show up tomorrow. There just isn't a central clearing-house for SIs, and they are effectively enacted the moment they're signed.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Yeah but you'll need barrel, receiver, bolt etc marked now.

    Which you would also need marked today if the Super specified it. And for half the things the Act technically covers, that'd be a hairy thing - what part of a crossbow would you mark for example? And how, without weakening it and risking a potential failure of a component?
    I don't welcome it - but the storage one seems to me to be the one with the greatest impact at least on day one. The precedent set by "we're banning these, you have to have them destroyed" seems equally impactful, though further down the line is where the worst of its effects would be felt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    I TBH expected them to try a lot worse.
    But bar the question of the Mags,which could be just as easily sorted out by saying and adding" permantly converting to a respective 10/20 shot" and there is precedence under law to do this,remember the 22 pistols??,and grandfathering the few milspec converts that are here.Maybe less than 10?. And now figuring out how we will get all these serial numbers done,which again would best be done, when selling a 2nd hand gun onwards thru a dealer

    Its just the EU directive as I expected it to be,apart from the ammo gold plating,which is best left as vauge as possible for us.;). And of course we could actually wipe out this Mag ban.IF we had a competitive sport that is recognised nationally and internationally even,that requires that high round count as there is a grandfathering in the directive for that too...So put yer thinking caps on.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Comment already from FUN" So a literal implementation of the directive? Well, ****".
    .

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭ richiedel123


    Just read it. Si 420 of 2019 comes into force 1st September 2019. It's signed sealed and delivered worded exactly how battlecorp said it was. The ammo one is a huge problem!!!!


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    And of course we could actually wipe out this Mag ban.IF we had a competitive sport that is recognised nationally and internationally even,that requires that high round count as there is a grandfathering in the directive for that too...So put yer thinking caps on.
    Can i ask an unpopular question?

    Why?

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Apparently the SI was signed on August 2nd but I don't see anything on Irish Statute Book.
    Won't be up until it's implemented, as said above, on September 1st.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    The ammo one is a huge problem!!!!

    For rifle and pistol ammo in transport, not really. A lock on an ammo can will work just fine. €10 in the local army bargain place and a lock for a fiver and it's sorted.

    For clay lads, yes. A few slabs of cartridges will be a nightmare to have locked away while transporting.

    At home, depends. I already have a separate safe for my ammo, but again depending on type of ammo and quantity it will cause issues for lads.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭ ace86


    Just read it. Si 420 of 2019 comes into force 1st September 2019. It's signed sealed and delivered worded exactly how battlecorp said it was. The ammo one is a huge problem!!!!

    I’m just wondering how they expect a fellow to travel to a shoot have his gun in the boot but now must store is ammo in the bak seat and still keep them secure and out of sight to satisfy a directive.
    I have an alarm in my house ammo is stored in the room but not in the safe so I must buy another safe or modify a press to accommodate them. Jesus lads in offices have nothing better to do only thinking up crazy ideas justifying jobs and creating more jobs,money, and revenue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭ richiedel123


    The poor Lad out after pheasant or duck that throws the dog into the boot is in trouble too he has to have dog gun and ammo in together so nobody can see it. now he has to get a lock box of some description to put his ammo in.
    There was no thinking done when they came up with this.some of it makes no sense. Marking every part of any firearm coming into the state is a joke!!! If dealers have to get gunSmith's to do it it will increase the cost of guns which will drive down sales


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Hi Folks. Some information has come my way regarding changes being introduced by the Minister.

    Grizz has covered it all, and i'll admit i didn't read it all again, because it's been discussed here, here, and here that these changes were coming.

    Not being defeatist, but it's why i'm not shocked or surprised. This has been coming for over a year now. The EU set the directive and each member state drafts legislation for it.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    ace86 wrote: »
    Jesus lads in offices have nothing better to do only thinking up crazy ideas justifying jobs and creating more jobs,money, and revenue.
    The EU. Great isn't it? :rolleyes:
    Marking every part of any firearm coming into the state is a joke!!! If dealers have to get gunSmith's to do it it will increase the cost of guns which will drive down sales
    Guns from outside of the EU or manufactured within the state, only.

    Not a major issue as most guns from outside and within the EU are marked already, well at least factory ones, and it's more designed to address the issue of custom firearms that are made from a combination of custom made parts. Again not a huge surprise.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Cass wrote: »
    Can i ask an unpopular question?

    Why?
    because at one stage up to the lat 80s .The default setting for mags with SA's was 20 rounds from the factory,and it was monkeyed about with California introducing it,and then the cime bill from Clinton.It has been proven to be a non influential point in mass shootings.People just carry more 10 round mags or tape them together and practise a quick mag change.Whats to say next time round it will be down to five rounds?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



Advertisement