View Full Version : Crossing the "Line in the Sand"
FlyingHunter
12-29-12, 08:41
All of us, at some point, have contemplated the moment when both our intellectual and spiritual being acknowledge..."The line in the sand has been crossed." We experience these with our careers, our marriages, our friends. I would suggest that we often have these "lines" well defined in our inventory of social, religious, political, and personal beliefs. On other occasions, it seems to jump out of nowhere and we react with a WTF just happened.
The link below defines the "line in the sand" as related to proposed legislative changes to our second amendment freedoms by Stuart Rhodes. Stuart is an Ex-paratrooper, disabled vet, ex-firearms instructor, former Ron Paul staffer, Yale Law grad/Research Scholar, Montana lawyer and president and founder of Oath Keepers.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/12/19/my-personal-pledge-of-resistance-against-any-attemp-to-disarm-us-by-means-of-an-assault-weapons-ban/?cp=1
I found his perspective, line of reasoning, and reference to our founding fathers thought provoking.[/FONT]
Hogsgunwild
12-29-12, 10:29
When I see this stuff I cannot help but to think of the irony in "defending
against enemies both foreign and domestic" and having to serve under our current Commander in Chief...
Maybe a Secret Service dude will re-read his oath and fix...
Oh shit, black helicopters are coming, I've gotta run....
Business_Casual
12-29-12, 10:33
When I see this stuff, I can't help but think "carnivore" or whatever the NSA is calling it these days.
bc
Hogsgunwild
12-29-12, 11:34
OK, I'm back. It was just a formation of National Guard copters going over. I need to finish what I was saying:
Maybe a Secret Service dude will re-read his oath an fix the problem with counterfeit money in this country once and for all. I just hate how the fake bills are so uncomplimentary to those poor Presidents' hair.
Doesn't this bother everyone?
There, (best robot / sheep voice) I have been assimilated. Baaaaah, baaaaaaah.
All of us, at some point, have contemplated the moment when both our intellectual and spiritual being acknowledge..."The line in the sand has been crossed." We experience these with our careers, our marriages, our friends. I would suggest that we often have these "lines" well defined in our inventory of social, religious, political, and personal beliefs. On other occasions, it seems to jump out of nowhere and we react with a WTF just happened.
The link below defines the "line in the sand" as related to proposed legislative changes to our second amendment freedoms by Stuart Rhodes. Stuart is an Ex-paratrooper, disabled vet, ex-firearms instructor, former Ron Paul staffer, Yale Law grad/Research Scholar, Montana lawyer and president and founder of Oath Keepers.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/12/19/my-personal-pledge-of-resistance-against-any-attemp-to-disarm-us-by-means-of-an-assault-weapons-ban/?cp=1
I found his perspective, line of reasoning, and reference to our founding fathers thought provoking.[/FONT]
Thanks for sharing. Stewart Rhodes is a brilliant man; always hits the nail on the head.
Straight Shooter
12-29-12, 12:53
Hi FH-
I hope you aint went thru that 7.62 yet....we may be fixin to need it.
MY line has long been crossed brother.
Moose-Knuckle
12-29-12, 16:27
Excellent read thanks for sharing.
Finally, I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any “assault weapons ban” or any other illegitimate “law” passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm. We will resist. And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day.
Every federal gun control law is illegal, and a constitutional violation, further, no agent of the government, whether they are LE or military, has any right to access any weapon(s)denied to "We The People!"
Further still, any group of individuals, whether they be government sanctioned agents, or foreign nationals, who openly work to subvert the rights of "We The People" are guilty of conspiring to deny civil liberties, a federal felony! ;) The line was crossed long ago....
bondmid003
12-29-12, 20:22
Every federal gun control law is illegal, and a constitutional violation, further, no agent of the government, whether they are LE or military, has any right to access any weapon(s)denied to "We The People!"
Further still, any group of individuals, whether they be government sanctioned agents, or foreign nationals, who openly work to subvert the rights of "We The People" are guilty of conspiring to deny civil liberties, a federal felony! ;) The line was crossed long ago....
I fly Hornets, those aren't accessible to 'we the people' so what are you talking about
Alaskapopo
12-29-12, 20:25
Every federal gun control law is illegal, and a constitutional violation, further, no agent of the government, whether they are LE or military, has any right to access any weapon(s)denied to "We The People!"Further still, any group of individuals, whether they be government sanctioned agents, or foreign nationals, who openly work to subvert the rights of "We The People" are guilty of conspiring to deny civil liberties, a federal felony! ;) The line was crossed long ago....
Really what about nukes? I am as pro gun as they come but your statement is silly if taken at face value.
Pat
I fly Hornets, those aren't accessible to 'we the people' so what are you talking about
Really what about nukes? I am as pro gun as they come but your statement is silly if taken at face value.
Pat
I understand your desire to attempt to marginalize my statement, and consign it to the fringe, many of us have been conditioned by society to accept such an opinion, as lunacy on its face! Nonetheless, this is the same road traversed by the typical, committed, anti-gun shock trooper. That is to say, it appears you are defaulting to the typical anti-gunner tactic of rearing the specter of modern warfare technology as a means of deflecting the narrative into the realm of the ridiculous, I drive an FA18, or what about nukes, ect.ect..as a means of silencing any dissenting opinion. A clever tactic, foisting an impossible scenario upon the unfortunate target, you either get them knodding with you in agreement, or laughed off as a tin-foil capped fringer. Yet, in effect, you are agreeing with the premise propping up the anti-gun left. ;)
That approach is pure anti-gun sophistry, when you agree with the premise behind it, in effect you're stating that you cannot be trusted, and that evenetually, due to technology, "We The people" will no longer be allowed any access whatsoever...However, the 2nd amendment has been intrepreted by the high court to extend to the "common infantry weapons" of the day!
Taken together, we see that the court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (Heller) of all citizens (McDonald) to guns relevant to self defense (Heller) or guns that bear a relation to individual service in the militia at a given time (Miller).
Neither light attack aircraft, or nukes, qualify as common infantry weapons. Common infantry weaponry would be restricted to what a soldier is able to carr upon their back....;)
Alaskapopo
12-29-12, 22:40
I understand your desire to attempt to marginalize my statement, and consign it to the fringe, many of us have been conditioned by society to accept such an opinion, as lunacy on its face! Nonetheless, this is the same road traversed by the typical, committed, anti-gun shock trooper. That is to say, it appears you are defaulting to the typical anti-gunner tactic of rearing the specter of modern warfare technology as a means of deflecting the narrative into the realm of the ridiculous, I drive an FA18, or what about nukes, ect.ect..as a means of silencing any dissenting opinion. A clever tactic, foisting an impossible scenario upon the unfortunate target, you either get them knodding with you in agreement, or laughed off as a tin-foil capped fringer. Yet, in effect, you are agreeing with the premise propping up the anti-gun left. ;)
That approach is pure anti-gun sophistry, when you agree with the premise behind it, in effect you're stating that you cannot be trusted, and that evenetually, due to technology, "We The people" will no longer be allowed any access whatsoever...However, the 2nd amendment has been intrepreted by the high court to extend to the "common infantry weapons" of the day!
Neither light attack aircraft, or nukes, qualify as common infantry weapons. Common infantry weaponry would be restricted to what a soldier is able to carr upon their back....;)
You are fringe and you back pedal a lot. Earlier you said anything the military or government has should be avialble to to everyone. Then I said what about nukes then you said you meant infantry weapons or what a soldier cold carry on his back. What about suitcase nukes or chemical weapons? People reading your posts from the outside world would look at them and think your a whack job which is ok with me. The problem is they will associate all gun owners with your rants which is not ok with me.
And no I am not anti gun despite your efforts to paint me that way.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-29-12, 22:44
I fly Hornets, those aren't accessible to 'we the people' so what are you talking about
By the way that is pretty bad ass! Fighter pilots have the coolest job in the world. Thanks for your service.
Pat
bondmid003
12-29-12, 22:53
I'm not anti gun either man, and the fact you think anyone that disagrees with anything you say is an anti gunner is silly. You certainly are back pedaling from your statement that everyone should have access to everything the military does. I certainly think you are nuts to think any clown off the street should be able to hop into my jet. The us military certainly has assets that only belong in the hands of trained professionals. You and all the other tax payers pay us to use them so no one else has to...remember that.
Every federal gun control law is illegal, and a constitutional violation, further, no agent of the government, whether they are LE or military, has any right to access any weapon(s)denied to "We The People!"
I can see where you're coming from, even though I disagree. You're saying that the only place in the constitution that mentions "Security" is the 2A. And the 2A is a guaranteed right of all citizens. So technically, and historically, WE are the DHS, National Guard, etc.
But, we get our legal system largely from old England. They used to have counties called "Shires" and the head policeman for the Shire was the Reeve. The Shire Reeve . . . . The Sheriff. The founders had no issue with the establishment of local law enforcement.
And as far as nukes and cruise missiles and F/A-18E's and bouncing Betty's, no, civilians shouldn't be allowed to possess. The 2A is for self defense. A 25 MT Nuke is not for self defense.
Really what about nukes? I am as pro gun as they come but your statement is silly if taken at face value.
Pat
Honestly, you could have given my father or grandfather an ICBM and been just fine.
I think if a person is law abiding, has the money and can pay for the same kind of safe storage they are no more a threat to anyone than Obama is.
And maybe crazy ****ers with Korans wouldn't fly planes into our buildings if they knew pissed of people in Montana might be able to do something about it.
I fly Hornets, those aren't accessible to 'we the people' so what are you talking about
I can't fly those. Not that badass. LOL
I fly Cessnas beware:p
And yes, I think I should be allowed to fly an F-18:D
If we try hard enough we can find a way to fight amongst ourselves. :no: Even though we mostly agree.
Getting abck to the article, I think he makes great points. And it rings up the question: If you believe that the 2A was written as a protection against tyranny, and the 2A is not about hunting or limited to self defense, then exactly what weapons DO you want at your disposal to fight tyranny?
I am not asking what weapons scare you if your neighbor had one. If you believed the govt had crossed the line and time for talk was over, and perhaps even your friends or community are under attack for non-compliance or suspicion, what arms do YOU want to have at hand to wage the fight?
Although none of my neighbors can afford a Hornet (well I drove a 1978 brown AMC Hornet long ago, does that count?), I sure would not mind having at least one in the hood at a time like that.
The point is, infantry weapons should be a no-brainer as being protected by the 2A. A legitimate discussion could be had on any weapons greater than infantry. And prior to 1934 that was the case. An individual, if they could afford it, could own Gatling guns, machine guns, cannons, mortars, dynamite, etc. Have the gun laws since 1934 made us safer? Did it de-fang organized crime? Violent hoodlums?
But with the court decision specifying individual military weapons, then anything a soldier typically carries ought to be available to citizens: select fire, SAW, M79, suppressor, claymore, etc. That should be the line in the sand, and it was violated in 1934.
Well for what it's worth, Mike Dillon owns a Navy plane that's armed with a live cannon (or at least he used to). It's all in what you want and how much you have to spend on it.
If we try hard enough we can find a way to fight amongst ourselves. :no: Even though we mostly agree.
Getting abck to the article, I think he makes great points. And it rings up the question: If you believe that the 2A was written as a protection against tyranny, and the 2A is not about hunting or limited to self defense, then exactly what weapons DO you want at your disposal to fight tyranny?
You can't "win" the debate with anti gun/anti Human Rights types with that position. In their world view, there's no possibility of tyranny happening, it only happens in other countries, etc, etc, and anyone who wants to protect some "out dated crazy idea" is a right wing tinfoil hat wearing type, and so forth.
That's why it's doomed to repeat itself as it only takes a few generations of sheeple living safe comfortable lives to decide "it can't happen here." Four words that have killed more people in human history than any other four words put together.
I fly Cessnas beware:p
And yes, I think I should be allowed to fly an F-18:D
I fly Cessnas as well but I am sure if I had $50M to blow I could purchase a neutered F/A-18. No radar, no weapons systems, no cannon. Just flight computer, HUD and Nav computer.
Hell I read an article a few years ago that Sukhoi would sell neutered SU-27's to civilians for around $10M
FlyingHunter
12-30-12, 11:54
As will Brinks stated above:
That's why it's doomed to repeat itself as it only takes a few generations of sheeple living safe comfortable lives to decide "it can't happen here." Four words that have killed more people in human history than any other four words put together.[/QUOTE]
Will hit the nail on the head with this one! Well said sir.
I enjoyed reading this (http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html) and thought it might resonate with quite a few of our members.
I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp (anti-2nd Amendment folks)... except, it's not compromise.
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
LawDog
I enjoyed reading this (http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html) and thought it might resonate with quite a few of our members.
http://i515.photobucket.com/albums/t354/stangman2v/bravo.gif
SeriousStudent
12-30-12, 16:12
Lawdog is my hero. I have been reading his blog for years.
If they ever start cloning Texas lawmen, I hope they start with him.
You are fringe and you back pedal a lot. Earlier you said anything the military or government has should be avialble to to everyone. Then I said what about nukes then you said you meant infantry weapons or what a soldier cold carry on his back. What about suitcase nukes or chemical weapons? People reading your posts from the outside world would look at them and think your a whack job which is ok with me. The problem is they will associate all gun owners with your rants which is not ok with me.
And no I am not anti gun despite your efforts to paint me that way.
Pat
You're not listening, and due to your chronically sullen tone, I am really not all that interested in investing my time with "breaking on through to you."..You have made another knee-jerk attempt at an ad-hom, "backpeddling" as you put it, which is totally erroneous, as nothing in my response to you, lends even a jot of credibility to such a conclusion.
One other thing, "you" are wrapping yourself in the tactics of the anti-gun left, thats where that ridiculous nuke comment was born, as well as the other reference to driving jets, thats "ahh" just a fact! Whether or not you are personally anti-gun is not germane to the point, nor were you called out as such. You made that leap all on your own...;)
Submariner
12-30-12, 20:30
I fly Hornets, those aren't accessible to 'we the people' so what are you talking about
He's talking about the right to keep and bear the arms protected by 2A, i.e. "arms suitable for militia use" as discussed in U.S. v. Miller, 1939. In the absence of testimony to the contrary, the Supremes determined that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't protected because the Army didn't use it as a small arm.
A Naval Aviator ought to know the difference.
But with the court decision specifying individual military weapons, then anything a soldier typically carries ought to be available to citizens: select fire, SAW, M79, suppressor, claymore, etc. That should be the line in the sand, and it was violated in 1934.
And what was the position of our defenders at the NRA in 1934?
Business_Casual
12-30-12, 20:49
Not to mention that the cost to run FA-18 turbofans per hour, let alone the capital cost of an airframe, the maintenance and crew costs, etc., would make private ownership rare enough. Oh, and it would already be illegal to do anything illegal with one anyway.
bc
HackerF15E
12-31-12, 10:14
Really what about nukes? I am as pro gun as they come but your statement is silly if taken at face value.
Pat
Nukes are owned by the department of Energy, so they're not LE or military, as was noted in his post.
Hehe
Honestly, you could have given my father or grandfather an ICBM and been just fine.
Wonderful. Not everyone in this world is your father or grandfather.
And maybe crazy ****ers with Korans wouldn't fly planes into our buildings if they knew pissed of people in Montana might be able to do something about it.
To the extremists, if we all die together worse things could happen. And really, what is Joe in Wisconsin with his C4 going to do Abdul in Pakistan? You want to kill muslims then enlist.
Edit: And of course I am speaking generally and not at you specifically due to your age. :)
HackerF15E
12-31-12, 10:47
Not to mention that the cost to run FA-18 turbofans per hour, let alone the capital cost of an airframe, the maintenance and crew costs, etc.,
The F-15E used to cost about $10,000 per hour in fuel alone in the mid '00s. It was upwards of $20,000 per hour when you factored in the other logistical and maintenance costs.
montanadave
12-31-12, 10:48
Honestly, you could have given my father or grandfather an ICBM and been just fine.
I think if a person is law abiding, has the money and can pay for the same kind of safe storage they are no more a threat to anyone than Obama is.
And maybe crazy ****ers with Korans wouldn't fly planes into our buildings if they knew pissed [off] people in Montana might be able to do something about it.
If this is a reference to the 341st Missile Wing out of Malmstrom A.F.B. and the 150 Minuteman III missiles under its command, my personal experience (strictly anecdotal, mind you) is that the folks that have the keys for these missiles take a real dim view of the locals poking around too closely. :D
If this is a reference to the 341st Missile Wing out of Malmstrom A.F.B. and the 150 Minuteman III missiles under its command, my personal experience (strictly anecdotal, mind you) is that the folks that have the keys for these missiles take a real dim view of the locals poking around too closely. :D
Despite the family reference, I'd like to think the poster is a little above seriously advocating that any civilian should have access to government launch facilities and also be able to fire off nuclear missiles. Hope so anyway, but these have been an interesting few weeks around here.
montanadave
12-31-12, 11:52
Despite the family reference, I'd like to think the poster is a little above seriously advocating that any civilian should have access to government launch facilities and also be able to fire off nuclear missiles. Hope so anyway, but these have been an interesting few weeks around here.
I don't think anybody's contemplating playing with nukes. Just a smattering of rhetorical hyperbole.
The comment merely triggered a few memories for me. My ex-in-laws had a missile silo on their ranch and there were occasional convoys with heavy escort moving up and down the highway. My brother-in-law got "shooed away with extreme prejudice" from the site during an ill-advised self-guided tour in high school and I got an up close and personal "once over" from a Huey escorting one of the convoys while gopher-hunting in the pasture next to the highway.
Those missile boys take their job pretty seriously.
Gunfighter.45
12-31-12, 12:36
I'm not anti gun either man, and the fact you think anyone that disagrees with anything you say is an anti gunner is silly. You certainly are back pedaling from your statement that everyone should have access to everything the military does. I certainly think you are nuts to think any clown off the street should be able to hop into my jet. The us military certainly has assets that only belong in the hands of trained professionals. You and all the other tax payers pay us to use them so no one else has to...remember that.
Well yes and no...as a tax payer I should be able to take ride up the there "with you". You know evaluate what my taxes are paying for:D.. I think that would be more than fair. Lol
God bless and thanks for your sevice.
During the Revolution, the Army was augmented with cannon and warships owned and brought forth by the citizenry. I'm not saying that could at all be possible today, just throwing out a little historical reference.
I will say however that I believe the 2A was not intended for personal self defense. Although that is what is most relevant in modern discussions on the practicality of the amendment, it is in fact only a secondary if not tertiary byproduct of what it protects.
I will also say, and I'm sure that all members on here would agree on this one thing, is that the 2A has nothing to do with hunting.
Honestly, you could have given my father or grandfather an ICBM and been just fine.
I think if a person is law abiding, has the money and can pay for the same kind of safe storage they are no more a threat to anyone than Obama is.
And maybe crazy ****ers with Korans wouldn't fly planes into our buildings if they knew pissed of people in Montana might be able to do something about it.
Agreed. My grandfather was such a man.
I think what you all are missing about the 2A is "a well armed militia"....etc.
ok
Now, tell me exactly how we are well armed enough to handle a m1 abrahms, this expensive jet that keeps poping up in this thread, or a cruise missile... etc, ad nauseum. If the gov wants to swing that weight, we are toast.
But this right is a right. Not a decision. Not somthing that someone can take from you at their whim.
And while we don't have the firepower mentioned above, we are still availed this right. And don't for one ****ing second think they won't try everything, including military force to take away your right(s).
This applies to the entire bill of rights. Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is just going to go away.
I do not think we should compromise our principals.
Enough said.
Now, tell me exactly how we are well armed enough to handle a m1 abrahms, this expensive jet that keeps poping up in this thread, or a cruise missile... etc, ad nauseum. If the gov wants to swing that weight, we are toast....
Have you ever tried to battle a swarm of bees with a hammer? I cannot think of many examples in history where a hammer worked well in that application. Can you?
The 2nd Amendment is there to make sure all the bees retain their stingers.
Agreed. My grandfather was such a man.
I think what you all are missing about the 2A is "a well armed militia"....etc.
ok
Now, tell me exactly how we are well armed enough to handle a m1 abrahms, this expensive jet that keeps poping up in this thread, or a cruise missile... etc, ad nauseum. If the gov wants to swing that weight, we are toast.
But this right is a right. Not a decision. Not somthing that someone can take from you at their whim.
And while we don't have the firepower mentioned above, we are still availed this right. And don't for one ****ing second think they won't try everything, including military force to take away your right(s).
This applies to the entire bill of rights. Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is just going to go away.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with this term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage
And this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_warfare
And this one for good measure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting
:D
Asshooter, glocktogo..
Read the entire thing. It's a little gloomy, but seriously I'll be the first in line for the wolverine sign up. I wanted to focus more on it doesn't matter if they nuke you, it's your right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter theat they can swat you off the planet. And I'm well read in guerrilla tactics, probably not as well as you.
The point is don't think for one second they won't resort to it. Be ready. Explore every option till we only have one, then we will see...
ETA: did not mean anything by that ashooter, lol
ETA: did not mean anything by that ashooter, lol
Don't get me wrong - I'm no internet chest-thumper, nor do I have any desire to be a dead or imprisoned martyr. The fact is that we have LOTS of options to play out before the "cold dead fingers" option comes around.
The point I was trying to make is that the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow citizens to protect themselves specifically from government, and historically, armed populations have done a pretty good job of doing that. Conversely, places with disarmed populations are where the genocides ("democides") have happened.
Asshooter, glocktogo..
Read the entire thing. It's a little gloomy, but seriously I'll be the first in line for the wolverine sign up. I wanted to focus more on it doesn't matter if they nuke you, it's your right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter theat they can swat you off the planet. And I'm well read in guerrilla tactics, probably not as well as you.
The point is don't think for one second they won't resort to it. Be ready. Explore every option till we only have one, then we will see...
ETA: did not mean anything by that ashooter, lol
I read it all, just making a point that those who dismiss the ability of a populace to fight off a superior force, haven't read much history. :D
Business_Casual
12-31-12, 15:02
I read it all, just making a point that those who dismiss the ability of a populace to fight off a superior force, haven't read much history. :D
Ha, makes you wonder what they learned fighting insurgents in Iraq...
Ashooter, that was because I originally typed asshooter. But I get it.
Glocktogo, astan against the Russian might still held out, I can site mAny examples of an armed populace fighting off a more massive force. What I'm saying is when it gets real, it doesn't matter what happens, nukes or spitballs, it's still a RIGHT and don't ever give up even the smallest concession or compromise them.
Hey, read "how all pMags should be listed". It about how I'm feeling.:D
Don't know if this has been shared here yet, but sign this people!!!
Impeach Sen. Diane Feinstein for violating her oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, re: AWB http://wh.gov/Q7zv
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.