The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 23, 2012, 05:38 PM   #76
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Might as well add the ‘20s and ;30s to that and add that public outcry for security trumped freedom. Fear of civil unrest promotes tyranny.
Personal freedom wasn’t high on the list? …The simplest way to put it :
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
A statement still in effect in the American spirit, and it will be in operation until that spirit dies. Admittedly that spirit has already died in many Americans. It has taken it’s abuses from our government, even at the government’s founding.
A cynic might say they’re empty words, penned only for lending moral credence to a war, and to garner support from the masses. Another cynic might say the masses prevented them from being fully implemented then, and take us further away from them every year.
Americans once waged a war against (arguably)the most powerful nation on Earth, and did it without much of a central government. There were times that troops fought with no pay or were paid out of the pockets of individuals. To some men, pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor had very real meaning.

Show me the spirit of revolution based in personal liberty anywhere in Europe. The spirit of revolution does rear it’s head every now and then, but it’s almost always based in a group … nationalistic, religious, etc. Collective vs. individual rights is the key difference. The sovereignty of the individual does not necessarily result in anarchy. Order can arise from chaos if you believe quantum mechanics, and out of many, can come one. e pluribus unum.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...

Last edited by animal; May 23, 2012 at 07:04 PM.
animal is offline  
Old May 23, 2012, 07:11 PM   #77
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
The exception mentioned was the Border Patrol and this is a clear example of the federal government actually doing something to enforce laws that everyone on the right wants done but when they actually do it, it seems to be an inconvenience to people.
Heh, heh. Yes, I am among those who would like our border protectors to do more towards protecting our borders. The checkpoint I went through was very non-intrusive, but traffic was backed up for a considerable distance by the time I got to it, and it was getting worse.

Sort of makes you think they should perhaps be doing that border protecting stuff somewhere near the border, ya know? The checkpoint I hit was easily 100 miles away from the border. IMHO there's no excuse for that. If they're running checkpoints 100 miles inside the U.S. to look for illegals, to me that's a blatant admission that the Border Patrol and Immigration people aren't doing their job.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; May 23, 2012 at 07:18 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 07:26 AM   #78
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
A hundred miles? That's only about a two hour drive or even less in Texas.

You bring up some difficult points, Mr Animal. You are spot on with the individual versus the group. There is not necessarily any conflict and in places where there is basic (or advanced) anarchy, the reasons have nothing to do with group versus the individual, or so it seems to me. Essentially it is a question of what you want and how you get it and at what cost. And it isn't something that can be covered in a hastily written paragraph or in a carefully written and performed political ad.

Change in goverment is a tricky thing, one reason being that the new form may not exactly be what you had in mind--even if it is what the other 99% wanted. Supporters of gun rights seem to think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable the citizens to change the form of government by violent means. They may not say that outright but only allude to it, for after all, doing so establishes a very bad precedent. An alternative reading suggests the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the country and the government.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 08:49 AM   #79
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
The law varies from place rto place in the fine details.

While SCOTUS ad federal law trump local laws sometimes (not always depending on 'direction' of the law towards enumerated rights and the exact details) it leads to a lot of conflicts.

Look at all the 4th and 1st amendment cases over the years.

Cases lie Terrie started out small and by pursuing them in the courts become SCOTUS cases.

The smallest details can create conflict.

Are you required to show paperwork to ID yourself?
Is simply saying "I am Joe Blow" adequate?

Does the level of surety in the ID deepen on the cause of the stop?
It obviously does for traffic stops.

Some states have ID laws that have more requirements than federal law.
Many of those are valid.

It is a constant battle between the population, the government, the police, state laws, federal laws, and our rights.

Part of the problem that often crops up is that criminal cases are the vehicle for pushing cases up to higher courts.
The decisions can be far from 'clean.'

"You killed Joe, but since the police did not have sufficient reason to stop and question you you are free to go."
brickeyee is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 10:00 AM   #80
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The problem is as always we have to keep creating and making more laws... it seems there is never a point when you say we have enough laws.. Good and bad ideas get incorporated into laws and passed with barely even a though to the actual consequences of what was passed.... It is an illness even if I cant seem to find a specific word to express it.

Freedom dies the death of a billion cuts, as each new law strangles your choices and decreases your freedoms.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 12:19 PM   #81
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I don't know that additional laws make any difference one way or the other but did you ever notice that when a so-called crime control bill is passed, more things are make illegal?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 04:02 PM   #82
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Yes, but point out that many laws serve to help make felons, and that government has much more control over felons than over citizens who have full rights - and so has a possible interest in creating a supply of felons - and people accuse one of playing politics, or employing scare tactics, or of being an Ayn Rand fan.

Yet those laws do in fact create a sub-population that is more dependent upon, and subject to, the state.

Historically, crimes that were created (particularly as felonies) had a real heyday when slavery was abolished. Road gangs, work farms.... all allowed government to provide free labor to favored parties.
MLeake is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 04:09 PM   #83
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
It is real rarity to see stupid restrictions and laws repealed (such as the 55MPH speed limit).
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 07:32 PM   #84
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,624
Just in case people missed it. We are now legally required to show ID to the police.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-supreme-court

Quote:
June 22, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.

Snip

The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence, and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.

Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what's in a name.

The ruling was a follow-up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information.
If the police detain you or do a data base search after getting your ID it follows that they will know you have a CWP. At that point they will doubtless ask to see said permit and the gun it authorizes.
If there is any question in the officers mind he will then (as a safety precaution) relieve you of that firearm.
Looks like the top of a slippery slope to me.

Last edited by Tom Servo; May 24, 2012 at 09:11 PM. Reason: Removed broad politcs
Buzzcook is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 09:34 PM   #85
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
We are now legally required to show ID to the police.
Nope.

Go re-read the actual decision, not a news report of it. All you have to do is give them your name.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 05:46 AM   #86
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I don't carry my driver's license or wallet if I'm not driving. Does that mean I'm at risk?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 01:23 PM   #87
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
So we do not have a federal requirement to carry "papers"... THat is what we were taught in CIVICS 101... Unless you were not born in the USA at which point you were required to carry "papers"...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 01:37 PM   #88
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I suppose the point at which you get in your car. However, if you don't look especially American, how do you prove it?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 02:00 PM   #89
Husqvarna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 566
I'd say that European governments to are about personal liberty, but we needed a strong goverment based on democracy to be away with the kings and lords. the US didn't have that problem luckily so a small government/constitution is was possible

You started more fresh, we needed democracy and government to enforce equality aswell as liberty
Husqvarna is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 02:02 PM   #90
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,126
Google "E Plebnista". Get a real education.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 02:12 PM   #91
Husqvarna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 566
re: Powderman

not anytime soon, i'd love to. there is so much about America I love culturally. but I guess that I would need a time machine to
Husqvarna is offline  
Old May 25, 2012, 06:15 PM   #92
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,403
Re: BuzzCook's post (no. 84):

You have the right case, but your post is misleading. Mr. Hiibel wasn't approached at random -- the officer who asked him who he was had been dispatched to investigate a report of a man beating up a woman in a pickup truck. Hiibel fit the description -- as did his truck ... which should come as no surprise, since it was indeed Mr. Hiibel who was the subject of the report. So the officer wasn't "fishing," he had sufficient information to justify at least an investigatory stop, if not an arrest.

Secondly, which you fail to mention and perhaps did not pick up on, the state where this occurred has a state law that requires individuals to identify themselves to police officers upon request. Hiibel refused to tell the officer who he was, so he was arrested under the state law that was in effect at the time. Hiibel's Supreme Court appeal was an attempt to have the SCOTUS declare the state law requiring people to identify themselves as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS declined to do so.

The case was NOT about producing documentation of his identity. All he had to do was say, "My name is Larry Hiibel, am I free to leave?"

I don't know how many states have a law requiring that you give an officer your name if asked. I'm pretty certain it's not all states, but I don't have a guess as to the percentage.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 11:19 AM   #93
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Husqvarna, (I like your chainsaws, btw)Europeans may be all about personal liberty, but their documents don’t guarantee it. The problem arises when the State becomes responsible for the well-being of the individual. If the state has the right and responsibility to protect a citizen, it has the ability to choose between citizens, and usually has the ability to choose which qualities of citizens are to be protected. This sets up a condition where liberty exists because of the State allowing it.
In most, if not all, cases in Europe there are 2 types of rights, individual and collective. These rights are supposed to be balanced against each other to yield a civilized liberty. However, the collective rules the nation by proxy through representatives. Therefore, individual rights only exist at the whim of the majority. Even freedom of speech, takes terrible abuse in many European States to this day.
One can even note an interesting case of freedom of speech restrained in a particular area, and an exception to a national gun ban in that same area. This causes an outsider to wonder if these things are related, and are a purposeful attempt to subdue an element of the population deemed undesirable by the State.

Here in the US, there are also 2 types of rights that are often confused with one another.
Immunities are those rights of the individual that are immune from government regulation. These can be called the natural rights of man and include things like self-protection as well as innumerable others. In all natural rights, whether they are to life, property, interaction with others, beliefs, etc … your natural right is…. To keep what is yours, to use it as you see fit, and to strive for more or success (as you define it.)
Privileges are those rights that come into existence by the creation of government, and can be regulated by government. They are our "manufactured rights" (similar to European individual rights) and defined by government.
With privileges, you have the right to use them in the ways the government defines as correct.
Success, expansion, and security are never rights in and of themselves, but a goal governed by a judgment of natural law. The government exists as a way to integrate the individual into society rather than add him to the whole. This is done by balancing rights between individuals.

In the real world though, there’s only one difference between European and American individual rights. In Europe, their loss is due to the natural progression of the legal system of government. In America, their loss is due to politicians breaking Constitutional principles; which is a case of government breaking the People’s law, written to regulate the government.

We Americans don’t like to admit it much, but we were English then, and many of our patriots supported the monarchy until it became obvious that we would not receive representation in Parliament. Even then, some revolted reluctantly. There were also diehard Loyalists, some of whom later enlisted with the British. Conscripts weren’t the only colonists in the British army.
Although there were many protest actions leading up to the revolution, the hot war didn’t begin until the British attempted to disarm the colonists at Lexington. Basically the colonists waited until the last moment to rebel … when their means of self protection and rebellion was threatened. In that action, the people were reserving the natural right to revolt against a tyrannical government (a derivation of self-protection). From then, until the formal beginning of the revolution with the Declaration of Independence, the representatives were still petitioning England for redress of grievances.

IMHO: In the 13 colonies, there was no single overwhelming issue that led to revolt, but all issues had one thing in common, and that was all grievances led to the Crown The religious freedom issue was a matter of signing a paper that was largely ignored. The rates of the taxes objected to on principle were relatively low. The quartering of troops in homes affected a minority of the population. Etc etc … Ultimately, each person was rebelling for his own reasons against a common authority, rather than having special interest factions. Even the revolutionary clubs that were formed promoted general liberty of the individual. When the Committees of Correspondence formed to link them together, the resultant was a decentralized shadow government based in individual liberty.
Combining all of the above with the colonists being well armed from the beginning, the absence of an internal class struggle, and the Atlantic Ocean separating the colonies from England. . … We were able to fight a civil war as if it were a war of invasion; and during the process, the shadow government came out into the light.

And Mr. Bluetrain, the question about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is answered by logic if you view it as an extension of the right of self protection … the answer is self protection in general, including both support of the State and` insurrection (depending upon which is necessary to secure their rights). I think a reading of Federalist #29 would show you this, and more.
For that matter, a reading of the Declaration and Constitution in concert, shows the entire Bill of Rights to be either redundant, or a reaffirmation of topics already covered by logical extension..
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 11:42 AM   #94
dogrunner
Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2009
Location: E/Cntrl Fla.
Posts: 89
It would appear that our European is dumbfounded based on his utter lack of reply or comment.

And Animal....again well said........truly the BOR in and of itself is but a reaffirmation of the distrust the American psyche holds with regard to government.
dogrunner is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 12:50 PM   #95
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Let us be frank for a moment and think about 1776 for a minute. Two things happened then. There was a rebellion and there was also a revolution. True revolutions are rare; rebellions fairly common, successful rebellions less so. In fact one of the first emergencies the US had to deal with after the constitution was adoped and the government formed was--a rebellion. The militia was embodied and it was put down.

True revolutions change the way people think, whether or not they realize it at the time, and a few were inspired by the American Revolution. At the time, I suspect that the ones who believed the fancy words in all those documents less than anyone were the ones who wrote it. It was what we call oratory. Already there was a caste system of sorts in place, at least in the towns along the Atlantic. Those who cared to live outside of that system did--they just moved further west. But the delegates to congress and the conventions were well-to-do landowners, merchants--and lawyers. They hardly believed "all men were created equal." They mostly believed in slavery. Women didn't even enter into the thing.

But other folks believed it and to be sure, there were opportunities here not found anywhere else, including other American colonies to the south, most of whom had imported a hacienda system of peonage that would take a while to shake off. The British colonies never developed a peerage system such as they had at home. It is possible we have a form of that system now and when the son of a president becomes president and especially when the election is decided in the state where the other son is governor, it is difficult to argue otherwise. But mostly, we don't have a system of titles based on land ownership and loyalty to the king.

One thing that set apart the thinkers and writers of congress and the conventions was the fact that few of them had been educated abroad.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 01:33 PM   #96
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
dogrunner, I thought the Europeans were responding pretty timely, and well. We’re in the same boat as they are. The only difference is that their governments are acting in accordance with their laws. When it comes to the people at large, democracy strips the rights of unpopular persons, same here.
Thanks for the sentiment, but this is a complex topic and no mention of the Constitution as a referee between the States has been made… The States as examples of governments operating as European nations, where individuals can cede rights to the State … whether or not that’s Constitutional today because of the 14th Amendment, etc etc. IMO this stuff is ridiculously confusing, especially when our own educational system is geared toward exalting democracy rather than the rule of impartial law.
We live in an age where the rights of the individual are seen as selfish, but it’s largely ignored that collective rights remove our chance to act selflessly through our own moral senses. The freedom to exercise charity is our greatest right, imo, and that includes protecting the innocent at risk to ourselves. The means to do that are also incorporated in the 2nd Amendment, imo.

Bluetrain There’s ample evidence that the American aristocracy believed that all men were created equal, but only in that all men had the same inalienable rights. Part of that was the right to build yourself into what you wanted to become. Aristocracy was to be judged by the People, based on accomplishments in personal honor and property. Extending that concept to women and others was a matter of debate among them, based in whether they saw natural ability in those groups. A protected class loses the ability to exercise rights by virtue of their protected status… From children and women, to slaves, protection comes at a price if it is a legal mandate; since it stems from a misapplied right to property. As an individual right, it can come simply from desire, with no reciprocal payment due.
All governmental judgments should be based on equitable exchange, not so among men.

Our founding fathers were men of science, logic, and mathematics that read the same texts as their European counterparts. On average, they were simply less afraid of radical ideas.

Maybe the Europeans just don’t think have the chance to respond or aren’t sure what to respond to, since we Americans are intent on our right to argue amongst ourselves
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 03:43 PM   #97
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Sounds pretty, doesn't it? But were things so radical? The crown was out of the way after the revolution but the same people still ran things. That's the simplified version, of course. There were a lot of things that still had to be worked out and it took a while for everyone to think of themselves as Americans first and anything else second. That's an on-going process, of course. It even took a while for everyone to literally understand one another and that took a while to overcome, too. Even now I think some people are very confused with their loyalties.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 04:50 PM   #98
Husqvarna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 566
Dogrunner I already answered way back in the thread when I got the/an answer, And Dogrunner I am well aware of the ideological differences, frankly stating your identity isn't that much of a fuzz.

Re Animal firstly it is hard to speak of Europeans in one generalizing way (or rather it is easy because we Euros do it towards americans all the time:P.

even with the EU we are a collection of nations not states, we now have the Lisbon treaty which in effect is law but european nations are still more independent than US states.

We do have a constitution of sorts but as stated earlier (not just by me) it is taken from another angle if you like, All power stems from the people. it is two sides of a similar coin. but different in how it arose

The funny thing is that until like 25 years ago we did have pretty liberal gunlaws. you just bought what you wanted and got your license, now you gotta be a hunter or a sportsshooter and not only pass some tests but actually be active to
Husqvarna is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 04:52 PM   #99
amprecon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 1999
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 660
Quote:
Driving is not a right enumerated in the constitution.
Neither is walking or riding a bike or a horse or breathing or eating. Just because the Constitution does not mention it doesn't mean we need to regulate it to death.

I despise this argument.

Just remember, the more liberties you give up because they're not "protected" by the Constitution the more they tend to take away.

It's not about safety or regulation, it's about control of the people and the taking of your money. Which ironically you elected them to do for you.

The mentality of the people in this country never ceases to amaze me.

Obviously children aren't being taught what being an American is all about, the people possess the power, we elect those to act on our behalf within the confines of the Constitution. Why on earth we ask them to bound us more and more I cannot understand and frankly find most of it illegitimate IMO as an American Citizen.

We should remember that giving up liberties is not why we have Memorial Days, they sacrificed for freedom, not bondage, the exact thing most of them died trying to provide for other nations.
__________________
"You can't get 'em all Josey."
"That's a fact".
"Well how come you doin' this then?"
"Cause I got nothin' better to do."
amprecon is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 08:05 PM   #100
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,262
I think Dogrunner made a good post in #11 explaining it.

Quote:
But Buck I am not saying that he doesn't have the right to carry, just that he gotta show that he has got it.

Isn't it better that cops can ask anybody to show rather then having to arrest everybody on the spot that they are suspecting of carrying illegally?
Some people look awfully young you know (I sell fireworks and carded a 32 year old girl)"

Isn't option A smoother? Doesn't the current situation kinda allow those who doesn't have the right to carry a loophole?

And I think it is kinda unfair towards the cops, they do a dangerous job serving the community but get a bunch of "unpatriotic" crap hurled towards them.
OP, unless the person broke a law, they should not be able to arrest everybody on the spot as long as they are not doing anything illegal.

I don't know the state laws in Oregon, but it seems Open carry is legal so the guy in the video is obviously not doing anything wrong. Some other people probably just got freaked out, but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong to deserve questioning or intrustion of his privacy.

Its a different story when they actually catch you doing something illegal or have probable cause.

Showing your ID, well that is a touchy subject and i'm not an expert of the law. I don't know if your are required by law to show ID in certain places, but if you weren't required to, obviously you don't have a duty to do so.
Justice06RR is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15126 seconds with 7 queries