The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 1, 2013, 05:28 PM   #126
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawDog
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".
That should be our mantra, no question about it.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:14 PM   #127
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Boy, the OP sure hit a nerve.

I read him as saying that the polar positions are equally ridiculous (generally speaking, the one pole being a gun ban, the other pole being no restrictions whatsoever on arms) and will never prevail, so that taking one of those positions, either in the personal realm of discussion or in the political realm, renders you irrelevant.

It made sense to me.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:34 PM   #128
CUBAN REDNECK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: SW FLORIDA
Posts: 246
Compromise=Surrender

OK, so you want to negotiate and compromise, the only problem is that the other side will never do either. The Brady Camp and the VPC will never, ever, accept any type of "compromise" that doesn't result in full prohibition. These organizations collective refusal to accept an enumerated Constitutional right portends to disastrous "common sense" gun laws should we attempt to negotiate with them and their respective enablers.
CUBAN REDNECK is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:35 PM   #129
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by MedicineBow
It made sense to me.
It only makes sense if you are willing to ignore the inconvenient existence of the second amendment. And, even then, it only makes sense if both sides are truly willing to compromise. But the anti-gun forces are NOT willing to compromise. They have proven this time after time when they get as much as they can from the pro-gun side. The pro-gun side says "Yeah, we don't like it but we'll live with it," while the anti-gun side immediately starts planning the next increment of "compromise." However much "compromise" they get, they are NEVER willing to live with it.

Hence the analogy so beautifully expressed in Lawdog's blog.

The only effective way to deal with someone who is fundamentally unwilling to compromise is not be unwilling to compromise yourself.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:41 PM   #130
myshoulderissore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 447
Quote:
The only effective way to deal with someone who is fundamentally unwilling to compromise is not be unwilling to compromise yourself.
The thing is, they ARE willing to compromise, their "small bites" approach is proving quite effective over time. My whole goal with starting this thread was to discuss current reality in reasonable terms, to discuss how WE (gun lovers and whatnot) could improve the fight on our side using the same tactic. But at this point I only hope a few more people could see where I am coming from rather than viewing me as some gun grabbing, totalitarian-rule-wanting jerkwad... My regret is that I am not as effective a communicator as I thought I was, and may have beefed on the delivery. I won't be discussing this outside of the circle of people who know me again, I assure you.
myshoulderissore is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:43 PM   #131
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by myshoulderissore
The thing is, they ARE willing to compromise, their "small bites" approach is proving quite effective over time. My whole goal with starting this thread was to discuss current reality in reasonable terms, to discuss how WE (gun lovers and whatnot) could improve the fight on our side using the same tactic.
How would using the same tactic help us?

They're trying to take something away from us. We have nothing to gain and they have nothing to lose. Any "compromise" by us gives up something we have and gains us nothing in return.

Compromise requires that both sides have something to give and something to gain.

Gun control is completely one-sided. We have only to lose and they have only to gain.

"Compromise" in this kind of scenario is actually appeasement. Hoping to give something up so they'll leave us alone.

They didn't leave us alone after 1934. They didn't leave us alone after 1968. They didn't leave us alone after the Hughes Amendment. They didn't leave us alone DURING the AWB and they won't leave us alone until every formerly legal firearm is GONE.

That's their compromise and we have nothing to gain by going along.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:46 PM   #132
Southern Rebel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2009
Posts: 160
Compromising - it depends on who gets to define what a "compromise" is. Sort of like telling Adam that God was originally gonna take an arm and a leg, but He compromised and only took a rib. No one told poor Adam that it would eventually cost him the Garden of Eden! (and later on, the house and the car and half of his retirement program and........... )
Southern Rebel is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 06:51 PM   #133
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
It only makes sense if you are willing to ignore the inconvenient existence of the second amendment.
I have no idea what you mean. The Second Amendment does not, has not, and will not guarantee unregulated access to and use of all arms. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.

In any event, I think the problem is that some of us tend to think that in personal discussion and in the political realm that anyone who does not share every view we hold must want to ban all guns. I don't see much of that (though those people exist, of course).

Generally, I hear a lot of folk who recognize the Second Amendment and its attendant rights, don't wish to ban guns, but want to discuss what, if anything, is rational to do.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 07:19 PM   #134
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
Quote:
The Second Amendment does not, has not, and will not guarantee unregulated access to and use of all arms. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.
It was written that way, I think. ..... and thus even folks on our side have ceded ground ..... moving the "middle ground" further toward greater gun control......


Even our when we do manage to get something in return from the Antis for further restrictions in one of these "compromises", such as the NRA's "Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986" which was supposed to allow for travel from one place to another with a firearm, even through places where guns were essentially illegal, we get screwed. You cannot fly into NYC and have a layover .... for this we traded away full auto ..... our gain is ignored by the authorities, our loss is honored by us, and ruthlessly enforced by the authorities .... to the point that malfuncioning guns going runaway have been prosecuted as crimes.

No more such "compromises": We are running out of cake.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:15 PM   #135
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by myshoulderissore
The thing is, they ARE willing to compromise, their "small bites" approach is proving quite effective over time.
That's not compromise. That's deceit.

Compromise, as I posted, is when both sides give up something, reach a genuine middle ground, and both sides agree to live with that middle ground.

If the other side isn't willing to abide by the compromise, and the day after the ink dries they're already working on the NEXT "compromise" -- that's not compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MedicineBow
I have no idea what you mean. The Second Amendment does not, has not, and will not guarantee unregulated access to and use of all arms. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.
I'm not pretending anything. If you don't think that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment intended, then what do you think it DID intend to protect?

Look up Tench Coxe. He was a member of the convention that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; January 1, 2013 at 08:23 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:16 PM   #136
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Tench Coxe would tell the antis to go... pound sand and we should too. Owning firearms is a right, not a privilege. The founding fathers fully intended us to be allowed the individual military arms of our nation, at a minimum. Rights aren't supposed to be up for negotiation and our predecessors have already negotiated and compromised our rights away far farther than they ever should have.

If the whittling away of our 2nd Amendment Rights doesn't stop here and now, when does it stop? When will the compromise end?

com·pro·mise: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

If I and others are sounding too strident, then please tell us the concessions the antis are making?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:30 PM   #137
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
Quote:
"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
THIS was what it meant.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:43 PM   #138
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
Quote:
The founding fathers fully intended us to be allowed the individual military arms of our nation, at a minimum.
To hear Tench Coxe tell it:

Quote:
Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
"Every terrible implement" .... I am fairly familiar with a good many of those implements, as a 10 year veteran of Uncle Sam's largest Kill People and Break Stuff organization ..... most every tool I had then is prohibited to me now.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:38 AM   #139
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,003
Quote:
Boy, the OP sure hit a nerve.

I read him as saying that the polar positions are equally ridiculous (generally speaking, the one pole being a gun ban, the other pole being no restrictions whatsoever on arms) and will never prevail, so that taking one of those positions, either in the personal realm of discussion or in the political realm, renders you irrelevant.

It made sense to me.
Responsible gun owners have, for decades, allowed that the Second does not exist in isolation from the remainder of the Constitution. There will always be that small, vocal minority that wishes for NO restrictions. If you cannot see the incremental advances of the other side, gobbling up the Second over the past 75 years, then you are ill-equipped to discuss finding middle ground for reasonable compromise today. That day has truly passed.

At what point will you throw out the anchor and say, "No more. This is as far as I go." ?

I cannot shake the idea of similar attacks on the First Amendment. Where would the self-proclaimed protectors of our fundamental rights be on that one? For sure there have been compromises there too, but the reaction is always a groundswell of protest at the very thought. No pleas for compromise? No scolding for not seeking middle ground?

This is not an argument for our hobby, nor is it an argument for no restrictions of any kind. Restrictions abound. It is a principled argument against encroachment on a fundamental liberty guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. No less.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:37 AM   #140
overthere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2012
Posts: 176
OP, for what it is worth I too wish there would be more room for a dialog on the issue of gun violence. I am a gun owner and I wish the overall volume on both sides of the spectrum could be tuned down and a reasonable discussion / dialog around cause and effect could be had.

The following things really irk me:

- When people say that the solution to gun violence is to ban guns. This is a knee-jerk reaction either from people who do not know anything about guns and therefore fear them, or from politicians who thinks it makes it look as if they are doing something.

- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership.

- When people say that the solution to gun violence is to ban 'assault weapons'. I have read too many articles by ignorant authors who do not have a basic understanding about guns.

- When people say that the discussion to be had is about gun control. The discussion to be had is around gun violence and how to reduce it. Are there components of that solution that involves additional regulation of gun ownership? I do not know but I would be open to hearing about specific solutions as long as they are accompanied by actual data to back up claims being made. There is too much emotion and knee-jerk reactions.

- When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. Automobile deaths is a huge issue and it too needs to be, and is, addressed but it does not mean that gun violence somehow does not need to be addressed.
Why do so many people have an 'all spikes out' defense mechanism when it comes to the topic of gun violence? Why is it assumed that any discussion on this topic would somehow result in 'them taking our guns'?

I wish that there could be a sensible discussion around gun violence with true cause and effect being examined, based on data rather than emotion. To try to determine what can be done to reduce gun violence. Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?
overthere is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:44 AM   #141
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
overthere, it is really very simple.

We either have a natural (not government given) right to effective self defense, or we do not.

Effective self defense does not mean locking ourselves in a room, throwing iPads, or attempting hand to hand combat with pencils (though, barred other alternatives, we might try such methods).

Effective self defense means something that can let the weakest elderly person have a fighting chance against the biggest, meanest man in town - and that means guns.

There are already laws on the books for reckless behaviors resulting in injury; there have already been tort cases over same. What new laws would you propose?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 10:07 AM   #142
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by overthere
When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. Automobile deaths is a huge issue and it too needs to be, and is, addressed but it does not mean that gun violence somehow does not need to be addressed.
We've had several discussions here on TFL about the nature of firearms. Most of us agree, as we all should, since its a fact, that all firearms are weapons in and of themselves. Making false analogies about and/or equivocating on that point, is disingenuous and not helpful to our cause.

It works both ways though, firearms are not analogous to driving automobiles, etc when it comes to governmental regulation either. Driving an automobile is a privilege, owning firearms is a constitutional right. That fact can never be stressed enough in my view.

The limits on the 1st Amendment for example, are carefully defined and very narrow in their scope. The limits and restrictions already on the 2nd Amendment are too broad, too ill defined and too onerous as it is. Hence the strong objection to further eroding that right.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:25 AM   #143
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
I would be careful about just an effective SD argument.

In our own discussions, many have claimed you don't need XY or Z level of firepower for most effective SD.

One could claim that most of us could effective defend the homestead with a SW Model 10 and a pump shotgun. In fact, if I weren't me - those two guns with modern SD ammo would do just fine in the vast majority of cases.

So are we limited to that?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:34 AM   #144
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
The discussion to be had is around gun violence and how to reduce it.
The discussion should be about how to reduce violence. It doesn't do any good to reduce gun violence if other forms of violence are still at unacceptable levels.

People love to bring statistics from the UK into the discussion. They have low rates of violence, with or without firearms. Even if you excluded all homicides committed with firearms in the US, we still have a far higher homicide rate than the UK. So the problem we need to discuss is not "gun violence", it's violence.

It's just convenient for politicians to talk about gun violence, because it leads to talks about gun control legislation, which is politically expedient. The smart thing to do is reduce violence, but it doesn't make the sound bites and photo ops that lead to votes.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:52 AM   #145
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Glenn, I also believe in defense against tyranny, but those threads tend to get shut down rather rapidly.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:53 AM   #146
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,838
Quote:
The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls,
I didn't bother reading any further. This is a load of crap.

Can I buy a post-86 machinegun?
Can I build a machinegun?
Can an 18 year old buy a handgun, legally?
Can I carry a gun without a permit? Do you know what is involved in getting a permit?
Can I buy a new gun without filling out a BATFE Form 4473
Do I need special permission to own silencers, machineguns, short barreled rifles or shotguns?
Can I buy a post-89 AK made in China? Or a post-89 FNC made in Belgium?

These are just random examples of the volumes of gun laws. Pro-gunners have more than budged on our rights - we have caved into the gun banners nonsense far too many times. My line is drawn - I won't agree to any more gun restrictions - and those that try to impose them will suffer the political consequences like they did in the early 2000's. I don't care if some politician promises me the moon, stars, and free healthcare for the rest of my life, if they vote for even one anti-gun measure, I will vote against them.
Skans is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:07 PM   #147
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
For those who espouse the term "gun violence", I have a question:

Is getting beaten to death with a tire iron, a stick, or a brick preferable to being shot to death?

To listen to the antis, one would think so.

Go look up Marko Kloos' "Why The Gun Is Civilization" .....

@overthere: Rights ALWAYS = Responsibilities. Regulations won't make a person Responsible. Only good character can do that, and the .gov has a poor track record in producing, or of even being conducive to producing that, of late, IME.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:19 PM   #148
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinebow
I have never once heard of a non-felon, non-crazy who couldn't buy a gun or two or five in this country when he wanted to. Not a single one.
Lautenberg amendment - look it up...

Lot's of people had their RTBKA stripped away with that piece of crap legislation.
Hal is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:20 PM   #149
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by overthere
. . . . gun violence. . . . gun violence . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence. . . . gun violence
Why is "gun violence" any worse than airplane violence or fertilizer violence? The discussion needs to be about violence, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overthere
. . . .- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership. . . . .
One important distinction that needs to be made in that "fire in a theater" analogy: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an intentional act, with reasonably foreseeable consequences (a stampede) that may result in injury or death. Mind you, I am not arguing that gun ownership does not come with responsibilities; it most certainly does. Tort law already provides for remedies for things like negligent use or entrustment, though.

Oh, and there are already regulations around gun possession. (Ownership is a different kettle of fish, and I think that any real danger comes from possession, not ownership.) As an example, see 18 U.S.C. 922.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overthere
. . . .- When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. . . . .
Operation of motor vehicles is regulated. I'm unaware of any regulations on ownership, though. What's happened in the last 3 weeks is a huge push to regulate ownership of firearms, on top of already-extensive regulation on posession and use.

If we were to treat ownership of guns in the same way as ownership of automobiles: (1) there'd be no minimum age to purchase; (2) no background check would be required; (3) there would be no license required as long as the driver stayed on private property.


Quote:
Originally Posted by overthere
. . . .I wish that there could be a sensible discussion around gun violence with true cause and effect being examined, based on data rather than emotion. To try to determine what can be done to reduce gun violence. Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?
1) I hold my right and responsibility to protect myself and my family inviolate, regardless of data. I care about more than just how many people care killed. I care about which ones are killed. What's more, I hold your right and responsibility to protect yourself and your family to be inviolate.

2) "Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?" Over several decades, gun owners have been more than reasonable, even accomodating to the anti-gun crowd. The latter have proven themselves to be unreasonable. We tried it the gun-control way, and it failed.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 01:06 PM   #150
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,778
As for the pro-gun side reducing death or injuries from guns I'd like to point out that throught the efforts of gun people, in the form of Hunter Safety Education and Gun Safety classes and programs, have successfully reduced accidents from firearms, despite far more people owning and using guns ......

The Hunter Ed programs around here are taught by volunteers: gun people, and usually cost no more than the materials used.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 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 11:45 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 0.15644 seconds with 7 queries