The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 23, 2014, 08:35 AM   #51
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Quote:
No one is going to be de-sensitized to the sight of an openly carried firearm, period.

We've already been conditioned by decades of mass media message, video, and entertainment to react to the sight of a rifle in public, and that is not going away.

Except when it works, such as in Virginia. They started with the police and reinforced the idea that Article I, Section 13 is a right. Most Virginia politicians understand they may not violate it, though some continually try anyway. The courts supported open carry. It took a bit of education of the police--and a few lawsuits by "attention seeking open carry idiots"--to get the govenment to stop crossing the line.

I periodically see people open carrying handguns in progressive Northern Virginia and they leave no panic in their wake. I have never seen anyone fleeing, making panicked calls to 911 or similar. People generally know open carry is a right in this state and respond based upon the intentions of the carrier and not the presence of the weapon.
How well did it work in California? You went from OC to being illegal in the space of a year.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 09:48 AM   #52
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 1,143
It's always some sweet old lady or mommy type lady on the control side vs. a big burly guy or a big burly woman on the open carry side. Image is a big thing in any debate or attempt to influence public opinion. The open carry guys, especially here in Texas, need a lesson on marketing and persuasion.

Regardless, with both candidates' support of open carry, it seems we are going to have open carry. The only thing that might stop open carry from becoming a reality in Texas is the efforts of the gun control group Open Carry Texas. They might actually succeed in rallying enough anti open carry votes. That Chipotle demonstration was really effective.
__________________
Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho. - Hans Gruber
Machineguntony is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 10:13 AM   #53
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 689
Quote:
You actually have no idea what people know or what they think or feel. You're just guessing.
No, I am not. I have followed OC groups while carrying concealed. Body language exists--you can look it up yourself if you are not familiar with the concept. I do not see the signs of fear at all. This is desensitivation; it does not mean their vote will change with regard to guns.


Quote:
How well did it work in California? You went from OC to being illegal in the space of a year.
We need to go over California law AGAIN? People acquire, use and dispose of guns in California at the whim of the legislature because there is no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution.
tomrkba is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 10:22 AM   #54
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,565
Quote:
Posted by tomrkba: People acquire, use and dispose of guns in California at the whim of the legislature because there is no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution.
And the Virginia constitution can be changed at the whim of the legislature plus a simple majority vote of the people. No vetoes.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 11:09 AM   #55
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,165
Quote:
Regardless, with both candidates' support of open carry, it seems we are going to have open carry.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the folks who are actually working with the legislature disagree.

Quote:
I do not see the signs of fear at all.
There are several issues with this argument. The first is that, as a supporter of the 2A, you'll have some unconscious bias. It's unavoidable. The second is that people register fear in different ways. The third is that they may not be feeling abject terror, but they may very well be feeling disgust and distaste. The fourth is that you're limited to a rather small sample size.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 11:15 AM   #56
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,833
It will be an empirical question - but I'd bet we don't see OC in TX. Even before the Chipolte idiots, it was doubtful.

The really nasty thing is that the OC debate will probably kill our small chance at campus carry.

When looking at practical effects, that is much more important than some clown posturing for Starbucks customers and soccer moms.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

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 June 23, 2014, 11:36 AM   #57
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba
Quote:
You actually have no idea what people know or what they think or feel. You're just guessing.
No, I am not. I have followed OC groups while carrying concealed. Body language exists--you can look it up yourself if you are not familiar with the concept. I do not see the signs of fear at all. This is desensitivation; it does not mean their vote will change with regard to guns.
Actually, you are just guessing.
  1. While there is such a thing as body language, we have no reason to believe that you are reading it correctly.

  2. While you might not see signs of fear, as Tom Servo points out fear is not the only negative response possible.

  3. Even at that, people learn to hide fear and other feelings in public.

  4. You suffer from, and your perception is distorted by, confirmation bias.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 11:52 AM   #58
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 689
Fine, I am wrong. Nothing about open carry can possibly be right.

Last edited by tomrkba; June 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 01:30 PM   #59
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,364
OK,now,tomrkba,to illustrate a point:

In the face of opposition,you have thrown up your hands,and said "Ok,I'm wrong...."

Is that sincere,or are you just tired,and telling us what we want to hear?Will you now turn away,and find your open carry demonstration buddies,those who agree with you?Will you then discuss us,and decide what to do next?

Now,think about the soccer mom with her kids at the park or the Chipotle customer who says "OK,I'm wrong,you guys go ahead,I'm leaving"

You might misunderstand me,I have nothing against the presence of guns in public.As a kid,I used to sling my rifle and pedal my bike 4 miles to the range on a public road.If I needed to take my shotgun to the gunsmith downtown,I walked down the street carrying my shotgun,as a junior high kid.
I even was allowed to take my shotgun to Junior High woodshop and refinish the stock.All no problem.It was a different culture then.I miss it.

But the fact is,we live in the world we live in.Can we go back to a more firearm comfortable society?Maybe,even"Yes".But there is a style of doing it that takes some patience and diplomacy...and a whole lot of responsible behavior on the part of gun owners.

I suggest a more visible,public welcome shooting activity,like Cowboy Action Shooting,supporting 4H or other 22 youth marksmanship programs,etc.

Turning folks on to shooting in a responsible way is probably the best way to protect the 2nd Ammendment.

If you have 12,000 rounds of 22 LR stashed,you might donate 2000 to a Junior NRA shooting group like 4H.

That will do more for us than 12 mall ninjas showing up at the all you can eat buffet.
HiBC is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 02:10 PM   #60
glh17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 165
I'm afraid that carrying shotguns and rifles into public places will become synonymous with open carry. If antis can present a picture of open carry that involves the imagines I've seen from some of the open carry demonstrations, about 80 percent of the battle is over and won for them. This isn't the way to change perceptions of open carry.
glh17 is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 02:57 PM   #61
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,165
Quote:
I'm afraid that carrying shotguns and rifles into public places will become synonymous with open carry.
I'm afraid it is at this point. The responsible open carriers can thank the Chipotle bandits for that.

Unfortunately, the actions of a few gave the antis a hook to hang everyone on. Everyone who open carries right now runs the risk of being photographed and misrepresented.

At this point, we should focus on what we should have been doing all along: finding real and articulate ways of educating the general public on gun rights.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 09:32 PM   #62
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
As victims of gun violence spoke about how universal background checks might have saved a loved one’s life, pro-gun supporters jeered and yelled remarks Saturday in Morrisville’s Williamson Park....
Let's be fair, guys; this statement could be used by any reporter doing a hatchet-job on any pro-gun demonstration adjacent an anti-gun demonstration anywhere. Actually this statement is used routinely for that; we've known for a while that we don't have "the moral high ground" because victims are more sympathetic than people who wish to be let alone.* The only solution to avoid the above statement is stand quietly aside while the anti's rail unquestioned (thus rendering moot the counter-protest), or to avoid confronting them at all in public (which also means disbanding all protest events when the anti's show up to counter-protest)

I suppose the argument could be made that public rallies are a stupid waste of our effort, but let's be up front about that, and not pretend that "there's a right way" that won't raise slander and mischaracterization by biased reporters or libelous anti's. That said, there is certainly a "wrong way" to protest that makes that hatchet-job easier (black clothing with angry-font text: bad idea. Dark sunglasses at a protest event: dehumanizes your side. Getting up close with the other side of the picket line: monumentally stupid idea you should have disciplined leadership working to avoid. Letting the media get up close: bad idea outside highly controlled/scripted circumstances)

A protest is not proselytizing; it is artificially generating a news story intended to be sympathetic to your side. You have to act as the director if you want the story to come out the way you want, and control as many variables as possible. If you want to preach to capitol hill, start buying some steak dinners for reps, staffers, and lobbyists. If you want to convince voters, canvass, do polls/initiatives, and pass out literature. Public protests have a very specific use, are only good for that specific use, and require a specific type of control to be effective and productive. Using public protests as a way to rally your own side together is a darn poor substitute for planning, message, or leadership.

TCB

*Yes, I'm paraphrasing Jeff Davis here, because similar sentimentality over the terrible wrongs of slavery ran roughshod (literally) over whatever legitimate grievances the South had regarding the North's intentional sidelining of them in national politics.
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 11:03 PM   #63
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt
Let's be fair, guys; this statement could be used by any reporter doing a hatchet-job on any pro-gun demonstration adjacent an anti-gun demonstration anywhere....
Okay, but it's still predicable. It also helps them and hurts us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt
...I suppose the argument could be made that public rallies are a stupid waste of our effort,...
And that might well be. There is no reason to have a public demonstration unless it can be done in a way well calculated to advance our interests. If we can't figure out a way to stage a public demonstration that we can be sure will help us, then we need to find other tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt
...A protest is not proselytizing; it is artificially generating a news story intended to be sympathetic to your side...
Yes, and that's one reason that they don't work well for us.


Many in the RKBA community have pointed at the Civil Rights Movement without understanding in any depth how it worked, why it worked, and how its lessons can and can not be useful for the advancement of our interests. But --
  • During the Civil Rights Movement many Whites came to care about the plight of the Blacks, and much of the focus was to make Whites understand and care. The successes of non-Whites on the social and legislative fronts depended on Whites seeing non-Whites as oppressed. How many non-gun owners think gun owners are oppressed?

  • The acts of civil disobedience, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.

  • During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.

  • On the other hand how has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates?

    • Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement?

    • Where are the editorials in the New York Times lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice?

    • Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses?

    • Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?

    • A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?

  • Let's look at the comparison with the Civil Rights Movement graphically. In the days of the Civil Rights Movement:

    • White folks cared in 1960 when U. S. Marshals had to escort a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.

    • White folks cared in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.

    • White folks cared in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville.

    • And White folks cared about --




      • and




      • and




      • and


    • On the other hand, what do non-gun owners (and many gun owners) think about:




      • and

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 04:31 AM   #64
darrenlobo
Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2014
Posts: 16
For the nay sayers, here's the first press coverage & it's very fair to both sides. If anything the other side looks bad for refusing to have a dialogue:

Demonstrations slated to address gun rights, control

A group of gun control advocates will march seven miles Saturday from Chester to Media, where they will be greeted by a coalition of gun rights supporters holding a counter rally. (snip)

http://www.delcotimes.com/social-aff...rights-control
darrenlobo is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 09:28 AM   #65
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrenlobo
For the nay sayers, here's the first press coverage & it's very fair to both sides...
First, this doesn't mean much. The event hasn't happened yet.

Second, the gun control side generally comes across better. Note how the author of the article subtly associates the gun control advocates with Martin Luther King:
Quote:
...The Delaware County United for Sensible Gun Policy is hosting a march ... The demonstrators will begin their trek at Calvary Baptist Church — where Martin Luther King once preached — and conclude at the Providence Friends Meeting House.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrenlobo
...If anything the other side looks bad for refusing to have a dialogue...
Not, I suspect, to most readers:
Quote:
...Rumsey said the goal of the gun control demonstrators is to influence elected officials, not to engage extremists.

“They have a right to be there, but we’re not going to be intimidated by them,” Rumsey said.....
Darren, you're just further demonstrating that you really don't understand the public, the press or influencing pubic opinion.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 09:41 AM   #66
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 1,143
At the very least, these open carry guys could dress up in suits or some Sunday outfits. These pics of open carry are just playing right into the negative stereo types.

There's a reason why lobbyists wear suits. Like it or not, image is important in a debate.
__________________
Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho. - Hans Gruber
Machineguntony is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 10:34 AM   #67
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,837
Martin Luther King. Calvary Baptist Church. Friends Meeting house. The only thing missing on the gun control side is Mom and apple pie. They'll probably bring those out at their rally.

Darren, you still don't see that you're bucking a stacked deck here?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 11:57 AM   #68
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,165
Quote:
“I say end the war on drugs if you really want to do something about the murder rate,” Wolfe said.
...and you're off message again.

What literature will you be passing out, and how do you plan on actually engaging the crowd?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 02:22 PM   #69
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
I'd leave the EBRs at home. From my knowledge of persuasion and attitudes towards such - you will not convince those who are anti and you will probably move the middle against you and towards the anti side.
Normally I'd agree with you, but the rest of your advice:
Quote:
Dress like going to a formal religious service or business meeting.
piqued my curiosity, and makes me wonder what would come of a group like this all dressed in tuxedos or 3 piece suits, with rifles slung over there shoulders, never handled.

The tuxedos may be over the top, but I can't help but snicker a bit at the idea of a bunch of guys and gals in business semi-formal wear, an EBR slung over their shoulder, a picket sign clamped under one arm standing on the edge of a sidewalk, quietly all but ignoring the world walking by, nose deep in their cellphones and ipads engrossed in either actual work, or pretend work known as Angry Birds. Just need someone to take some pictures of that for the local news, facebook pages, etc.
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 03:15 PM   #70
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
“I say end the war on drugs if you really want to do something about the murder rate,” Wolfe said.
...and you're off message again....
While we're at it, let's compare messages -- according to the article:
  • Anti-gun --

    • Quote:
      Terry Rumsey, co-chair of the Delco United for Sensible Gun Policy, said gun control advocates are confident that a universal background check would pass the General Assembly if such a bill ever reached the floor of the House or Senate. His reasoning? The vast majority of Pennsylvanians support expanded background checks.
    • Quote:
      Rumsey pointed a report issued by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, which found that more than 2.1 million illegal firearms sales have been stopped since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted.

      “We know that background checks work,” Rumsey said.

    • Since most people like to be with the majority and most people don't like the idea of illegal gun sales, care about those anti-gun messages.

  • Pro-gun --

    • Quote:
      “Our view is very strongly that background checks and things are just incremental steps toward gun banning,” Wolfe said.
    • Quote:
      “We have the history of the United Kingdom to show us where that leads to. ... You basically can’t buy a handgun over there.”

    • How many non-gun owners care? Many people really do want guns banned, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening. Some people would be delighted if handguns weren't available here, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening.

    • But even worse, Darren Wolfe, in his statements, confirmed for those folks who wouldn't care about guns being banned that what Terry Rumsey and his minions are doing could produce a result those folks would like. In other words, Darren has effectively encouraged anyone even mildly anti-gun to support Terry Rumsey.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 04:32 PM   #71
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,358
Quote:
“Our view is very strongly that background checks and things are just incremental steps toward gun banning,” Wolfe said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
How many non-gun owners care? Many people really do want guns banned, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening. Some people would be delighted if handguns weren't available here, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening.
+1. I find that it's hard to correctly convey the "UBC's as Incremental Gun Ban" argument to indifferent non-gun owners without coming across as irrational and paranoid. The "UBC's as an Unfair Burden on Law-Abiding Citizens" is better IMHO; it casts gun owners in a more sympathetic light. The conversation should be about keeping your RIGHTS, not keeping your toys.

Another important thing to remember is that precious few non-gun owners understand how NICS checks and dealer logbooks work, and that many of these people* believe that the NICS system is already a federal registry and that people selling guns without background checks are somehow "gaming the system"- i.e. cheating. Again- educating the ignorant is the key.

*Some gun owners also believe this, but let's not go there.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 04:37 PM   #72
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 1,143
While on this topic, an explanation that I hear often, that is ridiculous, polarizing, and sounds like a thoughtless "bumper sticker" response that only preaches to the choir at the expense losing a moderate/undecided person...

Gun don't kill people, people kill people.
__________________
Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho. - Hans Gruber
Machineguntony is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 05:14 PM   #73
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,165
Quote:
I find that it's hard to correctly convey the "UBC's as Incremental Gun Ban" argument to indifferent non-gun owners without coming across as irrational and paranoid.
Actually, my argument is that it will lead to universal registration. Is there any other way to enforce it? Nope. So there we are. I've had a few people change their minds when it was put that way.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 05:22 PM   #74
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Actually, my argument is that it will lead to universal registration. Is there any other way to enforce it? Nope. So there we are. I've had a few people change their minds when it was put that way.
But probably only gun type folks. Most non-gun owners already thing that guns are registered (or that it would be a fine idea).
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 08:56 PM   #75
40-82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2013
Posts: 178
I live in Virginia, and my impression is that the average person I meet has no idea that open carry is legal. When someone in my family invites a new guest to the farm, and they see me open carrying on my own land a half-mile from the nearest road and completely out of public sight, they often blurt, "Aren't you afraid of getting arrested?" The first reason a law proposed to ban open carry is unlikely to gain traction is that most people seem to believe that it is already against the law. The second reason such a proposal is unlikely to gain traction is that most people have never seen anyone carry openly, and they would consider it a waste of time to put effort in something that nobody does anyway. Outside of someone carrying a handgun while hunting I have seen open carry twice in the last three years.

What would happen if we made a large effort to de-sensitize people to open carry? Anything I could say would obviously be speculation, but I doubt that the risk would pay off.
40-82 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13938 seconds with 8 queries