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 May 2, 2016, 11:04 AM   #26
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Sailingonby it is a complex question. While enforcement of existing laws is the simple answer, it ain't that simple.

The United States already has more people locked up than the system can handle. More per capita than any other country, with a total of well over 2,000,000 in the system.

Most of these people are in for drug related offenses, in an attempt to destroy the use of illegal drugs. What we've done in the process is create a system that creates violent offenders. Instead of rehabilitation and treatment we lock nonviolent drug offenders up in over-crowded prisons where they quickly learn violence as a way of life. In the same way prohibition once created a violent gang culture, we've created a violent drug culture that destroys lives and makes violent crime a way of life for many.

Even this is an oversimplification, but it is at the heart of the huge numbers of gun related deaths in every major city in the country. Spending huge amounts of money to incarcerate ever larger numbers of people, many of them kids, instead of addressing the underlying issues is foolish. It is far easier to blame guns, or "character flaws", or race, ethnicity or many popular reasons than change the culture that perpetuates the problem.

Many of the ones who would take our guns are the same people who have the power, but lack the guts to address the real issues. It is not law abiding citizens or guns that are the problem, it is politicians.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by K_Mac; May 2, 2016 at 03:46 PM. Reason: Spelling
K_Mac is offline  
Old May 2, 2016, 11:34 AM   #27
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,739
In 2010 Georgia State Trooper Chadwick LeCroy pulled over 30 year old Gregory Favors. Mr. Favors had 19 arrest and 10 convictions on his record. Also, he had been arrested three times that year alone for fleeing from Police and each time the Judge released him even though pretrial services advised against it. During this stop Mr. Favors killed Trooper LeCroy.

I’m not sure what the magic number is, but it does seem like ten convictions before your thirtieth birthday qualifies you for long term incarceration. If this had happened this Trooper would be alive and his children would not be growing up without a Father.

While I agree that a kid selling a little weed doesn’t need to be in jail with hardened criminals I also believe there are some people who should never be on the street. These folks are predators and will never be rehabilitated. While debate about the underlying cause is worthwhile that debate is more about preventing them from becoming bad guys, but less about how to deal with them once they become bad guys.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old May 2, 2016, 11:54 AM   #28
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,202
BarryLee, your example is exactly what Im talking about and would have a major impact on lowering violent crime if we could ever correct the messed up system we have.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 12:29 AM   #29
SailingOnBy
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2016
Location: Western Washington
Posts: 28
Quote:
A couple of folks have mentioned that incarceration is not an effective deterrent. Well, to some extent I agree I suspect most criminals never expect to get caught; so the potential penalty of their crime has no bearing on their decision to commit a crime. However, if the criminal is in a penitentiary somewhere he is very effectively deterred from stealing my car, breaking into my house or assaulting my loved ones. Bottom line there is point where people lose their walking around privileges and need to be in prison for a long time.
I think we're at a good point in time as a society/world that we can definitively say that "tough" laws simply make things worse in the long run. Tough on Crime and War on Drugs has produced a corrupt, failed, over populated and overall broken prison system in the US. Stiffer penalties are demonstrably not the answer.

It's sort of like the Dark Side of the Force. Simple, tempting and easy... but in the end really really bad and blows up in your face.
SailingOnBy is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 12:39 AM   #30
SailingOnBy
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2016
Location: Western Washington
Posts: 28
Quote:
Sailingonby it is a complex question. While enforcement of existing laws is the simple answer, it ain't that simple.
Trust me I know It was hard to even form the question in a way that I thought covered at least the important basic points of discussion. It's problematic to the core.
SailingOnBy is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 02:05 AM   #31
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
has produced a corrupt, failed, over populated and overall broken prison system in the US.
Not to mention expensive.

A quick look online found that 2011 saw the US spend 74 billion USD on corrections. That is a lot of tax payers' income going down a very deep hole.

Where else could that money go and get better results from a social perspective?
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 02:18 AM   #32
SailingOnBy
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2016
Location: Western Washington
Posts: 28
Quote:
Where else could that money go and get better results from a social perspective?
I'm so glad you asked!

IMO, gun control, gun violence, gun "problems" in general... these would be so drastically reduced -- as well as crime/economy/mostly all of the big issue problems right now -- If they diverted a LOT more money into basic education of our children. Educate them properly like the rest of the civilized world and their opportunities increase, the work force improves, the economy improves and crime decreases, thus, making guns less of a hot topic issue.

Alas... this is not the case and we're forced with working what we've got. Nobody seems to give a damn. At least not the politicians.

TL;DR = better education reduces the issues surrounding guns in society.
SailingOnBy is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 05:20 AM   #33
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
If they diverted a LOT more money into basic education of our children. Educate them properly like the rest of the civilized world and their opportunities increase, the work force improves, the economy improves and crime decreases, thus, making guns less of a hot topic issue.
Bingo.

Sadly, as much as I agree with the likely outcome, the public want results now, not 20 years from now.

Huge swathes of the electorate don't seem to realise that changing the way a society functions is no small feat and no quick fix. It takes time and it takes commitment from all involved, including the very electorate I'm referring to.

However, the way things are, politicians are obliged to offer either appeasement or smoke-screens that can roll-out in the coming months i.e. "gun control, but neither can truly address the problem they claim to.

Yet, with words like "control", "ban" and the like, people lap it up. Security and safety are, after all, states of mind as much as states of being.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 05:50 AM   #34
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,089
I've been meaning to respond to this thread for several days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingOnBy
. . . . I've been following the politics, debates and discussions of guns for a while now and have seen the extreme ends of both sides. IMO with most cases the extreme views are the ones that are holding back good, productive dialogue though. . . . .
I'm curious, what is this "good, productive dialogue" that's being held back? What makes dialogue "good" and "productive?" And which views are the "extreme" ones that are holding it back?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingOnBy
My question is:

Trying to keep in mind what is reasonable... what does this community feel are the best (or even workable) policies to ensure 2A rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of "bad guys"? Not taking into consideration illegal gun buying/trading. Are the current laws, in your opinion working? Not effective enough? Too weak or too strong?
Perhaps you mean well, SailingOnBy, but you've loaded your question. How in the world is anybody supposed to decide whether current laws "are working," wiithout taking illegal gun buying/trading into consideration?!? That would mean that, in order to answer the question, we have to disregard the cases in which something happened in which a convicted felon purchased a gun. Are we allowed to consider cases in which the felon stole the gun?

"Trying to keep in mind what is reasonable" -- Reasonable according to whom? Hillary Clinton thinks the Australian gun "buyback" is a model worth considering for America.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...h-looking-u-s/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b02f6a900c5d67

Surely that means that she thinks mandatory gun "buybacks," using felony-level penalties for failure to surrender one's firearms, is "reasonable." One of my problems here is that "reasonable" has become a watchword of the gun control crowd. "Reasonable laws," "reasonable restrictions." By implication, if you disagree with gun control, you're being unreasonable. Further, since when is "reasonable" as determined by popular vote, the measure by which we determine whether someone can exercise a constitutionally-enumerated right?

Gun owners have been "reasonable," and tried to negotiate with the antigun squad for decades. What have we gotten for our troubles? We've been lied to. We've been lied about. We've been vilified in the press. I, for one, see no reason to be "reasonable" in surrendering any more of my individual, fundamental Constitutional rights than has already been surrendered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingOnBy
. . . . IMO, gun control, gun violence, gun "problems" in general... these would be so drastically reduced -- as well as crime/economy/mostly all of the big issue problems right now -- If they diverted a LOT more money into basic education of our children. Educate them properly like the rest of the civilized world and their opportunities increase, the work force improves, the economy improves and crime decreases, thus, making guns less of a hot topic issue.
This all sounds nice, but:
1) To which parts of "the civilized world" do you refer?
2) Why should we pour more money into a system as broken as public education, as it stands now? I believe that the public educational system is, demonstrably, a failure and needs a complete overhaul.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 06:16 AM   #35
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
Further, since when is "reasonable" as determined by popular vote, the measure by which we determine whether someone can exercise a constitutionally-enumerated right?
This distinction is possibly something the pro-gun right advocates want to explore: challenge the buzz-words and ask them to justify/quantify reasonable. In some cultures it is reasonable to kill your own family members if they fall in love with the "wrong" person. I don't see it as reasonable, yet that is the adjective used in that culture.

I say take the word back!
"It is reasonable to assume that people who have obeyed the law and been responsible gun owners will continue to do so, so don't fix what is not broken."
"It is reasonable to ask the federal government to apply the rules they already have (NICS?) before wasting money trying to pass others."
"It is reasonable to say that the government cannot afford police everywhere, all the time and, given crime still happens, it is also reasonable for people to be allowed their own means of effective deterrence and self-protection."


Quote:
I believe that the public educational system is, demonstrably, a failure and needs a complete overhaul.
Wouldn't such an overhaul require money to achieve?
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; May 3, 2016 at 06:23 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 06:17 AM   #36
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,089
Yes, but simply diverting more money to pour into education won't achieve the reforms we need.

ETA: I guess I should have asked why we should pour more money into the public education system as it stands. I'll make that edit to my post now.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 06:27 AM   #37
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
I would still say then pour money into education but with reform as part of that process. If the education system really is broken, then that is truly national crisis and catastrophe in the making.

I'm constantly astounded by governments who fail to address such issues as educational deficits, given that today's kids are going to be the economic lifeblood of the country in the decades to come...

If they can't compete the country falls.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 06:37 AM   #38
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingOnBy
Stiffer penalties are demonstrably not the answer.
It depends. If there are problems with enforcement, then, of course, I would tackle that area first. If enforcement is effective though, then I say stiffer penalties are the answer to reducing crime. There will always be a certain level of criminal activity regardless of enforcement/penalties but what we are talking about here is essentially the effect of reward/punishment on the vast majority of people. If you want to argue that reward/punishment has little to no effect on the behavior of people, then have at it but I have doubts as to how many people you will convince...
ATN082268 is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 06:50 AM   #39
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,112
Perhaps if we would quit incarcerating non-violent drug offenders we would have space for violent offenders. Somehow we have attempted to "get tough" on petty crime and ignored violent crimes.

There are a lot of societal issues at play as well. That we who profess to value individual freedom have one of the highest incarceration rates in the first world is alarming. That many of these offenders are incarcerated for crimes where the only direct victims are directly involved in said "crime" is even more alarming.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 06:56 AM   #40
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
If you want to argue that reward/punishment has little to no effect on the behavior of people, then have at it but I have doubts as to how many people you will convince...
Convincing people is a bonus, but what people believe or don't believe is a moot point if it is at odds with that which is known to be true.

My point is this: I once read an article that equated (using research findings to do so) the risk assessment and risk averseness of criminals with those of a Formula 1 racing driver. They just don't see risk of capture and risk of imprisonment as a danger and, therefore, deterrent when deciding on committing a crime. It just doesn't come into it in the same way it would with you or I as well-adjusted members of the law-abiding public.
In fact, the main reason you or I don't commit crimes is also less about imprisonment and more about what we've been brought up to see as right and wrong, so even for us it is our moral grounding that acts as a brake on criminal behaviour.

It comes down to this: which is better for society reducing crime by curbing criminal tendencies before they are acted upon, or removing criminals after the crime has already been committed?

I would say society benefits more from the former, yet imprisonment largely does the latter and not very well, given the levels of reoffending.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; May 3, 2016 at 07:20 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 07:43 AM   #41
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
It just doesn't come into it in the same way it would with you or I as well-adjusted members of the law-abiding public.
In fact, the main reason you or I don't commit crimes is also less about imprisonment and more about what we've been brought up to see as right and wrong, so even for us it is our moral grounding that acts as a brake on criminal behaviour.
I'm positive that the vast majority of criminals know their criminal acts are wrong, at least from the view of society in general, otherwise criminals wouldn't try to be sneaky in committing their crimes, evade police, etc.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 08:10 AM   #42
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,242
Part of the incarceration problem is that a lot of prisons have been privatized and as pointed out before it's a multi billion dollar business. They spend a lot of money lobbying for tougher laws and longer incarcerations, because that's how they make their money. The law also needs to be applied more evenly, without going into specifics there's a segment of the population that gets probation and another that gets jail time for the same offenses. On a federal level we should probably remove marijuana off the list of illegal drugs and let it be handled at the state level.

The education system in this country is a joke. Common core should be renamed Everyone Stupid. I've met teenagers who could do basic math because they just used calculators. And to really screw things up your average school is a liberal bastion. It's becoming harder and harder to get a teaching job if you aren't properly indoctrinated to the cause and use your position to do the same to your students. I mean seriously, we've had little kids suspended from school for eating a poptart in the shape of gun!

Frankly I'm not sure how to fix these issues but I haven't heard a "reasonable" idea about gun restrictions in 30 years. So I'll just dig in my heels and push back the best I can and try to vote in people who'll work to get some of the ridiculous out of the system.

Last edited by NJgunowner; May 3, 2016 at 11:05 AM.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 08:11 AM   #43
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailingonby
I'm so glad you asked!

IMO, gun control, gun violence, gun "problems" in general... these would be so drastically reduced -- as well as crime/economy/mostly all of the big issue problems right now -- If they diverted a LOT more money into basic education of our children. Educate them properly like the rest of the civilized world and their opportunities increase, the work force improves, the economy improves and crime decreases, thus, making guns less of a hot topic issue.
The US is already at the high end of the spectrum for educational spending. The idea that we don't pour enormous resources into education, both state and private is counterfactual.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp

How we educate them may be less than optimal. While I am not sure that caning young men is necessary, co-educational prep schools may be a mistake.

Quote:
Stiffer penalties are demonstrably not the answer.
Long sentences may not be effective, but that does not suggest that stiffer penalties would not work to dissuade a behavior. It may only indicate that imprisonment isn't seen by every population as a stiff penalty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
I'm curious, what is this "good, productive dialogue" that's being held back? What makes dialogue "good" and "productive?" And which views are the "extreme" ones that are holding it back?
This question is basic and merits an answer.

Last edited by zukiphile; May 3, 2016 at 08:16 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 08:34 AM   #44
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
It takes a lot of imagination to come up with any kind of scenario where gun control laws realistically keeps guns out of the hands of criminals or nuts.

If anyone is freely walking the streets of America, they have access to firearms. Many can't walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a weapon, but pretty much everyone who is not locked up has access to firearms.

There was a time in the world when firearms did not exist, and yet every kind of person we believe should not have access to them did exist. Criminal intent is of the heart and/or mind, not the tools available.

Many Americans believe one the first naturally born humans on the earth was a murderer and killed his brother with a rock. You cannot regulate the human heart and mind by restricting the objects that they have access to, especially when the only way to restrict that access is by locking them up.
TimSr is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 09:07 AM   #45
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,739
Again, I understand that tougher sentences may not serve as a deterrent to people committing the original crime, but longer jails sentences will reduce the number of subsequent crimes they commit. If a guy gets two years he’s out to commit more crimes after that. However, if the same guy gets ten years that’s eight additional years that he won’t be victimizing the public with or without a gun. Sounds effective to me.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 09:20 AM   #46
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Lee
Again, I understand that tougher sentences may not serve as a deterrent to people committing the original crime...
If incarceration doesn't serve as a deterrent to crime, why do people who've just committed a crime flee from the police?
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 12:07 PM   #47
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
I'm positive that the vast majority of criminals know their criminal acts are wrong, at least from the view of society in general, otherwise criminals wouldn't try to be sneaky in committing their crimes, evade police, etc.
I'm not saying that they are oblivious to their acts being wrong, but rather that neither a moral compass (as with you and I) nor the threat of imprisonment if caught (a known social fact) act as a brake on their criminal behaviour.

If they did, criminals wouldn't be committing crimes....
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 12:35 PM   #48
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
I'm not saying that they are oblivious to their acts being wrong, but rather that neither a moral compass (as with you and I) nor the threat of imprisonment if caught (a known social fact) act as a brake on their criminal behaviour.

If they did, criminals wouldn't be committing crimes....
Deterrence and effective prohibition are distinguishable.

Any unpleasant outcome can deter a person from engaging in the behavior associated with the unpleasant outcome. If you anticipate that ISIS will crucify you for smoking or dancing, you are less likely to smoke and dance. Even the thread of ISIS crucifixion doesn't stop all smoking and drinking, but that shouldn't drive you to believe that if one cigarette is consumed that the noted brutality doesn't act as a brake on the behavior.

I speed almost every day. It is also true that the threat of a mere speeding ticket has me reduce the behavior.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 12:41 PM   #49
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
That only works if a) the dancing smoker believes they are likely to be caught and b) they even give the possibility any consideration to begin with.

The police are around, multitudes of criminals have already been sent down. Yet people continue to commit crimes.

I'm saying that criminals probably don't care their act is wrong and don't really think they'll be the ones to be caught...

Seems to me the deterrence being employed at present is not that effective...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 3, 2016, 12:53 PM   #50
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
That only works if a) the dancing smoker believes they are likely to be caught and b) they even give the possibility any consideration to begin with...
A disincentive will influence behavior where if there is a real risk, as perceived by the actor, that he will incur the disincentive. Note american compliance behavior vis a vis federal income tax. For most people it is unlikely they will be audited. Compliance is forthcoming nevertheless.

Yes, one does need to be aware of the disincentive for it to be effective.

Quote:
The police are around, multitudes of criminals have already been sent down. Yet people continue to commit crimes.
Of course they do. That doesn't suggest that criminal penalties are not a disincentive.

Do you really mean to argue that criminal disincentives are ineffective unless all crime stops?

Quote:
I'm saying that criminals probably don't care their act is wrong and don't really think they'll be the ones to be caught...

Seems to me the deterrence being employed at present is not that effective...
Have you seen what happens in an american city when there is an announcement that police will be standing down? See Baltimore and Ferguson.

Certainly any rational person will reduce his risk of incurring the disincentive, i.e. getting caught and punished. That can take the form of abstaining from the behavior, or the form of evading detection but continuing the behavior.


This phenomenon pertains to firearms possession and the question in this thread. Criminal penalties are most likely to dissuade those who will see little to gain and much to lose from risking the sanction. Those penalties are more likely to be seen as incidental to a population engaged in felonious conduct already.

Last edited by zukiphile; May 3, 2016 at 01:00 PM.
zukiphile 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 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13394 seconds with 8 queries