Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Scratch another gun business off the friendly list

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Scratch another gun business off the friendly list

    These are wonderful folks. They have relented this position.



    From the other gun forum here in the state. The question was Should NV have Constitutional carry? And the response from a vendor below...Until they can show that they indeed vote yes, then in my book they are a anti.


    I didn't vote yet. I am certainly leaning toward yes, but I always have this burning question in the back of my mind....what do you do about all the people you see everyday that you KNOW you wouldn't want them to have a gun.....whatever your reasons are. IQ, road rage, ignorant, hot headed, whatever...
    can there be a category for a vote yes for constitutional carry, but with mandatory training? I can speak for myself, I went a long time without training, and it wasn't until I was shown what I didn't know (i.e. training), that I realized I was a danger to myself and those around me.

    just spit balling here....looking for comments.
    __________________
    Thanks,

    ASW
    www.ammosupplywarehouse.com
    serving your ammunition needs for, eh...a few weeks now!
    Last edited by Vegassteve; 03-16-2012 at 01:24 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    I wouldn't go so far as to call this an anti. I think this is a reasonable position to hold on the matter, and is not necessarily adversarial to the general concensus of this forum, I think. Hell, I will even go so far as to say that mandatory training is a concession *I* would be willing to make (although you may not).

    Unfortunately, the real problem with that idea is that it would essentially amount to a permit system, which is where the idea breaks down. But, let's be clear here, that doesn't make his position an opposing one, merely a slightly-different-flavored one.

    As for whether to scratch him off the friendly list, that's easy. If he has a storefront, does he allow open carry on his property? Simple as that.

    To paraphrase a wise saying: Don't let ideal be the enemy of 'a step in the right direction'.

    For some people, it is hard to think that the general public could handle this kind of responsibility. Hell, I have a hard time believing it. But, to better understand it, compare it to something else...

    A while back, I found myself in San Francisco on a job for a few weeks (I know, eww. Work is work). It was the first time I had been there, and seen the cable cars in person. The thing that stands out in my mind was just how crazy it was, in the sense that this thing will just stop in the middle of an intersection, and people jump on and off, and it just works. No mass deaths, no terrible accidents. Then I thought about what it would be like to try to propose such a system of mass-transit today.

    "Yeah, so we got these train cars. They are gonna be kinda like busses, but open air. People can jump on and off, sometimes while moving, and everyone will be fine. Oh, and don't ask about how the brakes work, just trust us."

    It would never happen! Now, for those of you that have never seen these things live and in person, you may not be able to relate to what I am saying, so I'll just sum it up as this.. In todays society, we have a hard time believing that our fellow man is competent enough to eat their own cereal in the morning, let alone operate a 2-ton missile, or carry a loaded firearm. It may take some time to prove that to everyone, and it may take baby steps. But remember, those baby steps give US a chance to prove our case, that all hell WON'T break loose. Don't let your desire for the endpoint cloud your view of the path to get there.

    I see no need to make enemies of people that are largely on our side. Don't give up on the sheeple either. If we truly want to see our agenda come to fruition, we still have a LOT of minds to change.

    How do you cook a frog? Turn up the heat _slowly_.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    I wouldn't go so far as to call this an anti. I think this is a reasonable position to hold on the matter, and is not necessarily adversarial to the general concensus of this forum, I think. Hell, I will even go so far as to say that mandatory training is a concession *I* would be willing to make (although you may not).
    So, what's the difference between requiring mandatory training prior to being allowed the right of self-defense and requiring mandatory training prior to being allowed the right of freedom of speech?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    I concede no ground on this. It's cut and dry. You are either for it or against. This is how people like this will mess up the system. We get constitutional carry but with limitations, then those limitations grow a little more. Soon we don't have true constitutional carry.

    Now they have back peddled a bit in the statement.

    I am sure I come off as a ass about things like this but I don't care. Either we stand as one or we fall.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    I am inclined to believe as vegassteve, DVC do.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I do not accept the premise. Constitutional carry discussions are a for/against discussion. You're either for constitutional carry or you are not, there is no in-between from my perspective. Any discussions other than for/against come from the 'reasonable retrictions' crowd. Kinda like the 'CC only crowd' (includes cops) are big time pro-2A....right up to the point that they see a OCer.

    I prefer the application of sanctions, via LE, to those who have deprived or who are depriving a fellow citizen of their liberty and rights. I do not favor preemptive sanctions. Mandatory training is a preemptive sanction, no matter how lax the training could be.

    Is the dude anti-2A, nope, he just may not be as liberty-minded as he thinks he is. If he entertains the though, especially 'outloud', the phrase 'reasonable restrictions' is likely in his 2A vocabulary. But, I would not gig him on that, if he votes for constitutional carry politicians, he is ultimately on our side.

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Archibald Stuart, December 23, 1791
    TJ has it spot on, as he usually did. If too much liberty is exercised and your exercising of your liberty and rights deprives another of theirs....well, that is what we have cops for. If your exercising of liberty and rights does not deprive another citizen of their liberty or rights, cops are not required.

    Simple concept that can be very difficult for some folks to grasp.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    When they vote "No," they are an 'anti.' Until that point, they are 'on the fence,' and open to discussion. It appears his 'fence' isn't about firearms, but about liberty and control. Address those issues, and he may very well be 'pro.' But, unless he denies OC on his property, writing him off the 'friendly list' is most likely to simply make his decision for him, as opposed to keeping discussion open with him.

    Label him an 'anti,' and you have created one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    From the other gun forum here in the state. The question was Should NV have Constitutional carry? And the response from a vendor below...Until they can show that they indeed vote yes, then in my book they are a anti.I didn't vote yet. I am certainly leaning toward yes, but I always have this burning question in the back of my mind....what do you do about all the people you see everyday that you KNOW you wouldn't want them to have a gun.....whatever your reasons are. IQ, road rage, ignorant, hot headed, whatever...
    can there be a category for a vote yes for constitutional carry, but with mandatory training? I can speak for myself, I went a long time without training, and it wasn't until I was shown what I didn't know (i.e. training), that I realized I was a danger to myself and those around me.

    just spit balling here....looking for comments.
    __________________
    Thanks,

    ASW
    www.ammosupplywarehouse.com
    serving your ammunition needs for, eh...a few weeks now!
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    ... IQ, road rage, ignorant, hot headed, whatever......
    And the current system of a class/test stops these people?

    No!

    So what was his point again?

    I always check this forum first. I guess I'll have some interesting reading when I get to Nevada Shooters...
    Last edited by MAC702; 03-12-2012 at 11:59 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    When they vote "No," they are an 'anti.' Until that point, they are 'on the fence,' and open to discussion. It appears his 'fence' isn't about firearms, but about liberty and control. Address those issues, and he may very well be 'pro.' But, unless he denies OC on his property, writing him off the 'friendly list' is most likely to simply make his decision for him, as opposed to keeping discussion open with him.

    Label him an 'anti,' and you have created one.
    All you get from "sitting on the fence" is splinters in your butt. If one believes in "reasonable restrictions" (completely subjective), then you do not believe in the Constitution. Who gets to decide what reasonable is?


    TBG
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 03-12-2012 at 12:43 PM.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    All you get from "sitting on the fence" is splinters in your butt. If one believes in "reasonable restrictions" (completely subjective), then you do not believe in the Constitution. Who gets to decide what reasonable is?


    TBG
    Has someone in this discussion said they believe in reasonable restrictions? Have you read the actual posts and the responses referred to by the OP here?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    When you force someone off the fence before they hear both sides and they themselves feel ready to make an informed decision, you often push them to the other side.

    There is nothing wrong with withholding an opinion while meditating on the issue and getting others' opinions. Indeed, it's something that should be far more common.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Has someone in this discussion said they believe in reasonable restrictions? Have you read the actual posts and the responses referred to by the OP here?
    "Reasonable Restrictions" is my means of boiling down what the guy from ASW was thinking outloud about. Sorry I did not communicate that so you could understand it.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    "Reasonable Restrictions" is my means of boiling down what the guy from ASW was thinking outloud about. Sorry I did not communicate that so you could understand it.

    TBG
    Have you read his post over there, AND the subsequent posts? Where did he say he was 'for' these 'reasonable restrictions?'
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    If one believes in "reasonable restrictions" (completely subjective), then you do not believe in the Constitution.
    TBG
    How do you get 'believes in "reasonable restrictions"' from his thoughts/words?





    He was voicing his thoughts. Is there a problem with his 1st amendment exercise?
    Last edited by wrightme; 03-12-2012 at 01:30 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I believe that no such class should be required, but I am open to firearms training in school. Most self-proclaimed "pro-gun" people who believe in training that might be willing to fall over to the "mandatory" training before carrying category rather than trust their neighbors will see the logic in this approach. The true anti-gun morons however will hate this idea, because they would rather children be kept in the dark about guns rather than educate... a policy which will cause gun accidents when guns are found by people who never seen them, rather than prevent them. Gun accidents among the youth aren't typically the result of supervised training in gun use, but rather a result of kids who have been shielded from the "evils" of guns and thus the first time they find one they treat it without respect and do not know if it is real.

    This makes more sense than current training also, as it would be training that anyone could receive. Do people who suggest we ought to have permits to carry think that the gangbangers are taking a training course to carry? They probably aren't. And gangbangers are primarily shooting at each other, so really it is even in our best interest that they are able to shoot properly so that bystanders are not hit.


    Wait a minute, am I accepting gun control? No... just education. No checks prior to buying, no card required to carry... I'm just saying that if they incorporated marksmanship into the school curriculum, I don't see a problem with that. Heck, I was on the rifle team when I was in school, but it was optional. I'm not even saying that this should necessarily be the case, as I think it is probably best taught by parents rather than government, and government schools often give substandard education all around... I'm only saying that I would be open to this option, and that perhaps it is a good alternative to propose for those people who insist that gun owners must have training, which would potentially allow the sincere ones to be satisfied while at the same time preventing turning a right into a privilege.

    And there is time in school for more content... Much time is wasted doing busy work and crossword puzzles while teachers are surfing the web... at least, that was the case when I was in school.

    Yes, some people never graduate from school and thus could get guns without training, but already, criminals do not obey the laws and I would say proponents of mandatory permits would be hard pressed to prove that mandatory permits will result in more training than education for all.

    Children are taught to write in school so they can express themselves better, so it is okay with me if they are taught to shoot in school so that they can defend self and nation better as well.




    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    When they vote "No," they are an 'anti.' Until that point, they are 'on the fence,' and open to discussion. It appears his 'fence' isn't about firearms, but about liberty and control. Address those issues, and he may very well be 'pro.' But, unless he denies OC on his property, writing him off the 'friendly list' is most likely to simply make his decision for him, as opposed to keeping discussion open with him.

    Label him an 'anti,' and you have created one.
    Unfortunately, it seems that a large percentage of even gun owners are not on-board with the idea of a right to carry. I tend to think that we should not let the personal opinions of the owner of a shop sway whether we go there so long as he is not rude, only what his actual policies are. I open carry at coffee shops, yet if I asked each owner if they would support requiring a permit to carry, many might support such a permit even though they are okay with letting people without the permit carry in their store. They ought to be rewarded for allowing carry regardless of how they actually feel about carry, because they are welcoming us. If they get used to seeing gun people around, they may realize that their fears about guns were unfounded.

    Say there is a gun shop owner who is a real nice guy that runs a shop but doesn't believe in the right to carry, but accepts you carrying in the shop. He is minding his business behind the counter, and you confront him and say, "Buddy, do you support permit fee carry?" and he says, "Gee, I don't know about that... I think requiring a permit saves lives." If you then leave him without discussion, and pursue another shop, what will that accomplish exactly? His policies in his store should affect his bottom line. If he stops me from carrying in his store, he does not get my business. But being open about his opinion should not be a reason to blacklist him. Then, what you are basically saying is that you are leaving because he did not keep his opinion to himself when you confronted him and asked him what his opinion was. If he loses his business because you left him, he will still vote the same way probably, because he probably still will not be swayed as it probably won't help him come to your conclusion, it will only teach him a lesson not to be open with his opinions. And it is easier to sway the opinions of men who are open with them and their reasons than it is to sway men who keep them bottled up to themselves.

    This is all assuming of course, that you came up to him and asked him his opinion and he told you. If he was a jerk and decided, unprompted, to tell me open carry was stupid, when I was in his store, I'd probably leave on the basis of him being a jerk. If I found out that he was actually putting his weight, (perhaps testimony and funds,) behind a gun control initiative, I similarly would go elsewhere because I would not want to add to his weight. But I would not vilify him just because of a response to a question that I asked him.

    The unfortunate thing about gun shop owners is that they are often proponents of gun control who DO put their weight behind measures. They support gun control often because they wouldn't be in business without it. (Without gun control, there would be no transfers, and most would probably buy guns online directly to their door rather than going to a shop.) Also, many are trainers themselves, and profit directly from the requirement that people take training courses. I find these people, who put money in front of our rights, to be despicable. Of course, I'm not saying all shop owners and trainers are, only the ones who support gun control in the name of continuing their business.

    Just some thoughts.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 03-12-2012 at 02:33 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    How would the average citizen know whether or not anyone OCing has a permit or not, has had training or not, based solely on that person seeing your carry weapon?

    How do cops know whether or not you have a valid DL?

    Barring that natural expression of villainy which we all have, the man looked honest enough. - Mark Twain
    Carry is either accepted or it is not. Qualifiers required to carry are anti-liberty.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    http://www.nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?t=27306


    Rational conclusion to the subject in post 39 over there.

    Now, the title of this thread here is invalid, unless the OP is unwilling to alter their view in light of the subject coming down from the fence.

    (seemingly without any splinters!)
    Last edited by wrightme; 03-12-2012 at 03:34 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I am open to firearms training in school...
    Great... add another ciriculum for the public schools to screw up.

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    Great... add another ciriculum for the public schools to screw up.
    True, the schools seem quite inept at delivering education, which is their primary purpose! If I have children and the time and money to do so I think I will home school my children as it seems to me that current schools are more of a baby sitting service than an educational service, unfortunately.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    The biz owner has seen the light. I even told them I would make a purchase this week.


    Not sure I can edit the thread title.
    Last edited by Vegassteve; 03-12-2012 at 05:20 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    Hell, I will even go so far as to say that mandatory training is a concession *I* would be willing to make (although you may not).
    You've got to be kidding me. Being able to carry concealed or openly if you have state-mandated training is NOT constitutional carry. That is the status quo in states that require a concealed permit to open carry, and is certainly a step backward.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I believe that no such class should be required, but I am open to firearms training in school.

    Bingo, Felid Maximus nailed it. I stated earlier that I would be willing to concede to training, but that the concept breaks down because it is effectively a permit system. Felid stated exactly what I couldn't quite put my finger on. Yes, this is the best answer I have heard.

    I think I should elaborate, though, on why I am agreeable to training in such a manner. It is actually to *protect the agenda* of constitutional carry. See, If you support constitutional carry, then you are cautious to separate upstanding citizens from thugs and hooligans. If we don't carefully delineate ourselves from the animals, then the media will lump us all together, for convenience, which ultimately harms the cause.

    For example, right now, anecdotally, we can say "Anyone who has gone through the the CCW permit process is far less likely to be involved in a shooting than someone who carries a gun without having completed that training." Why, because the person who took the class is NOT likely to be a gangbanger. It's the same logic that we already know, but from a different angle. A person with a gun who shoots another person is a "gunman". A person who was properly trained and legally armed who shoots another person is a "citizen who used deadly force to protect his safety". It is valuable to our agenda to keep that delineation.

    With that said, I am not saying that I support the permitting process, I hate it, I think it is silly, BUT, I do support having ways to be sure that our agenda of constitutional carry doesn't get F'd up by some asshat that holds his gun sideways. I am NOT for more bureaucracy, paperwork, permitting, etc. I am in support of proper education and training. I LOVE Felid's idea, and that to me, is what I meant when I said that I would be willing to concede this point, I just couldn't put my finger on it. I think such a thing would be GOOD for the agenda, not even a concession, really. The best kind of concession is the one that in fact isn't.

    While we are on the topic of education, how cool would it be if this suggested k-12 educational component also included learning to Reload, and some basic survival skills? Imagine an entire generation of HS Grads that were well versed in such topics. How would that change the political climate in the country WRT firearms, and such? Mmm, now you got me thinking..

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Firearms training should be done by the parents. Mandating that parents train their kids in the safe handling and use of firearms is anti-liberty.

    The Founders envisioned, I believe, that the liberty to exercise our rights must be free from government interference.

    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.
    The singular focus of these words should be self-evident. In my view, the citizen is the final arbiter of how and when they exercise their liberty. A government instituted by men must never be permitted to place any qualifier on the free exercise of our rights. This includes compulsory firearms training.

    Now, if firearms training were a elective, paid for by the parents and not my tax dollars, go for it.

    My definition of constitutional carry is that the citizen and the citizen alone decides whether or not to carry and the method of carry. The government must not have any involvement with the right to keep and bear arms....ever.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Take a look at Arizona. Quote:
    SCHOOL KIDS TO “SHOOT” FOR DIPLOMA

    Governor Signs Bill, Teaches Actual Gun Safety

    "Educating kids on the constitutional roots of the right to keep and bear arms."

    For Immediate Release
    April 12, 2005

    Arizona has enacted a gun-safety bill for children that breaks new ground. Worth one credit toward a high school diploma, the course requires students to safely discharge a firearm at a target to pass. American high schools used to have firing ranges in the basement, but the tradition began fading in the late 1960s. Gun-rights proponents believe that training and education leads to increased safety and responsible behavior.

    Read it all here:
    http://www.gunlaws.com/HighSchoolMarksmanship.htm

  24. #24
    Regular Member CSINEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    North Las Vegas
    Posts
    33
    OK, So here is how I see it. Yes, all people who own guns should be trained how to use them period.

    Now, who should train them?

    Well lets see, my grandfather trained my father, my father trained me and had me attend a hunter safety course when I was 12 yrs old, and I trained my wife, daughter, and son. I also had my daughter attend a hunter safety course when she was 12 yrs old and my son will too when he turns 12 yrs old.

    This is something that the government has NO BUSINESS regulating.

    We've already got such a nanny state now, to give them one more power is just one more step to complete socialism.

    We need to get back to family values and teaching our own wives, children, or other family members these life lesions and not expect the government to do it for us.

    JM2C
    [[FONT=Book Antiqua]]I LOVE MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, AND MY CONSTITUTION. GIVE IT BACK!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    I like your signiture, some nights I am a little mre on edge and instead of:

    I LOVE MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, AND MY CONSTITUTION. GIVE IT BACK!

    I see:

    I LOVE MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, AND MY CONSTITUTION. I'M TAKING IT IT BACK!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •