Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: The Constitution Party platform. What's not to like. Remember, not a debating society

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    The Constitution Party platform. What's not to like. Remember, not a debating society

    For example
    Gun Control

    The 2nd Amendment strictly limits any interference with gun ownership by saying:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

    The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

    The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

    We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen’s protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

    We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

    We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/gun-control/
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/our...d-resolutions/

    http://vimeo.com/channels/constitutionparty/20897908
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-30-2014 at 07:21 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338

    What's not to like?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitution Party's "Gun Control" plank
    We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.
    BEGINNING with GCA '68? Why? Why not start with NFA '34? After all, the Bill of Rights does state "shall not be infringed", doesn't it? But I guess the Constitution Party thinks that just a little infringement is OK, huh?
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Have Gun - Will Carry View Post
    BEGINNING with GCA '68? Why? Why not start with NFA '34? After all, the Bill of Rights does state "shall not be infringed", doesn't it? But I guess the Constitution Party thinks that just a little infringement is OK, huh?
    I think you're reading alot into the platform that isn't there.

    most gun owners never deal with the NFA at any point, the GCA is dealt with daily, hence they list that law because it's the most visible, not because of some hidden conspiracy....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I like members of this party ... nobody has the pro-RKBA that I do ...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I think you're reading alot into the platform that isn't there.

    most gun owners never deal with the NFA at any point, the GCA is dealt with daily, hence they list that law because it's the most visible, not because of some hidden conspiracy....
    Um, no - I'm not reading anything into it that isn't plain for all to see. If they say "We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation", then why on earth would they exclude the NFA? Is it not "federal firearms legislation"? Why pick and choose the most politically expedient, rather than actually eradicating ALL federal firearms legislation?

    And I don't understand how you can say the NFA doesn't affect U.S. citizens on a daily basis - it is, after all, INFRINGING on our rights constantly for the past 80 years! Were it not for this Act, everyday citizens would own and carry full auto and burst-capable firearms, SBR's, SBS's, and suppressors (without paying a "tax" and suffering further prying into one's personal effects) - just as the Second Amendment guarantees they can! Remember, these are the so-called "weapons of war" that we are obligated to own, maintain, and put to good use in the event that our government becomes too big for its britches - something I see more and more evidence of every day.

    So no, I don't feel that I'm reading anything into this plank. I've only pointed out what is obvious - all federal firearms legislation means ALL, not just some...
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Have Gun - Will Carry View Post
    Um, no - I'm not reading anything into it that isn't plain for all to see. If they say "We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation", then why on earth would they exclude the NFA? Is it not "federal firearms legislation"? Why pick and choose the most politically expedient, rather than actually eradicating ALL federal firearms legislation?

    And I don't understand how you can say the NFA doesn't affect U.S. citizens on a daily basis - it is, after all, INFRINGING on our rights constantly for the past 80 years! Were it not for this Act, everyday citizens would own and carry full auto and burst-capable firearms, SBR's, SBS's, and suppressors (without paying a "tax" and suffering further prying into one's personal effects) - just as the Second Amendment guarantees they can! Remember, these are the so-called "weapons of war" that we are obligated to own, maintain, and put to good use in the event that our government becomes too big for its britches - something I see more and more evidence of every day.

    So no, I don't feel that I'm reading anything into this plank. I've only pointed out what is obvious - all federal firearms legislation means ALL, not just some...
    Upon re-reading the party's plank, I see the flaw in my reasoning. I assumed when they said "We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.", that it meant chronologically beginning with that Act - in order of passage. Now I realize that it can also mean that piece of legislation is simply their preferred starting point, not that repeal of earlier legislation is off the table. Mea culpa.

    However, my second paragraph stands - the NFA affects all U.S. citizens, not just gun owners, every moment of every day. It IS infringement, no matter what those in black robes claim, and thus should be stricken as unconstitutional.
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    What's not to like? (You asked for it...)

    I will list most of the things which preclude my membership in, or representation by, the Constitution Party:

    The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.
    I simply don't agree.

    This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values.
    Ahistorical.

    The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations
    Ahistorical, dangerous, wrong-minded.

    We favor more vigorous efforts in both domestic and foreign markets to protect the interests of owners in their copyrights and patents.
    Archaic, doomed to failure, wrong-minded, aggressive, statist, and generally hostile to the advancement of human intellect.

    We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals.
    I will never trust any entity within government with this power, however justified it may be in a given circumstance.

    The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
    Ironically, this immediately follows a quote from the 10th amendment, which, coupled with the "pursuit of happiness" can only be construed to protect, among other things, the medical freedom to use – frankly – any drug. There is no legitimate authority at any level of government to deny, say, cancer patients the access to any drugs they find are beneficial.

    No civil government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people, - as our Founders understood the family - as necessary to the general welfare.
    By which is really meant (in the height of disingenuousness):

    The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard.
    Because, apparently, biblical definitions are fact, and any disagreement represents "redefinition". This argument is ahistorical, and absurdly christianist.

    I'm going to stop quoting at this point, but I also disagree with their stance on:

    • Immigration (impracticable, naive, whimsical)

    • Pornography (moralistic, naive, grants unnecessary powers to government in areas which either imply, or are perilously close to, free speech)

    • Prostitution (prohibition is what creates the market for human sex trafficking, you dolts, not "lack of aggressive prosecution" of said prohibition)

    Ironically, most of the rest I find not only unobjectionable, but favorable. Unfortunately, the above is more than enough to dissuade me.
    Last edited by marshaul; 05-02-2014 at 03:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    What's not to like? (You asked for it...)

    I will list most of the things which preclude my membership in, or representation by, the Constitution Party:

    I simply don't agree.

    Neither do I

    Ahistorical.

    True

    Ahistorical, dangerous, wrong-minded.

    also True
    Archaic, doomed to failure, wrong-minded, aggressive, statist, and generally hostile to the advancement of human intellect.

    No, what's hostile to advancement of human intellect is other countries allowing their people to steal the research and art of others, advancement is stifled if people can't make a fair return on their investment in invention and creation because a freeloader will just steal their work, we need to outright refuse to negotiate and embargo any country that does not vigorously enforce copyright law

    I will never trust any entity within government with this power, however justified it may be in a given circumstance.

    I do. execution is just punishment. if you honestly claim that you should be allowed to kill someone justifiably without all the information and in the heat of the moment as self defense entails, then there's no reason that the state shouldn't be able to kill someone as the result of judicial order

    Ironically, this immediately follows a quote from the 10th amendment, which, coupled with the "pursuit of happiness" can only be construed to protect, among other things, the medical freedom to use – frankly – any drug. There is no legitimate authority at any level of government to deny, say, cancer patients the access to any drugs they find are beneficial.

    Incorrect, the authority is longstanding.... the government has the right to restrict drug use.
    the Constitution party seems to me to be a group of extreme religious zealots who believe the constitution establishes their faith as government authority.... which is clearly contradicted by the constitution itself.

    my responses in bold.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    A: Your view of patents and copyright is the government/corporatist line. It's hardly a novel argument to me. The simple fact is that, in practice, intellectual property is nothing more than a form of government privilege used to benefit those with the most money to spend on lobbying and attorneys. It is, in short, a perversion of the free market which exists in opposition to actual (i.e. non-imaginary) property rights, not to mention freedom of speech. So far, the entirety of the human species have yet to fathom or propose a single reform which would rectify this. Until such is presented, I will stick with abolition.

    B: Your argument about the authority to prohibit drugs is a naturalistic fallacy. I'm aware of the authority government claims to have, and in practice asserts. I did not speak to this. I spoke to its rightful authority. Unfortunately, the entirety of the human species have also yet to come up with a single justification for the existence of government authority over the freedom of medical/drug choice (every argument I've encountered is of "societal cost/benefit" type, which is utterly non-sequiturial in the context of an individual-rights-based analysis of legitimate governmental authority over medical choices).

    C: I didn't say that it was unjust to execute certain people. I said I don't trust government with this authority. That isn't an argument; it's a statement. You're free to trust government 'til the cows come home. I will never.
    Last edited by marshaul; 05-02-2014 at 06:22 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    A: Your view of patents and copyright is the government/corporatist line. It's hardly a novel argument to me. The simple fact is that, in practice, intellectual property is nothing more than a form of government privilege used to benefit those with the most money to spend on lobbying and attorneys. It is, in short, a perversion of the free market which exists in opposition to actual (i.e. non-imaginary) property rights, not to mention freedom of speech. So far, the entirety of the human species have yet to fathom or propose a single reform which would rectify this. Until such is presented, I will stick with abolition.
    No, it is not "corporatist" to support patent and trademark rights. If I spent my time and effort devloping a new invention, and it starts to sell, you should be able to just go "oh thats cool" and start making your own that you can sell cheaper because you didn't spend any of the time or your own money developing it. inventors have rights. so do people who write music, literature, paint paintings, etc. you're insisting you have the right to make money off of someone elses labor for free, you do not.

    B: Your argument about the authority to prohibit drugs is a naturalistic fallacy. I'm aware of the authority government claims to have, and in practice asserts. I did not speak to this. I spoke to its rightful authority. Unfortunately, the entirety of the human species have also yet to come up with a single justification for the existence of government authority over the freedom of medical/drug choice (every argument I've encountered is of "societal cost/benefit" type, which is utterly non-sequiturial in the context of an individual-rights-based analysis of legitimate governmental authority over medical choices).
    The government can promote the general welfare, that's in the constitution.....

    C: I didn't say that it was unjust to execute certain people. I said I don't trust government with this authority. That isn't an argument; it's a statement. You're free to trust government 'til the cows come home. I will never.
    I don't think you really trust them to do anything. but what does that have to do with anything? you're saying you trust yourself to kill people upon your own instant judgement of the facts but not of the people as a whole to punish an offender who was proven guily beyond a reasonable doubt....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    EMN Please state the constitutional authority to regulate drugs.

    Also please state what standing 'authority' the government has had from it's creation to control 'drugs'.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    The goverment can promote "general welfare", that's in the Constitution.

    Really? Where? Perhaps in the Preamble? Promoting general welfar is not a power delegated to the fed gov. The powers delegated in the body of the Constituion are specific and few and one of the reasons those limited powers are delegated is to promote general welfare. By your reasoning, the Preamble is all that was needed. Why not just leave it at the Preamble and then let the fed gov execute how it sees fit. Sheeeeeesh.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 05-02-2014 at 07:06 PM. Reason: I really hate virtual keyboads

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    I disagree with the Constitutional party for many of the same reasons as Marshall. As a Christian, I loath a goverment that is given power to define morality. Preserving the right to worship as one pleases is all thats needed. I guarantee it wont be Biblical morality.

    Also, as to upholding states' s rights to "restrict access to drugs". That's simply another way for goverment to control people. In a free country, there are no restrictions to accessing anything.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 05-02-2014 at 07:25 PM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    "The government can promote "general welfare", that's in the Constitution."

    Really? Where? Perhaps in the Preamble?...
    Exactly.

    The Preamble is not law. It is the stated purpose for the list of laws which follow. In order to promote the general welfare, we have the Constitution and its strict rules which are designed to promote the general welfare, among other stated goals of the Preamble.

    Also, if the "long-standing" quality of a law, or the government's claim to its sovereignty, were evidence of its righteousness, we'd still be English, nay Romans, nay savages.
    Last edited by MAC702; 05-02-2014 at 10:12 PM.
    "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

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I don't think you really trust them to do anything. but what does that have to do with anything? you're saying you trust yourself to kill people upon your own instant judgement of the facts but not of the people as a whole to punish an offender who was proven guily beyond a reasonable doubt....


    You sorta got me there.

    But my point is a greater one: I believe it is unwise to grant the power of death to government.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    <snip> I don't think you really trust them to do anything. but what does that have to do with anything? you're saying you trust yourself to kill people upon your own instant judgement of the facts but not of the people as a whole to punish an offender who was proven guily beyond a reasonable doubt....
    I do not trust the system that the people are subjected to to render a judgement. Reasonable doubt is often times unreasonable as a result of coercive system. The guilty have been proved, later, to be innocent because the system is unreasonable when state agents conceal the truth from the people who render judgement.

    This system is better than any another and I would not remove it. But, it would be nice if the state were more reasonable. When liberty is the foundation, which it currently is not, then the people render reasonable and just judgements.
    "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

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    The goverment can promote "general welfare", that's in the Constitution.

    Really? Where? Perhaps in the Preamble? Promoting general welfar is not a power delegated to the fed gov. The powers delegated in the body of the Constituion are specific and few and one of the reasons those limited powers are delegated is to promote general welfare. By your reasoning, the Preamble is all that was needed. Why not just leave it at the Preamble and then let the fed gov execute how it sees fit. Sheeeeeesh.
    The Constitution's General Welfare Clause is a component of the Taxing and Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which also contains the General Uniformity Clause.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The Constitution's General Welfare Clause is a component of the Taxing and Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which also contains the General Uniformity Clause.
    Yes sir it is. And the context is the same.

  19. #19
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Shamefully too lazy to make a real argument, I'll just interject with "'intellectual property' is a crock"
    Advocate freedom please

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Shamefully too lazy to make a real argument, I'll just interject with "'intellectual property' is a crock"
    So I have the right to take your creations, advertise them as mine, and make money from them?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So I have the right to take your creations, advertise them as mine, and make money from them?
    You have the right to see something useful and make one similar or the same and sell it. You cannot take my physical products, that's theft. You can't claim that you designed it if you did not, that's fraud. But who am I to say, no, I designed this useful new tool, you cannot make one and sell it! Who am I to go into your workshop and say that you cannot physically manipulate physical materials that you own and then sell them, just because the idea to manipulate those physical materials in a specific way you got from seeing the result of someone else doing the same? People who file IP suits are like children yelling copy-cat at their sibling and whining mommy make them stop..
    Advocate freedom please

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Amusing the same anti capitalist who believes they would ruin humanity for profits would then be an avid fan of a state protection of them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So I have the right to take your creations, advertise them as mine, and make money from them?
    No, then you would be defrauding your customers.

    Now, why don't you try defending intellectual property, instead of a bunch of unrelated straw men.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Amusing the same anti capitalist who believes they would ruin humanity for profits would then be an avid fan of a state protection of them.
    Corporate greed is the just the bees knees when it's operating under the umbrella of state privilege.

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    No, then you would be defrauding your customers.
    no it wouldn't, the customers would be recieving from me exactly what they paid for.

    Now, why don't you try defending intellectual property, instead of a bunch of unrelated straw men.
    intellectual property

    rights are the legally recognized exclusive rights to creations of the mind.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.
    which is exactly what I referred to, so when you're trying a deflection says "defend intellectual property" when I just did, I don't know what exactly you're talking about.

    this of course may be another example of libertarians/anarchists such as yourself using the special version of the english language that allows them to seamlessly say one thing then when the conversation turns against them they can claim they really meant something else.... maybe there needs to be a rosetta stone for talking to you people because you certainly aren't communicating in english for all intents and purposes....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

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
  •