Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Just for the record

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Welcome to OCDO, and thank you for your perspective.

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    it removes the tranquility for the criminal element.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your advice and your support.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Welcome. Very nice first post. Good to see you are one of us.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Welcome and I too agree, the punishment needs to be severe enough to make the criminals think twice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member UtahRSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Punishment to fit the crime is appropriate. But I'm not at all sure the threat of future punishment is on the mind of some BG in the process of robbing a place. I doubt they expect to get caught.

    But I do think the sight of someone prepared for self-defense (think OC) is immediate enough to persuade the BG to rethink the situation.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    UtahRSO wrote:
    Punishment to fit the crime is appropriate. But I'm not at all sure the threat of future punishment is on the mind of some BG in the process of robbing a place. I doubt they expect to get caught.

    But I do think the sight of someone prepared for self-defense (think OC) is immediate enough to persuade the BG to rethink the situation.
    You're right, they don't think that they will get caught. But and this is a big but, if the law was created on the federal level where the states could not plea bargin, where the law would state a mandatory 20 year sentence with no negotiation for a reduced sentence, with no ridiculous requirement that you must serve 85% of your sentence. You're sentenced to 20 years and you will not be released before that 20 years, then after afew foolish "would be" robbers disregards this law and commits the crime and is sentenced. The word will get out on a national level and you would see a huge reduction in crimes with a gun. Some will say the jails are overcrowded now. I say too bad, sleep on top of each other then. You should have thought about that before committing the crime. As far as the "punishment to fit the crime" I think 20 years fits and this is why. It is easy for a jury to judge some criminal trash using mitigating circumstances such as, it was his first crime, no one was hurt or he came from a good family that contributes to the community. After hearing all that suddenly it seems he is the victim. But look at the real victim. You walk into a store by yourself or with a loved one. This piece of crap walks in and not only wants you to give him what "you" worked for but points a gun at you. You literally see your life in front of your eyes. You truly believe it is your time to die, or your loved one is going to die. Why did this happen to you? Simply because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and again you truly feel like your going to die. Try to imagine what that really must feel like. Yet the courts look at that issue very lightly simply because there was no actual physical injury. Physically there was injury. To your brain. You will be affected for life. So punishment to fit the crime? I believe it fits.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony'. Be careful for what you wish because you may get it good and hard.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Thats the whole problem. Once you commit a crime with a gun the law should state that you have just given up your rights. There is too much concern over "criminals rights" and that's why this country is now in the position we are in. Why is it that if a woman has been active sexually and even has performed prostitution and has been arrested but pled to a lesser charge, lets say disorderly conduct so she does not have a "conviction" for prostitution but if she is raped all of her past is brought into the courtroom regarding her sexual activity. Yet, when someone is arrested for robbery more than once but pleads to lets say assault and now he is before the courts for another robbery charge his past robbery records could not be used in court because it may influence the jury. Why is that? Where was the womans rights? Be careful what you wish for? Reducing rights should only apply to criminals, not to the lawful people. Do you honestly feel that if I put a gun to your head and threaten to blow your brains out that I should have any rights? Using this kind of logic then once someone "serves their time" in jail for being a pedophile why must they register under Megan's Law when they are released from jail? They served their time, right? Thats not a violation of their rights if they served their time? No, it is not because the "law" was past to protect "lawful people". So under the same guidelines laws can be past to protect the public and truly punish the criminal.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Surely you have committed a crime, or do you stand on the legalism of adjudication as a prerequisite of criminal status?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

    So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

    My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

    As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy. The accuser doesn't have a right to feel good at trial, the accused does have a right to a fair trial.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    Justice402 wrote:
    I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
    While I appreciate the support, I don't know if I'd follow the advice given when confronted by police. I personally will not be touching or even reaching for my pistol while officers have theirs trained at me. What's to say that one of the LEOs may take my actions as a threat? I'd rather "assume the position" and have the LEOs secure me, then my pistol themselves.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    CarryOpen wrote:
    What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

    So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

    My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

    As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy.


    No, I have not commited a crime. Look at my first post. I am a police officer. I protect people like you and have been doing it for over twenty years. I'm sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals that want to make sure a criminals rights are so protected but don't have the guts to speak out on victims rights. Look at the local news today. A California girl is missing and they just brought in a person for questioning. This person is a sexual offender. Need I say more? Why was he ever released? Because his jail term was "punishment to fit the crime"? He should have never been released. My heart goes out to the family in California and to their daughter Chelsea. I hope she returns home safely.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    eyesopened wrote:
    Justice402 wrote:
    I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
    While I appreciate the support, I don't know if I'd follow the advice given when confronted by police. I personally will not be touching or even reaching for my pistol while officers have theirs trained at me. What's to say that one of the LEOs may take my actions as a threat? I'd rather "assume the position" and have the LEOs secure me, then my pistol themselves.
    An honest mistake is completely different from someone shoving a gun against your head and demanding money from you. The law should allow for such circumstances.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    Justice402 wrote:
    CarryOpen wrote:
    What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

    So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

    My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

    As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy.


    No, I have not commited a crime. Look at my first post. I am a police officer. I protect people like you and have been doing it for over twenty years. I sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals that want to make sure a criminals rights are so protected but don't have the guts to speak out on victims rights. Look at the local news today. A california girl is missing and they just brought in a person for questioning. This person is a sexual offender. Need I say more? Why was he ever released? Because his jail term was "punishment to fit the crime"? He should have never been released. My heart goes out to the family in California and to their daughter Chelsea. I hope she returns home safely.
    I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what part of my post you were responding to.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Justice402 wrote:
    CarryOpen wrote:
    What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

    So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

    My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

    As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy.


    No, I have not commited a crime. Look at my first post. I am a police officer. I protect people like you and have been doing it for over twenty years. I sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals that want to make sure a criminals rights are so protected but don't have the guts to speak out on victims rights. Look at the local news today. A california girl is missing and they just brought in a person for questioning. This person is a sexual offender. Need I say more? Why was he ever released? Because his jail term was "punishment to fit the crime"? He should have never been released. My heart goes out to the family in California and to their daughter Chelsea. I hope she returns home safely.
    What you had saidwhat you would do is absolutely correct. I was referring to a police officer arriving on a scene and you had your weapon out possibly holding the suspect for the police. When they arrive and see you pointing the gun at someone else they may mistake you as the suspect. But as you said if your weapon was holstered do exactly as you had indicated.

  18. #18
    Regular Member NY2AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Justice402 wrote:
    eyesopened wrote:
    Justice402 wrote:
    I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
    While I appreciate the support, I don't know if I'd follow the advice given when confronted by police.* I personally will not be touching or even reaching for my pistol while officers have theirs trained at me.* What's to say that one of the LEOs may take my actions as a threat?* I'd rather "assume the position" and have the LEOs secure me, then my pistol themselves.
    An honest mistake is completely different from someone shoving a gun against your head and demanding money from you. The law should allow for such circumstances.
    I completely agree with what your saying there. However, I unfortunately have little faith in our judicial systems and their ability to discern between the two.
    If ever you find yourself in a situation where you can't be safe, be violent!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman I have to ask... for whatever reason who had stated I must have committed a crime. Why would I be taking a stand and stating prison terms should be harsher if I've committed crimes? That makes no sense to me at all. The only thing I could think of is that I hit a nerve with you possibly because you or someone close to you has committed a crime. Am I right? By the way, your "PHD" language may impress some on here but it doesn't impress me. In my years of dealing with people I've learned that people who try to distinguish themselves as some scholar usually, not always, but usually don't have an ounce of common sense.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    379

    Post imported post

    Pretty much everyone has committed a crime at some point. Maybe they didn't even know it was a crime. Ignorance of the law is not a defense right, so by the logic you've put in this thread, someone knowingly or unknowingly committing a crime is automatically giving up their rights. Look again at my post above - there is a person on this forum who unknowingly carried a firearm onto education property. He committed a felony with a firearm and, according to you, he has now given up his rights for eternity.

    What if the legislature then passes a new law - it's a felony to carry a loaded firearm on public highways. OK, no big deal you say, I'll just unload when I'm on the road. Well, three years later, they amend the definitions section of said law to define "public highway" to include private businesses whose addresses are listed as a highway. Now, not having kept up with the statutes in the last two or three months, you do the same thing you've always done, open carry over at the local AM-PM or what have you. Since you didn't know the law had changed, you "voluntarily" gave up your rights by committing a crime, even though you've done nothing ethically or morally different than two months earlier when the statute allowed it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Good posts Justice402 and welcome to the forum!!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I don't claim to speak for Doug, nor would I try to; but, if he means what I write below, then I agree.

    14A
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    It is my opinion that simply denying one possession of firearms on the grounds that one is a felon without specific due process is wrong; especially if the crime had nothing to do with a firearm. It's my belief that the person should be tried for the crime and if found guilty, should be then tried on whether to disable his/her right to possess arms.

    After having a right disabled, there should also be legal recourse for a person to petition that his/her right be restored as well.

    And no; I'm not a felon..........




    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Justice402 wrote:
    In my years of dealing with people I've learned that people who try to distinguish themselves as some scholar usually, not always, but usually don't have an ounce of common sense.
    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    This is why the laws need to be changed. I understand that if someone went to prison for a crime that didn't involve violence, or a weapon such as a drug possession charge then should that take away their right to own a firearm once they're released? I don't know. Simply doing time may not warrant taking away that right. But if someone was released after using a gun in a crime then they should never be able to own or possess a weapon, ever. Let me ask you this, as a police officer if I were found guilty of a crime which could be non violent, lets say I used drugs. I would lose my job and go to jail. Now, once I serve my time and am again a free man, should I be permitted to get another law enforcement position? Under current law I can not. Is this a violation of my rights? I don't think so. Again, it comes down to I knew what I was doing and should have thought about it before committing the crime. But I paid my time, my rights are being violated. Simply being released because someone did their time in prison does not mean they can be trusted. If this is the case, my rights as a police officer are being violated all the time when I arrest someone for a drug possession and their bail is set at $25,000.00 and they go to jail for six months for consuming and possessing some drugs, yet someone assaults me and their bail is set at $2,500.00 with no jail sentence. Go figure. Years ago I arrested someone for assault on me, this person was just released after serving (8) months of a (4) year term he was originally sentenced to when he committed the assault on me. After transporting this individual to the county jail he assaulted me again and had to be subdued by several corrections officers. So now he has (2) charges of assault on me. This is now (2) violations of his parole. He was sentenced to (2) years probation for the assaults on me. As you can see I don't have much sympathy for criminals rights, but the liberals do. God Bless America.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Now atleast I know you are truly a liberal Mr. Huffman. By the use of the word conspiracy. It is the liberals in this country that always use the term "conspiracy" when they hear something they don't want to hear. Now I know to pay no mind to your posts. I knew after reading afew more posts from you I'd be able to figure you out. Thank you for clearing that up.

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
  •