Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: "Yet Again the NRA Sells Out Freedom to the Democrats"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...-to-democrats/



    Yet Again the NRA Sells Out Freedom to the Democrats


    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Monday, June 14th at 3:16PM EDT




    "From the NRA press release on the day of the Citizens United decision, Wayne LaPierre called the decision “…a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us.”

    SOURCE
    There are few organizations purportedly on the side of freedom that aggravate me more than the National Rifle Association.

    In fact, these days I cringe when I see good conservatives with their lifetime member sticker from the NRA on the back of their cars. I support Gun Owners of America, which is a consistent and uncompromising defender of the second amendment, not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus.

    But that’s what the National Rifle Association is doing. You and I are willing to stand together because we know we either stand together or hang separately. The NRA legislative strategy in the past few years has been to hang everybody else so they can be the last man standing — more interested in maintaining the veneer of bipartisanship than actually standing up for the second amendment.

    The Democrats are trying to come up with a new law to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision on campaign finance rules. The NRA had objected to the Democrats’ proposal, but then secured a carve out for themselves from the legislation and have dropped their objection.



    The new agreement would exempt organizations that have over one million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations, from the disclosure requirements. The NRA, with four million members, would fall into the exempted category and will not oppose the DISCLOSE Act now, according to Democratic sources.
    So if you are a small organization that just started up to defend freedom, you are screwed. But if you’ve been collecting a large file of members for decades off the image of Charlton Heston while repeated screwing conservatives, you’ll be safe.

    This is just the NRA not wanting competition for itself. If they were really committed to freedom, let alone the second amendment, they should be encouraging more freedom loving, second amendment loving organizations to rise and fight. Instead, they are collaborating with the left to shut out competition.

    Remember, the NRA had to be cajoled into opposing Sotomayor.

    The NRA refused to oppose the most anti-gun Attorney General nomination in American history.

    The NRA supported Dede Scozzafava and it attacked Marco Rubio.

    Now the NRA is endorsing the Democrat in Ohio against John Kasich while collaborating with the Democrats on restricting the freedom of speech.

    Remember, the NRA also opposed taking the Heller case to the Supreme Court because it was too scared of what might happen.

    Gun Owners of America never compromises on the Second Amendment.

    The one bit of good news here is that Mitch McConnell is a serious first amendment advocate and while I’ve been open with my criticisms of him, he and I typically stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue and I hope he’ll kill it off in the Senate."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    so, what else is new. it's hardlyas ifthis is the first time. the NRA's board of directors and its officers' primary concern it seems is firstto to protect and guard their pay checks and secondly to eliminate any "competition" by other pro-gun-rights groups.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    No question there are NRA haters and they're free to express their opinions or publish whatever drivelthey want with the hope people will agree with their mindless rants. However, no matter how imperfectan organization the NRA may be, there is absolutely no other organization that has done as much for gun owners and 2nd amendment issues in the past 100 years. All gun owners owe the NRA a huge debt of gratitude for protecting the rights ofgun owners, including those who don't support the NRA.

    They may not be perfect, but they are the most powerful force gun owners have for preserving 2nd amendment rights. NRA has lobbyists up on capital hill and you can believe an organization with over 4 million gun owners has a loud voice. Washington, D.C. is intimidated by the NRA and thank God for that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    so, what else is new. it's hardlyas ifthis is the first time. the NRA's board of directors and its officers' primary concern it seems is firstto to protect and guard their pay checks and secondly to eliminate any "competition" by other pro-gun-rights groups.
    Why does this surprise you? Don't you protect and guard your paychecks? If you owned a business or organization, wouldn't you be concerned about competition as well? I hardly see the NRA's need for self preservation as an undesirable quality. Let me ask you this....do you think gun owners would bebetter or worse off without the NRA?

  5. #5
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Don Tomas wrote:
    No question there are NRA haters and they're free to express their opinions or publish whatever drivelÂ*they want with the hope people will agree with their mindless rants.Â* However, no matter how imperfectÂ*an organization the NRA may be, there is absolutely no other organization that has done as much for gun owners and 2nd amendment issues in the past 100 years.Â* All gun owners owe the NRA a huge debt of gratitude for protecting the rights ofÂ*gun owners, including those who don't support the NRA.

    They may not be perfect, but they are the most powerful force gun owners have for preserving 2nd amendment rights.Â* NRA has lobbyists up on capital hill and you can believe an organization with over 4 million gun owners has a loud voice.Â* Washington, D.C. is intimidated by the NRA and thank God for that.Â*
    I don't suppose you were around in 1968, when the mighty NRA, US gun manufacturers and the Feds (LBJ/Congress) all COMPROMISED on the Gun Control Act of 1968?

    The NRA didn't even have a lobbyist in '68.

    Fact id, the NRA helped generate those Bull-**** hoops we gun owners have to endure each day.

    Do read some NRA history before you sprinkle around the Roses.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    [font=""]Fury continues over Disclose Act 'deal' for NRA from without and within
    [/font]


    Speaking of anti-gunners, the Brady Campaign’s Dennis Henigan weighed in with a column on the Huffington Post in which he blasted the exemption language as a “stunning act of craven appeasement to the gun lobby.”


    [size= So, Dennis, what was passage of the Brady Gun Control Act of 1993 and the 1994 adoption of the Clinton administration’s semi-auto ban? Wasn’t that a craven act of appeasement to the gun prohibitionist lobby? Or do you consider it a public service to pass legislation that treats law-abiding gun owners as criminals, and demonizes their firearms simply because they look different?][/size]


    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d17-Fury-continues-over-Disclose-Act-deal-for-NRA-from-without-and-within

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/29r6lul


  7. #7
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    Don Tomas wrote:
    No question there are NRA haters and they're free to express their opinions or publish whatever drivelthey want with the hope people will agree with their mindless rants. However, no matter how imperfectan organization the NRA may be, there is absolutely no other organization that has done as much for gun owners and 2nd amendment issues in the past 100 years. All gun owners owe the NRA a huge debt of gratitude for protecting the rights ofgun owners, including those who don't support the NRA.

    They may not be perfect, but they are the most powerful force gun owners have for preserving 2nd amendment rights. NRA has lobbyists up on capital hill and you can believe an organization with over 4 million gun owners has a loud voice. Washington, D.C. is intimidated by the NRA and thank God for that.
    I don't suppose you were around in 1968, when the mighty NRA, US gun manufacturers and the Feds (LBJ/Congress) all COMPROMISED on the Gun Control Act of 1968?

    The NRA didn't even have a lobbyist in '68.

    Fact id, the NRA helped generate those Bull-@#$% hoops we gun owners have to endure each day.

    Do read some NRA history before you sprinkle around the Roses.
    You cite one example in which the NRA didn't challenge legislation and that somehow nullifies all of the good they've done for gun owners? Not to mention the millions of dollars they've spent on exposing bad legislation. The NRA doesn't write legislation, pass legislation or enact laws, so your anger is misguided. They may not be perfect, but we're better of with the NRA than we are without them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    Don Tomas wrote:
    No question there are NRA haters and they're free to express their opinions or publish whatever drivelthey want with the hope people will agree with their mindless rants. However, no matter how imperfectan organization the NRA may be, there is absolutely no other organization that has done as much for gun owners and 2nd amendment issues in the past 100 years. All gun owners owe the NRA a huge debt of gratitude for protecting the rights ofgun owners, including those who don't support the NRA.

    They may not be perfect, but they are the most powerful force gun owners have for preserving 2nd amendment rights. NRA has lobbyists up on capital hill and you can believe an organization with over 4 million gun owners has a loud voice. Washington, D.C. is intimidated by the NRA and thank God for that.
    I don't suppose you were around in 1968, when the mighty NRA, US gun manufacturers and the Feds (LBJ/Congress) all COMPROMISED on the Gun Control Act of 1968?

    The NRA didn't even have a lobbyist in '68.

    Fact id, the NRA helped generate those Bull-@#$% hoops we gun owners have to endure each day.

    Do read some NRA history before you sprinkle around the Roses.
    You cite one example in which the NRA didn't challenge legislation and that somehow nullifies all of the good they've done for gun owners? Not to mention the millions of dollars they've spent on exposing bad legislation. The NRA doesn't write legislation, pass legislation or enact laws, so your anger is misguided. They may not be perfect, but we're better off with the NRA than we are without them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    IMO the NRA is no tthe best, but they are the only ones who washington listens to. Do i support GOA's policies more, yes, but they don't thave the pull the NRA does in DC so they can't accomplish as much.I thinkwithout the NRA things would be a lot worse
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  10. #10
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    detroit_fan wrote:
    IMO the NRA is no tthe best, but they are the only ones who washington listens to. Do i support GOA's policies more, yes, but they don't thave the pull the NRA does in DC so they can't accomplish as much.I thinkwithout the NRA things would be a lot worse
    Which is exactly my point. We're far better off with them than without them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    They did exactly what they should have done.

    They spoke out about the bill in May, getting it tabled.

    The Democrats crafted an exemption in hopes of having the NRA withdraw their position against the bill, providing what the NRA wanted.


    This is a 1st amendment issue. The NRA handled this as needed for the best interest of the NRA and the membership of the NRA.


    Now, due to the Democrats ploy to try and earn support from the NRA, the bill is tabled again by Pelosi.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    That's not the NRA's case.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    That's not the NRA's case.
    Have you read the oral arguments? It seems you hold a position of ignorance.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

    The SCOTUS has telegraphed that incorporation will proceed based upon the "Due Process Clause" presented by PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners; and not on the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" presented by ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of
    Petitioners.


    You should really read the transcript, it is enlightening.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post



    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    They would not have ever gotten this far with out the Heller case which the NRA refused to support.Robert A. Levy, a rich libertarian lawyer who has never owned a gun, helped create and single-handedly financed the case that may finally resolve the meaning of the Second Amendment. The NRA nearly killed the case. If it was not from him not the NRA we would not have this case to begin with.

    read the full article here, http://www.nrawol.net/Other_Issues.html#Levy
    Original source here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us...mp;oref=slogin

    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    They would not have ever gotten this far with out the Heller case which the NRA refused to support.Robert A. Levy, a rich libertarian lawyer who has never owned a gun, helped create and single-handedly financed the case that may finally resolve the meaning of the Second Amendment. The NRA nearly killed the case. If it was not from him not the NRA we would not have this case to begin with.

    read the full article here, http://www.nrawol.net/Other_Issues.html#Levy

    "hit site." Got substantive information links?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    They would not have ever gotten this far with out the Heller case which the NRA refused to support.Robert A. Levy, a rich libertarian lawyer who has never owned a gun, helped create and single-handedly financed the case that may finally resolve the meaning of the Second Amendment. The NRA nearly killed the case. If it was not from him not the NRA we would not have this case to begin with.

    read the full article here, http://www.nrawol.net/Other_Issues.html#Levy

    "hit site." Got substantive information links?
    The original story from the NY times is there as well. I will re-post it here again since most wont go looking at the original post


    Original source here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us...mp;oref=slogin
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    That's not the NRA's case.
    Have you read the oral arguments? It seems you hold a position of ignorance.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

    The SCOTUS has telegraphed that incorporation will proceed based upon the "Due Process Clause" presented by PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners; and not on the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" presented by ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of
    Petitioners.


    You should really read the transcript, it is enlightening.
    I have read the transcript. The NRA was allowed to speak in support of the case, but it was not their case. Difference between in support of and on behalf of.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    That's not the NRA's case.
    Have you read the oral arguments? It seems you hold a position of ignorance.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

    The SCOTUS has telegraphed that incorporation will proceed based upon the "Due Process Clause" presented by PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners; and not on the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" presented by ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of
    Petitioners.


    You should really read the transcript, it is enlightening.
    I have read the transcript. The NRA was allowed to speak in support of the case, but it was not their case. Difference between in support of and on behalf of.
    You have read the transcript? Good. You do understand that Incorporation is likely to be had based upon the argument of the NRA counsel, correct?


    And, did I ever claim it was "their case?" No.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    That's not the NRA's case.
    Have you read the oral arguments? It seems you hold a position of ignorance.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

    The SCOTUS has telegraphed that incorporation will proceed based upon the "Due Process Clause" presented by PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners; and not on the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" presented by ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of
    Petitioners.


    You should really read the transcript, it is enlightening.
    I have read the transcript. The NRA was allowed to speak in support of the case, but it was not their case. Difference between in support of and on behalf of.
    You have read the transcript? Good. You do understand that Incorporation is likely to be had based upon the argument of the NRA counsel, correct?


    And, did I ever claim it was "their case?" No.
    The argument the NRA had on the Heller case nearly destroyed the case altogether, thank God that was not their case and thank god this one is not theirs either.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Glad I no longer send those crooks anymore of my money.
    Why? They are about to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states to shoot down the Chicago gun ban.
    That's not the NRA's case.
    Have you read the oral arguments? It seems you hold a position of ignorance.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

    The SCOTUS has telegraphed that incorporation will proceed based upon the "Due Process Clause" presented by PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners; and not on the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" presented by ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of
    Petitioners.


    You should really read the transcript, it is enlightening.
    I have read the transcript. The NRA was allowed to speak in support of the case, but it was not their case. Difference between in support of and on behalf of.
    You have read the transcript? Good. You do understand that Incorporation is likely to be had based upon the argument of the NRA counsel, correct?


    And, did I ever claim it was "their case?" No.
    The argument the NRA had on the Heller case nearly destroyed the case altogether, thank God that was not their case and thank god this one is not theirs either.
    What argument was that? Was the NRA a party to that case?

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    So, do you dispute the method that SCOTUS is likely to use for incorporation?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    So, do you dispute the method that SCOTUS is likely to use for incorporation?
    I'll wait to see what they actually say when they decide, not the speculation on what they will likely use.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    So, do you dispute the method that SCOTUS is likely to use for incorporation?
    I'll wait to see what they actually say when they decide, not the speculation on what they will likely use
    Do you understand that P&I was basically brow-beat down during orals, right? The court would need to overturn stare decisis on Slaughterhouse to do so. It is more than mere speculation, judging from the transcript itself, and most articles and discussions I have read upon the topic. What do you think?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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
  •