Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Recent Arizona shooting - observations

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Recent Arizona shooting - observations

    1. They've identified a person whom they say is the perpetrator of the offense, but there have been no news reports that I've heard that specify how they did so. They keep plastering the grinning face on the news with the clear implication that he's guilty as sin (while calling him a "suspect"), but I don't know how they come to that conclusion.

    2. I strongly suspect (but don't know) that Judy Clarke, the lawyer appointed by the court to represent the "suspect" is one of those whom I call, "tame lawyers". (There are also "tame judges", btw.) Such people are there to provide the illusion of due process while making sure things go the way The System wants them to go. They are not appointed in the usual way, they are specially selected. The argument being that their long experience makes them competent to handle the case (which is probably true). But I think we can be sure that if that guy has any valid defenses, the court won't hear about them.

    3. The guy is accused of "political rhetoric" that other people didn't understand. They won't tell us what that consists of, though it sounds like he was unhappy that the general public has no idea what the Constitution says, and that politicians have a demonstrated lack of willingness to comply with terms and limitations expressed in The Charter. The clear implication is that people who like the Constitution are probably crazed killers.

    4. Chris Matthews presented a highly-edited version of an earlier interview he did with a guy who'd carried a gun to an Obama rally some time back. I recall having seen the original interview, and the complete story presents the guy as intelligent, articulate, and clearly interested only in being able to defend himself and other innocent third parties. Then Matthews leaps to the conclusion that all guns are evil, that guns necessarily beget violence, that violence leads to violence, and the mere presence of guns guarantees that incidents like this one will occur. What I was thinking after having seen a bit of that (I turned to a movie, couldn't take too much of it), was that I wish that gun-totin' guy had been in the crowd. Someone should have shot that dude before he'd killed five or six people. Arizona is supposed to be a big gun-totin' state, the news makes it sound like every citizen of Arizona is a six-shootin' cowboy. Why wasn't there anyone present who could have shot that guy before he'd killed so many? We need more guns, not less (and maybe publicly-funded educational programs for law abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves).

    5. Russian TV wants exactly the same thing as Chris Matthews does. I can see why Russia wants the American populace to be disarmed, but what's up with Matthews? Why is he against self-defense? Interesting, I thought, that Al-Jazeera has been the only network whose reporting on that issue has been neutral.

    6. I find it appalling that so many politicians have cynically jumped on the opportunity to castigate law abiding citizens' interest in defending themselves, their homes, and their familes, as gun-crazed lunatics, or as political whackos (like those who feel the Constitution should be "preserved, protected, and defended, against all enemies, foreign and domestic"). I saw Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., NJ) this morning on one channel arguing that we need new laws at the federal level to ban any handgun capable of holding a magazine containing more than ten rounds. His theory was that a Glock something or other was used to shoot the people in Az., and that all such guns are therefore evil, and their owners are also a threat to other people. I can see why representatives of the Vatican (e.g., Lautenberg), Russia, and other foreign states want to see the United States disarmed. That's the first thing I'd do if I wanted to be able to exploit the economic and military power of the U.S. for my own interests. Pinky and The Brain try it every single night, but they always fail because they forgot to disarm the people first! Seriously, I regard Lautenberg as a threat to national security.

    7. Why haven't we heard anything about the federal judge who was killed? What was he working on at the time, what were his leanings, etc. I think that's far more important than a member of congress, in terms of the threat posed to the United States. I wonder why the news people haven't said a thing about what cases he was in the process of adjudicating, what papers he's written, and what his judicial history has been. The fact that this congresswoman has been the complete topic of reportage (when they're not showing pictures of the adorable nine year old girl), to the total exclusion of what the judge was working on makes me suspicious.

    "And that's all I have to say about that."
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    I know I may be opening a can of worms here by being a newbie and publicly disagreeing with user, but here it goes. Please understand that I have a lot of respect for you, based on more than a year of lurking and reading your posts before signing up.
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    1. They've identified a person whom they say is the perpetrator of the offense, but there have been no news reports that I've heard that specify how they did so. They keep plastering the grinning face on the news with the clear implication that he's guilty as sin (while calling him a "suspect"), but I don't know how they come to that conclusion.
    According to multiple different news reports, the alleged perpetrator (identified as Jared Lee Loughner) was tackled at the scene while he was trying to reload.

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    3. The guy is accused of "political rhetoric" that other people didn't understand. They won't tell us what that consists of, though it sounds like he was unhappy that the general public has no idea what the Constitution says, and that politicians have a demonstrated lack of willingness to comply with terms and limitations expressed in The Charter. The clear implication is that people who like the Constitution are probably crazed killers.
    With just a little searching, you can find articles that discuss what his alleged beliefs were. You can even find his personal YouTube channel. While there have been a lot of discussions about his beliefs about grammar and literacy rates, and government mind control, I haven't seen anything in the media that purports to give him a focus on the Constitution. Cite please?

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    4. Chris Matthews presented a highly-edited version of an earlier interview he did with a guy who'd carried a gun to an Obama rally some time back. I recall having seen the original interview, and the complete story presents the guy as intelligent, articulate, and clearly interested only in being able to defend himself and other innocent third parties. Then Matthews leaps to the conclusion that all guns are evil, that guns necessarily beget violence, that violence leads to violence, and the mere presence of guns guarantees that incidents like this one will occur. What I was thinking after having seen a bit of that (I turned to a movie, couldn't take too much of it), was that I wish that gun-totin' guy had been in the crowd. Someone should have shot that dude before he'd killed five or six people. Arizona is supposed to be a big gun-totin' state, the news makes it sound like every citizen of Arizona is a six-shootin' cowboy. Why wasn't there anyone present who could have shot that guy before he'd killed so many? We need more guns, not less (and maybe publicly-funded educational programs for law abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves).
    There actually was a law-abiding, armed citizen that helped stop Loughner. Joseph Zimudie was in a nearby store, heard the gunshots, and ran to the scene to render assistance. When he got there, Loughner had already been tackled, and so he never had to draw his firearm, but he helped to restrain Loughner until the police arrived.

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    7. Why haven't we heard anything about the federal judge who was killed? What was he working on at the time, what were his leanings, etc. I think that's far more important than a member of congress, in terms of the threat posed to the United States. I wonder why the news people haven't said a thing about what cases he was in the process of adjudicating, what papers he's written, and what his judicial history has been. The fact that this congresswoman has been the complete topic of reportage (when they're not showing pictures of the adorable nine year old girl), to the total exclusion of what the judge was working on makes me suspicious.
    I don't have the links right now (they're in my browser history on my home computer), but I remember reading several articles about the shooting over the weekend that mentioned some of Judge Roll's cases and death threats that he had received as a result. However, most news sources have also mentioned that it appears that he wasn't planned to be there, and had simply been in the area after attending a Catholic service that morning. As his home was nearby, that explanation is not exactly a stretch of the imagination.

    I can't really speak much to your other points, but I hope those links help to clarify some of your questions.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 01-11-2011 at 08:13 AM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    I know I may be opening a can of worms here by being a newbie and publicly disagreeing with user, but here it goes. Please understand that I have a lot of respect for you, based on more than a year of lurking and reading your posts before signing up.
    I've read the same things...BUT...knowing User, I know he has too, and read them in depth.

    I've found that when he says something, it's based on heavy research and usually he knows something we don't!

    He's leading up to something that will be interesting to say the least.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I've read the same things...BUT...knowing User, I know he has too, and read them in depth.

    I've found that when he says something, it's based on heavy research and usually he knows something we don't!

    He's leading up to something that will be interesting to say the least.
    I've noticed that he tends to be very precise in his wording. I might be reading too much into things, but at least on his first point, he outright stated that he hadn't seen any news reports showing how they identified the shooter. "They've identified a person whom they say is the perpetrator of the offense, but there have been no news reports that I've heard that specify how they did so."

    Last I checked, being tackled by 3-4 people while reloading and being held until the police arrived is a fairly reliable way to identify a shooter. Of the 4 people identified as stopping him, 3 were eye witnesses to the shootings, which tends to add to the reliability. I simply provided a link to a news report that provides that information, explaining how they identified the shooter.
    Last edited by grylnsmn; 01-11-2011 at 09:05 AM.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    I've noticed that he tends to be very precise in his wording. I might be reading too much into things, but at least on his first point, he outright stated that he hadn't seen any news reports showing how they identified the shooter. "They've identified a person whom they say is the perpetrator of the offense, but there have been no news reports that I've heard that specify how they did so."

    Last I checked, being tackled by 3-4 people while reloading and being held until the police arrived is a fairly reliable way to identify a shooter. Of the 4 people identified as stopping him, 3 were eye witnesses to the shootings, which tends to add to the reliability. I simply provided a link to a news report that provides that information, explaining how they identified the shooter.
    I don't know where he's headed. But it will be interesting.

    This should be User's Avatar:

    Last edited by peter nap; 01-11-2011 at 09:27 AM.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Y'all give me too much credit. If this were a matter of Virginia firearms law, I would have done some research. But when I said this was "observations", I meant it - that's all it was, observations. And that's based on my having been flipping channels on Comcast Basic Cable when some newsface happened to be talking about it. Most of what I was talking about was what I didn't know, and which has been cleared up tremendously by the posts above, thanks to all.

    I still don't like Frank Lautenberg, though.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Oh well!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Y'all give me too much credit. If this were a matter of Virginia firearms law, I would have done some research. But when I said this was "observations", I meant it - that's all it was, observations. And that's based on my having been flipping channels on Comcast Basic Cable when some newsface happened to be talking about it. Most of what I was talking about was what I didn't know, and which has been cleared up tremendously by the posts above, thanks to all.

    I still don't like Frank Lautenberg, though.
    You might find this article from PoliticsDaily helpful: Jared Lougher's Federal Trial: Previewing the Tucson Massacre Case

    It seems to give a fairly well balanced (at least to this computer guy's untrained eye) overview of the current case, based on information so far.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I still don't like Frank Lautenberg, though.
    I would doubt your credibility as a freedom loving person if you did.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Let's ban all guns at the General Assembly!

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Y'all give me too much credit. If this were a matter of Virginia firearms law, I would have done some research. But when I said this was "observations", I meant it - that's all it was, observations. And that's based on my having been flipping channels on Comcast Basic Cable when some newsface happened to be talking about it. Most of what I was talking about was what I didn't know, and which has been cleared up tremendously by the posts above, thanks to all.

    I still don't like Frank Lautenberg, though.
    Well, that seems to be the attitude of Delegate Delegate Patrick A. Hope(D) - House District 47:

    HB 1813 Possession of handguns in legislative buildings.

    Read the Summary:

    Prohibits the possession of a firearm in the Capitol and the General Assembly Building. The bill also allows a person who is lawfully carrying a handgun to check the handgun with the Capitol Police when entering the Capitol or the General Assembly Building. The prohibition would not apply to members of the General Assembly or to law-enforcement officers.
    A (free?) checking service! How thoughtful.

    The privileged ones -- as always -- are exempt.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000
    I have always held to the idea that any restrictions on John Q Public should apply to all elected & appointed officials FIRST AND FOREMOST before they get applied to the People. Also that for the duration of application against the People, all elected & appointed officials must have all the same restrictions in effect against themselves.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    It has become apparent to me after partaking in the tea party protest at the mall this summer, and with the recent cry for more gun control stemming from the AZ tragedy that: Rather than protect themselves legally as we here try to do, the anti-gun politicians are bent on using the might of law enforcement(full auto), and legislation to insulate themselves while the peasants are stuck fending for themselves. To me this was the basis of the 2nd Admendment. Thankfully we live in a right to carry state, a gold star state like AZ, which allows us to carry a high capacity magazine (up to 20 rounds in a firearm), or less depending on the firearm (freedom of choice). The recent call for banning high capacity mags from the reps of states who don't even allow their constituents the right to carry, have no idea of the responsibility we here must take on a daily basis. Therefore they should leave the states alone in this matter, because the federal gun ban didn't work and expired. If the states who don't allow the right to carry want to explore this kind of legilation then go ahead, but keep it in your state. Stay out of my state and my personal business. Besides, using a tragedy like this to further a political agenda is as cowardly as the act itself. Thankfully those who carry responsibly recognize this incident for what it was. A crazed gunman who had no motivation other than to stalk Rep. Giffords, and eventually try and kill her no matter who stood in his way. It's an unfortunate event, and just as unfortunate that no law abiding person was carrying at the time. As I would recommend to anybody who is sane and competent(law abiding), learn to shoot your firearm accurately and carry responsibly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    PS- Sic Semper Tyrannis (I left that out)

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Placementvs.Calibur View Post
    PS- Sic Semper Tyrannis (I left that out)
    Couldn't have said it better, myself.

    And by the way, as to another comment in my first post that I want to emphasize: although it has been reported that a lawfully-carrying citizen showed up seconds too late to shoot the assassin (by grylnsmn), but I still wonder why there was no one in the immediate crowd with a gun. With that many people on hand, someone other than that one guy should have been armed for defense. The news people keep talking about AZ's terrible gun laws (by which they mean gun laws that don't interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens). If the way they talk about AZ were true, just about everyone in the crowd ought to have been carrying. Whu'sup wit'dat?
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    970
    The kid went to a high school that was funded by Obama and Bill Ayers (the domestic terrorist). The teachers there are trained by a radical left-wing group that is headed by former top communist activist Mike Klonsky. That's where this kid learned his politics of hate.

  16. #16
    coolfrmn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Couldn't have said it better, myself.

    And by the way, as to another comment in my first post that I want to emphasize: although it has been reported that a lawfully-carrying citizen showed up seconds too late to shoot the assassin (by grylnsmn), but I still wonder why there was no one in the immediate crowd with a gun. With that many people on hand, someone other than that one guy should have been armed for defense. The news people keep talking about AZ's terrible gun laws (by which they mean gun laws that don't interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens). If the way they talk about AZ were true, just about everyone in the crowd ought to have been carrying. Whu'sup wit'dat?
    The Congresswoman was a Democrat. Not too many gun toters go to those gatherings.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Very insightful

    Quote Originally Posted by coolfrmn View Post
    The Congresswoman was a Democrat. Not too many gun toters go to those gatherings.
    Yes, that's what I've been thinking. The people most likely to have attended were Democrats; many of them likely are opposed to personal defense.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by coolfrmn View Post
    The Congresswoman was a Democrat. Not too many gun toters go to those gatherings.
    but she was pro 2A
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  19. #19
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Yes, and she voted AGAINST Pelosi for Speaker!

    Quote Originally Posted by ed View Post
    but she is pro 2A
    Edited above to make it present tense.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by ed View Post
    but she was pro 2A
    She has a D- rating from GOA and D+ rating from the NRA. Doesn't sound very pro 2A to me. But I don't know anything about her.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Edited above to make it present tense.
    Hopefully she still is.
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  22. #22
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Couldn't have said it better, myself.

    And by the way, as to another comment in my first post that I want to emphasize: although it has been reported that a lawfully-carrying citizen showed up seconds too late to shoot the assassin (by grylnsmn), but I still wonder why there was no one in the immediate crowd with a gun. With that many people on hand, someone other than that one guy should have been armed for defense. The news people keep talking about AZ's terrible gun laws (by which they mean gun laws that don't interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens). If the way they talk about AZ were true, just about everyone in the crowd ought to have been carrying. Whu'sup wit'dat?
    I don't yet fully understand the logic of "Thus always to Tyrants" if Latin serves me. I'll have to google it later.

    1) I imagine a number of people were carrying but afraid when it comes down to it. I know many people who run away first, or with the 'not my problem' attitude. I commend the crazy sheepdog running the wrong [sic] way

    2) It was a liberal meeting if someone was carrying and not afraid they might have been busy analyzing the crazy man's needs and wants to determine if he should be pitied or how much to put in his hat.

    3) It was a liberal meeting nobody was carrying or if they were they were ashamed to let there friends know.

    4) The people who were carrying were too far away to do anything useful in the short amount of time of the event.

    Maybe some other?

    Maybe living in a pro-2A state many don't feel the need to exercise the right, because they aren't concerned that it would be taken away?
    Last edited by nuc65; 01-11-2011 at 07:27 PM.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Quote Originally Posted by coolfrmn View Post
    The Congresswoman was a Democrat. Not too many gun toters go to those gatherings.
    Be careful with that assumption, it is likely a faulty one. We're talking about Democrats from a state where people take pride in their self determination and ability to take care of themselves. Before laying such a charge solely at the feet of Democrats think of how many Republicans willingly showed up at Eric Cantor's event, bringing both spoken and financial report in a location where they knew guns were not even allowed! How many Republicans go about unarmed on a day to day basis with never a desire to change? This is not necessarily a trait of one party over another, but a trait of those who take no responsibility for their own safety for whatever reason.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 01-11-2011 at 06:31 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    The assumption now a days by most is that guns are evil, not people. The fact that this country was founded and defended by brave men and women who used the most efficient tool which mans will created is as absent as the idea that our founders created documents which outlined our "uninaliable rights." When these ideas were popular the idea of a two party system didn't necesarily exist, or wasn't the basis of creating this country or its laws. News Flash: These ideas are coming back by popular demand. (Please forgive spelling)
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  25. #25
    coolfrmn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    Be careful with that assumption, it is likely a faulty one. We're talking about Democrats from a state where people take pride in their self determination and ability to take care of themselves. Before laying such a charge solely at the feet of Democrats think of how many Republicans willingly showed up at Eric Cantor's event, bringing both spoken and financial report in a location where they knew guns were not even allowed! How many Republicans go about unarmed on a day to day basis with never a desire to change? This is not necessarily a trait of one party over another, but a trait of those who take no responsibility for their own safety for whatever reason.
    It very well could be. But, regardless of her being a self proclaimed " Blue Dog Democrat" & former Republican. & She opposed the Washington D.C. gun ban, signing an Amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords

    Most Dems I've run into on the street level, even the one's that support hunting & outdoor recreations, aren't "gun friendly". Haven't seen too many OC or CC. If any. They believe the police are there to protect them. It's not up to us for self protection.
    ( I happen to have a LARGE family of in-laws, mostly female, that are VERY LIBERAL/DEMOCRATS. They are married to guys who like to hunt. But also think guns are bad.) ( I've actually been told, "It's not my job to protect my family." Needless to say, there have been some heated discussions in my house. When I've given them hard facts about emergency response times, how many on duty at a time, how quick attacks can occure, etc. they have loosened their tight oppinion while in my home. They have learned when I care enough to stand my ground, I came with hard proof for them to read. All they had were what ifs.) When I tell them stories of the calls I've run in the past 18 & 1/2 years as a Firefighter/ EMT, Dispatcher & police ride alongs, they tend to go silent. So, for me, it's a fairly safe assumption.

    & yes, I'm aware of Republicans that aren't "gun friendly" or claim to be despite holding functions in a Gun Free zone.
    Last edited by coolfrmn; 01-11-2011 at 08:58 PM.

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
  •