Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Shooting at IHOP Carson City Nv

  1. #1
    Regular Member PaleoCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lost Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    163

    Shooting at IHOP Carson City Nv

    If any hear of any information on who took the shooter out. Please post.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...?ncid=webmail1

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    UPDATE (4): The AP reports the gunman has died of self-inflicted wounds.
    I wonder if the national guard members were being specifically targeted.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Unless the National Guardsmen were in uniform or the shooter knew them, I wouldn't speculate in that direction. Were they people who worked at WallyWorld, would we speculate that someone was targeting WW?

    Quite possible that they were just friends who had met at IHOP.

    [edit:] Last thing heard on the radio on the way to get vittles....
    Five of the nine were NG and in uniform.
    Shooter is identified as Eduardo Sencion of Carson City.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-06-2011 at 06:18 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Limestone, Maine, United States
    Posts
    2
    Reports are the shooter commited suicide

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    I don't know all the details surrounding this tragedy, but to me the real shame to this whole deal is that it doesn't appear any open or concealed carriers were anywhere to be found to put a stop to it.

    With Nevada being an open carry state (no permit required) and as far as I know having easily obtained concealed carry permits you would have thought someone could have had a positive impact here to save lives.

    To the PRK politicians, especially to Jerry Brown at this moment in time all I can say is this is why you need a gun to order a hamburger!!!
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    I don't know all the details surrounding this tragedy, but to me the real shame to this whole deal is that it doesn't appear any open or concealed carriers were anywhere to be found to put a stop to it.

    With Nevada being an open carry state (no permit required) and as far as I know having easily obtained concealed carry permits you would have thought someone could have had a positive impact here to save lives.

    To the PRK politicians, especially to Jerry Brown at this moment in time all I can say is this is why you need a gun to order a hamburger!!!
    Presence of another armed person- even licensed, doesnt mean they will step up to the plate when needed.

    A witness told the newspaper he saw the gunman, who has been identified as Eduardo Sencion, 32, exit a minivan parked in front of the IHOP and immediately gun down a man on a motorcycle in the strip mall parking lot. He then went inside and opened fire with what police said was an automatic weapon.

    "He stepped out of the car and started shooting," said Ralph Swagler, owner of a nearby barbecue restaurant. "I had my pistol, but I wasn't going to go up against an automatic rifle."
    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...#ixzz1XtLEMqPL
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Presence of another armed person- even licensed, doesnt mean they will step up to the plate when needed.



    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...#ixzz1XtLEMqPL
    I think this may be a separate incident here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Presence of another armed person- even licensed, doesnt mean they will step up to the plate when needed.



    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...#ixzz1XtLEMqPL
    That's the first account I've read stating a gun owner was nearby. I would argue that in an active mass casualty shooting like this one has a moral obligation and duty to assist his fellow man. For those who don't there's word for that. I hope he can sleep at night.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  9. #9
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I think this may be a separate incident here.
    http://www.rgj.com/article/20110906/NEWS01/110906010/Authorities-expect-release-names-those-killed-Carson-City-IHOP-shooting?odyssey=mod</p><p>breaking</p><p>text</p><p>FRONTPAGE

    Turn to page five in their updates.

    While carrying a gun enables you to take a life, one must resolve it in their minds to do so when the need to defend yourself or others arises. In this instance, it appears Swagler elected to seek cover instead of pursue a life and death confrontation with an active shooter. It is very easy for us to second guess this decision since we are removed from those circumstances- but I would question why I carried a firearm if I was reluctant to drop the hammer on someone who was clearly intending to commit murder.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I think this may be a separate incident here.
    Nope. A business owner next door was armed. This was known the day of the shootings.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    http://www.rgj.com/article/20110906/NEWS01/110906010/Authorities-expect-release-names-those-killed-Carson-City-IHOP-shooting?odyssey=mod</p><p>breaking</p><p>text</p><p>FRONTPAGE

    Turn to page five in their updates.

    While carrying a gun enables you to take a life, one must resolve it in their minds to do so when the need to defend yourself or others arises. In this instance, it appears Swagler elected to seek cover instead of pursue a life and death confrontation with an active shooter. It is very easy for us to second guess this decision since we are removed from those circumstances- but I would question why I carried a firearm if I was reluctant to drop the hammer on someone who was clearly intending to commit mass murder.
    Fixed it for ya.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  12. #12
    Regular Member Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    ...I would argue that in an active mass casualty shooting like this one has a moral obligation and duty to assist his fellow man. For those who don't there's word for that. I hope he can sleep at night.

    That's a ridiculous assertion, and I'd politely ask you not to impress your moral code upon me. When I make a decision to carry a weapon, it's not because I see myself as a protector of the citizenry as a whole. It's to protect me and mine. Simply because I have shouldered that responsibility, I'm not volunteering to protect everyone else that comes my way. They have to decide for themselves what their own safety and security is worth. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't buy into the whole "sheepdog" mentality.
    My stance is quite simple. I'm not inclined to put my life on the line for Joe Schmuck, who decides not to look after his own safety, when doing so means that my wife and kids may not have a father coming home to them. If that means that I'm sacrificing my community for the sake of my family, I'm very OK with that. My family is the only flock I worry about.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    No Moral Obligation Whatsoever!

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    That's a ridiculous assertion, and I'd politely ask you not to impress your moral code upon me. When I make a decision to carry a weapon, it's not because I see myself as a protector of the citizenry as a whole. It's to protect me and mine. Simply because I have shouldered that responsibility, I'm not volunteering to protect everyone else that comes my way. They have to decide for themselves what their own safety and security is worth. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't buy into the whole "sheepdog" mentality.
    My stance is quite simple. I'm not inclined to put my life on the line for Joe Schmuck, who decides not to look after his own safety, when doing so means that my wife and kids may not have a father coming home to them. If that means that I'm sacrificing my community for the sake of my family, I'm very OK with that. My family is the only flock I worry about.
    Polynikes,

    +1 on your post.

    Furthermore, running into the IHOP with a handgun blazing is a good way to get yourself shot by another legally armed law-abiding citizen. People in the IHOP would not know if you are a good guy or an accomplice.

    A co-worker of mine has three relatives who were in the IHOP. One was shot through the ass, and his wife had two bullets hit on both sides of her while she was frozen in her seat. Their response was to either freeze, or hide under the table, and not defend themselves.

    I have been in situations where hand-to-hand violence was about to erupt, and in both cases, I offensively ran-up to my friend who was about to be beat-down, and joined the ensuing battle. This show of force ended the confrontaion (the perps thought this smiling-guy who joined the battle was a little crazy). Notwthstanding my actions in those situations, I believe (I hope) I would have acted offensively if I had been in IHOP and was a target. Presuming I did act, I would not have acted to save people who were hiding under their table awaiting their bullet to arrive. I would have joined the battle to get my revenge on the shooter for ruining by breakfast (really--I can be a very shallow person).

    To iterate, I have no moral obligation to get involved in a situation where I don't know the situation, nor the actors involved, either good or bad. The people outside the building did not know the situation inside IHOP.

    The police do have a moral obligation to run-in and save lives. Too bad they don't.

    markm
    Last edited by MarkBofRAdvocate; 09-14-2011 at 03:19 PM. Reason: fixed typo.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    News Flash!!

    ABC news has just reported that the shooter at IHOP was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and on meds.

    markm

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    ABC news has just reported that the shooter at IHOP was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and on meds.

    markm
    Well, it was already known through the media that mental problems and a previous involuntary committment were in his history. So, that is not surprising; just more detailed.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    That's a ridiculous assertion, and I'd politely ask you not to impress your moral code upon me. When I make a decision to carry a weapon, it's not because I see myself as a protector of the citizenry as a whole. It's to protect me and mine. Simply because I have shouldered that responsibility, I'm not volunteering to protect everyone else that comes my way. They have to decide for themselves what their own safety and security is worth. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't buy into the whole "sheepdog" mentality.
    My stance is quite simple. I'm not inclined to put my life on the line for Joe Schmuck, who decides not to look after his own safety, when doing so means that my wife and kids may not have a father coming home to them. If that means that I'm sacrificing my community for the sake of my family, I'm very OK with that. My family is the only flock I worry about.
    No, its not a ridiculous assertion by any means. To use your words I'd politely ask you to not impress your immoral code upon me.

    Regardless of one's position on bearing arms that doesn't make their life worth any less than anyone else's. And yes, one's primary concern should be their own safety and the needs of their family. Certainly getting yourself killed while attempting to help others is no help at all and leaves your family grieving.

    As for me, I prefer to live life by the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So, getting back to Joe Schmuck (as you callously named him) I try to remember that he has a family too. And maybe he doesn't normally carry. Or maybe he's working and not allowed to carry. Or maybe he's like many pro-2A'ers and permit holders across the nation who don't carry everyday. Or whatever. But in a mass shooting scenario those people are in a life and death situation by the actions of a suicidal maniac and they are in need. And there is a chance that one or more of those persons could be one of your family members, maybe a brother or sister, or mom or dad, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle. And simply based on carry statistics I know that not everyone of them carries everywhere, everyday. Wouldn't you want someone to come to their aid if ever needed? I know that if they were my family members and an able bodied, trained, armed citizen was around I'd be mighty grateful that they stepped up and helped if they could have.

    And no, you shouldn't seek out to help everyone the comes your way, after all superheroes are fiction. But in those rare and dire circumstances that we all hope don't happen to us if an able bodied, trained, armed citizen was around, and could have helped, and turned their back on those people that is simply unconscionable. Period.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  17. #17
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Polynikes,

    +1 on your post.

    Furthermore, running into the IHOP with a handgun blazing is a good way to get yourself shot by another legally armed law-abiding citizen. People in the IHOP would not know if you are a good guy or an accomplice.

    To iterate, I have no moral obligation to get involved in a situation where I don't know the situation, nor the actors involved, either good or bad. The people outside the building did not know the situation inside IHOP.

    The police do have a moral obligation to run-in and save lives. Too bad they don't.

    markm
    Clearly its situation specific. But to be in a position to help and turn your back is pathetic.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2A for Dummies.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	41.5 KB 
ID:	6921
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  18. #18
    Regular Member Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    No, its not a ridiculous assertion by any means. To use your words I'd politely ask you to not impress your immoral code upon me....
    Here's the distinction that you fail to understand. I'm not trying to impress my "immoral code" on you or anyone else, so it would be appropriate for you to retract your unfounded accussations right about now. Nowhere in my post did I state that anyone refusing to subscribe to my perspective was wrong, whereas you clearly stated that anyone not subscribing to your point of view is little better than a coward, evidenced by how you refer to my point of view as "immoral" simply because it's not like yours.

    I sincerely hope you can differentiate between my stated point of view and your attempt to impress an imaginary code of conduct on anyone who reads your post. I don't see things your way, and no matter how you try to argue your point, my opinion will not change. Despite your condescending tone and attempt to preach from atop your high horse, you will not browbeat anyone here into submission, my friend.

    Sorry, I'm not buying it.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    That's the first account I've read stating a gun owner was nearby. I would argue that in an active mass casualty shooting like this one has a moral obligation and duty to assist his fellow man. For those who don't there's word for that. I hope he can sleep at night.
    My premise: True Freedom is taking total responsibility for yourself.

    Is it your assertion that the gun owner on site has a "Moral Obligation" to respond to a AK armed shooter by laying his life down for complete strangers? And this is based soley on the fact that he has taken up his personal responsibility to defend himself?

    That doesn't work for me. I have said it many times here, I am no man's protector. I protect myself and my family and it ends there. I may CHOOSE to act on the behalf of another, but I am in no way bound to do so.

    Am I a coward? No. My primary goal behind me and my wife being armed is to make sure that we make it home safely every day. Were I to hear AK fire at a business near me, I am heading the other way with my family in tow. Were we trapped inside that business, then, and only then, would those around me benefit from my choice to carry and train with my firearm.

    From a logical view of the situation, what if the gun owner carries but never practices? Runs in and winds up shooting more people than the evil psycho with the AK? Crowded resturant, chaos everywhere, adrenaline pumping and no practice? Sounds like he might be more help if he uses the 911 gun.

    And lastly, until you walk in his shoes, don't call him a coward. You don't know.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  20. #20
    Regular Member Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    My premise: True Freedom is taking total responsibility for yourself.

    Is it your assertion that the gun owner on site has a "Moral Obligation" to respond to a AK armed shooter by laying his life down for complete strangers? And this is based soley on the fact that he has taken up his personal responsibility to defend himself?

    That doesn't work for me. I have said it many times here, I am no man's protector. I protect myself and my family and it ends there. I may CHOOSE to act on the behalf of another, but I am in no way bound to do so.

    Am I a coward? No. My primary goal behind me and my wife being armed is to make sure that we make it home safely every day. Were I to hear AK fire at a business near me, I am heading the other way with my family in tow. Were we trapped inside that business, then, and only then, would those around me benefit from my choice to carry and train with my firearm.

    From a logical view of the situation, what if the gun owner carries but never practices? Runs in and winds up shooting more people than the evil psycho with the AK? Crowded resturant, chaos everywhere, adrenaline pumping and no practice? Sounds like he might be more help if he uses the 911 gun.

    And lastly, until you walk in his shoes, don't call him a coward. You don't know.
    Bingo.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Clearly its situation specific. But to be in a position to help and turn your back is pathetic.
    The armed citizen was protecting his business and his family. It was entirely his choice. Monday morning quarterbacking it does not make it "pathetic" by any stretch.


    You weren't there, HE was. When YOU are the one there, YOU can do as YOU choose. If you act wrong (by OUR chosen metric), we will call you pathetic. Fair?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I wonder if the national guard members were being specifically targeted.
    It turns out that I met one of the national guardsmen who was killed. My brother was friends with one of them in a Military College in Vermont, Officer Kelly from Louisiana. Just had his 2nd child.... sad.

  23. #23
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    Here's the distinction that you fail to understand. I'm not trying to impress my "immoral code" on you or anyone else, so it would be appropriate for you to retract your unfounded accussations right about now. Nowhere in my post did I state that anyone refusing to subscribe to my perspective was wrong, whereas you clearly stated that anyone not subscribing to your point of view is little better than a coward, evidenced by how you refer to my point of view as "immoral" simply because it's not like yours.

    I sincerely hope you can differentiate between my stated point of view and your attempt to impress an imaginary code of conduct on anyone who reads your post. I don't see things your way, and no matter how you try to argue your point, my opinion will not change. Despite your condescending tone and attempt to preach from atop your high horse, you will not browbeat anyone here into submission, my friend.

    Sorry, I'm not buying it.
    I assure you that in this discussion I fail to understand nothing. Nor am I browbeating anyone and I retract nothing. In my opinion for someone to be armed, trained, able to assist and having an opportunity to assist and fails to do so is unconscionable. What you call an imaginary code of conduct I call morality, humanity, and compassion. But as you, clearly I don't see things your way either. In the end, to each his own. If you could turn your back on your fellow man then so be it. Though I've never been in such a situation I would like to think I couldn't.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    My premise: True Freedom is taking total responsibility for yourself.

    Is it your assertion that the gun owner on site has a "Moral Obligation" to respond to a AK armed shooter by laying his life down for complete strangers? And this is based soley on the fact that he has taken up his personal responsibility to defend himself?

    That doesn't work for me. I have said it many times here, I am no man's protector. I protect myself and my family and it ends there. I may CHOOSE to act on the behalf of another, but I am in no way bound to do so.

    Am I a coward? No. My primary goal behind me and my wife being armed is to make sure that we make it home safely every day. Were I to hear AK fire at a business near me, I am heading the other way with my family in tow. Were we trapped inside that business, then, and only then, would those around me benefit from my choice to carry and train with my firearm.

    From a logical view of the situation, what if the gun owner carries but never practices? Runs in and winds up shooting more people than the evil psycho with the AK? Crowded resturant, chaos everywhere, adrenaline pumping and no practice? Sounds like he might be more help if he uses the 911 gun.

    And lastly, until you walk in his shoes, don't call him a coward. You don't know.
    I agree with your premise and I wish many more took that real responsibility more seriously as opposed to what we have today of the ever growing nanny state to the detriment of your liberty and mine. And NO it is not my assertion that a gun owner has to lay his life down for others, ever! In fact, I've said the exact opposite if you would go back and re-read my posts. Neither is one "bound" to help out another in any scenario. Again, one's primary responsibility is to himself and his family, first and foremost, so moving in the opposite direction to get them to safety is absolutely the right thing to do.

    Given a situation where one is armed, trained, able, and yes even having enough opportunity to actually help as opposed to making a really bad situation worse, and that person walks away doesn't make him or her a coward, it makes them, by definition, inhumane. Cowardly would be when that person doesn't or can't act because of debilitating fear. Like it or not, agree or disagree, it is what it is.

    ETA: By the way, I never called him a coward.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 09-15-2011 at 10:45 PM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  25. #25
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    The armed citizen was protecting his business and his family. It was entirely his choice. Monday morning quarterbacking it does not make it "pathetic" by any stretch.


    You weren't there, HE was. When YOU are the one there, YOU can do as YOU choose. If you act wrong (by OUR chosen metric), we will call you pathetic. Fair?
    You are misunderstanding my posts. I am neither Monday morning quarterbacking, nor calling the business owner pathetic, nor calling him a coward. I was not there. I am simply offering an argument (ie a position to consider). Whether you agree or disagree is completely up to you.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

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
  •