Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-15-2011, 08:59   #121
Sippo
Senior Member
 
Sippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 231
Show me one gun control law that actually has saved lives and decreased victimization of the innocent, and then and only then would I consider it.
Maybe the Brady Bunch should troll the documents of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to come up with justifications.
__________________
NRA Patron Member

You're right, Mr President. Central PA does love their guns and religion.
Sippo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:40   #122
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
You make a good point. So how would you address the issue of those idiots who buy a gun to impress their girlfriends, then shoot their best friend in the face because they never learned how to safely handle a gun? Chalk it up to Darwinism? Acceptable losses?
What are you going to do with a guy who buys a crotch rocket and flips it over on himself and dies the first time he gets on it. It does happen. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You can't legislate stupidity, only react to it.

If we play the "What if" game we would all sit in our homes in a plastic bubble and never move. Life is full of risk and responsibilities.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36

Last edited by bandmasterjf; 12-15-2011 at 09:41..
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:50   #123
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
If someone has been adjudicated mentally defective they aren’t free are they? They must have an overseer correct? It’s the overseer’s duty to decide if they can have a firearm or not. And the overseer is held responsible for their actions.

Now there is a fly in this ointment. A liberal Dr. and a liberal court will say someone that wants to carry a firearm is mentally defective. So what checks and balance would you put in place? I prefer to take the chance that a mentally defective person would first, have to want to purchase a firearm and second actually do harm with it. I'd rather take that chance than give liberals the chance to curtail the rights of honorable me. The mentally defective may purchase a firearm. He may do harm with it. I can grantee the gun grabbers will rule people that want firearms to be mentally defective.

I had a problem with NICS when they first talked about it. I knew it would be FUBAR. Now that I’m one of the people being screwed by it my fears have become reality. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that if you start have holds put on your purchases, or worse yet, are out right denied, you'll start having a BIG problem with it.


A firearm does not amplify danger anymore than gasoline, matches, fertilizer and diesel fuel. It’s very easy to mix the right combinations and do a lot more harm in a shorter period of time than one can with a firearm. Hell a person can take out more people with an automobile in a shorter amount of time than with a firearm.
But they can't stick thier car in their pocket and walk into a 7-11.

I can just see some idiot trying to rob a liquer store with a gas can. Uh, hey dude. If you light that match your going up too. Oh crap............never mind.


So you are unlucky and are one of the few poor souls that the NICS screws. That sucks and I can understand your frustration with it. If you were in Arkansas and had a CCL it would be a hickup in your process. The CCL would probably be delayed for a further search. The regular CCL takes 6 weeks and the delayed process is usually doubled. After you got your license your gun purchase would go like this.

Pick out a gun.
Fill out the paper work.
Show them the CCL
Pay for the gun/s
Walk out the door.

For a CCL holder they aren't required to do the background check.

And no not all "mentally defective" people have an overseer. Some do have people that look after them, but it's not required. At least not here. I had a student a few years back that was functionally retarded. I would guess his IQ was around 65-75 and he has no one to watch over him. He was a nice kid, but not everyone is. Prisons are full of people like him who have been down on thier luck and have done something against the law.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36

Last edited by bandmasterjf; 12-15-2011 at 09:52..
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:03   #124
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
I can't believe this thread is still going. I can't believe there are people on here acting like anti-gunners. To those obsessed with keeping guns out of criminal hands, what difference does it make what someone uses to commit a crime? A crime is a crime regardless of what is used. It is your emotional immaturity that blinds you from logic and reason. You say "you could kill a lot people with a gun". I say you could kill a lot more with homemade explosives, a truck, etc. Stop acting like guns are the ONLY weapon someone could use to inflict harm. There is no machete control, there is no samurai sword control, there is no gasoline/matches control. Therefore, there should be no gun control, end of story.

Home made explosives are also illigal and get greater punishments then guns. Just sayin'

There are also penalties for assault with a deadly weapon ie. machete, samurai sward, broken coffee cup. We can't really stop most crimes, but what we can do is punish them differently for their severity. If a guy assults me with a rock it's going to hurt. If he puts a bullet in me it's going to damage me a lot worse and should be punished greater. I don't see how that's so hard to get.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:13   #125
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattergun1187 View Post
I think the liberal underground did shut off it's servers. Wish they would find somewhere else to spew there liberal views.

For those against criminals that have guns. Well a criminal can get what ever he/she wants with the right amount of money. Plus they can get full auto, suppressors and other items that a normal citizen can't.
So no matter how you want to spin it. It will not work.
And law abiding citizens have to fly the straight and narrow for Class III items or even a regular handgun.
But not a criminal; where their is a way they will get it.

So it should be a gun free for all becuase criminals can get them if they really want them?

Are there any statistics on Class III weapons being used in crimes or is that just a fantacy that you have?

Did you know that it's perfectly legal to have Class III weapons, you just have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't have a problem with the hoops, but I don't much care for the $300 "tax"
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:14   #126
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
No, it was not you to whom I was referring.



Yes, but can you think about what I said without immediately dismissing it? Can you consider that the regulation of speech that we accept as a society by establishing rules for language is akin to the regulation of arms? It is a rather abstract thought, but if you think about it, you will see some truth.



But the point is that, as a society, we regulate behavior all the time. The 1st amendment is highly regulated. Can you burn the US flag inside of a federal courtroom? Can you openly threaten to kill the prez? Is that what you want?

The 1st amendment prohibits the '...abridging of freedom of speech.' Prohibiting the above acts is in direct violation of the 1st amendment - if you believe that 'abridging = prohibiting,' and not 'abridging = regulating.'

What about that pesky 10th amendment? Should each state be allowed to determine its own adherence to the other amendments?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Inconvenience is not infringement. As long as I, as a free man and law-abiding citizen of the American society I choose to remain a member of, has the right to own to own a gun, my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed by the enacting of certain regulations.

Many are Constitutional absolutists. I applaud your work to keep the Constitution safe against those who would destroy it. I happen to be of a more moderate mind, and accept that we live in a society that demands some level of protection against criminality that I can't provide. My right to keep and bear arms is an adjunct to the protection that I demand from society's law enforcement and judicial systems. But by demanding that protection, I must allow a certain amount of inconvenience. As long as we elect those who can hold the Constitution dear, while addressing the problems we face as a society in a rational manner, we will continue to enjoy the protection of liberty.
Again you have a misconception brought about by the liberal, progressives, socialists, ACLU call them what you will. The first amendment does not grantee freedom of action. Itís quite specific. Itís not hard to understand, read it.

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No laws regarding establishment of religion or practicing religion. No law regarding free SPEECH. Are not to stop people from PEACFULLT assembling. Not to stop people from petitioning government.

Burning a flag inside any building is not freedom of speech. Itís an action and falls under arson laws. You can say I wish someone would kill the SOB (the prez). Thatís freedom of speech. Threatening to kill or harm the President shows intent. The arrest would not be for saying it, but rather for what you admittedly/confessed the intent to do.

You say you are glad to have some level of protection against criminality that you can't provide. Exactly what level is that? You have a cop living with you and riding on your hip 24/7? Perhaps you actually believe laws prevent crime? They donít! They only provide a means of punishing those that break them. Youíre living in a fantasy world and you have a false sense of security.

Quote:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Benjamin Franklin, 1759]
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:16   #127
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
But they can't stick thier car in their pocket and walk into a 7-11.

I can just see some idiot trying to rob a liquer store with a gas can. Uh, hey dude. If you light that match your going up too. Oh crap............never mind.
A car may not fit in a pocket but any number of perfectly available things can be. However, there is a practically infinite number of things that one may easily use to harm/threaten others can be easily concealed...

If some idiot trying to rob a liquor store tosses half of a solo cup of gasoline onto the clerk while holding holding a zippo in the other hand, it probably wouldn't be hard to get a liquor store clerk to hand over the contents of the register.

I think the point Jerry was trying to make is that there are practically an infinite number of things that can be used to do harm and the concept that restricting firearms will actually prevent violence/crime/etc is based on a false premise.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:22   #128
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
Home made explosives are also illigal and get greater punishments then guns. Just sayin'

There are also penalties for assault with a deadly weapon ie. machete, samurai sward, broken coffee cup. We can't really stop most crimes, but what we can do is punish them differently for their severity. If a guy assults me with a rock it's going to hurt. If he puts a bullet in me it's going to damage me a lot worse and should be punished greater. I don't see how that's so hard to get.
If your killed with a rock or a gun should the offender be punished differently?

Why would you assume that being shot will hurt you more then being beat with a rock?

What if somebody jams their fingers into your windpipe and you die... Should the punishment for that be worse or less then if they shot you and you died? And why?
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:23   #129
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sippo View Post
Show me one gun control law that actually has saved lives and decreased victimization of the innocent, and then and only then would I consider it.
Maybe the Brady Bunch should troll the documents of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to come up with justifications.

I could give you a Obamaeque answer about the number of jobs saved/ people saved because some idiot coudn't get a gun. But it would be just that, a wild guess.

Gun laws only keep guns out of the hand of criminals/crazies who want to get guns legally. Good point. But I still think it's a good idea.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:24   #130
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
If your killed with a rock or a gun should the offender be punished differently?

Why would you assume that being shot will hurt you more then being beat with a rock?


No

Have you ever been shot or hit with a rock? Given the choice, I'm going with the rock.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:27   #131
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
So it should be a gun free for all becuase criminals can get them if they really want them?

Are there any statistics on Class III weapons being used in crimes or is that just a fantacy that you have?

Did you know that it's perfectly legal to have Class III weapons, you just have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't have a problem with the hoops, but I don't much care for the $300 "tax"
That tax in class 3 weapons could be perceived as a way of keeping the poor from exercising their right to bear arms. Some would see it as tantamount to a poll tax.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:34   #132
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
..Gun laws only keep guns out of the hand of criminals/crazies who want to get guns legally. Good point. But I still think it's a good idea.
Logically, gun laws can only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people. Not criminals. Criminals by definition, aren't abiding by the laws and so gun laws do not prevent them from having guns or any number of other things that may be used as weapons.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:44   #133
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
But they can't stick thier car in their pocket and walk into a 7-11.
No, but they sure can drive through it. Its done all the time. I suppose you’ve never watched world’s dumbest criminals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
I can just see some idiot trying to rob a liquer store with a gas can. Uh, hey dude. If you light that match your going up too. Oh crap............never mind.
Been done! Google is your friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
So you are unlucky and are one of the few poor souls that the NICS screws. That sucks and I can understand your frustration with it. If you were in Arkansas and had a CCL it would be a hickup in your process. The CCL would probably be delayed for a further search. The regular CCL takes 6 weeks and the delayed process is usually doubled. After you got your license your gun purchase would go like this.

Pick out a gun.
Fill out the paper work.
Show them the CCL
Pay for the gun/s
Walk out the door.

For a CCL holder they aren't required to do the background check.
No I’m not one of the few. I’m one of the many. And if you had read my other posts you’d have seen I hold CCW and a law enforcement commission. We still have to go through NICS. Most states do!

So paying for a license for the PRIVILEGE of carrying s firearm is not an infringement? Having a hold put on your purchase is not an infringement? You’re a school teacher? Better get the dictionary out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
And no not all "mentally defective" people have an overseer. Some do have people that look after them, but it's not required. At least not here. I had a student a few years back that was functionally retarded. I would guess his IQ was around 65-75 and he has no one to watch over him. He was a nice kid, but not everyone is. Prisons are full of people like him who have been down on thier luck and have done something against the law.
So you justify restricting everyone’s else’s right because you "believe" it will stop your retarded kid from acquiring a firearm? Exactly how do you stop him? You want a gun. Stop by your local corner dope peddler, he can get you one. Dope peddling on the corner…see how laws stop crime. Heres a little clue… for you… firearms dealers nor privates citizens have to sell a firearm to anyone. If your retarded kid shows up to buy a gun legall all one has to do is say NO.

Before you try to tell others about the Constitution or teach it you’d better learn what it really says. God help us all with people like you teaching your liberal gun control bull manure to the children.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 12-15-2011 at 10:56..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 11:22   #134
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,048
We live in a society with rules that protect free men. The founding fathers knew this, and those of us who understand that there are people who ignore those rules (dangerous recidivist felons and deranged individuals) are not 'gun-grabbing liberals', but realists. We desire democracy, not anarchy.


Here In lies the problem- When did we become a democracy? We are a Republic! Just shows you don't have a clue! Have you really read the laws on gun control- NONE stop these felons fron gettting a weapon, None stop them from using it! All they do is restrict lawabiding people from owning them , carring them , using them. Why do good people have to prove they are good people to the government before they can own a legal item? Why do good people have to prove they can use that legal item the way the Government says before they can carry it? Why do good people have to pay for a permit to be able to carry it?
__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!
Gunnut 45/454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 11:46   #135
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 19,260


This is a liberal trap.

If you say you are not for gun control, then they will say you are letting psychopath's have weapons.

If you say you are for gun control then they will want your gun.

If you say you are for limited gun control then you will find laws that severely restrict your weapon possession.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 11:56   #136
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,048
Warcry
Yes the SCOTUS said the 2nd APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERY STATE (Incorperated)! There fore it negated most of the restrctions IL has on gun ownership. But you all just said oh well when your state still enforced there restrictions. As I've posted on other threads - the question was not asked nor did the SCOTUS define 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and because of this omission by them - either intentional or by mistake there ruling was incomplete cause any right minded person would see that if they were to actually read these words they'd have to invalidate all gun control laws as they are in direct violation of the 2nd! The Second leaves no room for Reasonable restrictions - it say's NO restrictions are allowed! I can't for the life of me understand why anyone can't see this to be the truth. And yes the founders intended this to be a BLACK AND WHITE thing -no room for interpitation!
__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!

Last edited by Gunnut 45/454; 12-15-2011 at 11:57..
Gunnut 45/454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 12:04   #137
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
Warcry
Yes the SCOTUS said the 2nd APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERY STATE (Incorperated)! There fore it negated most of the restrctions IL has on gun ownership. But you all just said oh well when your state still enforced there restrictions. As I've posted on other threads - the question was not asked nor did the SCOTUS define 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and because of this omission by them - either intentional or by mistake there ruling was incomplete cause any right minded person would see that if they were to actually read these words they'd have to invalidate all gun control laws as they are in direct violation of the 2nd! The Second leaves no room for Reasonable restrictions - it say's NO restrictions are allowed! I can't for the life of me understand why anyone can't see this to be the truth. And yes the founders intended this to be a BLACK AND WHITE thing -no room for interpitation!
This is what I have always said.

If some of you want restrictions on ownership and the carrying of firearms then you need to add an amendment to the Constitution. There is even a process available for this since the founding Fathers knew that some would want to change things. Some, have seen fit to circumvent the Constitution by enacting legislation that effectively, as has been outlined in this discussion; limit or infringe upon our right to "keep and bear arms".
__________________
Formerly SW.Fla.Glocker and.... EVIL, CRIMINAL, VERY BAD AND SCARY SECURITY CONTRACTOR....(insert evil, sinister laugh here)
expatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 12:25   #138
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
That tax in class 3 weapons could be perceived as a way of keeping the poor from exercising their right to bear arms. Some would see it as tantamount to a poll tax.

A poor person probably couldn't afford the thing in the first place. The class III license is nothing compared to the price of the gun.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 12:41   #139
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
A poor person probably couldn't afford the thing in the first place. The class III license is nothing compared to the price of the gun.
The only reason a poor person can't afford auto weapons to begin with is that they prices are artificially super-hyper inflated by the prohibition against further production. So the transfer tax is sort of insult to injury...

And yes the $200 isn't much now but it certainly was when they came out with it in 1934. Back then only the very rich were allowed to have class 3 weapons because they were the only ones who could afford the tax. Now because of the law the tax isn't prohibitive but the artificial prices certainly are.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 13:22   #140
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
No, but they sure can drive through it. Its done all the time. I suppose you’ve never watched world’s dumbest criminals.



Been done! Google is your friend.



No I’m not one of the few. I’m one of the many. And if you had read my other posts you’d have seen I hold CCW and a law enforcement commission. We still have to go through NICS. Most states do!

So paying for a license for the PRIVILEGE of carrying s firearm is not an infringement? Having a hold put on your purchase is not an infringement? You’re a school teacher? Better get the dictionary out.



So you justify restricting everyone’s else’s right because you "believe" it will stop your retarded kid from acquiring a firearm? Exactly how do you stop him? You want a gun. Stop by your local corner dope peddler, he can get you one. Dope peddling on the corner…see how laws stop crime. Heres a little clue… for you… firearms dealers nor privates citizens have to sell a firearm to anyone. If your retarded kid shows up to buy a gun legall all one has to do is say NO.

Before you try to tell others about the Constitution or teach it you’d better learn what it really says. God help us all with people like you teaching your liberal gun control bull manure to the children.

So you are just for firearms anarchy?

I don't have a problem with non-voilent/non drug felons having guns. But I don't see a law restricting violent offenders from having them is a bad thing. Yes, I'm a big boy and understand that anyone can get pretty much anything they want if they have enough money. In the case that a felon who shouldn't have a gun is caught with one I think there should be a law on the books that punishes them for it. And yes I do believe that some people forfit their right to have a gun by their past actions.

Just FYI, Just checked my county records. There are 67 inmates at the county jail waiting for trial. Two with felon in possession charges. One has an assult charge(not with the gun) the other that's the only charge. They weren't using the guns at the time, just had them in their possession. I don't know what thier orignal felony was, but at this point it doesn't matter. They were obviously doing something wrong and were caught with something they shouldn't have had. So the law got two criminals off the streets in my little corner of the world. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36

Last edited by bandmasterjf; 12-15-2011 at 13:30..
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 581
160 Members
421 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31