GlockTalk.com
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 03-04-2013, 20:35   #251
GeneralSnafu
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
What you (or I) feel is constitutional, does not make it so.


There are a plethora of laws I don't agree with, GCA 68' 1986 NFA ect.


But like it or not, they were ruled as constitutional.


As I said, we have a system in place to determine what is and what isn't. And if they had said, we won't enforce it untill SC determines it, then I would agree with their stance.

But cops do not get to do the SC's job in the field. We see entirely too many cases of them making the wrong call for me to have any faith in their ability to make field decisions on the constitution.
What you are saying is, if your superior ordered you to commit an act that you believed was an assault on our constitution, you would still simply follow orders.

You swore to uphold the constitution. So, if you yourself believe the order is unconstitutional or violates others constitutional rights, you are morally obligated, TO NOT follow those orders. Even in our military, you have that same right to disobey an order, if you believe it to constitute an assault on the constitution.

I assume you realize, those who think as you do, will be the first to be eliminated by those you seek to impose your will upon.
GeneralSnafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:22   #252
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
God did not give us the right to a jury trial. The Constitution did. God did not give us the right to vote--in fact, He was in the business of ordaining kings. There's more, but I leave that for your study.

Just pointing out that your use of "ALL" is way incorrect.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Constitution doesn't "give" us these rights; it simply acknowledges them. These natural rights, inherent to all men yearning to be free, are endowed by our creator.

These rights were secured for us by the sacrifices of our forefathers against the best efforts of tyrants. Tyrants are tireless in their efforts and it is the duty of all free men to guard against their usurpations.

I suppose you might doubt that our Creator gave you your health and the bounty on your supper table this evening--and that is your right as a free man, but the great ideals of this country, embodied by the form of government laid out in the Constitution and framed in the Declaration of Independence could not have come out of Godlessness.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:27   #253
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxlrx View Post
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Constitution doesn't "give" us these rights; it simply acknowledges them. These natural rights, inherent to all men yearning to be free, are endowed by our creator.

These rights were secured for us by the sacrifices of our forefathers against the best efforts of tyrants. Tyrants are tireless in their efforts and it is the duty of all free men to guard against their usurpations.

I suppose you might doubt that our Creator gave you your health and the bounty on your supper table this evening--and that is your right as a free man, but the great ideals of this country, embodied by the form of government laid out in the Constitution and framed in the Declaration of Independence could not have come out of Godlessness.
This has nothing to do with what I said.

The statement was made that "ALL" of our rights came from God, and none were granted by the Constitution. That's simply not so, and I provided two examples.

Do not confuse natural rights with civil rights. The Constitution covers both, though one stems from God and the other from society.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:31   #254
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Additionally, rights granted by a piece of paper have no inherent worth--they aren't worth the paper they're written on (so to speak), as are rights granted by a government of men. What is given by man can be taken by man, rights granted by God can only be unjustly usurped.

While it is true that these rights have been abridged many times in the past and will assuredly be in the future, that doesn't mean that those who abridge these rights aren't committing a crime against God.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:39   #255
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
God did not give us the right to a jury trial. The Constitution did. God did not give us the right to vote--in fact, He was in the business of ordaining kings. There's more, but I leave that for your study.

Just pointing out that your use of "ALL" is way incorrect.
The Bill of Rights are limitations that serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. The right to a trial by jury is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:43   #256
GeneralSnafu
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinny99 View Post
I have no personal basis in law enforcement and but do have great deal of respect for them. It is a job I would not do. There are way to many bad day compared to the good ones. However based on the past and a general knowledge of human nature I know that when public opinion favors a stance that a the majority will follow. All over the world men have committed horrible atrocities far worse than confiscating guns. They were not all evil men. They were kids and family men. Following orders that were largely supported by the public.

A couple scenarios to consider. You are a 40+ year old,17 year LEO. 3 years away from your pension. One kid in high school and another in college and 12 years into a 30 year mortgage. The day you dreaded come to fruition. It is time to knock on someone's door and take away their legally purchased firearm. It has made clear that all personnel in your dept will be participating and that failure to do so will be a firable offense. Your union is on board. It is do the job or get out. All other dept are on board. What would most do?

Your 24. You have wanted to be a LEO for a long time. You went to the academy along with a large number of other people. You graduate with good marks. You have been turning in applications along with the 100's of other people. You are currently waiting tables at Outback waiting for someone to give you a chance and so you can pay your rent and student loan payment. You get called for an interview. Introduce yourself. First question:If hired would you have any problems enforcing the new gun laws? What do you say?

I am not saying this will be the case tomorrow. It will take time to change the laws and public perception. But as a society we have shown that if lead correctly we are willing to change our way of thinking. Gay marriage,religion,abortion,tattos, personal finance and many other issues have had radical shifts in public opinion. Things that were once very taboo and discrete are widely accepted.This is of course all media driven.
The questions are already being asked among the military. A Major I know has told me, he and others have been asked, If ordered by a superior, to fire upon US civilians, would you have a problem following those orders? He says, everyone knows if they give the wrong answer, it will end their military career. So, they give the answer that the person asking, wants to hear. He believes more than half would have no problem killing US civilians.
GeneralSnafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:55   #257
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxlrx View Post
The Bill of Rights are limitations that serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. The right to a trial by jury is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
That's a nice theory. BTW, you know there's more to the USC than the BoR, don't you?

Of course, when God took a hand in such things, He did nothing at all like an adversarial system watched over by a jury. See the Books of Judges and Kings for details on what God thought the proper system was. Neither would any of your truly God-given rights suffer if you were judged my a neutral magistrate (as one fer-instance). My point stands: not all Constitutional rights are God-given. Civil rights are granted by society to certain members of that society. I do agree that society can revoke or limit those rights at will. Again, the jury trial: you have no right to a jury trial in minimal cases. Why? Because society says so and it's a civil right, not a natural right.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Last edited by Sam Spade; 03-04-2013 at 21:58..
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:58   #258
ancient_serpent
Senior Member
 
ancient_serpent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralSnafu View Post
The questions are already being asked among the military. A Major I know has told me, he and others have been asked, If ordered by a superior, to fire upon US civilians, would you have a problem following those orders? He says, everyone knows if they give the wrong answer, it will end their military career. So, they give the answer that the person asking, wants to hear. He believes more than half would have no problem killing US civilians.
Man, if I had a nickel for every time they asked if I would kill American civilians at review boards...you know, between answering that one "right," memorizing the flight manual for black helicopters and devising a method to run our fleet of vehicles off of whale blubber and the tears of baby seals, I won a lot.
__________________
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
-Daniel Webster
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
ancient_serpent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 21:59   #259
GeneralSnafu
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
There is a very large difference between enforcing a legal AWB, that you may not like, or agree with, and killing civilians.

Yet the fact that so very many of you can't actually combat what I've said without striving to make such a silly comparison highlights it perfectly.


Your feelings, do not have any bearing upon something being unconstitutional. I can claim all day long that the GCA of 68' and 86' are unconstitutional. But I still have to abide them.
It seems you have changed your tune a bit. What you're posting now, isn't what you were arguing earlier.

You would have been right at home working under Hitler in Nazi Germany. You're the kind who gives cops a bad name. You certainly don't understand how the law works or evolves.

I'll bet you think, when a judge instructs a jury, they are required to base their verdict on what he says. Nothing can be further from the truth. You are free to return your verdict based upon your own moral judgment. That's how precedents are set and laws are changed. The same theory applies to your obligation to perform an act simply because, you have been directed to do so by some morally bankrupt superior.
GeneralSnafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 22:14   #260
GeneralSnafu
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
SC trumps your opinion.
So, because the SC says corporations are people, it must be true?
GeneralSnafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 22:37   #261
GeneralSnafu
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
Perhaps much re-reading, and less posting is in order. Question has been asked, answered, and re-stated several times.


But typical MO seems to be, jump in, make invalid comparison, get upset when invalid comparison gets shot down again, pout, leave, and 3 new posters jump in with the same nazi comparison without having ever taken the time to read, or actually understand what I said in the first place.
Ah, you have just described yourself perfectly.
GeneralSnafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 22:40   #262
BlackPaladin
Senior Member
 
BlackPaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 2,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralSnafu View Post
You would have been right at home working under Hitler in Nazi Germany. You're the kind who gives cops a bad name. You certainly don't understand how the law works or evolves.
He is not a police officer, he is a member of the armed forces and generally a good guy here.

AK, I respect your opinion, because I know you are trying to make a valid point. I respectfully disagree with your point and feel that our country may reach a point of "this vs that". In matters of that nature, one has to decide where their loyalties stand.
__________________
niners club #187
moto club #600
Bull dawgs club #55
RIP Ofc. Tommy Decker #6402 CSPD
BlackPaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 22:48   #263
GeneralSnafu
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post



So you went back to the very beginning to quote me, and you still couldn't be bothered to read some of my replys and figure out what I was talking about?

Clearly I was on to something with my first remark.


Cops do not decide what is constitutional. And in this case, they're very clearly, before any law is passed, declaring that its unconstitutional, and that they won't enforce it.


That is why they should be fired. They're trying to grasp power much above their level, and give themselves the ability to dictate law to the people. That is not the job, nor role of law enforcement.


We have a body who's job it is to determine what laws are constitutional, and what are not. I would dare say, that they are actually suited to making such decisions. And that your rank and file LEO is not. Their politician brass is especially unsuited to deciding what laws are and are not.



My issue, has always been with the police officers who are greatly abusing, and overreaching their position.





However, a great many of you, can't seem to be bothered to read before you jump in with a nazi reference, or some other wild shoot from the hip attempt at a comparison at an argument that you mistook from the very first moment.
Have you considered, maybe it's your own lack of communication skills that is the cause of the conflict. Going back to your statement, "It is not the polices job...." please tell us, what is a "polices job?" Or, did you mean "the job of the police?"
GeneralSnafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 22:51   #264
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
That's a nice theory. BTW, you know there's more to the USC than the BoR, don't you?

Of course, when God took a hand in such things, He did nothing at all like an adversarial system watched over by a jury. See the Books of Judges and Kings for details on what God thought the proper system was. Neither would any of your truly God-given rights suffer if you were judged my a neutral magistrate (as one fer-instance). My point stands: not all Constitutional rights are God-given. Civil rights are granted by society to certain members of that society. I do agree that society can revoke or limit those rights at will. Again, the jury trial: you have no right to a jury trial in minimal cases. Why? Because society says so and it's a civil right, not a natural right.
Of course there is more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights, but they do acknowledge what the Founders felt were natural rights. Don't take my word for it, the Oxford English dictionary defines them as guaranteeing these rights, not granting them.

Jury trials are not offered in minimal cases not because a jury trial is a civil right, but because they are civil cases rather than criminal ones, by the way.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 22:52   #265
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,174
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPaladin View Post
He is not a police officer, he is a member of the armed forces and generally a good guy here.

AK, I respect your opinion, because I know you are trying to make a valid point. I respectfully disagree with your point and feel that our country may reach a point of "this vs that". In matters of that nature, one has to decide where their loyalties stand.
I'm no enemy of the police.


However, that doesn't mean the cops are not wrong this time. It is not their job to decide what is, or is not constitutional.

If their argument was, "we believe an AWB is unconstitutional, and we refuse to enforce it before its reviewed by the SC" It would have my complete and utter support.


However, when LEA's decide to start deciding upon their own prerogative, what is or is not constitutional, I have a significant issue with that. Especially when the law hasn't even been passed yet, so they have no real frame of wording to argue against. They are not the deciders of what is or is not constitutional.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 06:09   #266
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxlrx View Post
Jury trials are not offered in minimal cases not because a jury trial is a civil right, but because they are civil cases rather than criminal ones, by the way.
Wrong again.

You have a right to a jury trial only in "serious" criminal cases, not all criminal cases. Go to traffic court and look for the jury. Go to a trespass trial, or a trial on a simple assault case and look for it. Let us know when you find one. Literally millions of these criminal decisions being handed down and not a juror in sight. God-given right being violated? Not hardly.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 06:37   #267
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,155
What if the police decided something was not Constitutional but it was not something that you like? Is the process of them deciding independently outside of the system acceptable then?
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 16:13   #268
dugo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

Uh ... hmmm ... I thought they were saying that they would fulfill their oath. Maybe I missed something...

What if an order is illegal (eg, "Looks like this guy was looting, so just beat the snot out of him, right here in the street, even though he is cooperating completely", ala Hurricane Hugo -- Thinking this wasn't actually ordered, btw.)?

Should they obey that order? What if the order was to shoot suspected looters in the back of the head instead of just beathing them up?

Would it have been legal for New Orleans cops to refuse to aim rifles at innocent civilians and forceably confiscate their legally possessed arms, even though their superiors told them to? If not, where would you draw this line? At the point where their superiors told them to beat them up or shoot them and then take the guns?

Second question: were state employees saying they would refuse to enforce a federal directive?

Maybe this is all just too complex for me.

Last edited by dugo; 03-05-2013 at 16:16..
dugo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 16:57   #269
Glock20 10mm
Use Linux!
 
Glock20 10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Land of Idiots and Libtards
Posts: 14,515
And in this thread we see WHY our nation dies. None can seem to agree with what has been written in pretty avid detail by the original authors of our nation. This inability to agree and to always hold the ground "I am right and to hell with what was stated by the authors!" spills out of this forum into our everyday lives.

And we wonder why our nation falls apart and point fingers forgetting the three pointing back at ourselves. I am just as guilty as others and will own up to it here. But the text is there... read it.
__________________
Using Microsoft is like playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol... the results are always messy
"The Constitution is my Law. The Declaration of Independence my bible. And Freedom my religion." - Me
Thick skin... a must in a free society.
Glock20 10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 17:49   #270
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockworks View Post
I will go out in a limb and assume you would tackle my 72 year old mom to get her one gun if she did not go and hand it over to you when you came a knocking? Like the New Orleans storm trooper did right after Katrina to some old lady?

You appear to be a stain on good law enforcement people unless you are putting us all on.

You are kidding on your inability to use your noggin, right?
He is not an LEO. He is military and does not get that cops do not have to follow illegal orders.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 18:08   #271
glocktecher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lawrenceville GA
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
So if you walked up to your boss and said, I object to doing what you pay me to do, what exactly do you think would be his recourse?


Thats exactly what those cops are saying. We're not going to do our jobs, and you can't make us do it.

Complete and utter horse crap.
Yes, if I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You seem to have a problem with that.
glocktecher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 18:41   #272
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Wrong again.

You have a right to a jury trial only in "serious" criminal cases, not all criminal cases. Go to traffic court and look for the jury. Go to a trespass trial, or a trial on a simple assault case and look for it. Let us know when you find one. Literally millions of these criminal decisions being handed down and not a juror in sight. God-given right being violated? Not hardly.
Wrong again? Maybe, maybe not.

A simple Google search finds many instances of trespassing cases handled in jury trials.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-0...-deliberations

http://www.kcci.com/Jury-Reaches-Ver...z/-/index.html

Simple assault? Maybe they give jury trials for those too.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...sault-20121221

Are you a lawyer? At first I thought you were because you seemed so knowledgeable. I'm not a lawyer, so I thought I should do a little more research into the practical, day-to-day application of jury trials. According to legal.dictionary.com:

jury trial n. a trial of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the case is presented to a jury and the factual questions and the final judgment are determined by a jury. This is distinguished from a "court trial" in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment. While a jury trial is a constitutional right in most cases it does not apply to bankruptcy, maritime cases, small claims actions, or criminal matters not involving jail time.

So maybe you do have a point there regarding criminal matters not involving jail time.

Now that I feel much more knowledgeable about minor court proceedings and juries, I've only got one more thing to say on this matter. I don't think that this little disagreement is so much about "God-given" rights as it is about the existence of God himself. As the founding father's said, "We find these truths to be self-evident . . . that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The fact that the rights acknowledged in the Constitution are God-given seems self-evident to me, but apparently it isn't to you. If my instincts are correct, I'd sure like to know so that I can stop wasting my time with this line of discussion.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 23:34   #273
MarkAD
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 31
I have read only the first and last pages of this ditride of mostly argumentative opinions and of all of it the only part that is logical is.
Read and understand the consitituion.
Read and understand the bible.

they support each other.

If it comes to a time where decisions have to be made by the cop(s) we can pray he stands for truth, and justice.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go get my consitituion and take my only words to action.
MarkAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 23:42   #274
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,124


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkAD View Post
I have read only the first and last pages of this ditride of mostly argumentative opinions and of all of it the only part that is logical is.
Read and understand the consitituion.
Read and understand the bible.

they support each other.

If it comes to a time where decisions have to be made by the cop(s) we can pray he stands for truth, and justice.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go get my consitituion and take my only words to action.
Stay tuned, folks. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 00:13   #275
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,174
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocktecher View Post
Yes, if I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You seem to have a problem with that.

No, my problem, if you had actually read, was that you do not get to independently decide what the constitution says.



Everyone crys that we need to get back to running the system the way it was intended.

Yet in that very same breath, they're applauding the cops usurping the supreme court and deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.


So, because we love guns, many in this forum blindly say, yay, this is a good thing, we need to support this breach of conduct.



What happens, when we let them get away with this, and next time, or two times down the road they don't need to listen to the SC, and that say, rounding up all Japanese citizens and taking them to internment camps is actually constitutional, because they have a history of userping authority?


Its a slippery slope. And it doesn't matter one damn bit which side you fall down, it leads to the same end.





As I've said several times, I do not like, or want gun control, or an AWB. But more than that, and what I've been against from the start, is I DO NOT want to give the agency in charge of enforcing the laws, carte blanche to decide what is, or is not actually law. I'm just not hypocritical enough to applaud this abuse because its in our favor for once.


People complain we live in a police state now, just wait till they can decide to interpret law on their own.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   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 Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24.



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


Users Currently Online: 791
183 Members
608 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42